Checked.  Good.

Quote from: RogerSo, Levi, what am I missing here?  Do all roleplaying games create story, or not?

All roleplaying games create story by their very nature, though not necessarily satisfying story of real quality.

Deliberate but not fully directed story-making can be added, to a significant extent, without cause the activity as a whole to stop being a game or to exclude roleplaying as a needed element.

For my take on "Deliberate but not fully directed", I reference you to the debate itself.  A fully directed story is one where the plot is already laid out in advance; those fail as games to me, because too much player agency is lost.

Quote from: SigmundI agree, welcome to Nukinland , and my answer is no. I don't like RPGs, for the most part, whose primary goal is to "create a story". I like RPGs whose main goal is to play a game. Having a fun story arise out of the game playing is just a nice bonus as far as I'm concerned.

I agree with Sigmund, but to a have little more to add to it with respect to myself.

My rejection of Story is rejection of the mechanical creation there of with the rules of the rpg system, no rejection of Story itself.

So I'll set up the conditions for a story. But I and no one else attempts to force the game to match or even continue those conditions. A story given is not the equal of a story earned.

Quote from: gleichmanI agree with Sigmund, but to a have little more to add to it with respect to myself.

My rejection of Story is rejection of the mechanical creation there of with the rules of the rpg system, no rejection of Story itself.

So I'll set up the conditions for a story. But I and no one else attempts to force the game to match or even continue those conditions. A story given is not the equal of a story earned.

:ditto:


:withstupid:

I'm of quite the opposite take Gleichman, or certainly of a different take.  Optimally the GM organizes the exterior starting conditions (the world, the NPCs), the players set the interior starting conditions (the characters), they both work together to interpret each of these while the rules (and indirectly the dice) moderate that interaction.  Just play the damn game and the story happens. The rules do indeed write the story from the material you provide. You can if you like try to listen really hard to hear the story as accurately as it is told, dress it up some, add some commentary along the way.  Or just let it come out.

And enjoy the momment of the game.

But stepping back, yes just having a story as a goal is inane. Hell a story comes out of each and every Mechwarrior table, and damn straight you can find a gamer that is willing to tell you as many of them as any human can possible bear....and then tell you some more.

So it is what type of story, and the source of the story for what it is about.

But really, I think, RPGPundit is talking about something beyond that. Which is where the Swine reference comes from. A class war that falls roughly between the old guard and the new and the potential customers, only when you try to cut two people into two camps (SWINE or Pundit for example) it just doesn't really work.  It isn't really about story or not. It is about leisure enjoyment and closing off possibilities for leisure enjoyment because that just isn't how it was done and it isn't serious enough. And an industry shutting itself in and becoming incestuous, and economic pragmatism versus trying to lead the core of the industry down some "art" path that is really more self-important wanking that forgot it is all just playing a damn game.

Plus look at the damn picture he's using as an avatar. He was using Hunter S. Thompson before.  The Gonzo reporter. Cripie, he's broadcasting what his song and dance is all about. Putting right out in front. The all singing, all dancing pundit of the world! Honesty in advertising there. Which of course is plum full of irony that he is lobbing arrows at self-important wanking. But when you are fighting pigs you are bound to get a little filth splattered on you, and if noone steps up to fight the pigs?

Quote from: blakkieBut stepping back, yes just having a story as a goal is inane. Hell a story comes out of each and every Mechwarrior table, and damn straight you can find a gamer that is willing to tell you as many of them as any human can possible bear....and then tell you some more.

So it is really what type of story, and the source of it's is what it is about.

I will agree that stories happen in many RPGs. I don't agree that having a story as a goal is necessarily a bad idea. The idea, I think, is to allow players to create stories rather than have them happen. Active versus passive.

Quote from: blakkieIt isn't really about story or not. It is about leisure enjoyment and closing off possibilities for leisure enjoyment because that just isn't how it was done and it isn't serious enough. And an industry shutting itself in and becoming incestuous, and economic pragmatism versus trying to lead the core of the industry down some "art" path that is really more self-important wanking that forgot it is all just playing a damn game.

At the end of the day, even if those games are "art", are they any fun to play? Do they appeal to roleplayers? Is it arguable that they qualify as RPGs? Pragmatically, if "art" appeals, then isn't it economically viable to go down that path? Not that the industry should throw itself down a path of no return, but games appeal for a reason and it seems like a good idea to explore it. Hence theory (and wankery).

