This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: D&D Is Not For "Making Story": The History  (Read 37756 times)

kythri

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 880
D&D Is Not For "Making Story": The History
« Reply #30 on: February 01, 2019, 11:54:59 AM »
Pundit's argument is that any story from an RPG is story-after.  Events happen, and there might be a story to tell, but that wasn't the point of the game or the events.  He doesn't deny this, or necessarily discount it, only stating the fact that the story that arises from gameplay is an after-effect, and not the goal/design of an RPG.

Storygames are story-first.  That's a major distinction, and one he makes in his video, if people would actually pay attention to what he says, instead of going off on a tangent about their preconceived opinions of Pundit's character are.

A game that gives the players narrative control is a storygame.  An RPG gives the player control of their character, not control of the overall story.  If people can't see the obvious difference between these, there's really no use engaging with them.

Quote from: Itachi;1073067
Pundejo was (and still is, it seems) butthurt for the success of Forge ideas, and so it campaigns to try and disqualify it as RPGs.

Exactly what success would that be?

Snowman0147

  • Now Even More Frosty
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3085
D&D Is Not For "Making Story": The History
« Reply #31 on: February 01, 2019, 12:07:02 PM »
Quote from: Catelf;1073075
This is presicely my point on the Title Subject!


Which means nothing until you get the full context.

Quote from: Catelf;1073075
Now on to the other issues ...

To answer that, we have two different answers:
Kythri, you are correct, but usually the people just want to voice their opinions and be frank about it.
Sadly enough, a very few thinks "being frank" means "insult others".


There is a difference between being frank and insulting.

Quote from: Catelf;1073075
Like you perhaps just did. :cool:
Well, i respect Pundit by now, but i can't always handle his videos, or his rants, but he seem like a cool guy in general despite that.


That sounds like your the problem and not RPGPundit.

Quote from: Catelf;1073075
I have to admit, as i am typing this, i have not yet watched the video ... so why am i even typing this?


Good question.  I for one would like to watch a video and get the full context before running my mouth.

Quote from: Catelf;1073075
Because you are wondering why people like me are commenting while we haven't watched, and as such, you're addressing me, and i will answer:

Pundit, like everyone else, has flaws, but i like his ideals, and some of his ideas, but in this case, my response is because I DO NOT LIKE UNDULY SHITFLINGING OVER MY HEAD !
FROM EITHER SIDE !


But how do you know your going to get shitfling if you don't bother watching the video?

More importantly are you insulting RPGPundit?  No.  So are you really being addressed here?  Not at all.  In fact you have no skin in this conversation.

Quote from: Catelf;1073075
Now to the other side of the explanation for "hating Pundit":
jhkim, because of the free speech stance, i do say Pundit actually DO deserve a bit more respect than he seem to give storygamers, 4ed fans and so.
The reason?
Because of said free speech, THEY CAN RESPOND TO HIM ON HERE ... as long as they remember to not derail any of the topics more than they usually gets derailed anyway :D
Or, in other words: He do show them more respect in reality than his rants implies.


This I can agree with.  Actions are louder than words.  The fact that RPGPundit made a site for free speech makes him are far kinder man than most other forum owners.  Are they polite?  Sure, but figuratively speaking they still have a gun to your head.

Quote from: Catelf;1073075
I'm a fan of Old WoD and several iterations of the "Storytelling system" ... And Pundit has said before that he do count it as an rpg-system to my knowledge ... has something changed?


No.  Not to my knowledge.

Quote from: Catelf;1073075
No, I agree with pundit in that "Storygames" are different from rpgs, and the difference is mechanics rather than direct appearance. It is a development that may result in rpgs getting better routines, yes, but they in themselves are different, and perhaps even have to be.
But i do not think they will replace rpgs as such.


I agree.

A rpg will not use meta points in order to bribe the player to make his character fail just so the story can be more interesting.

Why?

Who here actually wants to fail?  Seriously question.  Who here actually wants to fail?  Judging by the crickets I would say no one.  Failure sucks and can come with consequences that make your life worst so naturally people avoid it.

Well guess what your player character doesn't want.  You guessed it.  Your player character doesn't want to fail.  So when you take that meta point bribe the game no longer becomes a rpg, but a story game because you just broke immersion.  You went out of your character's head and actively worked against the best interest of your character for a story that the group may like.

Quote from: Catelf;1073075
Congrats, You are just as ignorant as Pundit, but in the other direction, it seems.


Actually worst.  RPGPundit was doing categories.  He never wanted to get rid of story games.  This guy on the other hand wants to leave all the "grognards" to rot and die.

