Point - a lengthy essay by Greg Costikyan

QuoteThat is true because story is the antithesis of game. The best way to tell a story is in linear form. The best way to create a game is to provide a structure within which the player has freedom of action. Creating a "storytelling game" (or a story with game elements) is attempting to square the circle, trying to invent a synthesis between the antitheses of game and story. Precisely because the two things--game and story--stand in opposition, the space that lies between them has produced a ferment of interesting game-story hybrids. And yet the fact remains: game and story are in opposition, and any compromise between the two must struggle to be successful.

So should designers eschew attempts to inject story into the games they design? By no means; past efforts to do so have been fruitful, and have led to interesting and successful games. What designers must do, however, is understand that they are not involved in the creation of stories; gaming is not inherently a story-telling medium, any more than music--just as games are not simulations (though some games are) and games are not competitions (though some games are).

To think of games as "a storytelling medium" leads to futile attempts to straightjacket games, to make them more effective stories at the expense of gameplay.

Counterpoint - a reply by 'some guy' game designer and blogger

QuoteThe second assumption is that a story game must necessarily be inferior as a game.  It ain't necessarily so.  In fact, the factors that are most important for engaging gameplay – consequential decisions made in the pursuit of goals – are precisely the factors that make for engaging narrative.  So putting players in the position of the protagonist and giving them the opportunity to select those goals and make those consequential decisions seems more like a match made in heaven than a fundamental incompatibility.  They are just different types of decisions and goals to arcade games or strategy games, that's all.

Y'know, when you stand back far enough, it's easy to lose sight of the differences between things which are clear and distinct when you're standing close to them, particularly when you seem them side by side.

I generally side with Greg Costikyan in that I have yet to see a really good implementation of games (as I understand them) as media for telling stories. This is even more true of videogames than RPGs, to be honest.

I think it may be done better than it's been done so far, but generally speaking, I share the feeling that what makes for a good game (as I understand games, in the broader sense, including videogames, boardgames, etc.) doesn't necessarily make for a good story. The best games, like real life, make no fucking sense other than the one you want to give them after the fact.

I'm all for playfully analyzing shit over a post-game beer and going "shit Bob, when your PC saw the Star Vampire eating Jim's PC and lost it? That felt straight outta HPL." Or "remember when your Toreador frenzied because the Sabbat impaled your ghoul on one of your abstract sculptures? Not even Lestat was that fucking emo." But sitting down before the game and declaring that it'll be a grand epic about something or a deep, thoughtful exploration of something other? Not my thing.

The counterpoint to Greg's essay seems to hinge on the fact that storygames hinge on emergent and cooperative storytelling, rather than predetermined or linear ("railroading") play. Now I freely admit a total lack of experience with storygames, but my experience is that round-robin storytelling doesn't really crank out deep, thoughtful or engaging stories about anything. But maybe I just haven't read a good one yet?

A good game, for me, puts me 'in the moment'... vs. standing outside of time and seeing it in some larger, epic context.
I'm thinking of some of my favorite videogames... Silent Hill, Deus Ex... they have a good 'story' in retrospect but the joy of my experience of them is being mostly in the dark as to what's really going on... grasping for solutions... making choices that matter in the moment, never what's 'good for the story.' Sure they're limited by the technology so they're still 'on rails'... only so many options exist, only a few possible endings (unless I choose my character's death as THE END and turn off the machine, sell the game).
The same goes for RPGs... I don't want some canned 'endgame' or narrative track... PCs/NPCs that matter too much to the plot to ever be in serious danger.

... "squaring the circle" ....
Again, it is much depending on how one defines "storytelling" or just "story", even.

What designers may do, and that often is appreciated by both GMs and Players, is to essentially set up the playing pieces(the NPCs), their goals and methods, as well as the historical and geographical background.

Sure, this is technically not writing the story, but it is very close to doing so.

I find it interesting, that during the time i tried to be active on the Forge, i had to defend the more Gamey parts ... or at least tried to, and here, i instead have had to defend, or tried to defend, the story ... or narrative parts.

... Ok, i'm exaggerating my own importance(i'm full of myself), most haven't noticed me at all, or noticed me for very different reasons, but that is the feeling i got on the matter.

Anyway, the impression i have gotten, was that GNS originally was supposed to be like a trinary version of the binary yin/yang, as in all parts are needed, required, and should be accounted for in the rules.

Essentially, Game and Story(Narrative) is not eachothers antithesises, They are both needed and required.
It do seem like a good idea not to intermix them too much though, or one will end up in storygames, more or less.

