QuoteThat 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.

No... it does not. By Oxford: "a description of events and people that the writer or speaker has invented in order to entertain people". So sure there is certain intentional purpose - mainly entertainment. I guess in this rare example as it's used for debate, not entertainment it would not count, but generally during RPG session, well people play for entertainment of various sorts. And if Player Joe declares that his barbarian Shmoglebock is going to jump 24 ft on a back of wicked bugdragon, that's already act of storytelling.

QuoteYou 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.

Business of publishing written novels and short stories - which are literary works - had jackshit authority over oral stories. Either those generated by gaming RPG, or those improvised by old shamans near firecamp of Siberian tribe of reindeer hunters. It's simply beyond area of expertise. Aside of most insane storytellers no-ones want for RPG stories to be like novels, or films and follow their rules.

QuoteYou 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*.

And game consist of ongoing fictional situation ergo story, and all out-of-fiction mechanism that replaces players bias in unraveling those events - ergo what for simplicity I called game.

QuoteCase 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*.

Entering encounter is ALREADY something that happened. Already estabilished fact. That's the point you can divide without problem timeline in really little pieces. Fight in 100 microevents. And each estabilished event become story by sheer power of being estabilished fact in fictional world.

QuoteGaming 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.

Gaming itself as a social act of sitting roung table obviously is not a story. Not even most rampant storygamers claim such nonsense. But roleplaying game generates specific fictions when shit happens and that's a story. Story like - fictional world and events created for entertainment, not story - as recollection of our favourite moment from gaming night.

QuoteIt'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).

If player is playing big heist then generally speaking he need to describe fictional actions of his character. And that itself, real live time is already a story.
Game = whole event. Story = whatever is happening in fictional world game generates including GM descriptions, players declaration of actions, results of random rolls declared by GM or players.

QuoteThe 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).

Yes that's why it's collaborative one, no one holds full control of events, and that's whole thrill. But it's emergent nature does not make it not-a-story. Story does not need to be contextualized, or following certain form. It only needs to happen in fiction, and that's what going op - happening in fiction. With good luck not Mark Wahlberg's one.

QuoteIf 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.

Well then I disagree. I do not have complete TV-show, narrative arc, but story is a story. It does not need completion, or beginning to be a story. There were fictional events filmed for my entertainment - that's enough to make it in essence story. Just like DM's description of fictional town is enough.

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

No there's nothing meta about it - though of course such recollection of game session or unfinished TV-series would also be a story, though under different of definitions given by Oxfrod Dictionary. What I say is directly straightforward - fiction within a game, just like fiction of TV show is a story, whether finished or not, completed or not, planned from beginning to end, improvised, randomly generated, does not matter. Every sentence declaring state of fiction is a sentence of ongoing story.

QuoteI'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.

Primo, of course there were novels and shorts in history of writing that does not followed BME model. Some even acclaimed. Though of course it's risky model to follow.
Secundo, profession storytelling is just a snippet of storytelling at large. Of course it follows different rules - because it's usually meant to be commerce, or at least critical success. It's meant for people who did not participated in creating to have fun. Now of course story within RPG does not follow such rules, because it it not planned for commercial use.
Though of course there are probably few dozens streaming channels living from streaming sessions these days so even utter clunkiness of RPG can apparently sell.

QuoteIf 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.

And again, I shall tell that any fictional situation presented as fact is already part of story, and follow up is irrelevant for it ontological status as story. Deriving meaning is here highly subjective I mean any recipient of any story can take very different meaning, so that's beyond scope of this discussion at all. Point is when GM declares: "It was late afternoon, when from the deep shadows of Mirkwood you heard heavy footsteps, and hoots, they seems to be nearer to you with every second." - this declaration is already a story. How story develops later - well that's up to players.

QuoteI'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.

Dude. I do not give a shit about publication. Publication is irrelevant from this discussion. Stories were told, and improvised, and planned, for millenia before any schmuck decided to make money on them. So commercial stories do not matter here. We do not discuss it, and I'm sure you wife is great editor, but her expertise in how to sell a novel does not even in a little give her authority to declare what is and what is not story per se. What do you need to do to write good novel in no way influence whether fiction generated by RPG is story. Period.

QuoteWhy 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.

That I definitely disagree in terms of TTRPG per se. TTRPG is both mechanics and narrative and often also worldbuilding driven. All of those elements needs to coexist otherwise it's not RPG but boardgame, or storygame, or lorebook. I play RPG for my character to do some crazy shit, that's narrative drive, very personal but narrative. Mechanics is only there in service to story, not other way round, it is there to solve cituations of uncertainity and add thrill of risk to overall experience. But I can have thrill of experience playing dice game without any characters.
What make difference is narrative element of fiction. It's what separates RPG from you know all the other games in history.

TBH I had gaming sessions in life, quite fine without any use of mechanics, because we were just fooling around as characters, and game did not have much to solve in this situation. And it still was the same game, as heavy tactical sessions later and earlier. What connected them was... our personal narrative.

QuoteYou'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 I disagree with this condition.

QuoteGaming 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.

