The Pistols at Dawn thread got me thinking about RPGs and how they relate to stories, and I think it highlights the point where I believe pundit is the most incorrect.  

It got me thinking about an article I read in Dragon Magazine once many moons ago.  It was an interview by Dave Arnusan, and he was talking about the first RPG session ever.  He still remembers the first one.  They were playing Chainmail, having fantasy armies attack castles and such.  They decided that it would be cool if a team of characters snuck in and opened the castle gates.  It just sort of happened, each player choosing one figure to be their character, and turned it into an RPG session about the team sneaking in and opening the gates.

Now what is the fundamental difference between that and every other wargaming session?  It stopped just being a game, and started being a story.  Not using some 'pretentious' definition of story, but the regular one.  There's some guys, and they do some stuff, and some stuff happens.

That is my conclusion - that without a story, you don't have an RPG.  It doesn't have to be a good story, or an interesting one, or a complex one.  I mean "We went down into the caves and killed some goblins and Eric's dude fell in a pit and I found a +3 sword" is a story.  I'm sure Pundit would say that without the game elements you don't have an RPG either, but I think I'd say that the uncertainty of outcome combined with story creation is the essential ingredient to making an RPG.  Even the most railroady GM will still have everyone roll dice, and even the most diceless, gameless system will rely heavily on player actions.

So can we have rules that create a better story?  That's what all rules are for.  It's all a matter of taste, what kind of story you want to create.  There's no such thing as an organic or artificial story, because there's no such thing as an RPG without a story.  The Forgey front loaded games aren't "better" at creating story, they're better at creating conflict and heavy drama ASAP.  The people who like them find that satisfying.  D&D creates tactical stories with heroes who start weak and uncertain and rise to the level of near gods.  The people who like that find them satisfying.  And you can certainly use a game to create other kinds of stories, if the GM and players agree to go in that direction.  But left to their own devices and with the default assumptions, every game tends to create its own kind of story.

It's all stories, and there's nothing pretentious or artsy about it.  That's what we do and what we've always done.

Quote from: MaddmanNow what is the fundamental difference between that and every other wargaming session?  It stopped just being a game, and started being a story.

That is so lame.

Even if true, it's meaningless. And it also means that I was playing RPGs years before D&D hit the shelves because all the wargames I played were stories. Somehow I don't think I'm alone in that.

Quote from: gleichmanAnd it also means that I was playing RPGs years before D&D hit the shelves because all the wargames I played were stories.

If you were really thinking yourself into the role as commander of your forces - even asking "What would Wellington do?" in a Napoleonic wargame for example, then, yes

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonIf you were really thinking yourself into the role as commander of your forces - even asking "What would Wellington do?" in a Napoleonic wargame for example, then, yes

Then it's a meaningless insight. Akin to pointing out the sky is blue and expecting people to hail your wisdom.

I know I take on personas when I play other games where it's feasible. So in Monopoly, I'm not pretending to be a boot or a sailship, but for example in "A Game of Thrones" boardgame, whatever faction I get to play, I try to play them as I imagine they would according to the books.

Quote from: MaddmanSo can we have rules that create a better story?  That's what all rules are for.  It's all a matter of taste, what kind of story you want to create.

I think that's a good point.  Maybe not rules but guidelines.  For example, not just present opponents for the gm to use, but explain why they are good and what sorts of stories they would work for.

 I think that's been the key ingredient that has caused many games to succeed or fail in the market: How much does it inspire a good story.  Not directly always but how easy is it to create and interesting character.  It's far easier to create stories around interesting characters than balanced or powerful characters.

Examples:  
It seems that most people didn't know what sort of stories they could create with Transhuman Space.

M&M inspires many people to create super heros that they player finds cool.  Its success isn't just from easy to use mechanics (though those help), it's also because it makes people want to put their cool super heroes through their paces.

Traveller was both excellent and horrible at this, which is probably why some people got into it and some didn't.  It was good at the details (I've got these skills and I know exactly how my equipment works)  and the big picture (what's going on at the empire level) but most of the modules offered only crude info at the story level: how to guid the group from one scene to the next and the pros and cons of various approaches to putting together the pieces of the adventure.