Quote from: The Butcher;733444I generally side with Greg Costikyan in that I have yet to see a really good implementation of games (as I understand them) as media for telling stories. This is even more true of videogames than RPGs, to be honest.

I think it may be done better than it's been done so far, but generally speaking, I share the feeling that what makes for a good game (as I understand games, in the broader sense, including videogames, boardgames, etc.) doesn't necessarily make for a good story. The best games, like real life, make no fucking sense other than the one you want to give them after the fact.

I'm all for playfully analyzing shit over a post-game beer and going "shit Bob, when your PC saw the Star Vampire eating Jim's PC and lost it? That felt straight outta HPL." Or "remember when your Toreador frenzied because the Sabbat impaled your ghoul on one of your abstract sculptures? Not even Lestat was that fucking emo." But sitting down before the game and declaring that it'll be a grand epic about something or a deep, thoughtful exploration of something other? Not my thing.

When i am about to read a book, or look at a movie, i do not declare it will be a grand epic either, or thoughprovoking, or anything such either.
What is important is that i like playing, and the story i remember afterwards.

I think some people intentionally confuse meanings of 'story' in their rhetoric, trying to pull sleight of hand between Afrika Korps ...



... and My Life With Master.

Quote from: Catelf;733459When i am about to read a book, or look at a movie, i do not declare it will be a grand epic either, or thoughprovoking, or anything such either.
What is important is that i like playing, and the story i remember afterwards.

So you approach books and movies with no expectations whatsoever? You don't read dust jackets, reviews, or ask friends who have watched or read them? I surmise you don't even read the title? How do you even pick which book to bread, or film to watch?

These discussion are always non-productive because no one ever agrees at what point a plot point becomes a railroading story.  More often than not, it's just a platform for people to rant about how their preference is the one true way of gaming, and anything else is badwrong fun.

Mmmm, many happy memories playing Afrika Corps with my father; otherwise though, I'm pretty much on the game side. While there might be some overall continuity in the setting, the players do not have to follow any predetermined path, I prefer they don't really.

Quote from: The Butcher;733461So you approach books and movies with no expectations whatsoever? You don't read dust jackets, reviews, or ask friends who have watched or read them? I surmise you don't even read the title? How do you even pick which book to bread, or film to watch?

Ah, you got me there ... or did you?
The thing is, if i see a movie from the beginning, i have probably heard it was really good, or even great.
However, that only translates into "I might like this movie", so when i line up in the cinema, or put the DVD into my player, i don't think "this will be great", i'd rather be thinking "let's see now ..." with some anticipation, but not exactly expactation, except a good enough story.
I go into rpgs with a similar feel, but possibly less expectation and anticipation.

Same with books and comics as with movies.

My point is that i do not go into fiction or games expecting great stories, but when they prove to have that, i'm delighted.
If i can add to the story myself in the game, then i also do so, within the limitations given(or as a GM, within the limits of honoring the players' choises as PC's, and the NPC's characterizations as well).

A couple of things:
I really do hate those essays. Game designers should stay away from those. This reminds me of french cinema of '60s. Those excellent directors felt the need to come up with some theory about movies, how stories are ... they should stick to doing movies. And by the way, this doesn't help our hobby.

Quote from: Catelf;733453(...)
What designers may do, and that often is appreciated by both GMs and Players, is to essentially set up the playing pieces(the NPCs), their goals and methods, as well as the historical and geographical background.
(...)
Essentially, Game and Story(Narrative) is not eachothers antithesises, They are both needed and required.

I strongly agree with Catelf on this.

Quote from: dragoner;733471Mmmm, many happy memories playing Afrika Corps with my father; otherwise though, I'm pretty much on the game side. While there might be some overall continuity in the setting, the players do not have to follow any predetermined path, I prefer they don't really.

I don't think it is about a pre defined path: it is about creating an 'environment' that challenges the players and offers them choices, interesting ones. In fact that is, I'm quite sure, what most of us already do. We can argue about semantic, but the process is still there.

Now, do designers need to implant in some kind of rules and design for it to be good, or be a game? I don't think so ...
Look, we're not the only ones 'creating stories' (writers do it for novels, movies, TV series ... look around there is A LOT of them), and others are using techniques that are useful. For instance, some writers are using GANTT (MS project) to write and make sure everything is coherent. Maybe that is the kind of stuff we should be looking into.

When it comes to RPG-like games, I basically see four approaches.