Primo as I mentioned - not always - there are long chunks of RPG sessions not using mechanics. But of course yes - that's the thrill element. That's why there is strong movement both in OSR and storygamers to respect mechanics beause otherwise it's gonna turn into circle-jerk of GM or wannabe actors. Though of course there is plenty people who turned from RPG to purely RP... RPN I'm gonna say because usually there is still players with characters and GM, but mechanicless storytelling (which is not even storygame) because they felt mechanics is going in the way.
I like my risk and chances, but precisely because they generate interesting fictional results. They make story better most time, because subverting expectations but not in stupid way.
That's my shtick. Alas it's story-driven and mechanics is just servant of story used in specific situations.

And as mechanis is used often but not infrequently why fiction is developing all the time, I'd say it's fiction/story that holds primacy in TTRPG generally speaking.
And that's probably why storygamers and pure storytellers are orbiting around TTRPG, but TTRPG is not orbiting around boardgames and wargames, not any more.

Because primal element is the same - just methods can be quite different. While primacy of chess for instance is game challenge itself.

QuoteThey allways fall back on the "everything on earth" argument. Every damn time.

Not "everything on earth". Everything. In. Fiction.

QuoteMy 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.

This.

QuoteI'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.

That's very good and I condone it fullheartedly. Also 90% of things you described is story. And that's good.
That also applies to later part of this post. That's how I would like to run things.

QuoteThis 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?

Indeed. But let's also consider - most of modules, even long campaigns are mostly string of challenges for PC's (not the good question is whether let's say Pathfinder AP is a story or will it become a story only in moment of gaming, now that's interesting ontology, but nevertheless). I've seen OSR remades of them to even more sandboxey nature. but even as it is - they rarely force PC to do something. You'll just better be ready to improvise when they take it of the given string of challenges.

And only bad modules really force you to railroad PC's most (unless let's say we speak about one-shots or short campaign in horror genre, when taking agency away is sort of part of shtick).

QuoteGM's aren't telling stories, they're presenting a world for PC's (and their players) to romp around in.

Sure they are. And even when we use your weird "only past matters" definition - then of course according to your own description you run and change world with time so it's not static. Ergo you invent stories happening within, pushing timeline forward, that does not contain and are not influenced by PC's just so setting can feel alive with events.

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

Subjectively yes.

QuoteThey 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.

Yeah, nice strawman dude.

QuoteWhy 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.

If I want to read to read a book I've got plenty of those on the shelf RPG's have a distinct advantage that we add interaction, and both ways, but making a narrative after the fact means I have to reconcile the situation for the players and they don't have to weigh their own decisions. Seems a little limiting to me.

It was in fact the most story driven campaign that my players remembered fondly, and one of them was upset that it had to come to an end. I was mapping out the story beforehand each week, and that gave me a framework to enliven NPC's and their actions. It allowed me to create unexpected twists in the plot (discovering an NPC companion was in fact a former disciple of a great evil in hiding was almost a revelation to them - I enjoyed portraying that - though the disappearance of a veteran warrior had gotten them suspicious already)

I do present a world for the PCs. I try to make it a world that has its own existence rather than a stage backdrop. At the height of that campaign, political factions within the Seven Cities competed. A Cardinal working to become dictator, the nobleman trying to mount a popular uprising, the Council of High Elders trying to maintain the status quo, or if you want to push the possibilities, a growing resurgence of the Old Faith to stave off what they saw as a greater evil which was looming on the horizon as surviving evil disciples plotted to make revenge on each other and be the one to free their old master to rule again. Players made their choice (the wrong one, as I saw it, but hey, it's a game) and worked toward the objective they had chosen within that overall story. Improvisational theatre was such a great part of it. But still a story.

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 20, 2021, 07:26:10 AM

QuoteThat 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.

No... it does not. By Oxford: "a description of events and people that the writer or speaker has invented in order to entertain people". So sure there is certain intentional purpose - mainly entertainment. I guess in this rare example as it's used for debate, not entertainment it would not count, but generally during RPG session, well people play for entertainment of various sorts. And if Player Joe declares that his barbarian Shmoglebock is going to jump 24 ft on a back of wicked bugdragon, that's already act of storytelling.

QuoteYou 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.

Business of publishing written novels and short stories - which are literary works - had jackshit authority over oral stories. Either those generated by gaming RPG, or those improvised by old shamans near firecamp of Siberian tribe of reindeer hunters. It's simply beyond area of expertise. Aside of most insane storytellers no-ones want for RPG stories to be like novels, or films and follow their rules.

QuoteYou 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*.

And game consist of ongoing fictional situation ergo story, and all out-of-fiction mechanism that replaces players bias in unraveling those events - ergo what for simplicity I called game.

QuoteCase 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*.

Entering encounter is ALREADY something that happened. Already estabilished fact. That's the point you can divide without problem timeline in really little pieces. Fight in 100 microevents. And each estabilished event become story by sheer power of being estabilished fact in fictional world.

QuoteGaming 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.

Gaming itself as a social act of sitting roung table obviously is not a story. Not even most rampant storygamers claim such nonsense. But roleplaying game generates specific fictions when shit happens and that's a story. Story like - fictional world and events created for entertainment, not story - as recollection of our favourite moment from gaming night.

QuoteIt'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).

If player is playing big heist then generally speaking he need to describe fictional actions of his character. And that itself, real live time is already a story.
Game = whole event. Story = whatever is happening in fictional world game generates including GM descriptions, players declaration of actions, results of random rolls declared by GM or players.

QuoteThe 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).

