This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: Telling a story versus presenting a situation.  (Read 19455 times)

Chris24601

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 3326
Re: Telling a story versus presenting a situation.
« Reply #120 on: November 18, 2021, 10:52:41 AM »
I’m pretty much entirely in the “playing is an event, stories are when you recount what happened at the event” school of thought, but I’ll admit I often refer to GM as a narrator when trying to explain it to someone not familiar with gaming… largely because there just isn’t a good word in English to describe the role of describing a fictional setting and the actions of fictional characters within that setting to a group… and “Improvisational Narrator or Director” is probably the closest you can get in English to what a GM actually is for non-gamers without a heavy dive into TTRPG philosophy.


tenbones

  • Poobah of the D.O.N.G.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6164
Re: Telling a story versus presenting a situation.
« Reply #121 on: November 18, 2021, 11:12:40 AM »
As I pointed before no story (at least according to dict) does not need to be finished. It does not need to follow any dramatic rules. No beginning nor ending. It merely needs to be fictional.
If GRRM gonna croak tomorrow in inexplicable accident while running in his gigantic hamster-ball, the Jon Snow dying in the snow will be never resolved situation, but it won't be any less story because of it, even though it's gonna be without ending. The RPG is fundamentally within fiction, so any situation is already a story, because well unlike real world it has no any other essence of its existence than description of fictional events by players and GM. And as quick as those descriptions leaves their mouth - they are story.

As it pertains to Gaming - what does this mean?

Seriously, this is getting into meta-semantics. If semantics is literally the sussing out of the meaning of words, this is trying to determine the validity of the semantic meaning of story... and then pulling the breaks on the entire purpose by saying "well stories don't have to be finished..." as if you can't have smaller stories within a larger story. Which is exactly what GRRM has.

And as my wife editor beats her clients over the head on an hourly basis will tell you - a story with no ending isn't a story. Not even anecdotal - her entire organization which covers Australian, and UK English publications agree.

Of course you may not - but then you'd be wrong.

As it pertains to gaming... gaming isn't a story. It creates and resolves situations that can become a "story' - but that's all in the tale-telling.

Edit: Screw you Chris for beating me to the punch.

Wrath of God

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 895
  • Fearful Symmetry
Re: Telling a story versus presenting a situation.
« Reply #122 on: November 18, 2021, 12:38:37 PM »
Quote
I’m pretty much entirely in the “playing is an event, stories are when you recount what happened at the event” school of thought, but I’ll admit I often refer to GM as a narrator when trying to explain it to someone not familiar with gaming… largely because there just isn’t a good word in English to describe the role of describing a fictional setting and the actions of fictional characters within that setting to a group… and “Improvisational Narrator or Director” is probably the closest you can get in English to what a GM actually is for non-gamers without a heavy dive into TTRPG philosophy.

I think this is decent definition I mean GM is generally telling what's happening most of time - so it is form of narration. Impro or not, that's less important.
Though of course players also are in limited scope narrators - declared actions of their characters are part of narration as well as anything DM declared about world and NPCs.

Quote
As it pertains to Gaming - what does this mean?

That mean that RPG Game by necessary contain element of fiction. And fictional = in story. It runs simultaneously with raw game mechanisms which are usually somehow divided from fiction itself, serving as way to decide what will be results of risky actions taking by PC's in relatively unbiased manner (ergo in a way to limit GM's power over narrative), and somehow randomized to add thrill of hazardous situation to the whole mix. I'd say generally GAME serves STORY - as mechanism pushing it forward and making it more interesting string of situations and resolutions, tough of course whole Gamist stance of GNS theory, goes other way Story is just excuse to check how my Monk/Shadowdancer/Cyberknight multiclass tiefling works against elemental dragons or smth ;)

Quote
Seriously, this is getting into meta-semantics. If semantics is literally the sussing out of the meaning of words, this is trying to determine the validity of the semantic meaning of story... and then pulling the breaks on the entire purpose by saying "well stories don't have to be finished..." as if you can't have smaller stories within a larger story. Which is exactly what GRRM has.

