Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 10:08:01 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 19, 2021, 10:06:45 PM

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 10:05:24 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 19, 2021, 10:04:39 PM

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 09:57:17 PM
So you do want the DM to tell you a story

Yes, tell me how wonderful your Mary Sue NPC is. Please.

He's like Willy Loman without the good luck

What's he wearing.

An expression of pain, the remains of a sled, and his old prom suit.

Hot.

Quote from: Pat on April 19, 2021, 10:10:01 PM

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 10:08:01 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 19, 2021, 10:06:45 PM

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 10:05:24 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 19, 2021, 10:04:39 PM

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 09:57:17 PM
So you do want the DM to tell you a story

Yes, tell me how wonderful your Mary Sue NPC is. Please.

He's like Willy Loman without the good luck

What's he wearing.

An expression of pain, the remains of a sled, and his old prom suit.

Hot.

I am here to please mostly myself but sometimes others.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 19, 2021, 04:12:09 PM
Yes, and I think the distinction between the two words is important, and in the context of RPGs, are not interchangeable.

Surely you must see the problem, that if you're going to begin at step 1 by drawing a distinction, you cannot then argue that there IS a distinction. That would be assuming the conclusion. Allow me to suggest, that to avoid circular logic, you don't get to choose your definition, even if it is one of the perfectly legitimate dictionary definitions. You have to look at how the word is being used. And in particular how it is being used by those you are responding to. If you're trying to make a point about storygames, you have to confine yourself to the storygamer use of "story" which is generally contra railroading. I'm not choosing which definition I use for story. I'm deferring to those players who say they enjoy RPGs more when there's a good story, and I'm going by what they mean by the word.

QuoteA story typically implies a set narrative, a scenario implies a setup with an open ended potential for resolution(s).

Careful with the word "typically." The most common cause of death in the US is heart disease. If someone dies, they most typically die of heart disease. However, that is not the typical cause of death for someone under 40. There it's most typically some sort of accident. What is "typical" is not a transitory property from group to sub-group. Even if we agree that stories in general are typically linear, that doesn't mean stories in an RPG context are typically linear. Given that RPGs have unknowns like the result of dice rolls and player choice, I think you need to meet an extraordinary burden of proof to sustain your claim here.

QuoteIMO linear, railroady adventures came about due to trying to shoehorn an RPG scenario into a story shaped hole, and suffered for it. They were popular, but I think that's where the phenomenon of people buying RPG as literature and not as gaming material came about. And it makes sense. As adventures got more focused on telling a story.

That's one theory. I could point to a really interesting professor of culture who has observed that academia has historically been 50 to 100 years behind the culture, and he believes we're in a new cultural age of stories where the trend is that stories are no longer linear. He cites Tolkien, Dungeons & Dragons, video games like Grand Theft Auto, and The Simpsons, and he observes the emphasis placed on world-building such that, yes, any given episode of Simpsons is a series of events that occur in a specific chronology, but the characters and setting has become so rich over the course of the series that it gets really easy to imagine your own stories, or how the episode would have played out if things had gone differently at a particular juncture. And so we get fan fiction. And of course there were choose-your-own-adventure books. I've even heard film critics recently specifically criticize movies (in particular the new Star Wars movies) for their failure to "world build"--their telling of the story fails to give the impression that there's this big rich world around the action. And so maybe in the past 5-10 years were in a regressive phase counter to the bigger trend. If you put stock into this line of thought, it is perhaps possible that DMs during that particular area were inspired by stories and films that were particularly good at world building, they thought it would translate well to RPGs, and they just weren't skilled at executing.

Personally, I believe it comes down to a bandwidth problem. And this produces a lot of problems in an RPG. And different gamers are bothered by different problems and so seek to solve different problems. Sometimes two people find different solutions to the same problems.

I pretty much only run sandboxes. But if players get to go anywhere and do anything they want to do, the group might split in 4 different directions. I can't describe four different scenes simultaneously. So I need some solution to this bandwidth problem.