Yes that's why it's collaborative one, no one holds full control of events, and that's whole thrill. But it's emergent nature does not make it not-a-story. Story does not need to be contextualized, or following certain form. It only needs to happen in fiction, and that's what going op - happening in fiction. With good luck not Mark Wahlberg's one.

QuoteIf 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.

Well then I disagree. I do not have complete TV-show, narrative arc, but story is a story. It does not need completion, or beginning to be a story. There were fictional events filmed for my entertainment - that's enough to make it in essence story. Just like DM's description of fictional town is enough.

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

No there's nothing meta about it - though of course such recollection of game session or unfinished TV-series would also be a story, though under different of definitions given by Oxfrod Dictionary. What I say is directly straightforward - fiction within a game, just like fiction of TV show is a story, whether finished or not, completed or not, planned from beginning to end, improvised, randomly generated, does not matter. Every sentence declaring state of fiction is a sentence of ongoing story.

QuoteI'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.

Primo, of course there were novels and shorts in history of writing that does not followed BME model. Some even acclaimed. Though of course it's risky model to follow.
Secundo, profession storytelling is just a snippet of storytelling at large. Of course it follows different rules - because it's usually meant to be commerce, or at least critical success. It's meant for people who did not participated in creating to have fun. Now of course story within RPG does not follow such rules, because it it not planned for commercial use.
Though of course there are probably few dozens streaming channels living from streaming sessions these days so even utter clunkiness of RPG can apparently sell.

QuoteIf 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.

And again, I shall tell that any fictional situation presented as fact is already part of story, and follow up is irrelevant for it ontological status as story. Deriving meaning is here highly subjective I mean any recipient of any story can take very different meaning, so that's beyond scope of this discussion at all. Point is when GM declares: "It was late afternoon, when from the deep shadows of Mirkwood you heard heavy footsteps, and hoots, they seems to be nearer to you with every second." - this declaration is already a story. How story develops later - well that's up to players.

QuoteI'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.

Dude. I do not give a shit about publication. Publication is irrelevant from this discussion. Stories were told, and improvised, and planned, for millenia before any schmuck decided to make money on them. So commercial stories do not matter here. We do not discuss it, and I'm sure you wife is great editor, but her expertise in how to sell a novel does not even in a little give her authority to declare what is and what is not story per se. What do you need to do to write good novel in no way influence whether fiction generated by RPG is story. Period.

QuoteWhy 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.

That I definitely disagree in terms of TTRPG per se. TTRPG is both mechanics and narrative and often also worldbuilding driven. All of those elements needs to coexist otherwise it's not RPG but boardgame, or storygame, or lorebook. I play RPG for my character to do some crazy shit, that's narrative drive, very personal but narrative. Mechanics is only there in service to story, not other way round, it is there to solve cituations of uncertainity and add thrill of risk to overall experience. But I can have thrill of experience playing dice game without any characters.
What make difference is narrative element of fiction. It's what separates RPG from you know all the other games in history.

TBH I had gaming sessions in life, quite fine without any use of mechanics, because we were just fooling around as characters, and game did not have much to solve in this situation. And it still was the same game, as heavy tactical sessions later and earlier. What connected them was... our personal narrative.

QuoteYou'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 I disagree with this condition.

QuoteGaming 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.

Primo as I mentioned - not always - there are long chunks of RPG sessions not using mechanics. But of course yes - that's the thrill element. That's why there is strong movement both in OSR and storygamers to respect mechanics beause otherwise it's gonna turn into circle-jerk of GM or wannabe actors. Though of course there is plenty people who turned from RPG to purely RP... RPN I'm gonna say because usually there is still players with characters and GM, but mechanicless storytelling (which is not even storygame) because they felt mechanics is going in the way.
I like my risk and chances, but precisely because they generate interesting fictional results. They make story better most time, because subverting expectations but not in stupid way.
That's my shtick. Alas it's story-driven and mechanics is just servant of story used in specific situations.

And as mechanis is used often but not infrequently why fiction is developing all the time, I'd say it's fiction/story that holds primacy in TTRPG generally speaking.
And that's probably why storygamers and pure storytellers are orbiting around TTRPG, but TTRPG is not orbiting around boardgames and wargames, not any more.

Because primal element is the same - just methods can be quite different. While primacy of chess for instance is game challenge itself.

QuoteThey allways fall back on the "everything on earth" argument. Every damn time.

Not "everything on earth". Everything. In. Fiction.

QuoteMy 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.

This.

QuoteI'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.

That's very good and I condone it fullheartedly. Also 90% of things you described is story. And that's good.
That also applies to later part of this post. That's how I would like to run things.

QuoteThis 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?

Indeed. But let's also consider - most of modules, even long campaigns are mostly string of challenges for PC's (not the good question is whether let's say Pathfinder AP is a story or will it become a story only in moment of gaming, now that's interesting ontology, but nevertheless). I've seen OSR remades of them to even more sandboxey nature. but even as it is - they rarely force PC to do something. You'll just better be ready to improvise when they take it of the given string of challenges.

And only bad modules really force you to railroad PC's most (unless let's say we speak about one-shots or short campaign in horror genre, when taking agency away is sort of part of shtick).

QuoteGM's aren't telling stories, they're presenting a world for PC's (and their players) to romp around in.