Armchair Gamer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • A
  • Posts: 3009
D&D Is Not For "Making Story": The History
« Reply #32 on: February 01, 2019, 01:09:07 PM »
Replying only to a tangent here, because I haven't watched the video, don't want to watch the video, and find Pundit an annoying ally at the best of times, an enemy of Goodness and Truth at the worst of times :) ...

Quote from: Snowman0147;1073083
Well guess what your player character doesn't want.  You guessed it.  Your player character doesn't want to fail.  So when you take that meta point bribe the game no longer becomes a rpg, but a story game because you just broke immersion.  You went out of your character's head and actively worked against the best interest of your character for a story that the group may like.
.

  This is begging the question in the technical sense by assuming that the definition of an RPG is strict immersion. That may or may not be true--it's precisely the point under debate.

RoyR

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • R
  • Posts: 51
D&D Is Not For "Making Story": The History
« Reply #33 on: February 01, 2019, 01:27:33 PM »
Quote from: Snowman0147;1073083
So when you take that meta point bribe the game no longer becomes a rpg, but a story game because you just broke immersion.

That seems to be a very narrow definition of RPGs. And one that I fail to see the usefulness of, as it is so far from the commonly used one.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2019, 01:32:18 PM by RoyR »

RoyR

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • R
  • Posts: 51
D&D Is Not For "Making Story": The History
« Reply #34 on: February 01, 2019, 01:30:47 PM »
Quote from: kythri;1073081
That's a major distinction, and one he makes in his video, if people would actually pay attention to what he says, instead of going off on a tangent about their preconceived opinions of Pundit's character are.

The problem is that Pundit isn't always very clear or consistent when he presents his ideas, so it is not enough to pay attention. There is also a step of deciphering the message, a step that leads to confusion as can be seen in this thread.

Christopher Brady

  • The Voice of Raisin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 4733
D&D Is Not For "Making Story": The History
« Reply #35 on: February 01, 2019, 01:30:51 PM »
Quote from: kythri;1073081
Exactly what success would that be?

Games like the Amber-derived FATE, White Wolf's various outings, and all the other non-Old School D&D games that are currently on the market, which are still being sold, and worse, TALKED ABOUT!
"And now, my friends, a Dragon's toast!  To life's little blessings:  wars, plagues and all forms of evil.  Their presence keeps us alert --- and their absence makes us grateful." -T.A. Barron[/SIZE]

Snowman0147

  • Now Even More Frosty
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3085
D&D Is Not For "Making Story": The History
« Reply #36 on: February 01, 2019, 01:45:17 PM »
I think it is about immersion though.  Stories only came about once these rpg developers started to make novels in the pursuit of more money.  Which by the way good for them for doing that as I am a capitalist, but I think people got the two mixed up.

Let us not forget rpgs were made to represent a team of specialists that do missions while the main armies do battles in war games.  No one thinks war games are about making stories.  Am I right about that?

Snowman0147

  • Now Even More Frosty
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3085
D&D Is Not For "Making Story": The History
« Reply #37 on: February 01, 2019, 01:48:01 PM »
Quote from: RoyR;1073093
That seems to be a very narrow definition of RPGs. And one that I fail to see the usefulness of, as it is so far from the commonly used one.

It is actually very useful.  Look there is no shame in being called a story game.  Your just being put in a proper category.

Snowman0147

  • Now Even More Frosty
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3085
D&D Is Not For "Making Story": The History
« Reply #38 on: February 01, 2019, 01:53:07 PM »
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1073095
Games like the Amber-derived FATE, White Wolf's various outings, and all the other non-Old School D&D games that are currently on the market, which are still being sold, and worse, TALKED ABOUT!

Again World of Darkness is a rpg.  There is no meta points that shifts the narrative in World of Darkness.  Now Chronicles of Darkness Second Edition might be due to how they treat the xp system.

RoyR

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • R
  • Posts: 51
D&D Is Not For "Making Story": The History
« Reply #39 on: February 01, 2019, 01:54:27 PM »
Quote from: Snowman0147;1073098
Let us not forget rpgs were made to represent a team of specialists that do missions while the main armies do battles in war games.  No one thinks war games are about making stories.  Am I right about that?


That is where RPGs started, but it is not necessarily the same as what they have developed into today.

And war games are often a way to investigate a (historical) story, and see if a different outcome is possible, and how it could look.