One possible solution is that each player only gets 25% of game time to actually play and spend the other 75% of their time twiddling their thumbs. But that might seem really unfun. So another possible solution is to say, no, you can't go ANYWHERE you want. You have to stick together. Which mostly works, though it sucks if some players feel others are being reckless. Or stealth characters may not really have much opportunity to do their shtick when the rest of the party are clanky armor guys. So I've got another solution. Just did this yesterday. Every player plays using solo rules. No GM. We got to cooperate, split up, be stealthy, running around this sweet sandbox, and that was fun.

And that's the thing. As we find different ways to solve different problems, we defy arbitrary definitions. One problem I've encountered many times in the past running sandboxes is, not every player is sufficiently pro-active to handle a sandbox. They need a story. So I also needed to find ways to provide players the feeling that they are helping create a story as they go while still staying true to the sandbox style play that I enjoy.

Quote from: Lunamancer on April 19, 2021, 10:35:26 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 19, 2021, 04:12:09 PM
Yes, and I think the distinction between the two words is important, and in the context of RPGs, are not interchangeable.

Surely you must see the problem, that if you're going to begin at step 1 by drawing a distinction, you cannot then argue that there IS a distinction. That would be assuming the conclusion. Allow me to suggest, that to avoid circular logic, you don't get to choose your definition, even if it is one of the perfectly legitimate dictionary definitions. You have to look at how the word is being used. And in particular how it is being used by those you are responding to. If you're trying to make a point about storygames, you have to confine yourself to the storygamer use of "story" which is generally contra railroading. I'm not choosing which definition I use for story. I'm deferring to those players who say they enjoy RPGs more when there's a good story, and I'm going by what they mean by the word.

Well, that isn't very helpful. If we're just going to say that an RPG is a storygame because we assign it a "story", then everything is a storygame because I can construct a story around anything.
I don't think a storygame is defined by being a railroad. I do think it's defined by a game that attempts to simulate telling a story. And now I'm starting to repeat myself.

Quote

QuoteA story typically implies a set narrative, a scenario implies a setup with an open ended potential for resolution(s).

Careful with the word "typically." The most common cause of death in the US is heart disease. If someone dies, they most typically die of heart disease. However, that is not the typical cause of death for someone under 40. There it's most typically some sort of accident. What is "typical" is not a transitory property from group to sub-group. Even if we agree that stories in general are typically linear, that doesn't mean stories in an RPG context are typically linear. Given that RPGs have unknowns like the result of dice rolls and player choice, I think you need to meet an extraordinary burden of proof to sustain your claim here.

There are... almost always exceptions. And I already parse the fuck out of my posts trying to head off the nitpicker who drags some rare exception into the discussion. And it usually happens anyway, but at least I tried. If you want to nitpick my use of qualifiers, then we're going to spend far more time discussing terms than discussing the topic.

Quote

QuoteIMO linear, railroady adventures came about due to trying to shoehorn an RPG scenario into a story shaped hole, and suffered for it. They were popular, but I think that's where the phenomenon of people buying RPG as literature and not as gaming material came about. And it makes sense. As adventures got more focused on telling a story.

That's one theory. I could point to a really interesting professor of culture who has observed that academia has historically been 50 to 100 years behind the culture, and he believes we're in a new cultural age of stories where the trend is that stories are no longer linear. He cites Tolkien, Dungeons & Dragons, video games like Grand Theft Auto, and The Simpsons, and he observes the emphasis placed on world-building such that, yes, any given episode of Simpsons is a series of events that occur in a specific chronology, but the characters and setting has become so rich over the course of the series that it gets really easy to imagine your own stories, or how the episode would have played out if things had gone differently at a particular juncture. And so we get fan fiction. And of course there were choose-your-own-adventure books. I've even heard film critics recently specifically criticize movies (in particular the new Star Wars movies) for their failure to "world build"--their telling of the story fails to give the impression that there's this big rich world around the action. And so maybe in the past 5-10 years were in a regressive phase counter to the bigger trend. If you put stock into this line of thought, it is perhaps possible that DMs during that particular area were inspired by stories and films that were particularly good at world building, they thought it would translate well to RPGs, and they just weren't skilled at executing.

