Quote from: This Guy on April 18, 2021, 04:37:54 PM

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.

Er... One thing doesn't lead to the other anyway...

As to why many people hate storygames, it was the constant incessant shilling by storygames advocates that finally pissed people off. Every day, a new jackass would come along telling gamers that they were brain damaged and playing their favorite RPG only out of nostalgia. It got on your nerves and earned plenty of responses of "go fuck yourself".  Like the current SJWs, gamers only have pushback after it became obvious that these storygames advocates would not just live and let live.

Did Jung even exist, or was he just an archetype?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on April 18, 2021, 08:20:13 PM
Did Jung even exist, or was he just an archetype?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 18, 2021, 01:33:15 PM
RPGs are a terrible format for telling any kind of coherent story.

Well, I can give an easy example that shows clearly the RPGs have some real strengths in telling stories.

Knight slays dragon, rescues princess, and they live happily ever after. Old story. Hardly interesting. A jaded audience will probably roll their eyes at the predictable happy ending.

With an RPG, because we see the rules and stats and dice rolls, we know there actually is a chance that the knight fails. We know the knight actually is in danger. We know the dragon could flash fry then eat the knight. And so suddenly that old story can capture renewed interest. Should the ending not turn out to be the predictable happy one, then at least we've done something different. But even if the ending ends up being the happy, predictable ending, that we know it really, really could have turned out differently gives that story renewed power.

So that makes me question what you mean by "coherent"? Because there is no shortage of examples to point to as to how gamers, GMs in particular, go to a nutty level of obsession to ensure that their games are coherent, per the standard definition, to a degree that in a lot of cases may actually go far beyond what you find in a traditional authored work.

QuoteIn conventional stories, events happens because the writer decides they should because of narrative logic

Not always. Some authors deliberately seek to liberate their characters from the tyranny of the narrative. Styles vary. Tastes vary.

QuoteIn RPGs, events unfold thru a combination of multiple players' choices and a random number generator.

I've encountered plenty of examples where there is some curating process. Like the old 1 minute melee rounds in AD&D where, when the results are in, the DM describes how the round unfolds, or else allows the players to do so in cases such as killing blows or critical hits. Again, styles vary, tastes vary.

Quote from: Lunamancer on April 18, 2021, 08:34:46 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 18, 2021, 01:33:15 PM
RPGs are a terrible format for telling any kind of coherent story.

Well, I can give an easy example that shows clearly the RPGs have some real strengths in telling stories.

Knight slays dragon, rescues princess, and they live happily ever after. Old story. Hardly interesting. A jaded audience will probably roll their eyes at the predictable happy ending.

With an RPG, because we see the rules and stats and dice rolls, we know there actually is a chance that the knight fails. We know the knight actually is in danger. We know the dragon could flash fry then eat the knight. And so suddenly that old story can capture renewed interest. Should the ending not turn out to be the predictable happy one, then at least we've done something different. But even if the ending ends up being the happy, predictable ending, that we know it really, really could have turned out differently gives that story renewed power.

So that makes me question what you mean by "coherent"? Because there is no shortage of examples to point to as to how gamers, GMs in particular, go to a nutty level of obsession to ensure that their games are coherent, per the standard definition, to a degree that in a lot of cases may actually go far beyond what you find in a traditional authored work.

QuoteIn conventional stories, events happens because the writer decides they should because of narrative logic

Not always. Some authors deliberately seek to liberate their characters from the tyranny of the narrative. Styles vary. Tastes vary.

QuoteIn RPGs, events unfold thru a combination of multiple players' choices and a random number generator.

I've encountered plenty of examples where there is some curating process. Like the old 1 minute melee rounds in AD&D where, when the results are in, the DM describes how the round unfolds, or else allows the players to do so in cases such as killing blows or critical hits. Again, styles vary, tastes vary.

How exactly is the RPG telling a story?

The DM/Gamers might tell recounts of the adventure after the fact, doesn't mean the RPG is built for telling stories nor that it's any good for it.

Storygamer = Someone sitts to write a story about a fisherman.

RPG player = Some fisherman telling a story of his last fishing trip.

I know you won't see the difference because you refuse to do so, willingly blinding yourself to all and any evidence that contradicts your ideology/point of view.

Quote from: jeff37923 on April 18, 2021, 08:17:56 PM
As to why many people hate storygames, it was the constant incessant shilling by storygames advocates that finally pissed people off. Every day, a new jackass would come along telling gamers that they were brain damaged and playing their favorite RPG only out of nostalgia. It got on your nerves and earned plenty of responses of "go fuck yourself".  Like the current SJWs, gamers only have pushback after it became obvious that these storygames advocates would not just live and let live.

