You get wankers even over at the Fear the Boot forums, in a thread entitled "Story Game Vs Hack n' Slash ... an evolved form?". But the thread was worth wading through for this exchange,

Quote from: PillagingPolarBearI have not advocated for one either other than agree with Narmical that the mechanics of DnD do not support a story-telling style despite that style being fairly common.

Quote from: keith curtisThis is true. They don't. My point is that the rules of D&D are superfluous to the creation of story, which is a natural ability of humans, and that any rules which govern story creation necessarily limit it in some fashion. That is what rules do by definition.

That's beautiful. Rules for story creation limit story creation. The story-gamer crowd don't want to create story, they want to limit it!

Beautiful. I bet Andy K wouldn't let Curtis into his forums, and Uncle Ronny would flip out.

Only that limits can actually be productive.

"Tell me a story" can, in fact, seem daunting in its wide openness and purported freedom, whereas "tell me a story about corruption" might result in better and quicker results. True, you'll have less variety, but cohesion can be a goal as well, i.e. having a thematic core.

So basically, yes, rules are limiting. But they also give structure and provide inspiration.

Even out of the realm of story. I read the PHB and see rules about tripping. In combat, I might go, "wait a minute. Can I try to trip the guy?" whereas before, with all possible combat maneuvers in mind, I wouldn't have thought of it.

Now, to me, combat mechanics in D&D are too restrictive, and story mechanics non-existent, i.e. too lax. But the bigger problem for me is that role-playing (or story or whatever you want to call it) grinds to a halt in combat as everybody gets the minis out and another kind of game starts. But that's neither here nor there.

I just think your awesome pwnage hits the target, but fails to penetrate the armor (or damage reduction, to stay in the D&D framework).

Generally, I see nothing wrong in rules that _support_ story-creation. You don't have to pick up a story-game to see that stuff - well-crafted lifepaths are for instance an instant story generator that gives a PC goals, connections, enemies and other plot-hooks.
And although I think that 7th Sea is overall poorly crafted, its rules for Hybreis and Backgrounds are neat supporting stuff to get something interesting started and keep it moving.

There's other stuff in story-games that puts me personally off most SGs (board-gamey rules, Brecht-like Theme/Premise obsession in deferral to actually entertaining fiction, low re-play/long-term play value etc.), but the pure existence of rules for story isn't even close to one of them.

I've been saying the same thing for a long time now.

RPGPundit

I don't think keith curtis went far enough.

Rules that legislate story put the cart before the horse.  Narrative is a natural ability of human beings, true, but we do not enter experience with a pre-formed narrative to which we submit all our thoughts and actions.  Rather, narrative is a way of retroactively reflecting on experience, organizing the chaos of actuality and drawing meaning from it.

This is why any three people will take something completely different away from a shared experience or recount that experience differently.  This is why most literary stories are told in the past tense (and those which are written in the present or even future tenses are done in reaction to a normal narrative mode; they are exceptions proving the rule).  This is why we can tell a million stories about what happened in a million D&D campaigns in times past.

This is why rules to legislate narrative are ultimately useless and self-defeating.  Rules that give you hooks (lifepaths and such) can be good in moderation, but stories will happen regardless of whether you're playing D&D, Vampire, Sorcerer, or what have you.

Creativity, limitations, thriving under, et. al.

I don't think this is news, or even an indictment. Rules provide limits. It's the nature of rules. One could just as easily say that D&D's rules exist to limit the actions your character can perform.

Yawn.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThat's beautiful. Rules for story creation limit story creation. The story-gamer crowd don't want to create story, they want to limit it!

Beautiful. I bet Andy K wouldn't let Curtis into his forums,

Based on that item alone? You'd be definitly wrong.

On the subject matter, one might say the rules "limit" story creation, while another would simply say they channel story creation.

Rules that don't appeal to me often seem limiting. That includes rules for sports sim fantasy league, board games, traditional RPGs and yes, Story Games.

On the other hand, when the rules appeal to me, make sense on a personal level, I don't find them limiting at all. They allow everybody at the table to focus on the good things we're looking for.

This has been true for me of several so-called "Story Games" like PTA, Mountain Witch, etc... they're not limiting my ability to create stories. They've facilitated the creation of great stories for me.

Considering Malcolm Sheppard posts on Story Games, Andy's limits must be pretty broad.

Quote from: Technicolor Dreamcoat"Tell me a story" can, in fact, seem daunting in its wide openness and purported freedom, whereas "tell me a story about corruption" might result in better and quicker results. True, you'll have less variety, but cohesion can be a goal as well, i.e. having a thematic core.

So basically, yes, rules are limiting. But they also give structure and provide inspiration.

"Tell me a story about corruption" isn't a rule for story creation, it's establishing the story's premise, or in rpg terms, "a setting".

Rules for story creation in the sense Curtis was talking about are stuff like, "you get +1 to your rolls if you bring this trait into play" or "you get +1xp when you find an excuse to say this quote on this card the GM gave you before the session", and so on.

One "story-telling rpg" that was discussed here by its authour was We All Had Names, where the PCs are Jews in German-occupied Europe in WWII. The thing there is that the PCs have no freedom. All you get to do is confront the particular dilemma given you by the GM and feel the angst and pain. You don't get to say, "okay next time I see a German soldier I ambush the fucker and take his SMG, then I get a buddy and together we get him an SMG, and we make like those guys in Uprising and rebel. We also use the Resistance's radio networks to ask for supplies to be parachuted to us while we use the sewers to fight the Germans and try to get the whole city to rise up." You couldn't do that in his "game".

Any set of rules, by definition, restrict you to certain types of actions. A "setting" isn't a set of rules about the world you live in, it's a setting - you have to start somewhere, your characters can't begin in a grey limbo. The rules come in during play, when a player says of their character, "I want them to do X," and the GM says "you can" or "you can't" or "you can, but -" etc. These rules shape the PCs to certain types of actions, for example some rules encourage combat over social approaches, and vice versa. Same with rules for the "story telling".

Quote from: Kyle Aaron"Tell me a story about corruption" isn't a rule for story creation, it's establishing the story's premise, or in rpg terms, "a setting".

I think that helps to clarify a point I've made in the past about games like DitV that the ideas behind creating the towns and the characters could be ported in to a traditional game without the need for the abstract conflict resolution mechanics.  It's all, as you say, setting or maybe, a bit more broadly, background.  It's part of the set-up of the game and that sort of set-up doesn't require a new type of mechanics or game to play out.

I still think that the entire idea of tabletop RPGs being a dramatic medium is fucked up and wrong.

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerI still think that the entire idea of tabletop RPGs being a dramatic medium is fucked up and wrong.

I know that the entire idea of tabletop RPGs being a dramatic medium is fucked up and wrong.

I will readily admit that the use of tricks from other media can assist in running a table-top RPG, but they don't have to.

We've never had trouble with weaving a great story in D&D.

We had a fantastic one where we hit level 3 before we ever had any combat. And that was me seeing a sniper try to take out the king, and I, not seeing the guy, put an arrow in his throat. 2 natural 20's, BayBEE!

Quote from: Old GeezerI know that the entire idea of tabletop RPGs being a dramatic medium is fucked up and wrong.

It's worked admirably well for me and several of my friends.

I fail to see what's fucked up or wrong about that, honestly.