Sure they are. And even when we use your weird "only past matters" definition - then of course according to your own description you run and change world with time so it's not static. Ergo you invent stories happening within, pushing timeline forward, that does not contain and are not influenced by PC's just so setting can feel alive with events.

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

Subjectively yes.

QuoteThey 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.

Yeah, nice strawman dude.

Greetings!

Great commentary, Wrath of God!

D&D is and always has been a kind of storytelling game. Just about anyone beyond here would tell you that. Get your 12 year old sister to play D&D with you for just a few sessions. Without any kind of coaching or other ropaganda, ask he what she has been doing, or to describe D&D. I guarantee that she would say, "D&D is a fun storygame!" or "D&D is this weird, awesome game about telling stories!"

Also, yeah, Oral Storytelling. Publishing? D&D is an oral storytelling game. It doesn't have anything to do with the requirements or structure of professional, written publishing.

I'm sorry. OXFORD DICTIONARY states that the definition of story and storytelling is much more broad and fluid than what many people here seem to insist. NO. Story is not just what happens after. Story doesn't require beginning, middle, and conclusion. OXFORD DICTIONARY explains that storytelling comes in different forms, different structures, different styles. NOT JUST ONE FORM.

Repeat again and again. NOT JUST ONE FORM.

Wrath of God, it seems clear that defining D&D, describing D&D, discussing different aspects of how the game is developed and played, some people want there to be only one definition, only one way to describe it--their way. ONLY ONE WAY. It somehow drives them to have an emotional stroke to accept the deeper truth that storytelling has broad definitions, and that D&D is defined and experienced in different ways by different people--which are all valid.

I still don't understand where the emotional hostility comes from. This kind of deep-seated loathing and rage...no, no, there can only be my definition of storytelling!

Sorry, but OXFORD DICTIONARY clearly explains how the people that claim storytelling must have a single, rigid structure are just wrong. They have let their own emotional experiences stand in the way of them comprehending--and accepting--the refined and authoritative wisdom of a world-class dictionary. Remember also, Wrath of God, if they accepted the OXFORD DICTIONARY's conclusions--that would mean they would have to admit that they were wrong. They were mistaken. They actually understood something wrong, and didn't fully appreciate the best and more accurate understanding.

If you recall, I mentioned a number of YouTube people. Publishers, crafting people, gamers. Most have several thousand followers, or even tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of followers. These people have been gaming for 10, 20, 30 years. They all refer to D&D as a game of storytelling, of when you tell your stories, of developing your stories in the game, as you experience stories in the game, and on and on and on. It is clear that they all understand D&D through the Oxford definition of story, and not some rigid, narrow, single definition.

It's interesting, because you get to see what lots of other people think about D&D, how they view the game, and how they view storytelling, and experience RPG's.

Looking at OXFORD'S, it is clearly defined as a factual argument. Some people refuse to accept facts, so they insist on their own emotion-based beliefs, instead of facts. Like I mentioned, understanding the broad scope and definition of stories and storytelling is either something you "Get" or you don't. It is clear many people have a deep-seated emotional blockage or wall inside their minds that fights with them to understand there is a broad and more open definition of stories and storytelling--storytelling isn't just one definition, and furthermore, it doesn't need to be. That gnawing fact somehow disturbs them, Wrath of God. Like a Fly that evades them, and keeps landing on them to bite them. I think it is awesome that D&D is a story game, and is all about stories and storytelling. It always has been. That is what makes it different from Chess or Monopoly.

Cheers!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 20, 2021, 07:26:10 AM

QuoteThey 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.

Yeah, nice strawman dude.

Well yes. You have a very nice strawman? But it seems to be on fire and your attempts to put it out with gasoline seems to be contra productive. 

Quote from: SHARK on November 20, 2021, 12:47:36 PM
I'm sorry. OXFORD DICTIONARY states that the definition of story and storytelling is much more broad and fluid than what many people here seem to insist. NO. Story is not just what happens after. Story doesn't require beginning, middle, and conclusion. OXFORD DICTIONARY explains that storytelling comes in different forms, different structures, different styles. NOT JUST ONE FORM.

Repeat again and again. NOT JUST ONE FORM.

Absolutely. Story is hardly unique in the English language for have multiple definitions. But just to be clear about my own position, I'm not talking about any sort of avant-garde type of story, nor am I looking to use story in a sense that is not applicable to the context of RPGs. I'm talking about stories with all the beginning, middle, and end parts. I'm mainly talking about hero's journey type of stories, which go all the way back to the earliest known stories. The parts of the hero's journey have been very well hashed out, and I'm approaching things in a very disciplined matter. So I'm not even operating in a grey area.

QuoteWrath of God, it seems clear that defining D&D, describing D&D, discussing different aspects of how the game is developed and played, some people want there to be only one definition, only one way to describe it--their way. ONLY ONE WAY. It somehow drives them to have an emotional stroke to accept the deeper truth that storytelling has broad definitions, and that D&D is defined and experienced in different ways by different people--which are all valid.

I still don't understand where the emotional hostility comes from. This kind of deep-seated loathing and rage...no, no, there can only be my definition of storytelling!

When people are digging their heels into a position beyond all reason and in the face of obvious contrary evidence, it's time to start taking of note of what they are accusing others of. That will tell you what they're up to. Confession by projection. I know at the very least you and I have been clear we're not saying everything is a story. Yet that's the strawman a lot of them are attacking. They're accusing us of using an overly broad definition because they're using an overly narrow one. Nuance is not on their side, so the best strategy is to exclude the middle.

