Another long one, sorry
This is bullshit Forge Swine jargon meant to obfuscate the truth by dominating the semantic terms from the get go in an argument.
It's certainly bullshit jargon which obfuscates the truth by means of semantics from the get-go in the argument. The true terms should be:-
1. Story Planned Out in Advance, Fleshed Out Cosmetically As We Go Along
[
instead of Story First, although Story First is not a wholly unreasonable term for this, and neither is Railroading]
2. Play Now!, Accidental/Incidental Story Also Now
[
instead of Story After]
3. Story Planned Out Through Play As We Go Along Then Immediately Narrated
[
instead of Story Now!]
In 1, the plot is mainly laid down well in advance of the game. In 2, it arises exactly at the moment of play. In 3, the individual player/GM kind of comes up with an on-the-spot plan for the story and immediately narrates that part of it... so strictly speaking, the story in what RE calls "Story After" is actually literally "Incidental Story Now!", whereas his "Story Now!" is actually literally "Story First (But Only Just)". He's got the three of them in the right sequence, it's just that 2 and 3 need to be put back in the chronological process slightly. That's kind of funny, isn't it :-D
I was not asserting nor even seeking to imply the appropriateness of the jargon I explained. I was only citing it to explain to the poster I quoted that there genuinely IS a school of thought that you can something different to Story After, and it's a Forgie school of thought. Of course I disagree with its choice of terminology.
If I accepted these terms, I'd have to agree on a number of things that aren't true,
A pedantic no to this assertion, but you would be handing a victory to storygame propaganda for sure.
particularly that "story after" is a real goal for regular roleplayers,
You're right, it's not.
that "story now" is actually "story" as normal people define it
With respect, I think that terminologically speaking it is.
that "story now" is the inherently superior option over the other two.
And plainly it's not the superior option. On that we agree.
there's a reason that most of the times when some gamer sits there for an hour telling you about his character's awesome adventures you want to claw your eardrums out: its not actually a "good" story that's been created. ... the thing that's awesome to the guy who lived it is that he LIVED it, ...
Nice insight there actually. In fact I can tolerate about 5 seconds of this kind of behaviour. Sadly, I'm sometimes guilty of it, probably for the reason you state. Very interesting.
"story" is an ENTIRELY INCIDENTAL byproduct of the gaming experience.
Change this to "immersive roleplay involves storytelling as an incidental byproduct" and we would be in complete agreement.
ALL HIS LITTLE FOLLOWERS who have come on here deceitfully to try to argue that the RPG is somehow an inherent story-making device.
I've already explained to you earlier in this thread, it's not some deceitful conspiracy. What it is is that The Big Model (God what a pretentious name) is a pile of craptacular fuckwittery due to the failure to apply basic empathic insight in putting it together, possibly (as a matter of speculation) because the man behind it is presumably better trained and more often professionally engaged in the modelling of externally observable behaviour, rather than in engaging with internal perspectives and subjective experience. Plus the fact that The Big Model notwithstanding this flaw is put together with considerable articulation and is superficially highly persuasive due to the intelligence of the man who put it together, so it genuinely convinces people. To jump to the conclusion that anyone who subscribes to that theory is an evil conspiracist is unwarranted. But it is a source of endless amusement. And you may be a son of a bitch but with respect, you are OUR son of a bitch. (We being the pro-immersionists.)
those "storygames" that the Forge are creating are not actually RPGs at all, but something new.
They might be kind of abstract roleplaying games rather than immersive ones, meaning you superficially play different roles, but you don't really get into them in any immersive kind of way, if that makes sense.
storygames aren't in fact all that good at telling stories either
I agree. But what they are good at is getting people to work together to tell a story. What's the point in that? you may well ask. Well, I guess people enjoy working together. I say work, but I guess you could say play, and it wouldn't be inaccurate, but pissing around together might be a better description, given the quality of the narrative endeavour :-D
Its probably why the Forge Swine don't have enough faith in their own hobby to admit that its a new and separate hobby
There is of course a storygames Internet site. I post there sometimes. I don't know what proportion of them really subscribe to The Big Model in its entirety. Probably only a small minority. The rest probably play a bunch of games, including general RPGs and some Forgie games. And they probably enjoy doing so because they get some kind of a kick out of pissing around together making up a moderately passable story together which seems awesome to them because they're having fun making it up together. Not really my bag but I'd do it maybe once every couple of years or so at a con to get a feel for it and see if I can rip any inspiration from the experience to improve my actual immersive roleplaying, and so that if it turns out you're talking bunkum and I'm missing out on something great, I find out about it.