And where did that ends? There is no clear ontological difference between situation and borders of smaller story. Presented situation in novel or TV may be for instance cliffhanger purposefuly ending entire small sub-segment on UNRESOLVED, for narrative purposes. Some unfortunates ended on such cliffhangers. The point is - in written fiction such divisions are artifical way to organize ongoing narrative in way that sells well. In RPG there's like no need for that, I mean if such divisions appear in our mind it's mostly because situations in our mind connects with some dramatic rules of TV or books, but other than that it serves no much purpose. The only beginning and ending in RPG campaign will be ultimately beginning and ending of game.


Quote
And as my wife editor beats her clients over the head on an hourly basis will tell you - a story with no ending isn't a story. Not even anecdotal - her entire organization which covers Australian, and UK English publications agree.

Of course you may not - but then you'd be wrong.

Yes, but your wife expertise is connected to narrow definition of story - specificaly published written works of fiction. Which is probably mayor but still just one of sub-categories of fiction. And even then ontologically I'd disagree. Maybe such story is lame, and usuitable to publishing, ergo it's bad product, but ontologically still.

And of course editors of written fiction professional definitions hold no power over either gaming or English language at large.

Quote
As it pertains to gaming... gaming isn't a story. It creates and resolves situations that can become a "story' - but that's all in the tale-telling.

Gaming unless it's chess, Monopoly or smth like this, runs simultaneously with fiction. And this fiction is by ontological necessity a story. Both situation estabilished and solved are story. Any statement about fictional world is.
"Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon.”

"And I will strike down upon thee
With great vengeance and furious anger"


"Molti Nemici, Molto Onore"

Lunamancer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1293
Re: Telling a story versus presenting a situation.
« Reply #123 on: November 18, 2021, 01:09:53 PM »
It means that it would be a story you'd read in the next day newspaper, but thanks to cameras, helicopters, drones, cellphones, etc. we get to witness it while it's still happening.

But why does it mean that? I mean other than the say so of you and a tiny minority of the overall population who obsess over this sort of thing. Is there an actual justification for overturning the common usage of the word "story"? Is there sufficient evidence in that justification to claim others are wrong in their usage of the word? And does saying that RPGs are not stories address the original post?

Quote
A more apt comparison would be me going fishing, is there a story developing? Maybe, but I went to fish not to tell a story.

Apt of what? I generally expect the motivation of characters in a story to be something other than the story itself. And it's not as if I'm interested in the story about you gathering with your friends to play a game. I'm interested in what comes out of that--the series of fictional events that unfold through the play of that game.

Quote
The PCs are making history in the game world,

Even though the word history clearly has past-tense connotations, that can be done in real time, but not a story?

Quote
Do you tell stories of ALL the game sessions? I don't, because only some are interesting enough others might enjoy hearing/reading what transpired.

I generally don't tell stories about my game sessions at all. I'm just not interested in telling stories after the fact.

Quote
Just like in a war, we get the stories of some of the soldiers, generals, etc. but not about every minute they were there, only the important/funny/horrific/interesting parts are told as stories. The rest is part of the grey mush background of history.

Not sure which RPGs you play. The ones I play all have different time scales. In AD&D, I play out combat and dungeon exploration minute-by-minute. In super critical situations, we can zoom in to 6-second segments. For wilderness travel, I use 4-hour periods. For resting up and healing after an adventure, I play it out day by day instead.

Quote
Which is why "Reality TV" has to be either scripted (almost always) or the directors/producers talk with some participant to create drama/conflict... To have something interesting happening. And the people participating want to be in the spotlight, so they might start drama by themselves.

You could say the same thing about professional wrestling. But then baseball, football, and basketball are popular without a script. A lot more popular than pro wrestling. People can watch the games live, raw and uncut, for a continuous 2-3 hours or so, through the lulls and all. You can also boil a game's highlights down to about a minute. Strangely, watching the highlights is a lot less exciting than watching the whole game. The full context is apparently meaningful enough to more more interesting despite having less interesting parts. Sometimes during the game a commentator might use a terms like "Cinderella story" or "David vs Goliath story" to describe the match, even before the game is over. Which demonstrates that not only do archetypal stories manifest themselves in a series of events, it is possible to be aware enough of the story as it's happening in real time to be able to name the story.

That's my two cents anyway. Carry on, crawler.

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito.