1) The GM is the author of the story.  Basically this is railroading.  Whether it's through tricks to hide the fact or a great sense of improv that folds what the other people say back into the pre-defined story, this is basically a pre-determined story that the GM will present through play.  Lots of players actually like this because they don't have to think.  They can just show up, do some play acting or fight some combats and rolls some dice.  I would say actually, that this is currently the most popular way of playing.  It's the approach taken in Paizo's Pathfinder adventure path products, for example.

2) The GM is the guardian of the story.  It's the GM's job to take all the different actions that everyone does and cobble together an interesting story going forward.  It's an incredibly improv heavy approach and requires the GM to think on his feet in terms of how to take player decisions into consideration when presenting the overall story of the game.  Many players think they are playing in a game like this when they are actually playing in a game outlined in 1).

3) The act of playing produces a story right in play.  This is the domain of "story games" where the mechanics and procedures ensure that a recognizable story unfolds during play.  Even if many consider them to depart from the core elements that make something an RPG, they do still actually work at doing what they say they will do.  if you play In A Wicked Age and follow the procedures in the book, you will indeed produce a swords & sorcery genre story.  And it won't be one that someone has written in advance.

4) The referee sets up a situation and the players engage with the situation without any regard to story structure or without any thought of creating a story as a goal.  And with everyone at the table playing to find out what happens rather than having the GM enforce "his story" on the results.  Story in this situation is an after-the-fact byproduct.  When we experience our day-to-day lives and then tell someone about them afterwards, we have the ability to construct and present them as a coherent narrative.  We naturally interpret them into a story when we tell other people about them.  So that's why this type of play looks like it produces story when we look back on play.  This is the approach of most old school RPGs and many, many games can be played in this format regardless of when they were written or how their designers think they should be played.

I pretty much only do 4) these days.  How do 4) and 2) differ?  In 2), the GM actually cares about the story and what would be interesting, fun or dramatic from a story perspective and makes decisions on that basis.  In 4) the GM is more of a referee who fairly adjudicates the results of what the players describe as their character's actions.  

A classic example of type 1) or 2) play is giving a villian more hit points in the middle of the fight because he's an important character later on in the campaign or because he has potential as a character the GM doesn't want to lose.  So rather than letting the dice fall where they may, the GM will override them for the sake of protecting the story.

Approaches 1) and 2) are largely about selectively nullifying player input, 3) can often be about elevating it above all else (sometimes these games don't have GMs at all) and 4) is about adjudicating things fairly and finding out what will happen rather than deciding what will happen.

My advice to anyone would be to embrace approach 4).  Stop worrying about telling cool stories or controlling what will happen and get back to presenting interesting situations, NPCs, threats, monsters and environment and let the players decide how to deal with them and play to find out what happens.  PCs that survive will naturally emerge as the great heroes in a story as you remissness about the game.

Quote from: NathanIW;733481Story in this situation is an after-the-fact byproduct.  When we experience our day-to-day lives and then tell someone about them afterwards, we have the ability to construct and present them as a coherent narrative.  We naturally interpret them into a story when we tell other people about them.  So that's why this type of play looks like it produces story when we look back on play.

Right, and so does every other activity. The reason I brought up Afrika Korps earlier, is that even though it actually has a basis in history, the notion of a wargame as a 'storygame' seems not to be seriously adopted (much less pressed) by pretty much anyone.

Even less, I think, would people call a live baseball game a 'storygame'.

A 'trad' RPG, like a wargame -- or like real life! -- can be simply a series of events, with none of the character of a well crafted tale except in a carefully edited after-action account (if even then).

Quote from: pells;733475I don't think it is about a pre defined path: it is about creating an 'environment' that challenges the players and offers them choices, interesting ones. In fact that is, I'm quite sure, what most of us already do. We can argue about semantic, but the process is still there.

Now, do designers need to implant in some kind of rules and design for it to be good, or be a game? I don't think so ...
Look, we're not the only ones 'creating stories' (writers do it for novels, movies, TV series ... look around there is A LOT of them), and others are using techniques that are useful. For instance, some writers are using GANTT (MS project) to write and make sure everything is coherent. Maybe that is the kind of stuff we should be looking into.

Writing is different in it has a linear path, which usually follows a pre-set curve as well. A game is different, while in the end a story might be made, or not if there is a TPK; nothing exists if the players don't do it. For me as the GM, my most fun is when the players go off track, and in that it is the moment that is the most fun. Whether or not something occurs or not down the road is fine, fine as well if the players had a hand in it or not, but that is really up to the players, the backstory is easily enough created as setting material.

Quote from: Catelf;733474Ah, you got me there ... or did you?
The thing is, if i see a movie from the beginning, i have probably heard it was really good, or even great.

Irrelevant. I am speaking, essentially, of games that do not perform as advertised.