Quote from: MaddmanIt's all stories, and there's nothing pretentious or artsy about it.  That's what we do and what we've always done.

I think stories could be a byproduct of an rpg session.I think there are  some designers who believe that rpgs are about creating stories and have tried to create rules that reflect this belief. I believe that because of the interactive nature of the game, perhaps it is convenient to say we create stories - I don't believe this is necessarily the case.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: MaddmanThat is my conclusion - that without a story, you don't have an RPG.  It doesn't have to be a good story, or an interesting one, or a complex one.  I mean "We went down into the caves and killed some goblins and Eric's dude fell in a pit and I found a +3 sword" is a story.  I'm sure Pundit would say that without the game elements you don't have an RPG either, but I think I'd say that the uncertainty of outcome combined with story creation is the essential ingredient to making an RPG.  Even the most railroady GM will still have everyone roll dice, and even the most diceless, gameless system will rely heavily on player actions.

So can we have rules that create a better story?  That's what all rules are for.  It's all a matter of taste, what kind of story you want to create.  There's no such thing as an organic or artificial story, because there's no such thing as an RPG without a story.  The Forgey front loaded games aren't "better" at creating story, they're better at creating conflict and heavy drama ASAP.  The people who like them find that satisfying.  D&D creates tactical stories with heroes who start weak and uncertain and rise to the level of near gods.  The people who like that find them satisfying.  And you can certainly use a game to create other kinds of stories, if the GM and players agree to go in that direction.  But left to their own devices and with the default assumptions, every game tends to create its own kind of story.

This is where I think you misunderstand RPGPundit, and where I think you're mistaken. RPGPundit, once you get past his verbal style, has never denied that RPGs tell stories. What he denies is that RPGs are for the purpose of "creating" stories. I agree with him.

RPG rules are meant to inject an element of uncertainty into the game, and to (hopefully) allow all the players to participate in a manner and volume that that individual finds comfortable. The story comes from the imaginations of the participants, and IMO is rarely ever "created" purposefully (meaning the goal from the git-go was to "create" a story).

All games tell stories, as has been pointed out. gleichman was spot on IMO, even the wargames Arneson and Co. were playing before the castle storming were stories, it's just the castle storming was a different kind, and I doubt very seriously if they went into that activity for the purpose of telling a story...they just wanted to have fun playing their game in a way that might be "cool".

Let me speak from my perspective and explain why I resist all the "creating story" business. It just sounds pretentious to me. You might not be coming from that place, but it sounds that way just the same. These are fucking games, and all this "theory" talk and "creating story" nonsense comes across to me the same way a buncha people talking about architectural principals when they're preparing to play with legos.

Sure, RPGs go into more detail and complexity than chess, Monopoly, or even the Game of Life. That doesn't change the fact that they are games...that's all....just games. Once again as gleichman pointed out, the fact that a game of DnD tells a story means nothing, so does a game of Life. Neither of those games are designed expressly for the purpose of telling a story beyond this story, "Holy shit that game was fun...let's do it again next week."

Quote from: SigmundAll games tell stories, as has been pointed out. gleichman was spot on IMO, even the wargames Arneson and Co. were playing before the castle storming were stories, it's just the castle storming was a different kind, and I doubt very seriously if they went into that activity for the purpose of telling a story...they just wanted to have fun playing their game in a way that might be "cool".

The original conditions for when a wargame crossed over into a rpg were:

1. The existence of individual characters with personalities that influenced their actions in the game.

2. The use of those same characters from 'battle to next battle'.

3. Advancement rules for improving such characters.

4. The existence of and depiction of characters between battles or in areas others than battles.


Items 1-3 could be found in wargames for some time previous to D&D. It was only a matter of time before someone got the bright idea of adding #4 to the mix and the traditional rpg appeared on the scene.