IME Storygamers are like the vegans.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 18, 2021, 10:55:54 PM

Quote from: Lunamancer on April 18, 2021, 08:34:46 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 18, 2021, 01:33:15 PM
RPGs are a terrible format for telling any kind of coherent story.

Well, I can give an easy example that shows clearly the RPGs have some real strengths in telling stories.

Knight slays dragon, rescues princess, and they live happily ever after. Old story. Hardly interesting. A jaded audience will probably roll their eyes at the predictable happy ending.

With an RPG, because we see the rules and stats and dice rolls, we know there actually is a chance that the knight fails. We know the knight actually is in danger. We know the dragon could flash fry then eat the knight. And so suddenly that old story can capture renewed interest. Should the ending not turn out to be the predictable happy one, then at least we've done something different. But even if the ending ends up being the happy, predictable ending, that we know it really, really could have turned out differently gives that story renewed power.

So that makes me question what you mean by "coherent"? Because there is no shortage of examples to point to as to how gamers, GMs in particular, go to a nutty level of obsession to ensure that their games are coherent, per the standard definition, to a degree that in a lot of cases may actually go far beyond what you find in a traditional authored work.

QuoteIn conventional stories, events happens because the writer decides they should because of narrative logic

Not always. Some authors deliberately seek to liberate their characters from the tyranny of the narrative. Styles vary. Tastes vary.

QuoteIn RPGs, events unfold thru a combination of multiple players' choices and a random number generator.

I've encountered plenty of examples where there is some curating process. Like the old 1 minute melee rounds in AD&D where, when the results are in, the DM describes how the round unfolds, or else allows the players to do so in cases such as killing blows or critical hits. Again, styles vary, tastes vary.

How exactly is the RPG telling a story?

The DM/Gamers might tell recounts of the adventure after the fact, doesn't mean the RPG is built for telling stories nor that it's any good for it.

Storygamer = Someone sitts to write a story about a fisherman.

RPG player = Some fisherman telling a story of his last fishing trip.

I know you won't see the difference because you refuse to do so, willingly blinding yourself to all and any evidence that contradicts your ideology/point of view.

The storygamer's is probably more interesting to read than another fucking story about another fucking fishing trip.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 18, 2021, 10:57:26 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on April 18, 2021, 08:17:56 PM
As to why many people hate storygames, it was the constant incessant shilling by storygames advocates that finally pissed people off. Every day, a new jackass would come along telling gamers that they were brain damaged and playing their favorite RPG only out of nostalgia. It got on your nerves and earned plenty of responses of "go fuck yourself".  Like the current SJWs, gamers only have pushback after it became obvious that these storygames advocates would not just live and let live.

IME Storygamers are like the vegans.

Good comparison, for both good and ill.  For all who "adopt the lifestyle" out of a genuine enjoyment and appreciation for the thing, there will be others who ape them for the surface stuff.  The reasons are legion, but the symptoms are similar.  Someone who merely enjoyed story games as a thing would be interested in sharing it with you if you were interested, but not threatened if you weren't.  They might be a little overly enthusiastic about it, then back off when they saw you weren't interested.  The insecure can't afford to back off, because it is all posing.

Of course, when RPGs got started, there was some similar process, too.  The more niche and acquired the tastes, however, the less likely that others will be interested and the more likely that the posers will stand as representative of the whole.

The question is: are you having fun?

If yes, who cares?

Complaining about wrongfun is for socjus pansies.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 18, 2021, 10:55:54 PM
How exactly is the RPG telling a story?

How isn't it?

QuoteThe DM/Gamers might tell recounts of the adventure after the fact,

They might. And some might do it more than others. But I don't see an awful lot of that. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with anything.

Quotedoesn't mean the RPG is built for telling stories nor that it's any good for it.

You're right. Your random irrelevant statement does not logically lead us to the conclude that RPGs are built for or good at telling stories. That doesn't preclude the possibility that a more accurate characterization of an RPG wouldn't get us there.

QuoteStorygamer = Someone sitts to write a story about a fisherman.

RPG player = Some fisherman telling a story of his last fishing trip.

I don't even see very much of either thing. I don't see self-ascribed story gamers saying that what they're doing is sitting down to write a story. I don't see roleplaying gamers saying that what they do at their weekly game is sit around telling stories about what happened last week. Your statements just don't seem relevant to anything. They certainly don't justify the use of the equal sign.