SHARK

  • The Great Shark Hope
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5040
Re: Telling a story versus presenting a situation.
« Reply #124 on: November 18, 2021, 02:21:32 PM »
Greetings!

Yeah, it is weird how some people get hung up on terminology. I know whole groups of gamers that if you asked them what D&D is, they would all say that "D&D is a storygame"; or "D&D is a game where you create a character that exists in this fictional world where your character lives out stories in the game".

They all think everything that goes in in the game is a story, and all little parts of bigger stories.

None of them seem to have this weird hatred of "stories". Thy expect everyone to have stories, have stories to tell, and be a part of stories that are ongoing. Every character has "background stories" that make up how they came to be the people they are. Every character has ongoing stories they experience with different relationships, with different other characters--those relationships are all individual "stories"--and yet, few of these stories have any "conclusion". They aren't past tense in any way, or even very "event orientated"--they are about relationships, conversations, choices, emotions, living, ongoing experiences.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
"It is the Marine Corps that will strip away the façade so easily confused with self. It is the Corps that will offer the pain needed to buy the truth. And at last, each will own the privilege of looking inside himself  to discover what truly resides there. Comfort is an illusion. A false security b

tenbones

  • Poobah of the D.O.N.G.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6164
Re: Telling a story versus presenting a situation.
« Reply #125 on: November 19, 2021, 11:42:05 AM »

That mean that RPG Game by necessary contain element of fiction. And fictional = in story.

"I jumped 24-feet into the air today."

That is fiction. That's not a story. Fiction means it's not real or factual. Yes it's a function of storytelling. But an actual story has a beginning, middle and end. You can make a semantic argument that a horrible story doesn't need those things - but most normal people, and *anyone* in the business of publishing actual stories for consumption will say otherwise. I'm one of those people.

It runs simultaneously with raw game mechanisms which are usually somehow divided from fiction itself, serving as way to decide what will be results of risky actions taking by PC's in relatively unbiased manner (ergo in a way to limit GM's power over narrative), and somehow randomized to add thrill of hazardous situation to the whole mix.

You are making a semantic argument about mechanics - not about story. Something *can't* run simultaneously within the game unless you're outside of the game telling a story *about* playing a game. The game is happening - you don't know what  has happened until you've done the *thing*.

Case 1) I'm telling you a story about how Tenbones is playing an RPG. He finishes the game before your eyes. It was fun. <--- this is what you're talking about.

Case 2) Tenbones character enters an encounter: ????? <---- this is what I'm talking about. I don't know what happens until I actually do the encounter. Then and only then I can tell you what Tenbone's PC did and contextualize it as a story within the context of the game. This happens *after*.

Gaming itself isn't a story - it's an action that has elements that can become a story if you're so inclined - but it'll happen after the fact. Like when we're having a beer and telling each other about our favorite PC moments etc.

I'd say generally GAME serves STORY - as mechanism pushing it forward and making it more interesting string of situations and resolutions, tough of course whole Gamist stance of GNS theory, goes other way Story is just excuse to check how my Monk/Shadowdancer/Cyberknight multiclass tiefling works against elemental dragons or smth ;)

It's completely meta. Your character may be *planning* to do things. But do you roleplay that? Do you sit there and brood out loud to your fellow players like you're doing theater for the *purpose* of roleplaying? Normally you just do it - or out of character you do it with the GM and then do it in game. That's the *game*. When you re-tell it to your friends (or think about it yourself) you're doing it after the fact. You plan the big heist, in the game you DO the big heist. Afterward you tell the story about how the Big Heist unfolded (and whether it worked or not, and why).

The game is merely the act of doing, and whatever bits are fun. Is there a narrative? Sure - but that's an emergent property because you as a player have no control over what is going to happen. The GM has no control over what you as the PC is going to do. And so you dance. What emerges is what you will later contextualize into a story (good or bad).


And where did that ends? There is no clear ontological difference between situation and borders of smaller story. Presented situation in novel or TV may be for instance cliffhanger purposefuly ending entire small sub-segment on UNRESOLVED, for narrative purposes. Some unfortunates ended on such cliffhangers. The point is - in written fiction such divisions are artifical way to organize ongoing narrative in way that sells well. In RPG there's like no need for that, I mean if such divisions appear in our mind it's mostly because situations in our mind connects with some dramatic rules of TV or books, but other than that it serves no much purpose. The only beginning and ending in RPG campaign will be ultimately beginning and ending of game.