Quote from: blakkieBut when you are fighting pigs you are bound to get a little filth splattered on you, and if noone steps up to fight the pigs?

Mmmm, mud wrasslin'. Come on in, boys! It's slicker'n snot on a doorknob and does wonders for your skin.

Speaking for myself, despite the bad taste alot of his self-promotion and "ranting" can leave in my mouth, I can see past that to what at least part of his message is and I agree with it, which is why I've signed up on the Pundit side. The current debate between Pundit and Levi has me almost 100% agreeing with Pundit. I play RPGs to play a game with friends that I enjoy. A story happens when we play, but we don't seek to create "Story". If social or political issues are touched on, it's only because the game has gone that way through our play, not because we consciously or deliberately inject it. We don't see RPGs as social experiment, or therapy, or "Art". I like tactical games because i like tactics. That doesn't mean we can't or don't roleplay using our tactical game (DnD), or that we don't enjoy roleplaying as well as tactical combat.

The main part of my personal dislike of games like WoD is the subtle superiority it seems to exude with statements like "role-play vs. roll-play", the implication of which is that somehow WoD is better at allowing player to role-play than the unnamed "roll-play" type games. I also dislike them because in my view it's completely ruined what I used to consider a very cool and horrifying villian. I also blame Anne Rice for contributing to that. Vampires should be enigmatic, evil and terrifying, not a bunch of whiney angst-ridden punks hanging out artsy, exclusive back-alley bars. They should be rare and terrible, not the monster-world version of street gangs.

Despite my overall attraction to Blue Rose, the elements i don't like about it are the social/political ones. Blue Rose has taken a genre that for the most part promotes gender-equality (usually by not actually talking about or portraying gender-inequality), and made it almost cartoonish. It goes too far IMO and actually steps into the same bias only at the other end. None of the genre Blue Rose seeks to emulate goes anywhere near that far that I have read. I consider myself fortunate that I find those elements easy to drop/modify and I can still find lots of value in the Blue Rose setting overall. From the way it sounds most people who dislike it aren't able to do the same. IMO the "preaching" of Blue Rose is the problem with it. I don't need to be told by a RPG how i should feel about race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or political stand. Those elements can and should be included in settings, IMO, but only to create a feeling for the setting, and to give a framework for the players to play their characters in, not to actually teach, preach, or educate.

QuoteMmmm, mud wrasslin'. Come on in, boys! It's slicker'n snot on a doorknob and does wonders for your skin.

WOOT! I LOVE mud-wrasslin'....it really does do wonders for the skin.

:evillaugh:

Quote from: Lady LakiraI will agree that stories happen in many RPGs. I don't agree that having a story as a goal is necessarily a bad idea. The idea, I think, is to allow players to create stories rather than have them happen. Active versus passive.

Having the a story as a goal is like having breathing as a goal. Assuming you don't drop dead it is just going to happen anyway.  Having a particular type of story and the story coming out in a particular type medium is a laudible goal. Having the story already finished with only minor details left to fill in, if those? Well then you aren't playing a game anymore. You are either filling in as overacting characters in someone else's 4th rate play or attempting to be a playwrite/director but without the actual skill or money to pull it off for real being forced to use actors that are unfit to shine the shoes of the people that bring morning coffee to soap opera actors.

QuoteAt the end of the day, even if those games are "art", are they any fun to play? Do they appeal to roleplayers? Is it arguable that they qualify as RPGs? Pragmatically, if "art" appeals, then isn't it economically viable to go down that path? Not that the industry should throw itself down a path of no return, but games appeal for a reason and it seems like a good idea to explore it. Hence theory (and wankery).

The industry had headed down that path, and things were looking pretty damn bleak.  Explored and turned up a duster. Next please!

Well I suppose it is partially perspective.  Mismanagement and stagnation were crippling the market leader, and WW simply wasn't up to the task of being the market leader. Because that "art" wasn't economically viable to be the leader, and then it turned in on itself too in a fit of purism of the "art" and you had the two big dogs pulling off startlingly accurate "Ol' Yeller in the corn crib" impersonations.

D20 truely was the savior of the D&D legacy. Because it was a quality product that provided what AD&D did, only in a vastly improved way. It was better at giving the player (customer) what they wanted and getting the hell out of the way so it didn't give them so much of what they didn't want. And it was backed with real money and marketed with something approaching visionary brilliance.

