Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 17, 2021, 06:02:19 PM

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll on April 17, 2021, 04:45:42 PM

Quote from: Mishihari on April 16, 2021, 06:12:18 PM
Short version:  Why all the hate for "storygames" and associated things on this forum?

I'm a relative newbie here, and I have been noticing references to "storygames" and past conflicts, and was just wondering what it was all about?  I've seen the term in various places refer to RPG-like games where players have some narrative control, collaborative writing projects with a few rules, freeform roleplaying with total GM control -no dice or rules- and lots of things in between.  What does it mean here?  And why all the vitriol?  Also, The Forge.  I read a lot of their stuff, and while I didn't buy into all of their theories, they did have some useful ideas and it made me think more deeply about my own methods of gaming, which is always a good thing, so why the hate?

Not trying to stir anything up here, I'm just very curious.

Storygames have been around for decades. See DMs running campaigns. It's the same thing. Players want their DM to tell them stories about what their characters do.

I don't want a DM to tell me a story. I've got books and films for that. I want to participate in an adventure.
And that, dear friends, is the difference between telling a story, and playing in an RPG.

1000% agreed, plus RPGs are a very bad tool for telling stories, but a great one for making history in the game world.

It's one thing to sit down to write about a fisherman and a fisherman telling you about his fishing stories.

The first is the storygamer, the second is the RPG player (or DM) telling you what hapened in the session/campaign.

Quote from: Mishihari on April 16, 2021, 06:12:18 PM
Short version:  Why all the hate for "storygames" and associated things on this forum?

I'm a relative newbie here, and I have been noticing references to "storygames" and past conflicts, and was just wondering what it was all about?  I've seen the term in various places refer to RPG-like games where players have some narrative control, collaborative writing projects with a few rules, freeform roleplaying with total GM control -no dice or rules- and lots of things in between.  What does it mean here?  And why all the vitriol?  Also, The Forge.  I read a lot of their stuff, and while I didn't buy into all of their theories, they did have some useful ideas and it made me think more deeply about my own methods of gaming, which is always a good thing, so why the hate?

Not trying to stir anything up here, I'm just very curious.

From where I sit, it seems an awful lot like some people would rather just make up new terms and definitions than just say, "Hey, here's how I like to play."

It's fairly common after a very enjoyable session of good old fashioned D&D that you might hear players talk about how awesome the story was. There's nothing new or foreign about stories in traditional RPGs. If you get your enjoyment primarily out of the story rather than the action, just say that.

And so some then say, "Well, but the emphasis isn't on story." But of course plenty of D&D campaigns are and have been for a long, long time. If you want more story and less hack-n-slay, just say that.

"But you're not exploring themes" or some other pretentious literature jargon. And I have to point out that the anatomy of a story (per Jung) correlates to the anatomy of human action (per von Mises) so that virtually any series of things that happens is technically a story. Drunken fart literature professors do not own that word. If you like a particular type of story, just say that.

And so then they say, "Well, but that's the GM's story. It's not collaborative." But of course good ol' D&D is collaborative, and decisions players make shape and create the story. If you want to take a more pro-active role as a player in crafting the direction of the campaign and lean less on metaplots or pre-determined story lines, then just say that. I'm sure you'll find a lot of agreement there.

So then it becomes, "Well, but they aren't shaping the story directly. They're limited to what their character can do." This, of course, ignores the fact that plenty of traditional RPGs have "metacurrency" that allows the player to shape the game in other ways. And even AD&D 1E, if you do a deep dive into it, you start to find it's everywhere, though subtle. And it's like, if you prefer to metagame to shape the story rather than get stuck in character, just say that.

Basically, the nature of my beef is, if you spent your time trying to communicate what you like rather than obscuring communication with jargon, and if you redirect your effort into finding ways to have your fun rather than finding excuses as to why you can't, we'd all be better off.

And my beef does cut both ways, too. I have heard some absolutely absurd bullshit in the past couple of years as to what constitutes a "sandbox." Most of the criteria I hear people come up with to define or characterize a sandbox I have found plenty of counterexamples in my extensive experience running sandboxes.


Basically, what I think the story is is something like this: Once upon a time, the world became sufficiently civilized to the point where nerds no longer got beat up for their lunch money. Vanquishing the villainous bullies seemed a good idea at the time. Little did we know, eliminating this natural predator would open a Pandora's Box of dysfunction. You see, nerds got picked on because they were weak. And they were weak because they were lacking in virtue. Left unchecked, cowardice, dishonesty, and social ineptitude ran amok.

One of the things that emerged from this pathological nerd-dom is definition diarrhea. Got a stupid idea? Sure. We all do. If you're virtuous, you have the courage to put it out there, it gets challenged, you have the social IQ to try to understand other's points of view, you're honest enough concede (at least to yourself) your idea's flaws, you tweak it, and maybe over time it evolves and grows into a really good idea. But if you're a coward, if you're dishonest, and if you don't care about forming bridges with people with different points of view, you insulate it from critique. And one handy way of avoiding contending with the world is to just define the world away.

Quote from: Lunamancer on April 18, 2021, 12:31:48 AM

"But you're not exploring themes" or some other pretentious literature jargon. And I have to point out that the anatomy of a story (per Jung)

Fuck Jung

Quote from: Lunamancer on April 18, 2021, 12:31:48 AM
And one handy way of avoiding contending with the world is to just define the world away.