Quote from: Lunamancer on November 21, 2021, 10:14:45 AM

Quote from: SHARK on November 20, 2021, 12:47:36 PM
I'm sorry. OXFORD DICTIONARY states that the definition of story and storytelling is much more broad and fluid than what many people here seem to insist. NO. Story is not just what happens after. Story doesn't require beginning, middle, and conclusion. OXFORD DICTIONARY explains that storytelling comes in different forms, different structures, different styles. NOT JUST ONE FORM.

Repeat again and again. NOT JUST ONE FORM.

Absolutely. Story is hardly unique in the English language for have multiple definitions. But just to be clear about my own position, I'm not talking about any sort of avant-garde type of story, nor am I looking to use story in a sense that is not applicable to the context of RPGs. I'm talking about stories with all the beginning, middle, and end parts. I'm mainly talking about hero's journey type of stories, which go all the way back to the earliest known stories. The parts of the hero's journey have been very well hashed out, and I'm approaching things in a very disciplined matter. So I'm not even operating in a grey area.

QuoteWrath of God, it seems clear that defining D&D, describing D&D, discussing different aspects of how the game is developed and played, some people want there to be only one definition, only one way to describe it--their way. ONLY ONE WAY. It somehow drives them to have an emotional stroke to accept the deeper truth that storytelling has broad definitions, and that D&D is defined and experienced in different ways by different people--which are all valid.

I still don't understand where the emotional hostility comes from. This kind of deep-seated loathing and rage...no, no, there can only be my definition of storytelling!

When people are digging their heels into a position beyond all reason and in the face of obvious contrary evidence, it's time to start taking of note of what they are accusing others of. That will tell you what they're up to. Confession by projection. I know at the very least you and I have been clear we're not saying everything is a story. Yet that's the strawman a lot of them are attacking. They're accusing us of using an overly broad definition because they're using an overly narrow one. Nuance is not on their side, so the best strategy is to exclude the middle.

Greetings!

Brilliant, Lunamancer! I agree entirely. That's especially neat--they are projecting that we are using an overly broad definition because they are using an overly narrow definition. That's sweet, and clever, and sharp.

And yeah, not "everything is a story!" I don't know though why they *want* to define storytelling so narrowly? D&D is a wonderful storytelling game, like you said, embracing the Hero's Journey in so many ways and aspects, why would a person seethe and rage against using a broader definition or application? People LOVE storytelling. It is like I mentioned in an earlier post, storytelling is a crucial component to how we experience life, and learn just about anything meaningful. People love stories and storytelling.

D&D is a game where you make up a fictional avatar that "lives" in a fantastic world. BOOM. That right there is the be all and end all of D&D's popularity and appeal. THAT"s why people are drawn to playing D&D.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

These half-page scroll debates are not even on topic.

Original post written another way is asking this: When playing or DMg a game, is it more important to use story pacing and beats OR present a situation, and see what people do about it?

This is asking for opinion, so there is no right or wrong.

But if someone asked me to play in their game, where they focus on story pacing and beats OVER simply playing things out in character, at whatever pace feels right...I would quickly decline their game and wish them luck. Smells like a game with theatre flunkies to me.

Quote from: Bren 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?

I have no fucking idea.

But I'm willing to have that discussion. Something I've realized very acutely, is how people process the act of gaming on several different axis. Some people may only be able to process TTRPG's in this narrative form where they are passive participants that happen to throw dice on occasion for the edification to pretend they have agency, when it's really just storytime/socializing etc.

As someone that writes, plays TTRPG's, does design for both (I help in story-editing and development for other writers with my wife), I definitely have some opinions.

But what I've seen recently as democratization of writing expands and allows more and more people with *zero* understanding of writing or storytelling experience or skill, is that the mental process of storytelling itself apparently an alien thing.

Those people tend to think of this whole "situation" vs. "story" thing as the same thing, and have a really hard time understanding the difference. Especially when it comes to POV. To say nothing about not understanding character agency etc. in relation to the story narrative from a *construction* process. Which is why it's so funny to see this being talked about in gaming.

To see people say these same things from a TTRPG perspective is a bit bewildering to me - because from a writers viewpoint (especially those that have never gamed) the act of gaming is like a simulation of storytelling removed entirely from the act of writing. Who the hell knows what the characters are going to do if the writer isn't doing the writing? It's the non-stop What If <X>? moment when writers are musing or bandying things around with their editors on establishing the actual story and how it's going to be told for the purposes of consumption.

This thread is again a startling reminder of how their perception of these things is "out there".

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 20, 2021, 07:26:10 AM

No... it does not. By Oxford: "a description of events and people that the writer or speaker has invented in order to entertain people". So sure there is certain intentional purpose - mainly entertainment. I guess in this rare example as it's used for debate, not entertainment it would not count, but generally during RPG session, well people play for entertainment of various sorts. And if Player Joe declares that his barbarian Shmoglebock is going to jump 24 ft on a back of wicked bugdragon, that's already act of storytelling.