It just happened to keep the industry from implosion and obscurity in the proccess by bringing in a flood of cash. What goes up eventually comes down, at least somewhat. So the chaft that came in with the cash surge eventually blew back out of town. But a lot of it stuck around, and along with some other publishing technology advances it has lead to some great fun games getting off the ground and being out there as well built niche options for people to enjoy.

WW has likewise redeemed itself after a fashion. Because it's nolonger trying to be what it never was, the workhorse of the industry. It's cutting back the crap (blowing up it's entire crapola, convoluted, overwrought, psudeo-arthouse storyline) and putting out a product line sized to much closer match it's optimal market size. So it's healthy and will continue to be there both for the vamp nuts/goths (slanderous way of saying gothic horror afficionatos ) and for the slice of people that don't like to actually to game.

I think story is a red herring, or something that many gamers don't really understand. They play a game, and cool stuff happens, and that cool stuff forms an interesting, memorable story. Instead of thinking, "How did that cool stuff happen?", they just look at the end result and say, "I like RPGs that do that."

It's sort of like saying that every basketball game should end with a shot at the final buzzer that determines the winner. There's little understanding of how or why the game got there.

On top of all this, in the early 1990s TSR produced some truly abominable DMing advice that set gamers up for a lifetime of disappointment. To read some of those texts, a game was a total failure if the players weren't eager to memorize 50+ pages of setting material, or if spending four hours shopping for a new bridle wasn't a rip roaring old time for your group.

Quote from: mearlsI think story is a red herring, or something that many gamers don't really understand. They play a game, and cool stuff happens, and that cool stuff forms an interesting, memorable story. Instead of thinking, "How did that cool stuff happen?", they just look at the end result and say, "I like RPGs that do that."

It's sort of like saying that every basketball game should end with a shot at the final buzzer that determines the winner. There's little understanding of how or why the game got there.

I, for one, don't want to constantly think about "How did that cool stuff happen?". In our games it happens often enough that we keep having fun playing, and we don't need to think about it or pursue it at all. IMO, if our game were to start focusing more on "How did that cool stuff happen?", and less on  just enjoying the cool stuff when it does happen I would start having much less fun. I'm glad every basketball game doesn't end with a winning shot at the buzzer, because then that winning shot would become ordinary and kinda boring. Likewise, I don't mind several "average" games/sessions/campaigns in my RPGing, because then when that "cool stuff" does happen, it's even more cool and memorable.

Also, I do agree with what you're saying (or seem to be) that it's not really the RPG itself that makes the cool stuff happen, it's the players (including the GM of course).

I should make myself clearer.

The breakdown is when people think, "The game made a good story, so I need a good story to have a good game."

(It was exciting when the game ended on that final shot. Therefore, all games should end with a buzzer beater.)

I mean, people can and do design/run story games, but problems arise when people apply the above thinking to D&D or Vampire. Or, when they get so obsessed with building a perfect story that they try to take control of a game session (railroading DMs; attention hog players).

The fetid, rotten '90s were rife with this sort of false thinking. AD&D 2e was founded on it.

Quote from: mearlsI should make myself clearer.

The breakdown is when people think, "The game made a good story, so I need a good story to have a good game."

(It was exciting when the game ended on that final shot. Therefore, all games should end with a buzzer beater.)

I mean, people can and do design/run story games, but problems arise when people apply the above thinking to D&D or Vampire. Or, when they get so obsessed with building a perfect story that they try to take control of a game session (railroading DMs; attention hog players).

The fetid, rotten '90s were rife with this sort of false thinking. AD&D 2e was founded on it.

Ah, I'm with ya, and agree 100%

Huh.

Am I like the only guy in the room who doesn't see this as a "all roleplaying games" sort of thing?

Some games always make a good story when you play them.

Some games sometimes make a good story when you play them.

Some games never make a good story when you play them.

Does this say anything about whether or not these games are fun for the participants?  Heck no!  It depends on whether they want good story and how they want it.

I like a lot of things about playing RPGs.  Therefore, I play different games at different times, depending on what I want at the moment.  Right now I'm playing a game of Nine Worlds which has a rocking story and good tactics but basically no characterization and a game of D&D which has rocking tactics and some characterization but not a whole ton of story.  And I love both those games a lot.

Games don't have to have stories to be good to play, nor are games that produce good stories necessarily good to play.