Quote from: SigmundThis is where I think you misunderstand RPGPundit, and where I think you're mistaken. RPGPundit, once you get past his verbal style, has never denied that RPGs tell stories. What he denies is that RPGs are for the purpose of "creating" stories. I agree with him.

Pundit's poor communications skills are not my problem.  What something does is its purpose.  If an RPG tells stories then their purpose is creating stories.  I don't see how it could be any other way.

QuoteRPG rules are meant to inject an element of uncertainty into the game, and to (hopefully) allow all the players to participate in a manner and volume that that individual finds comfortable. The story comes from the imaginations of the participants, and IMO is rarely ever "created" purposefully (meaning the goal from the git-go was to "create" a story).

I disagree.  The goal in playing an RPG is creating a story.  There are these guys, and some stuff happens to them.

QuoteAll games tell stories, as has been pointed out. gleichman was spot on IMO, even the wargames Arneson and Co. were playing before the castle storming were stories, it's just the castle storming was a different kind, and I doubt very seriously if they went into that activity for the purpose of telling a story...they just wanted to have fun playing their game in a way that might be "cool".

Why are these things different?  I don't see the disconnect from creating a story and doing something cool.  They may not have described it that way, but that's what they did.

QuoteLet me speak from my perspective and explain why I resist all the "creating story" business. It just sounds pretentious to me. You might not be coming from that place, but it sounds that way just the same. These are fucking games, and all this "theory" talk and "creating story" nonsense comes across to me the same way a buncha people talking about architectural principals when they're preparing to play with legos.

You know people do analyze games, right?  People figure out what makes games tick, what makes for a fun game, categorizing types of games, even using these games theory in other fields.  That doesn't mean that anyone is pretending they are anything other than games.

Are there dumbasses out there that talk this shit because it makes them feel smart?  I'm sure there are.  I don't however judge everything off what dumbasses do.  I could give a shit less.  The reason I'm hot for this "theory" talk is that I tried applying it, and it made for some absolutely astounding gaming.  Best I've ever had.  My "good ol days" are right now, thanks largely to the awesome players I've got but partially because of some of the ideas I've gleaned from all this theory talk.

It is not about pretention, not with me.  Nor with most of the people who seriously work at it, produce games for it, and really understand it.

QuoteSure, RPGs go into more detail and complexity than chess, Monopoly, or even the Game of Life. That doesn't change the fact that they are games...that's all....just games. Once again as gleichman pointed out, the fact that a game of DnD tells a story means nothing, so does a game of Life. Neither of those games are designed expressly for the purpose of telling a story beyond this story, "Holy shit that game was fun...let's do it again next week."

Life and Chess do not produce stories the same way an RPG session does.  But that doesn't mean I'm pretending that RPGs are something other than games - they are games that create stories.  I'm not trying to put any huge literary importance on them or anything.  I fail to see why "these are games" and "these create stories" are mutually exclusive to you.

Quote from: MaddmanPundit's poor communications skills are not my problem.  What something does is its purpose.  If an RPG tells stories then their purpose is creating stories.  I don't see how it could be any other way.

I can't agree there. What something is intended to do is its purpose, not what it actually does. I might be driving a car down the street, and hit a child that runs out in front of the car to catch its ball. That doesn't mean that the purpose of a car is "hitting children." The purpose of a car is to make it easier and faster to travel (sometimes with additional purposes, like showing off your wealth and so on). Similarly, just because stories are sometimes created while playing RPGs, that doesn't mean that the purpose of RPGs is creating stories.

Quote from: DackeI can't agree there. What something is intended to do is its purpose, not what it actually does. I might be driving a car down the street, and hit a child that runs out in front of the car to catch its ball. That doesn't mean that the purpose of a car is "hitting children." The purpose of a car is to make it easier and faster to travel (sometimes with additional purposes, like showing off your wealth and so on). Similarly, just because stories are sometimes created while playing RPGs, that doesn't mean that the purpose of RPGs is creating stories.

Do you hit a child every time you drive a car?  If so you should sober up first.

You tell a story every time you play an RPG.  At least every one I've played in, seen, or heard about.  Recall, my definition of story is "There are these guys, and they do some stuff."  If you've ever had a game where that didn't happen, please tell me about it.