Again, you're hung up on the metacontext. A Serial is a design construct for the purposes of psychological retention. It's there to keep you turning the page. The STORY is what happens between the beginning, the middle and the end of a narrative work that is fiction or non-fiction. If the cliffhanger never continues - then you don't have a complete story. You might have complete situations that resolved up to the cliffhanger - but the story is not complete, therefore it is not a story.

UNLESS you're telling me a story about how a story never completed. That's the meta part you're getting hung up on.


Yes, but your wife expertise is connected to narrow definition of story - specificaly published written works of fiction. Which is probably mayor but still just one of sub-categories of fiction. And even then ontologically I'd disagree. Maybe such story is lame, and usuitable to publishing, ergo it's bad product, but ontologically still.

I'm not familiar with stories that *aren't* actual stories (beginning, middle, end). If you want to believe a situation is a story, then I *highly* suggest you don't take up storytelling in any form as a profession. If we're discussing philosophy and the use of semantics - then you're still on shakey ground because deriving meaning from a "situation" is highly dependent on the metacontext of the person trying to resolve that meaning from any given situation and is further dependent on the philosophical bandwidth of whomever is listening. It does not make that situation a story, unless again, you're telling a story about two people talking about semantics of meaning as it regards emergent narratives from a singular non-story situation.

This is what we call "circle-jerking".

And of course editors of written fiction professional definitions hold no power over either gaming or English language at large.

I'll duly note that to my editors of my future gaming publications, and send emails out to my former gaming publishers, and my wife while we argue about the use of English. I'm going to go out on a limb and say this politely: unless you're into fan-fiction and spewing it out onto the web, you must not understand a whole lot about publication. As a profession... you're gonna a need an editor. In fact if you had an editor, they would have redlined that entire line and told you to never utter it verbally, or in the written form, LOL.

Gaming unless it's chess, Monopoly or smth like this, runs simultaneously with fiction. And this fiction is by ontological necessity a story. Both situation estabilished and solved are story. Any statement about fictional world is.

Why do you say that? You're making an arbitrary decision free of context. I'm not saying I don't understand what you're meaning - I'm saying you're making distinctions that do not comply with mechanical aspects of reality. Story is narrative driven - TTRPG's have narrative elements but they're mechanically driven. Even diceless games are mechanically driven. But *ANY* game - even Chess or Monopoly can be turned into an narrative RPG (as silly and unfun as it may sound) - but even by doing so, the "story" of what that narrative is happens *after* the fact.

You're hung up on this idea that these things happen in parallel. Okay. I'm not denying that. But I'm saying a "story" isn't a story until it has an ending. And yes you can have stories within stories. You can have stories within aborted stories without endings, but they all happen *after the fact*. I can tell you the story about the Redemption of Jamie Lannister - but the larger story is not complete.

Gaming is different in the sense that you have to enact the agency in the game (mechanics and task-resolution) that is normally left to the writers (and their beautiful editors) of fiction to do with a wave of their proverbial pen. The story itself in fiction isn't dependent on such mechanics. But gamers *require* it. That's the point of gaming.

Omega

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • O
  • Posts: 17093
Re: Telling a story versus presenting a situation.
« Reply #126 on: November 19, 2021, 02:19:25 PM »
They allways fall back on the "everything on earth" argument. Every damn time.

Here. Lets play this game with something else.
Sane people: "Whats a Snake?"
Storygamer: "A centipede, a weasel, a water hose, an elephants trunk, a rope, your finger, The milky Way, water, pasta. And so on till you hit "everything on earth."

caldrail

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
Re: Telling a story versus presenting a situation.
« Reply #127 on: November 19, 2021, 03:12:22 PM »
My own experience is that purely situational RPG campaigns soon lose coherence, and all too often, players. Look at it like this - we live our ordinary lives doing (hopefully) what we please or to meet short term obligations. But the life experience within an RPG is inherently limited. We only play for so many hours a week and you don't actually spend all day risking your life in swordfights or dangerous underground environments in search of hidden treasure (please let me know if this is actually your day job. I would be so curious).