Right?

yrs--
--Ben

P.S. Yes everything that Mike says about 90s games is true.

Ben I think you bring up a good point, and I agree with you.  One thing that gets RPGPunidt worked up is when people say that D&D doesn't produce as good a story as some other RPG, and takes this as an attack on D&D.  So what?  I've said it many times, if you want a good tactical game with some story and characterization with a vaugely fantasy feel then D&D is hard to beat.

Since this looks like the Pistols at Dawn commentary thread, one thing the Pundit said really got my attention.

QuoteYou see, what you wrote above looks good and sexy in theory. But in practice, your player will find the big bad in the first five minutes and cut off his head.
Or the other player gets the treasure, before he was supposed to.
Or the whole party gets whacked by a lucky hobgoblin.
Or Player #3 decides its more fun to try to run a tavern.
Or the whole party decides they're going to go on a quest to Corunglain instead.

Real stories do not have characters with their own agency, and real stories do not suffer from the possibilities of abrupt endings. RPGs are not story-makers because you cannot control the course of the adventure to be sure a full story will be told, at least not without either forcing the players or forcing the world. Doing this is something that creates a less enjoyable play experience, and is still a sub-optimal way of creating story. That's what I meant by "worthwhile".

He's right.  You can use the story structure in the game, with Introduction -> Rising Action -> Climax -> falling action - Denomout.  To do this without robbing the players of their Authority however, you can't plan for it ahead of time.  You can certainly plan the introduction and have several ways set up to escalate the action, but you must be prepared to create an emotionally satisfying climax on the fly.  You can plan by guessing what the players will do, but if you're wrong you *must* be willing to throw that all out and think of a good way to get the main conflict resolved.

So the solution to the problem Pundit puts forward is to learn to roll with the punches with an eye toward maintaining proper pacing.  So for the items he listed...

- your player will find the big bad in the first five minutes and cut off his head.

Maybe the Big Bad was keeping a rival in check and a bigger bad now rears his ugly head.  Or taking the Big Bad out created a power vaccuum and things quickly descend into anarchy.  Since this is the first five minutes, we need to escalate the action.  The Big Bad is still dead, but in the interest of making a good game we need to escalate things.

- Or the other player gets the treasure, before he was supposed to.

What's the purpose of this treasure?  If he wasn't supposed to get it until the climax then you use the same trick as above.  Think of a way that him getting the treasure escalates the action.

Example time - Indiana Jones is exploring a lost temple.  By pure luck he managed to avoid most of the traps and enemies and found the treasure chamber less than 30 minutes into the game.  He grabs the treasure, so the GM decides that this sets off a big rolling boulder trap sending him dashing through the trap-filled crypt and out into a crowd of hostile natives, climaxing with an exciting escape on an airplane.  The plan was finding the treasure to be the climax, the actual play is that escaping with the treasure becomes the climax.

- Or the whole party gets whacked by a lucky hobgoblin.

That's a problem with the system IMO.  If you want a story oriented game the PC should have script immunity against mooks.  That's a style and taste thing I realize, but you are right that arbitrary PC death makes for shitty stories.  That's why I don't like it.

- Or Player #3 decides its more fun to try to run a tavern.

Like I said, just have to be ready to roll with the punches and work that into the narrative somehow.  A character wanting to run a tavern is awesome, they now have goals and things their character cares about.  This is the key to drama.

- Or the whole party decides they're going to go on a quest to Corunglain instead.

Again, trying to keep the pacing of a game so that it makes for a satisfying story does not require that everything is planned for in advance.

Madd --

I agree totally.  I also think that giving the players power over the story also gives them responsibility (thank you, Uncle Ben), and if you play with responsible players you'll have no problem.

You wouldn't happen to be planning to be in Shanghai any time soon?  Or be at GenCon?  There are games I think we should play...

yrs--
--Ben

Quote from: Ben LehmanMadd --

I agree totally.  I also think that giving the players power over the story also gives them responsibility (thank you, Uncle Ben), and if you play with responsible players you'll have no problem.

You wouldn't happen to be planning to be in Shanghai any time soon?  Or be at GenCon?  There are games I think we should play...

yrs--
--Ben

I will be running both All Flesh Must Be Eaten and Buffy at GenCon this year.  And I'm sure gaming a bunch more besides that.

I agree what you say about responsible players too.  I've got a great set of players right now, and they are completely eating up the autonomy.