Personally, I believe it comes down to a bandwidth problem. And this produces a lot of problems in an RPG. And different gamers are bothered by different problems and so seek to solve different problems. Sometimes two people find different solutions to the same problems.

I pretty much only run sandboxes. But if players get to go anywhere and do anything they want to do, the group might split in 4 different directions. I can't describe four different scenes simultaneously. So I need some solution to this bandwidth problem.

One possible solution is that each player only gets 25% of game time to actually play and spend the other 75% of their time twiddling their thumbs. But that might seem really unfun. So another possible solution is to say, no, you can't go ANYWHERE you want. You have to stick together. Which mostly works, though it sucks if some players feel others are being reckless. Or stealth characters may not really have much opportunity to do their shtick when the rest of the party are clanky armor guys. So I've got another solution. Just did this yesterday. Every player plays using solo rules. No GM. We got to cooperate, split up, be stealthy, running around this sweet sandbox, and that was fun.

And that's the thing. As we find different ways to solve different problems, we defy arbitrary definitions. One problem I've encountered many times in the past running sandboxes is, not every player is sufficiently pro-active to handle a sandbox. They need a story. So I also needed to find ways to provide players the feeling that they are helping create a story as they go while still staying true to the sandbox style play that I enjoy.

Again, we're getting into a rut over railroads. I don't think storygames are inherently a railroad. I do think that railroads are trying to simulate story by making non-story-like-results not happen.
Mostly that railroads were the first, clumsy attempt to force a story out of an RPG session. Modern Story Games do this without the railroading. We had a whole "movement" based on this, that's part of the topic.

And if anyone nitpicks any of my statements because I didn't put a qualifier in there, suck my left nut.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 19, 2021, 09:55:45 PM
Cowboy World, by a recently deceased friend of mine.

WOW, you found one quote of mine that is totally different and in contradiction with a quote by a different person, whoop dee doo.

Edited to add: Ratman_tf was responding to a comment about the DM telling you a story, I'm talking about a specific game with one specific mechanic.

Why in your brain those two can be mixed up and become self defeating is beyond me.

Sorry to hear about your friend passing, GeekyBugle. I looked over Cowboy World - it's a little unusual for PbtA, since it doesn't have archetypes, and it's sparsely written -- but a lot of the other material is similar. If you don't like the narrative focus of it, you probably won't like other PbtA games like Dungeon World or Monster of the Week.

As for the relation -- in Reply #15, you said that you agreed 1000% with Ratman_tf's comment that I quoted, which was a generalization about all story games, and your criticism of Cowboy World seemed to contradict that.

The point is, someone could (a) hate the idea of "GM tells you a story", and also (b) enjoy Cowboy World because it's about players creating adventure for themselves. I know a lot of gamers who hate (a) but enjoy different PbtA games.

Quote from: Lunamancer on April 19, 2021, 10:35:26 PM

Surely you must see the problem, that if you're going to begin at step 1 by drawing a distinction, you cannot then argue that there IS a distinction. That would be assuming the conclusion. Allow me to suggest, that to avoid circular logic, you don't get to choose your definition, even if it is one of the perfectly legitimate dictionary definitions. You have to look at how the word is being used. And in particular how it is being used by those you are responding to. If you're trying to make a point about storygames, you have to confine yourself to the storygamer use of "story" which is generally contra railroading. I'm not choosing which definition I use for story. I'm deferring to those players who say they enjoy RPGs more when there's a good story, and I'm going by what they mean by the word.

So If I redefine the word "story" then I'm always right?

Words have meaning, definitions, if you don't mean story then use a word that conveys what you mean without redefining the other word.

Quote from: jhkim on April 19, 2021, 11:40:14 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 19, 2021, 09:55:45 PM
Cowboy World, by a recently deceased friend of mine.

WOW, you found one quote of mine that is totally different and in contradiction with a quote by a different person, whoop dee doo.

Edited to add: Ratman_tf was responding to a comment about the DM telling you a story, I'm talking about a specific game with one specific mechanic.