Quote from: MaddmanYou tell a story every time you play an RPG.  At least every one I've played in, seen, or heard about.  Recall, my definition of story is "There are these guys, and they do some stuff."

Pure self-defining BS.

"Let's define story so widely that it applies to everything, that will justify us twisting the purpose of RPGs to our own goals- which will turn RPGs into something completely new".

There are there actual goals here.

1. Some like playing these types of games to whatever end.

2. Those attempting to sell the concept know they can't do it on its own merits. Story telling games have never been larger sellers. But if they can share shelf space and be called rpgs- they can expose their worthless product to a larger group of customers.

3. Some can't bare the idea that they are playing a game. It damages their ego to know they are spendng so much time and effort on what the world sees as a toy. This where the pretention of RPG as Art comes from.

I find it very interesting that nearly all that play Forge style games are those who also fall hook, line and sinker for RPG as Art.


I don't mind reason #1, they should play what they wish. They should however also be honest can call their new type of game by a different name.

Reasons #2 and #3 I find deplorable.

Quote from: MaddmanPundit's poor communications skills are not my problem.  What something does is its purpose.  If an RPG tells stories then their purpose is creating stories.  I don't see how it could be any other way.

Don't miss the beauty of the forest for the ugliness of a few trees.

So the purpose of my shovel is to rust. The purpose of my black car is to get hot and burn my hand when I touch it. The purpose of the grass is to turn the knees of my jeans green when I fall down. Just because a thing has an effect doesn't mean it was designed to cause that particular effect. Chess tells a story, football games tell stories, a day spent fishing on the TN river makes a great (or boring) story. Is Everquest designed to "create" a story? Is Clue?

Quote from: MaddmanI disagree.  The goal in playing an RPG is creating a story.  There are these guys, and some stuff happens to them.

I disagree, the goal in playing an rpg is to play a game. In an RPG I assume the role of a fictional person and then use imagination and a shitload of dice to move around a more or less complex and detailed board (made of maps and descriptive text). Sometimes I land on the Go square and collect my pay, sometimes I land in jail. If I wanted to create a story I'd sit at my computer and type.

Quote from: MaddmanWhy are these things different?  I don't see the disconnect from creating a story and doing something cool.  They may not have described it that way, but that's what they did.

There are plenty of things I do that I find to be cool, where the thought of "creating" a story never enters my mind. Like mountain biking, or racing my car, or meditating.

Quote from: MaddmanYou know people do analyze games, right?  People figure out what makes games tick, what makes for a fun game, categorizing types of games, even using these games theory in other fields.  That doesn't mean that anyone is pretending they are anything other than games.

Are there dumbasses out there that talk this shit because it makes them feel smart?  I'm sure there are.  I don't however judge everything off what dumbasses do.  I could give a shit less.  The reason I'm hot for this "theory" talk is that I tried applying it, and it made for some absolutely astounding gaming.  Best I've ever had.  My "good ol days" are right now, thanks largely to the awesome players I've got but partially because of some of the ideas I've gleaned from all this theory talk.

Perhaps I'd prefer if you were to talk about the specifics of what you did and what effect it had, rather than talk about "creating" "story" (not A story). Keep in mind that all this is just from my perspective, and IMO. I can't pretend to speak for anyone else and I could be an army of one here...doomed to stand alone on this issue (US Army commercial on TV  ), but I thought I'd speak up and throw this out there because I think that the biggest problem with this issue here on Nutkinland ATM seems to me to be misinterpretation and misunderstanding.

Quote from: MaddmanIt is not about pretention, not with me.  Nor with most of the people who seriously work at it, produce games for it, and really understand it.