"Smoglebock attempting to jump 24-ft on the back of a bugdragon" IS NOT a story by your own words . It hasn't even happened. Unless you're telling me a story outside of the act itself. At *best* it's non-contextual fragment of someone trying to tell a story. You are literally debating with me semantics

Even the Oxford definition cites a *PLURALITY* of events to create, ostensibly, a narrative. Not a singular action. Nor even a singular event.

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 20, 2021, 07:26:10 AM
Business of publishing written novels and short stories - which are literary works - had jackshit authority over oral stories. Either those generated by gaming RPG, or those improvised by old shamans near firecamp of Siberian tribe of reindeer hunters. It's simply beyond area of expertise. Aside of most insane storytellers no-ones want for RPG stories to be like novels, or films and follow their rules.

Wait... are you telling me you sit around while a GM orates you a story about what your characters do? Because what does oral tradition have to do with any of this in relation to the thread. A GM can describe a situation. A Player can react to the situation. The game can be played to figure out how that situation is *resolved*. Once that happens you have a small story you can then tell. It happens afterwards because the narrative of the story has to be contextualized. Again, if you're ignoring thousands of years of written *and* oral tradition to make some vague point about literary written works (hint: there are no oral stories you know of that weren't eventually written down from thousands of years ago unless you're part of a very rare group of people), I'm finding you're arguing some semantics point that is such an extreme outlier you're being disingenuous.

QuoteYou 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*.

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 20, 2021, 07:26:10 AMAnd game consist of ongoing fictional situation ergo story, and all out-of-fiction mechanism that replaces players bias in unraveling those events - ergo what for simplicity I called game.

Do you seriously believe that people generally game this way? What is the story that is being told here? That Bob picked up his d20 and rolled the die. That GM Judy adjudicated the ruling of the d20. Bob *seemed* pleased. GM Judy told him to roll a d6 for damage. Bob rolled the d6 (and lied, saying it was a 6). GM Judy didn't notice, and adjudicated the number. Bob won the game.

In game - none of those things are happening until the meta-actions of playing the game occur. And none of the narrative of whatever Gogthar the Cheating Barbarian are known until the mechanics of the gaming portion of play occur. It's not until those things happen you'll have a "story".

I'm only pointing this out for clarification (I don't really care whether you believe me or not). But here - why don't you give us a written example of an Oral recitation of this scenario which qualifies your point on how this is really done. Seriously - give us an example. Or are you just being argumentative for some reason? I'm not sure. What would this "story" look/sound like?

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 20, 2021, 07:26:10 AMEntering encounter is ALREADY something that happened. Already estabilished fact. That's the point you can divide without problem timeline in really little pieces. Fight in 100 microevents. And each estabilished event become story by sheer power of being estabilished fact in fictional world.

So "story" is anything you say it is? 100 micro-events are 100 micro-stories? #1 Seems like a horrible way to tell a story (orally or in written form). #2 what kind of game are you playing if the agency of the PC's are pre-established? Nothing is happening until something happens. You only know it *after* it has happened. This is the difference between being told a story and writing a story for someone to read it. Even in your own words the 100-micro-events have to be narratively constructed to make sense. If you saw a still-shot of a guy swinging a sword in ONE image, that is not a story. You have to construct a narrative around it - like what Artsy Fartsy people do when staring at a painting.

It happens afterward.

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 20, 2021, 07:26:10 AM
Gaming itself as a social act of sitting roung table obviously is not a story. Not even most rampant storygamers claim such nonsense. But roleplaying game generates specific fictions when shit happens and that's a story. Story like - fictional world and events created for entertainment, not story - as recollection of our favourite moment from gaming night.

Yet there are tons of books (bad ones mostly) telling stories of people sitting around a table playing TTRPGs. They also delve into the in-universe events WITHIN the RPG... but guess what's really *not* happening? An actual game. It's stories about people playing games. Not actual gaming.

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 20, 2021, 07:26:10 AMIf player is playing big heist then generally speaking he need to describe fictional actions of his character. And that itself, real live time is already a story.

Except without a middle or end - it's not a story. I already staked my claim on this. No oral tradition ends in the beginning with no middle or end either.

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 20, 2021, 07:26:10 AMGame = whole event. Story = whatever is happening in fictional world game generates including GM descriptions, players declaration of actions, results of random rolls declared by GM or players.

Wrong. I literally have games that run for *years* that are comprised of many many events. I could tell you stories of those events <--stories! But the game ends when the game ends. The stories, again, are narratives curated from those events AFTER the fact.

Unless there is something specific about players rolling dice, pencils scratching paper/butts/heads, out of the game - those things are usually not part of the narrative and therefore not pertinent to the "story". Unless it is - but then you're still telling it after the fact. And without knowing what the end of this hypothesis is... /drum roll.... there is no story.

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 20, 2021, 07:26:10 AMYes that's why it's collaborative one, no one holds full control of events, and that's whole thrill. But it's emergent nature does not make it not-a-story. Story does not need to be contextualized, or following certain form. It only needs to happen in fiction, and that's what going op - happening in fiction. With good luck not Mark Wahlberg's one.

Dunno if you realize this - but when I'm gaming, I'm not telling a story. That's kind of the point of this conversation. I'm running a game. My players are DOING things with their PC's. The narrative is what emerges. The emergent narratives will later become stories we tell ourselves - but it happens after the gaming part. That's all I'm saying. They are mutually exclusive actions. If I played tic-tac-toe whatever narratives I attach within the game of tic-tac-toe game have to be knitted together to make sense.