Why in your brain those two can be mixed up and become self defeating is beyond me.

Sorry to hear about your friend passing, GeekyBugle. I looked over Cowboy World - it's a little unusual for PbtA, since it doesn't have archetypes, and it's sparsely written -- but a lot of the other material is similar. If you don't like the narrative focus of it, you probably won't like other PbtA games like Dungeon World or Monster of the Week.

As for the relation -- in Reply #15, you said that you agreed 1000% with Ratman_tf's comment that I quoted, which was a generalization about all story games, and your criticism of Cowboy World seemed to contradict that.

The point is, someone could (a) hate the idea of "GM tells you a story", and also (b) enjoy Cowboy World because it's about players creating adventure for themselves. I know a lot of gamers who hate (a) but enjoy different PbtA games.

Thanks, it was a shock for sure.

As for the quote:

Again, I'm talking about a specific mechanic of a specific game, there's no contradiction with me agreing with a different statement, I can not like both things.

I might group uses of "story" in RPGs into a couple of broad categories:

(1) traditional games with linear / railroaded modules, like Dragonlance for D&D and many late 1980s or 1990s modules.

(2) mostly-traditional games like White Wolf's Storyteller system and Torg with minor mechanics related to story - and GM advice to match

(3) non-traditional rules-light games like Over the Edge or Amber Diceless which ditch a lot more of traditional RPG mechanics, and have narrative GM advice - but don't have especially story-oriented mechanics

(4) hybrid games like Burning Wheel or Fate that still have traditional mechanics like skills and attributes - but also have narrative mechanics that significantly restructure some parts, and have a more traditional GM and player structure

(5) GMed story games like Apocalypse World, Blades in the Dark, Mouse Guard where mechanics have little resemblance to traditional RPG mechanics, but

(6) GMless story games like Fiasco, Microscope, and others where play is thoroughly restructured

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 19, 2021, 10:51:32 PMWell, that isn't very helpful. If we're just going to say that an RPG is a storygame because we assign it a "story", then everything is a storygame because I can construct a story around anything.

I don't know who's saying that. Not me. I haven't said anything about constructing stories. And I haven't said anything about calling everything a storygame. I've said stories fit quite naturally into roleplaying games. I have indicated that virtually everything someone does IS a story. It happens automatically. There's no construction step necessary. "Ted wants cheese, so he goes to the store, finds the cheese he wants, and buys it," is a story. Maybe not a very good one. But it's a story.

Ted is a player character. He has the turophilia personality quirk. Maybe he doesn't know where in the store the cheese is, so he has to go on a dungeon crawl through the supermarket. Maybe he makes it through or maybe he doesn't. Maybe he gives up. Maybe he finds the cheese but realizes it costs more money than he has. Maybe there's a random encounter with a hairy man that has the "drug dealer wad of cash in a money clip" treasure type. Maybe he's got a percent chance of being distracted talking loudly on his cell phone, much like a dragon's chance for being asleep, making for a great opportunity for a Pick Pockets roll. Whatever happens, Ted's story is created as we play the game out. There's no constructing it after the fact. There's no pre-determination before the fact. There's none of that baggage people add to the meaning of 'story' in order to claim a story isn't happening. The story is told in real time as the game progresses without any conscious effort. It's pretty straight-forward.

QuoteThere are... almost always exceptions.

Great. But I'm talking about the rule, not the exception.

QuoteAnd I already parse the fuck out of my posts trying to head off the nitpicker who drags some rare exception into the discussion. And it usually happens anyway, but at least I tried. If you want to nitpick my use of qualifiers, then we're going to spend far more time discussing terms than discussing the topic.

It's not a nitpick. It's a gaping hole. You're just plain incorrect. And you know it. That's why you parse the fuck out of your posts. You're saying something you know full well you can't defend, so you use qualifiers as cover. Which is EXACTLY what you've done in trying to claim what I'm bringing up is a rare exception. If you believe stories in the context of RPGs are linear, just say it. Without qualifiers. If you know full well you can't defend your statement without a qualifier like "typically", which is vague enough that it allows you to later dismiss, without facts, evidence or reason, any challenge to your statement, then you shouldn't be making the statement at all. You're trying to have it both ways--making a claim but not having to defend it.