I do realize that people do all these analyzing things, and I very much do believe that you yourself have no pretensions at all, but all the theory talk sounds completely ridiculous to me just the same when I find it here on Nutkinland. Perhaps it's the venue, perhaps it's the silly (IMO) vocabulary. I'm not really trying to be judgemental (maybe I'm failing), but I am expressing how it comes across to me. I think back to when I first started RPing and how it seemed to me, and if I'd seen all this stuff on a message board like this one I'd have thought I was completely stupid or something, because I just played DnD cuz it was fun as shit and I liked it. It's not the idea of RPing games being an activity where great stories come alive (because that's what it is), it's the "creating story" by "front-loading situations" and whether there's proper levels of "G", "N", or "S" in order for the game to be cool enough.

Quote from: MaddmanLife and Chess do not produce stories the same way an RPG session does.  But that doesn't mean I'm pretending that RPGs are something other than games - they are games that create stories.  I'm not trying to put any huge literary importance on them or anything.  I fail to see why "these are games" and "these create stories" are mutually exclusive to you.

Because there's a difference between "these create stories" and "their purpose is creating stories".

Quote from: SigmundPerhaps I'd prefer if you were to talk about the specifics of what you did and what effect it had, rather than talk about "creating" "story" (not A story). Keep in mind that all this is just from my perspective, and IMO. I can't pretend to speak for anyone else and I could be an army of one here...doomed to stand alone on this issue (US Army commercial on TV  ), but I thought I'd speak up and throw this out there because I think that the biggest problem with this issue here on Nutkinland ATM seems to me to be misinterpretation and misunderstanding.

I think that might be more productive.

Here's some of the things that I've done in-game and had it come out a better experience.  Most of these are concepts that I've picked up from various places in theory discussion.

- Addressing a theme.  In my current game, all the characters are sort of unlikely heroes.  Each episode sort of focuses on a different character - this is Buffy, so it's very in keeping with the genre.  Each epsiode was designed to put the spotlight on the characters to see if they could indeed be the hero when it really mattered.  Three of them overcame and rose to the challenge.  One of them started the slide to darkness, and the fifth failed.  This has made the game very personal.

- 'Front loading' conflict.  The system helps with this, I take the various Qualities and Drawbacks from the characters to instantly get them into conflict.  Overall this is the strategy of pushing conflict at the characters and seeing how they resolve it.  I also call it the "Throw hand grenades at them and see what way they jump" technique.

- Bangers.  This is where you present the PCs with a choice, the kind of choice that will tell them what kind of person they are, and it needs to be immeditely resolved.  This was the first one I tried.  It was an All Flesh game, with the PCs members of the military trying to hold off the zombie onslaught.  They were in a hotel full of civilians.  The doors had been breached and the commander recieved orders to pull out.  The PCs were given orders to blow the hotel with the civilians inside, to keep the infection from spreading.  Now, do they follow orders or protect the innocent?  Since one PC was playing a by-the-book type while another was an in-it-to-protect-my-country type there was instant conflict.  Easily the most memorable session of the game.

- "Yes" gaming.  Put most succinctly in Dogs in the Vineyard, Say Yes or Roll Dice.  Generally, let the PCs do and create what they think would be cool.  If the PCs should be able to do something, then let them do it.  Only roll when there's a reasonable chance they'll fail, or you'd like to see them fail.

- Stakes.  Also an idea from Dogs.  While I'm not doing it mechanically like they do, I've still used the idea.  Essentially it means letting the PCs know what they are putting on the line.  Clearly let them know 'You can try to do this, but if you fail you could lose your life' or what have you.  This creates a LOT of drama.  Even if they fail, they went in with both eyes open and doubtless were very invested in the result.

And my own theory, which is the simple idea that if games are stories, then trying to frame a game in the form of a story will make for a good game.  This doesn't mean railroading, but winging it with an eye toward the story structure.  What I try to do each game is put conflicts in front of the PCs, let them deal with it however they like, come up with the consequences of those choices, then wrap it up with a satisfying climax.  I've yet to correctly guess what they'll do, but that just makes it more fun.

QuoteBecause there's a difference between "these create stories" and "their purpose is creating stories".

I think this might just be my Buddhist showing.  I don't think things have 'purposes' inherant of themselves.  They are what they are and do what they do.  If you get a story when you play an RPG, then that's close enough for me.