So our real lives are part of everyday existence  and whether we realise it or not, from time to time we get caught up in the headlines and themes that frame the way fate is taking us. Vote for Him, the Man who needs your vote to run your neighbourhood. Oh no, not another booster jab for Covid? No savoury snacks at the shops for a while because potato stocks have run out. Doesn't seem important, but it could be. What happens if a European dictator goes too far and triggers that global crisis, or worse, an all out war? It isn't impossible.

To engage with the fantasy world the GM needs to compensate and give the players some kind of relevance. Levels 1 to 3, they're nobody's basically. 4 to 6, NPC's have heard a story or two about their exploits. 7 to 9, oh ye gods it's them, they're ordering drinks at MY tavern! 10 to 12, yes, this is Emperor Diplodicus calling, I need some assistance with a little problem. 13 to 15 burning bushes speak to you personally. 16 to 19 the gods are defying you to achieve the quest. 20 onward, the Gods themselves quake in their boots. Of course, the dangers you run up against increase too.

But this sort of progression should be measured against the world. Levels 1 to 3, the villagers need help. 4-6, the region needs help. 7 to 9, the kingdom needs help. 10 to 12, you're starting to shape the world around you, and... Well you get the idea.

So there's a big difference between finishing a dungeon and expecting another, compared to finishing a dungeon knowing that you've defeated the minion of a powerful NPC, or you rescued the Princess from the clutches of an evil plot, or you thwarted an attempt by traitors to weaken the Kingdom. Those faraway and important NPC's you introduce slowly, by a mention here and there, later a rumour, then a dark tale told be someone in the know, then you spot them among a crowd, eventually leading to that all important dramatic confrontation in a special scene.

The story is everything. It's what engages the player beyond mere gambling with dice. It demands they make important decisions.

Besides... I like telling stories.

Shasarak

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4032
Re: Telling a story versus presenting a situation.
« Reply #128 on: November 19, 2021, 03:41:58 PM »
Now I just want to hear the next chapter of the Tenbones chronicles.
Who da Drow?  U da drow! - hedgehobbit

There will be poor always,
pathetically struggling,
look at the good things you've got! -  Jesus

tenbones

  • Poobah of the D.O.N.G.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6164
Re: Telling a story versus presenting a situation.
« Reply #129 on: November 19, 2021, 04:01:10 PM »
My own experience is that purely situational RPG campaigns soon lose coherence, and all too often, players. Look at it like this - we live our ordinary lives doing (hopefully) what we please or to meet short term obligations. But the life experience within an RPG is inherently limited. We only play for so many hours a week and you don't actually spend all day risking your life in swordfights or dangerous underground environments in search of hidden treasure (please let me know if this is actually your day job. I would be so curious).

I'll be honest - I don't know what a "situational RPG campaign" is. I run all my campaigns as sandboxes. This doesn't mean there aren't  local, regional, "national" (as such) events occurring - the game is, and always will be, where the PC's are "doing stuff." The GM's job is to contextualize the PC's "situations" with the rest of the world. If you let those situations occur in a vacuum, then your claim holds water - but then i'd counterclaim that this is low-effort, bad GMing.

A good GM makes non-combat stuff as important (or in my case - more important) than just cutting throats and smashing skulls. A good GM grooms the game around the actions of the players, you cultivate their PC's interests, you prune elements that don't have their interests, you nurture the settings conceits in parallel to the PC's actions and the "situations" never end until the campaign itself ends.

My PC's are very much involved with the setting - unexpected things which come to define them, everything form the regularity of their bathing, the types of beverages they prefer to consume, the interests they pursue outside of "adventuring", including politicking, training, gambling, romantic stuff, Guild activities etc. *all* of which are springboards to hosts of "situations" that become adventure-material.

All this is what sandbox GM's do.

So our real lives are part of everyday existence  and whether we realise it or not, from time to time we get caught up in the headlines and themes that frame the way fate is taking us. Vote for Him, the Man who needs your vote to run your neighbourhood. Oh no, not another booster jab for Covid? No savoury snacks at the shops for a while because potato stocks have run out. Doesn't seem important, but it could be. What happens if a European dictator goes too far and triggers that global crisis, or worse, an all out war? It isn't impossible.