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 20, 2021, 07:26:10 AM
Well then I disagree. I do not have complete TV-show, narrative arc, but story is a story. It does not need completion, or beginning to be a story. There were fictional events filmed for my entertainment - that's enough to make it in essence story. Just like DM's description of fictional town is enough.

You may have stories within a story - which may be unfinished. But if the overall story is unfinished... then there you go. It's not a story.

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 20, 2021, 07:26:10 AMNo there's nothing meta about it - though of course such recollection of game session or unfinished TV-series would also be a story, though under different of definitions given by Oxfrod Dictionary. What I say is directly straightforward - fiction within a game, just like fiction of TV show is a story, whether finished or not, completed or not, planned from beginning to end, improvised, randomly generated, does not matter. Every sentence declaring state of fiction is a sentence of ongoing story.

I don't think you understand what you just wrote. Unless you're playing a game where you're deciding the meaning of the game round by round, action by action before and after any dice-roll, the act of assuming those outcomes is by definition meta.

It's like asking the audience the meaning of what the actors should do on stage and knowing the outcome of those actions in each scene beforehand and pretending that agency is real. Either you're *TELLING* a story, or you're dynamically playing a game where the outcomes are unknown. Which is it?

I'm not, nor have I ever, said that narratives don't emerge from gaming - I'm saying emphatically they happen AFTERWARDS. It might be milliseconds afterwards - but they're afterwards nevertheless. You don't have that crowning moment of the Hero killing the Villain dramatically until that d20 is rolled and it comes up 20! and the photons from the lightbulb bounce off that d20 and go into your eyes and fire up your optic nerve and hit your grey-matter and you get excited and then realize WHAT IT MEANS. It is still *after* the fact.

You'll slice-and-dice those narratives of everything that led to that point later and have a nice little story to tell.

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 20, 2021, 07:26:10 AM
Primo, of course there were novels and shorts in history of writing that does not followed BME model. Some even acclaimed. Though of course it's risky model to follow.
Secundo, profession storytelling is just a snippet of storytelling at large. Of course it follows different rules - because it's usually meant to be commerce, or at least critical success. It's meant for people who did not participated in creating to have fun. Now of course story within RPG does not follow such rules, because it it not planned for commercial use.
Though of course there are probably few dozens streaming channels living from streaming sessions these days so even utter clunkiness of RPG can apparently sell.

For this to be the hill you're willing to die on for the sake of discussion would assume you believe Gaming is largely played this way. Otherwise... you could say "ah, yes, I see what you're saying. I agree - storytelling is not gaming but you can make stories out of a game-experience."

If you believe that TTRPG's are storytelling vehicles unto themselves, and are willing to stick with it. Well I hope you enjoy your storytelling gaming and it gives you satisfaction.

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 20, 2021, 07:26:10 AMAnd again, I shall tell that any fictional situation presented as fact is already part of story and follow up is irrelevant for it ontological status as story.

"I jumped 24-feet into the air today after I rolled a d20."

Is that IN FACT a factual story? Tell us now and reveal your foolishness. Otherwise you're proving my point.

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 20, 2021, 07:26:10 AMDude. I do not give a shit about publication. Publication is irrelevant from this discussion. Stories were told, and improvised, and planned, for millenia before any schmuck decided to make money on them.

But were ANY of them done by tossing dice and playing a TTRPG? If not then should I give a shit about your inconsistent outlier opinion? What *exactly* are you arguing then? "stories" happen? I'm in the profession of making stories, making games, AND playing games. I know the difference.

You're making some weird claim at some very shaky points that they're all one in the same. I'm being pretty clear they're not (though they have elements that they share).

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 20, 2021, 07:26:10 AMSo commercial stories do not matter here. We do not discuss it, and I'm sure you wife is great editor, but her expertise in how to sell a novel does not even in a little give her authority to declare what is and what is not story per se. What do you need to do to write good novel in no way influence whether fiction generated by RPG is story. Period.

Fiction comes after the RPG. <--- your mask is slipping. And you're making my point... it seems like you just want to argue.

/snip...

You know, I could keep going, but time is money. Good luck to you - I hope you enjoy your storygaming or whatever you wanna call it. I think you're arguing to argue, and hey! Nothing about what you've said has changed my position - but you've literally admitted it. I'm okay with it - and I hope you're okay with it too.

LOL this is silly.

Quote from: FingerRod on November 21, 2021, 03:00:35 PM
These half-page scroll debates are not even on topic.

Original post written another way is asking this: When playing or DMg a game, is it more important to use story pacing and beats OR present a situation, and see what people do about it?

Both. Some players are super-passive, and others aren't. You use the tool that moves things along. Problem solved?

This whole discursion about TTRPG's being Stories is stupid (and yes I understand the irony of me saying it).

RPGs aren't stories. They're Shamanic Vision Quests.
That's why the 'player' is both participant and observer.

Quote from: S'mon on November 22, 2021, 01:22:29 PM
RPGs aren't stories. They're Shamanic Vision Quests.
That's why the 'player' is both participant and observer.

I can get behind this.

Quote from: tenbones on November 22, 2021, 03:10:22 PM

Quote from: S'mon on November 22, 2021, 01:22:29 PM
RPGs aren't stories. They're Shamanic Vision Quests.
That's why the 'player' is both participant and observer.