QuoteI know you won't see the difference because you refuse to do so,

I see the difference. What I don't see is you raising anything relevant.

Quotewillingly blinding yourself to all and any evidence that contradicts your ideology/point of view.

This is a strange statement coming from someone who has presented facts (if you can even call them that) cherry picked to such an extreme that it's down to things that have nothing to do with anything.

How about instead of a fisherman, it's a dragon slayer?

And how about instead of writing a story about a dragon slayer (which I don't know is something self-ascribed story gamers actually do), and instead of telling a story of the last dragon you slew (which is not something I've seen an RPG player do as part of playing the game), we talk about what actually goes on in these games?

Something like, we play out the story of the character attempting to slay a dragon.

You can run through this scenario in any number of systems and get radically different play experiences through each of them. I don't know where you get this idea that I'm claiming there is no difference. Hell, even the same system with different players will vary greatly in the experience. We still recognize they're playing the same game despite the differences. Because what's in common also matters.

Quote from: Lunamancer on April 19, 2021, 10:34:16 AM
How about instead of a fisherman, it's a dragon slayer?

And how about instead of writing a story about a dragon slayer (which I don't know is something self-ascribed story gamers actually do), and instead of telling a story of the last dragon you slew (which is not something I've seen an RPG player do as part of playing the game), we talk about what actually goes on in these games?

Something like, we play out the story of the character attempting to slay a dragon.

You can run through this scenario in any number of systems and get radically different play experiences through each of them. I don't know where you get this idea that I'm claiming there is no difference. Hell, even the same system with different players will vary greatly in the experience. We still recognize they're playing the same game despite the differences. Because what's in common also matters.

This is why I avoid using the word Story to describe RPGs. I prefer the term Scenario.
A story has a preset path and usually only one author. (Multiple authors are possible, but doesn't typically change the nature of storytelling)
We are not playing out a story of a character attempting to slay a dragon. We are participaing in a scenario where the resolution of the scenario is open ended enough so that slaying the dragon isn't necessarily it.

We can negotiate with the dragon. We can drive it away. We can join forces with the dragon. We can try to bribe the dragon to go away. We can fail to slay the dragon and get killed by it. We can pull a draw, constantly fighting the dragon but neither side gains a clear advantage.

The GM decides if such tactics are possible, and what needs to be done to accomplish any of them, and the consequences of success or failure.
The potential open ended nature of a scenario, and the input of a group of player characters, is what differentiates an RPG from a story, and trying to hammer such scenario driven play into a story telling hole is how we get linear adventures with "rail roading" GM tactics.

Quote from: Lunamancer on April 19, 2021, 10:34:16 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 18, 2021, 10:55:54 PM
How exactly is the RPG telling a story?

How isn't it?

QuoteThe DM/Gamers might tell recounts of the adventure after the fact,

They might. And some might do it more than others. But I don't see an awful lot of that. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with anything.

Quotedoesn't mean the RPG is built for telling stories nor that it's any good for it.

You're right. Your random irrelevant statement does not logically lead us to the conclude that RPGs are built for or good at telling stories. That doesn't preclude the possibility that a more accurate characterization of an RPG wouldn't get us there.

QuoteStorygamer = Someone sitts to write a story about a fisherman.

RPG player = Some fisherman telling a story of his last fishing trip.

I don't even see very much of either thing. I don't see self-ascribed story gamers saying that what they're doing is sitting down to write a story. I don't see roleplaying gamers saying that what they do at their weekly game is sit around telling stories about what happened last week. Your statements just don't seem relevant to anything. They certainly don't justify the use of the equal sign.

QuoteI know you won't see the difference because you refuse to do so,

I see the difference. What I don't see is you raising anything relevant.

Quotewillingly blinding yourself to all and any evidence that contradicts your ideology/point of view.

This is a strange statement coming from someone who has presented facts (if you can even call them that) cherry picked to such an extreme that it's down to things that have nothing to do with anything.

How about instead of a fisherman, it's a dragon slayer?

And how about instead of writing a story about a dragon slayer (which I don't know is something self-ascribed story gamers actually do), and instead of telling a story of the last dragon you slew (which is not something I've seen an RPG player do as part of playing the game), we talk about what actually goes on in these games?

Something like, we play out the story of the character attempting to slay a dragon.