I think that the constrained view of only either having "story first" or "story after" is too limited to capture the reality of RPG gameplay. There are often multiple stories playing out at the same time, from the ones where the players have agency to the ones where they are merely spectators or pawns. Some of these stories are written before, some during the game and some only become reality in the retelling of the characters adventures.

EOTB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1189
D&D Is Not For "Making Story": The History
« Reply #40 on: February 01, 2019, 01:55:54 PM »
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1073039
I don't agree with you most of the time, but this is not one of those times.  100%.  The hobby has grown and evolved, deal with it, or be left behind.


I've been told I'm "be(ing) left behind" since 1989.  The funny thing is, that doesn't bother me (and apparently I've not been left behind yet after 30 years) while those claiming we'll be separated cry so loudly about mean gatekeepers when we say "OK, get the fuck out then because we're not interested in that shit".
A framework for generating local politics

https://mewe.com/join/osric A MeWe OSRIC group - find an online game; share a monster, class, or spell; give input on what you'd like for new OSRIC products.  Just don't 1) talk religion/politics, or 2) be a Richard

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11749
D&D Is Not For "Making Story": The History
« Reply #41 on: February 01, 2019, 01:57:04 PM »
Quote from: Snowman0147;1073099
It is actually very useful.  Look there is no shame in being called a story game.  Your just being put in a proper category.
You're saying that any lack of immersion makes a game a story game, though - which seems pretty broad.

Top Secret, say, has Fame points and Fortune points - which are meta-game resources that you can use to save yourself. I think that's one of the earliest explicitly metagame mechanics. Later developments in the early 1980s include James Bond 007 (with priority use of Hero points), Ars Magica (using Whimsy Cards), and Champions (point system restrictions).

Are these story games, in your mind?

RoyR

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • R
  • Posts: 51
D&D Is Not For "Making Story": The History
« Reply #42 on: February 01, 2019, 01:57:55 PM »
Quote from: Snowman0147;1073099
It is actually very useful.  Look there is no shame in being called a story game.  Your just being put in a proper category.

Redefining existing words and concepts are seldom useful. If you would like to, for some reason, have subcategories of what is commonly called RPGs, it is better to make new titles for your categories. Because a redefined concept of "RPG" where not even Warhammer 1st ed. fits into it seems quite useless for public dicussions.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2019, 02:32:30 PM by RoyR »

Darrin Kelley

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • D
  • Posts: 1182
D&D Is Not For "Making Story": The History
« Reply #43 on: February 01, 2019, 02:11:04 PM »
Quote from: S'mon;1073051
Given that Pundit is credited in the 5e D&D PHB I think this whole "left behind in the dust of history" trope is a bit silly. I'd say it was Forgeist play that is being left behind.

I wouldn't call Pundit a grognard. In fact, I wouldn't put him in that catagory at all. His work on D&D 5th Edition speaks to that loud and clear.

I'm also not a fan of the Forge. I think that they did a lot of damage to civilized discourse in the hobby with their half-baked theories. Those theories have become so entrenched into any kind of conversation in the RPG community, that it overrides whatever point that someone who has never even encountered those theories before tries to make. They are that viral and destructive.

It is so bad. That if you use the term narrative in any context. You immediately get dragged kicking and screaming into a G/N/S theory debate. While your original point gets absolutely bulldozed out of existance.

It's happened to me an endless number of times on TBP and elsewhere. And frankly. I curse the existance of The Forge to this very day because of it.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2019, 02:17:33 PM by Darrin Kelley »
 

Steven Mitchell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 3772
D&D Is Not For "Making Story": The History
« Reply #44 on: February 01, 2019, 02:23:01 PM »
"Story" as a word to talk about the broader family of what is sometimes referred to loosely as "RPGs"--is an almost useless term.  It is useless unless the people having the conversation can define what they mean by "story" for purposes of that conversation.  On the plus side, most of you discussing here are doing that--providing an idea of your definition.  On the negative side, since they are conflicting definitions, the arguments start up immediately.

I'm less interested in the exact terms than the ideas behind them.  For example, "There is a narrower definition of RPG where a player immerses in a character, and that's that, and it has these positive aspects that you can get any other way, because reasons."  There are many other ideas one could pursue along other lines, and even more slants to them.

Honestly, I can't even begin to parse anymore when people argue for or against that one of these ideas where the communication and misunderstandings end and the agenda starts.  It seems fairly clear that some people want to piggy-back on definitions to claim virtues for their way of doing things that doesn't play out in practice.  I see Pundit's "fire" here as a response to that.  I can see how others would see it as starting a new blaze.  However, it is so mixed up in variable experiences and preferences that I wouldn't even begin to guess on any individual.