QuoteAgain, we're getting into a rut over railroads.

Actually, no. We're not. There was literally nothing in that section about railroads.

Quote from: Lunamancer on April 20, 2021, 12:21:08 AM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 19, 2021, 10:51:32 PMWell, that isn't very helpful. If we're just going to say that an RPG is a storygame because we assign it a "story", then everything is a storygame because I can construct a story around anything.

I don't know who's saying that. Not me. I haven't said anything about constructing stories. And I haven't said anything about calling everything a storygame. I've said stories fit quite naturally into roleplaying games. I have indicated that virtually everything someone does IS a story. It happens automatically. There's no construction step necessary. "Ted wants cheese, so he goes to the store, finds the cheese he wants, and buys it," is a story. Maybe not a very good one. But it's a story.

Ted is a player character. He has the turophilia personality quirk. Maybe he doesn't know where in the store the cheese is, so he has to go on a dungeon crawl through the supermarket. Maybe he makes it through or maybe he doesn't. Maybe he gives up. Maybe he finds the cheese but realizes it costs more money than he has. Maybe there's a random encounter with a hairy man that has the "drug dealer wad of cash in a money clip" treasure type. Maybe he's got a percent chance of being distracted talking loudly on his cell phone, much like a dragon's chance for being asleep, making for a great opportunity for a Pick Pockets roll. Whatever happens, Ted's story is created as we play the game out. There's no constructing it after the fact. There's no pre-determination before the fact. There's none of that baggage people add to the meaning of 'story' in order to claim a story isn't happening. The story is told in real time as the game progresses without any conscious effort. It's pretty straight-forward.

So you ARE re defining story to mean everything....

By your re definition people figthing in a war are telling a story.

They aren't, after the fact the survivors might or not tell stories about what they experienced, but while they were fighting the war they were trying to affect a change in the world, not trying to tell a story.

When the PC's in an RPG are doing stuff neither they nor the pleyers are trying to tell a story, they are trying to affect a change in the world.

Storytelling affects no change in world and can only happen after attempted effecting of change in world got it.

Quote from: Lunamancer on April 20, 2021, 12:21:08 AM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 19, 2021, 10:51:32 PMWell, that isn't very helpful. If we're just going to say that an RPG is a storygame because we assign it a "story", then everything is a storygame because I can construct a story around anything.

I don't know who's saying that. Not me. I haven't said anything about constructing stories. And I haven't said anything about calling everything a storygame. I've said stories fit quite naturally into roleplaying games.

And I disagree.

QuoteI have indicated that virtually everything someone does IS a story. It happens automatically. There's no construction step necessary. "Ted wants cheese, so he goes to the store, finds the cheese he wants, and buys it," is a story. Maybe not a very good one. But it's a story.

You constructed a story, and then said you didn't construct a story by handwaving it as "automatic".

QuoteTed is a player character. He has the turophilia personality quirk. Maybe he doesn't know where in the store the cheese is, so he has to go on a dungeon crawl through the supermarket. Maybe he makes it through or maybe he doesn't. Maybe he gives up. Maybe he finds the cheese but realizes it costs more money than he has. Maybe there's a random encounter with a hairy man that has the "drug dealer wad of cash in a money clip" treasure type. Maybe he's got a percent chance of being distracted talking loudly on his cell phone, much like a dragon's chance for being asleep, making for a great opportunity for a Pick Pockets roll. Whatever happens, Ted's story is created as we play the game out. There's no constructing it after the fact. There's no pre-determination before the fact. There's none of that baggage people add to the meaning of 'story' in order to claim a story isn't happening. The story is told in real time as the game progresses without any conscious effort. It's pretty straight-forward.

QuoteThere are... almost always exceptions.

Great. But I'm talking about the rule, not the exception.