I can get behind this.

You need a box set with 2 booklets, 7 dice, a crayon, and a peyote cactus.

Quote from: FingerRod on November 21, 2021, 03:00:35 PM
These half-page scroll debates are not even on topic.

Original post written another way is asking this: When playing or DMg a game, is it more important to use story pacing and beats OR present a situation, and see what people do about it?

This is asking for opinion, so there is no right or wrong.

But if someone asked me to play in their game, where they focus on story pacing and beats OVER simply playing things out in character, at whatever pace feels right...I would quickly decline their game and wish them luck. Smells like a game with theatre flunkies to me.

I initially hesitated in replying to the OP at all because I didn't want to trash the question. If I were to set out to create a story or create a situation for an RPG, there isn't too much I do differently. I've given exactly zero thoughts to beats. Wandering monster checks, and perhaps the occasional nudging if players get caught up in too much OOC cross talk, is all I ever needed to keep the pace appropriate. Otherwise, these things generally hash out really well on their own.

I view things with a degree of scale invariance. One of the main points I have argued in my other posts here is that conscious action contains all the parts of the hero's journey on a small scale. I think what the OP is referring to with "situation" is what I usually just call encounters, and of course that involves a series of conscious acts, but there is a motive to the encounter as a whole. The adventure as a whole is a series of those encounters, likewise with an over-arching purpose.

In understanding the story inherent in actions, encounters, and adventures, it helps me create a checklist of when an adventure or encounter is lacking something. I suspect most GMs will hit most of the points most of the time without needing any special awareness or without even trying. But for me, the checklist of story elements for a hero's journey helps push me the extra mile creatively, and increases the number of hits and decreases the number of misses with my players without ever having to step outside of a sandbox.

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 20, 2021, 07:26:10 AM
No... it does not. By Oxford: "a description of events and people that the writer or speaker has invented in order to entertain people"....

Your whole argument rests on conflating the word 'Description' with the definition of 'story'. Thereby anything you happen to "describe" is a story.

Will the real Oxford definition of story please stand up?:

Quote from: OED on November 20, 2021, 07:26:10 AM
noun: Story; plural noun: stories
"an account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment."

Taken from google definitions which they get from: Oxford Languages.
Which if you click on the link it takes you to:
https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/

Which are the people who do the Oxford English dictionary...

But whatever; Account, Report, or Description; the result is the same.

Because:

While reports, accounts and descriptions are used in storytelling; Reports, accounts and descriptions are not stories on their own.

The word 'story' not being used in their definitions being an important hint:

Quote from: OED on November 20, 2021, 07:26:10 AM
noun: description; plural noun: descriptions
1.   1.
a spoken or written representation or account of a person, object, or event.
"people who had seen him were able to give a description"

RPG's are a game, and a necessary part of the game is describing the actions of your character.

When telling a story you do use description to fill in the narrative.

But every time you describe something you are not always telling a story.

For example:

The description of PC actions:

GM: "The three Orcs attack Red-Lori with a furious charge!"

Player1: "Crap. I'm in the middle of casting the portal; Help!"

Player2: "Got this: I charge into them and use my multiple attacks to mow them down!"

GM: "Good roll dude. Your damage? ...Holy crap – you charged into them and chopped them up!"

That is not a story. It is just the Players and GM talking back and forth to each other describing actions and results as they play the game.

This is how a story is emergent from gameplay:

Player3: "Got my soda, what did I miss?

Player2: "The orcs were charging Red-Lori as she was casting the portal to take us out of the dungeon. Grognak the Slayer lived up to his name by charging into them and cutting them down with his axe grognir in a series of furious downright blows!"

That is a story. A really short one. But Jack and Jill wasn't exactly and involved tale either.

That is how descriptions of PC's actions become a story, and how story is emergent from gameplay.


In the first part, no matter how much 'narrative color' you may add to it – you are not telling a story! You are merely describing your PC's actions in the moment that they are happening.

In the second part you see the different descriptions of the actions made by the GM and the Players of what they did being put together into a single cohesive entertaining story.

Even Ron Edwards with his pseudo-intellectual Gameist/Narrativeist/Simulationist claptrap understood that RPG's are not in and of themselves "storytelling games".  That story is emergent from gameplay; not what you are doing while playing the game.

Hence his creation of explicit "storytelling games" – which share complete narrative control to actually create a story on the fly rather that a series of events, actions, and descriptions that only become a story in the retelling.

Even Ron Edwards understood that.

Quote from: SHARK on November 18, 2021, 02:21:32 PM
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".
...

People get hung up on terminology because words have meaning.

You know people who refer to D&D/RPG's as "storygame/s" because people use words wrong. As this thread is proof of.

And people have been using the word 'story' wrong since the beginning of the hobby.

Mainly because it is an easy/lazy way to imperfectly get across a flawed concept of what RPG's do so that normies have something to mentally grab on to.

When you start saying: "Well it is like a wargame but one where you are playing an individual character like you would in a game of cowboys and Indians, but within a group of people where one acts like a referee..."

Normie: *eyes glaze over*

So people started saying: "A game where you get to be a badass fighter like Conan, but in your own series of stories."

Normie: "Oh that sounds cool, Conan was badass. I could play a badass!"

Thus the Lazy and flawed has triumphed over the accurate and nuanced.