You can run through this scenario in any number of systems and get radically different play experiences through each of them. I don't know where you get this idea that I'm claiming there is no difference. Hell, even the same system with different players will vary greatly in the experience. We still recognize they're playing the same game despite the differences. Because what's in common also matters.

"RPG gamers don't sit around the table at game day to re tell the story about their last session so you're wrong!"

We also don't sit around a table to tell any story, we sit to go have adventures in a virtual world as our avatars, and might tell stories about what happened there afterwards to those who weren't there, or among ourselves while not playing remembering how fun/silly/lucky/stupid X was.

The GOAL isn't to tell a story but to make history, to have an impact on the virtual world.

While storygamers do have the goal to tell a story while sitting at the table, to collectivelly build the world around them.

And this is true no matter if the tale told is about fishermen or dragon slayers, but thanks for participating and proving my point that you're willingly blind to the facts.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 19, 2021, 11:50:25 AM
And this is true no matter if the tale told is about fishermen or dragon slayers, but thanks for participating and proving my point that you're willingly blind to the facts.

proving to whom

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 19, 2021, 11:38:42 AM

Quote from: Lunamancer on April 19, 2021, 10:34:16 AM
How about instead of a fisherman, it's a dragon slayer?

And how about instead of writing a story about a dragon slayer (which I don't know is something self-ascribed story gamers actually do), and instead of telling a story of the last dragon you slew (which is not something I've seen an RPG player do as part of playing the game), we talk about what actually goes on in these games?

Something like, we play out the story of the character attempting to slay a dragon.

You can run through this scenario in any number of systems and get radically different play experiences through each of them. I don't know where you get this idea that I'm claiming there is no difference. Hell, even the same system with different players will vary greatly in the experience. We still recognize they're playing the same game despite the differences. Because what's in common also matters.

This is why I avoid using the word Story to describe RPGs. I prefer the term Scenario.
A story has a preset path and usually only one author. (Multiple authors are possible, but doesn't typically change the nature of storytelling)
We are not playing out a story of a character attempting to slay a dragon. We are participaing in a scenario where the resolution of the scenario is open ended enough so that slaying the dragon isn't necessarily it.

We can negotiate with the dragon. We can drive it away. We can join forces with the dragon. We can try to bribe the dragon to go away. We can fail to slay the dragon and get killed by it. We can pull a draw, constantly fighting the dragon but neither side gains a clear advantage.

The GM decides if such tactics are possible, and what needs to be done to accomplish any of them, and the consequences of success or failure.
The potential open ended nature of a scenario, and the input of a group of player characters, is what differentiates an RPG from a story, and trying to hammer such scenario driven play into a story telling hole is how we get linear adventures with "rail roading" GM tactics.

Let me tell you a story about the last session of the campaign I'm playing in:

We were hired to go search for a very old (millenia?) wizard's lair, he is guilty of a magical catastrofe of huge magnitude for trying to summon extraplannar beings into the world.

We were at the deepest level after many adventures and having to go outside once to deliver some children to their parents, we found out the wizard was suppossedly being guarded by a Bronze Dragon who as suppossedly preventing him from continuing his magical experiments by a floating skull that the wizard used to speak to us.

Went down there, found a smallish green dragon, Duncan (my pyromaniac shoot first ask questions latter) wizard character went and talked with it and then got out and used a magical headband our Elf has to teplepatically discuss things between us.

Went back and managed to make the Dragon reveal he was infact the Bronze Dragon testing us, that he was indeed busy guarding the wizard and preventing his shenanigans, made a deal with it, got out with all the treasure (coin, jewels, magic stuff and many, many books) after closing/collapsing most of the ways in/out and then collapsed the main one so no one can go try to liberate the wizard.

Our DM was pleasantly surprized we choose to talk, that we used the headband so the Dragon couldn't hear us, and that we accomplished our goal (to prevent anyone from either liberating or getting the wizard's experiments) without fighting.

We weren't telling a story, we were making history, having an impact in the world, the ending was a surprize to all. Knowing the wizard was millenia old I was fully convinced we were going to die there if we found him.

After finding about the dragon I was convinced he was going to kill us.

Well, turns out we didn't die, got loot and will grow more famous in our corner of the world.

There was a beggining, we were offered the contract, but we could have refused it, after all it seemed well above our pay grade. After that? Everything that happened was our choice, we fought when we choose to and ran when we choose to, we solved potential conflicts (more than once) with diplomacy when we could, and we came out alive, richer, and more powerful.

None of that was something any of us could have predicted, so there was no middle and the end wasn't planned.

Where was this famous "STORY" while we were playing?