QuoteAnd I already parse the fuck out of my posts trying to head off the nitpicker who drags some rare exception into the discussion. And it usually happens anyway, but at least I tried. If you want to nitpick my use of qualifiers, then we're going to spend far more time discussing terms than discussing the topic.

It's not a nitpick. It's a gaping hole. You're just plain incorrect. And you know it. That's why you parse the fuck out of your posts. You're saying something you know full well you can't defend, so you use qualifiers as cover.

See below.

QuoteWhich is EXACTLY what you've done in trying to claim what I'm bringing up is a rare exception. If you believe stories in the context of RPGs are linear, just say it. Without qualifiers. If you know full well you can't defend your statement without a qualifier like "typically", which is vague enough that it allows you to later dismiss, without facts, evidence or reason, any challenge to your statement, then you shouldn't be making the statement at all. You're trying to have it both ways--making a claim but not having to defend it.

Completely wrong. I put qualifiers because, for example, sometimes stories are not linear. (Pulp Fiction, for example)

Quote

QuoteAgain, we're getting into a rut over railroads.

Actually, no. We're not. There was literally nothing in that section about railroads.

You were talking about the problems you encounter while sandboxing.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 20, 2021, 12:26:54 AM
So you ARE re defining story to mean everything....

No. I'm using a common definition of story the way normal people use it. I'm specifically refusing to re-define it the way nerds do just for the sake of making their points in conversations like these.

QuoteBy your re definition people figthing in a war are telling a story.

No. It's not my definition. Nor is it a re-definition. And I haven't said the people doing the fighting in a war are telling anything.

QuoteWhen the PC's in an RPG are doing stuff neither they nor the pleyers are trying to tell a story, they are trying to affect a change in the world.

Players at the very least are telling me what their characters are doing. And I am telling them the results and what's happening in the world. Put it all together, and we end up with a description of incidents or events that we're collaboratively telling one another. Crossword puzzle time. What's a 5-letter word that starts with 's' and ends with 'y' that means "a description of incidents or events"?

Quote from: Lunamancer on April 20, 2021, 01:22:57 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 20, 2021, 12:26:54 AM
So you ARE re defining story to mean everything....

No. I'm using a common definition of story the way normal people use it. I'm specifically refusing to re-define it the way nerds do just for the sake of making their points in conversations like these.

QuoteBy your re definition people figthing in a war are telling a story.

No. It's not my definition. Nor is it a re-definition. And I haven't said the people doing the fighting in a war are telling anything.

QuoteWhen the PC's in an RPG are doing stuff neither they nor the pleyers are trying to tell a story, they are trying to affect a change in the world.

Players at the very least are telling me what their characters are doing. And I am telling them the results and what's happening in the world. Put it all together, and we end up with a description of incidents or events that we're collaboratively telling one another. Crossword puzzle time. What's a 5-letter word that starts with 's' and ends with 'y' that means "a description of incidents or events"?

Disingenuos too.

You ARE re-defining the word, in an RPG we need to say things because we use imagination, change to a CRPG, we don't need to use words, we can use the control/keyboard to make our PCs do the things. In neither case we are telling a story, we're affecting a change in the world (or trying to).

Now keep denying you're doing what you are doing and insisting that everything is a story.

Anything CAN be a story, after the fact. Those who witnessed it can tell about it, then it becomes a story, before that it was only history.

Quote from: Lunamancer on April 19, 2021, 03:32:40 PM

If I say to a player, "Hey, I'm running AD&D tonight. Are you in?" and he replies with, "Well, what's the story?" I don't think he's implying that the game is not open-ended in nature...

If I've run the game in such a way that all the players had a great time, there's a good chance a few of them might say, "Hey, great story, man!" And I don't think they're implying that the game was not open-ended in nature.

I've never seen/heard either of these uses of 'story' across dozens of games and hundreds of players. I have occasionally seen/heard players say "Oh this must be the story now" meaning the linear campaign has finally raised its head in the sandbox.

Edit: Of course when players say "Oh, this must be the Story" = linear campaign, they mean a pre-written story. 'Storygames' means story-creation games like PBTA, which is kinda the opposite of playing someone else's pre-written story.