Hardly unique to nerds. Pretty much a definition of modern academia! Some academics are nerds, but we have plenty of hipsters, too. 

Quote from: This Guy on April 18, 2021, 01:11:29 AM

Quote from: Lunamancer on April 18, 2021, 12:31:48 AM

"But you're not exploring themes" or some other pretentious literature jargon. And I have to point out that the anatomy of a story (per Jung)

Fuck Jung

The usual guy with Freudian problems... 

Quote from: Lunamancer on April 18, 2021, 12:31:48 AM
And so then they say, "Well, but that's the GM's story. It's not collaborative." But of course good ol' D&D is collaborative, and decisions players make shape and create the story.

Not to mention how real life sometimes is just like that.

"The IRS fines you for something you never did with a company you never owned." That's the start of the adventure the "Real Life Keeper" threw at you. You choose what you do but who you meet in various offices, the bureaucratic obstacles, the availability of a lawyer and how good he is are all parts of the "story" you have no control on. Just think how common is both for you and your friends to say: "You won't believe what happened to me. Last week I got this call..." It is just part of the human experience.

Quote from: This Guy on April 18, 2021, 01:11:29 AM
Fuck Jung

Freud was the hack with the sex hang ups.

Jung clarifed the concept of archetypal events and persons that are useful for devising events and NPCs, so at least he provided something useful to rpgs.

Quote from: This Guy on April 18, 2021, 01:11:29 AM

Quote from: Lunamancer on April 18, 2021, 12:31:48 AM

"But you're not exploring themes" or some other pretentious literature jargon. And I have to point out that the anatomy of a story (per Jung)

Fuck Jung

His standards are too high to fuck you.

RPGs are a terrible format for telling any kind of coherent story. In conventional stories, events happens because the writer decides they should because of narrative logic and can revise the story up to and even past the point of publication. In RPGs, events unfold thru a combination of multiple players' choices and a random number generator. The result is... well, just look at Darths & Droids for an example.

Quote from: Chris24601 on April 18, 2021, 10:39:31 AM

Quote from: This Guy on April 18, 2021, 01:11:29 AM
Fuck Jung

Freud was the hack with the sex hang ups.

Jung clarifed the concept of archetypal events and persons that are useful for devising events and NPCs, so at least he provided something useful to rpgs.

If we're looking at usefulness in rpgs Freud's unheimlich has been way more useful to me than any garbage related to anima/animus and collective unconscious. Just some proto-Campbell garbage without the bad anthropology.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 18, 2021, 01:09:15 PM

Quote from: This Guy on April 18, 2021, 01:11:29 AM

Quote from: Lunamancer on April 18, 2021, 12:31:48 AM

"But you're not exploring themes" or some other pretentious literature jargon. And I have to point out that the anatomy of a story (per Jung)

Fuck Jung

His standards are too high to fuck you.

Who cares if I'm the one to do it, somebody should fuck him. Preferably somebody with syphilis. Where's Brad?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 18, 2021, 01:33:15 PM
RPGs are a terrible format for telling any kind of coherent story. In conventional stories, events happens because the writer decides they should because of narrative logic and can revise the story up to and even past the point of publication. In RPGs, events unfold thru a combination of multiple players' choices and a random number generator. The result is... well, just look at Darths & Droids for an example.

Don't really want coherent stories anyway, because I know how they end which leaves things down to style and execution which, let's be real sucks shit at the average table, even yours. Incoherency is best in game design and plotting.

Quote from: This Guy on April 18, 2021, 01:57:53 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on April 18, 2021, 10:39:31 AM

Quote from: This Guy on April 18, 2021, 01:11:29 AM
Fuck Jung

Freud was the hack with the sex hang ups.

Jung clarifed the concept of archetypal events and persons that are useful for devising events and NPCs, so at least he provided something useful to rpgs.

If we're looking at usefulness in rpgs Freud's unheimlich has been way more useful to me than any garbage related to anima/animus and collective unconscious. Just some proto-Campbell garbage without the bad anthropology.

Anima/Animus and the collective unconscious have nothing to do with RPGs, but thanks for participating. 

Quote from: Reckall on April 18, 2021, 03:55:54 PM

Quote from: This Guy on April 18, 2021, 01:57:53 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on April 18, 2021, 10:39:31 AM

Quote from: This Guy on April 18, 2021, 01:11:29 AM
Fuck Jung

Freud was the hack with the sex hang ups.

Jung clarifed the concept of archetypal events and persons that are useful for devising events and NPCs, so at least he provided something useful to rpgs.

If we're looking at usefulness in rpgs Freud's unheimlich has been way more useful to me than any garbage related to anima/animus and collective unconscious. Just some proto-Campbell garbage without the bad anthropology.

Anima/Animus and the collective unconscious have nothing to do with RPGs, but thanks for participating. 

I mean I agree which is why using archetypes like that is a shit model since Jungian archetypes spring from the collective unconscious. If you just mean that those bits are wrong and you use archetypes as storytelling shorthand from colloquial usage then why even bring Jung into it, mixing your theories and shit.

Ultimately, storygames are just rpgs that try to emphasis story elements of games by various means in their actual rules. That, of course, leaves quit a lot to individual interpretation as just what games are storygames.
As for the vitriol, I find it bizarre. Its hardly as though they are taking over the industry, and if you don't like them, don't play them. Problem solved.