To engage with the fantasy world the GM needs to compensate and give the players some kind of relevance. Levels 1 to 3, they're nobody's basically. 4 to 6, NPC's have heard a story or two about their exploits. 7 to 9, oh ye gods it's them, they're ordering drinks at MY tavern! 10 to 12, yes, this is Emperor Diplodicus calling, I need some assistance with a little problem. 13 to 15 burning bushes speak to you personally. 16 to 19 the gods are defying you to achieve the quest. 20 onward, the Gods themselves quake in their boots. Of course, the dangers you run up against increase too.

Well... yeah. This is the job of the GM. And they're not dependent on "levels" which is an artificial construct. They're dependent on the PC's themselves and what they *do*. Just because the PC's are 3rd level and travel into the wilderness and see a sign that says 'Here Be Dragons' - doesn't mean if there is a dragon there, it suddenly disappears because the PC's are too low level.

Giving verisimilitude to your setting makes your players (and their PC's) more disciplined and brings them into the world - rather than keeping them on paper looking at their Level as a justification to "do things".

But this sort of progression should be measured against the world. Levels 1 to 3, the villagers need help. 4-6, the region needs help. 7 to 9, the kingdom needs help. 10 to 12, you're starting to shape the world around you, and... Well you get the idea.

So there's a big difference between finishing a dungeon and expecting another, compared to finishing a dungeon knowing that you've defeated the minion of a powerful NPC, or you rescued the Princess from the clutches of an evil plot, or you thwarted an attempt by traitors to weaken the Kingdom. Those faraway and important NPC's you introduce slowly, by a mention here and there, later a rumour, then a dark tale told be someone in the know, then you spot them among a crowd, eventually leading to that all important dramatic confrontation in a special scene.

The story is everything. It's what engages the player beyond mere gambling with dice. It demands they make important decisions.

Besides... I like telling stories.

This is only true if you're running a module as proscribed to you by someone else. i disagree that storytime-module play is more engaging than sandbox play. The whole point of agency is for PC's to what they want (even if I'm using a module in sandbox - the PC's are perfectly free to disregard it), there is no story other than what happens after the PC's do it. They can follow their own internal narratives, they can follow the situations presented in the world, but if you as a GM are "telling a story" and not giving your player's agency, why game at all?

Why not read them a novel then you don't run the risk of a TPK... (if that's the gamble you're worried about). GM's aren't telling stories, they're presenting a world for PC's (and their players) to romp around in. You can curate those actions into a narrative afterwards and make a cool story out of it when it's over.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2021, 04:09:55 PM by tenbones »

tenbones

  • Poobah of the D.O.N.G.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6164
Re: Telling a story versus presenting a situation.
« Reply #130 on: November 19, 2021, 04:03:34 PM »
Now I just want to hear the next chapter of the Tenbones chronicles.

Chapter 2. How Tenbones stole the secret of Whiskey-Coffee from the Brown Serpent and brought it to his tribe.

Bren

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7638
    • http://honorandintrigue.blogspot.com/
Re: Telling a story versus presenting a situation.
« Reply #131 on: November 19, 2021, 08:23:59 PM »
I've seen this 'argument' about 100 times online and I don't really get  it. For the sake of discussion, let's say that one side agrees that everything is a story. What does the other side win?
Currently running: Runequest in Glorantha + Call of Cthulhu   Currently playing: D&D 5E + RQ
My Blog: For Honor...and Intrigue
I have a gold medal from Ravenswing and Gronan owes me bee

Lunamancer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1293
Re: Telling a story versus presenting a situation.
« Reply #132 on: November 19, 2021, 09:06:50 PM »
"I jumped 24-feet into the air today."

That is fiction. That's not a story. Fiction means it's not real or factual. Yes it's a function of storytelling. But an actual story has a beginning, middle and end.

If jumping was a conscious decision, that implies a motive. It means the character had envisioned some future state that was preferred to the present state. Right there at that point, we have a definite beginning, and we have a potential ending. The "hero" here starts with an initial sense of dissatisfaction--the canonical beginning of a hero's journey story. The overt act serves as the middle. And when it is seen whether or not the act has served its purpose, we have the actual ending.

Motives in stories can be inferred from context rather than stated. But when you take one line with no context and also don't have any comment on the motive, you're not really producing an honest example. It's not like I'm going to drive to the next state over to my brother's house for our weekly game to say, "I jump..." *rolls dice* "..24 feet in the air today. Okay, that's enough gaming for today."

Quote
You can make a semantic argument that a horrible story doesn't need those things - but most normal people, and *anyone* in the business of publishing actual stories for consumption will say otherwise. I'm one of those people.

Let's suppose I go out and buy one of the novels published by the company your wife works for. One that got her stamp of approval and everything. It's definitely a story. You're not disputing that. You're holding it up as the gold standard.

Let's say I start reading it, but like the majority of people who start reading books, let's say I don't finish. I haven't read the ending yet. I don't know the ending. Have I not been reading a story just because I didn't finish?

There is a clear and obvious distinction between someone putting together a product for publication and someone experiencing a story. Most normal people understand that it's preferable and even essential to ship out a complete product. And most normal people also understand that a story of substantial length will not be instantly downloaded into someone's brain and fully appreciated in zero time. It's going to be experienced bite by bite, and there is functionally no difference in the experience between not having yet finished a story and not having a finished story yet.

When you keep trying to make this about publishing and not about experience, you come off as a hammer attacking a screw. I'm not publishing a story of my campaign. I'm experiencing it.
That's my two cents anyway. Carry on, crawler.

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito.

GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7399
  • Now even more Toxic
Re: Telling a story versus presenting a situation.
« Reply #133 on: November 19, 2021, 09:57:18 PM »
"I jumped 24-feet into the air today."

That is fiction. That's not a story. Fiction means it's not real or factual. Yes it's a function of storytelling. But an actual story has a beginning, middle and end.

If jumping was a conscious decision, that implies a motive. It means the character had envisioned some future state that was preferred to the present state. Right there at that point, we have a definite beginning, and we have a potential ending. The "hero" here starts with an initial sense of dissatisfaction--the canonical beginning of a hero's journey story. The overt act serves as the middle. And when it is seen whether or not the act has served its purpose, we have the actual ending.

Motives in stories can be inferred from context rather than stated. But when you take one line with no context and also don't have any comment on the motive, you're not really producing an honest example. It's not like I'm going to drive to the next state over to my brother's house for our weekly game to say, "I jump..." *rolls dice* "..24 feet in the air today. Okay, that's enough gaming for today."

Quote
You can make a semantic argument that a horrible story doesn't need those things - but most normal people, and *anyone* in the business of publishing actual stories for consumption will say otherwise. I'm one of those people.

Let's suppose I go out and buy one of the novels published by the company your wife works for. One that got her stamp of approval and everything. It's definitely a story. You're not disputing that. You're holding it up as the gold standard.

Let's say I start reading it, but like the majority of people who start reading books, let's say I don't finish. I haven't read the ending yet. I don't know the ending. Have I not been reading a story just because I didn't finish?

There is a clear and obvious distinction between someone putting together a product for publication and someone experiencing a story. Most normal people understand that it's preferable and even essential to ship out a complete product. And most normal people also understand that a story of substantial length will not be instantly downloaded into someone's brain and fully appreciated in zero time. It's going to be experienced bite by bite, and there is functionally no difference in the experience between not having yet finished a story and not having a finished story yet.

When you keep trying to make this about publishing and not about experience, you come off as a hammer attacking a screw. I'm not publishing a story of my campaign. I'm experiencing it.

"If I don't mread it it's the same as if didn't had an ending" ... FFS.
Quote from: Rhedyn

Here is why this forum tends to be so stupid. Many people here think Joe Biden is "The Left", when he is actually Far Right and every US republican is just an idiot.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell

Omega

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • O
  • Posts: 17093
Re: Telling a story versus presenting a situation.
« Reply #134 on: November 20, 2021, 03:11:53 AM »
I've seen this 'argument' about 100 times online and I don't really get  it. For the sake of discussion, let's say that one side agrees that everything is a story. What does the other side win?

They win by forcing everyone to believe that black is white and then they all get trampled to death at the next zebra crossing.

Keep in mind that they treat storytelling/storygaming like a sex fetish that they have to co-opt every other sex fetish, er RPG, board game, mowing the lawn, into performing too. And they can get alot of traction by lies and predating on the gullible.