Quote from: Elliot WilenWhere's Sett's thread?

In the meantime, though, you guys are just showing your story-bias. If you play baseball, or backgammon, or Advanced Squad Leader, you aren't making up a story, even though a story is produced, and even though the game functions and maintains interest through the narrative continuity. In other words, "bases loaded in the bottom of the ninth, two outs, home team behind by one run" has narrative significance even though nobody in the game is doing anything that could be construed as "making up a story". RPGs can be just the same (and in fact were, overwhelmingly, in the early days of the hobby).

The thing is, when I play baseball, I'm not "pretending" to be a baseball player.  I'm actively playing baseball.  I'm not assuming a role, at least not as far as that term is meant within our (gaming) context.  Yeah, I might be playing right field, but I'm not imaging myself as a right fielder.

Likewise with board games.  I don't pretend to be the bishop in chess.  

I definately agree that there's a narrative created in games other than RPGs, but I think the very act of taking on a role in a RPG makes the experience intrinsically different that a comparison to the likes of baseball or backgammon isn't particularly meaningful.

I don't think I have a "story" bias.  I'm certainly not an active participant in the so-called "story games" end of our hobby.  My gaming is remarkably conservative, or would be viewed as such by someone whose tastes do run towards that end of the spectrum.  However, I still don't see how it would be possibly to run a RPG and not have "story" as an element of play.  Said "story" might not be particularly detailed, it might lack all hint of subtext*, but it's still present in some way, is it not?

If I'm missing something, let me know.  If someone can point me towards an example of playing a RPG where a story of some manner is never created, I'd appreciate it, just out of curiousity's sake.

Quote from: RPGPunditThose people would be wrong, or talking about something other than RPGs.

I don't see how either of those things would have to be true.

Hypothetical Gaming Group A gets together.  HGGA's GM decides that the game is going to be about a war between two neighboring city-states.  The players are spies from one city-state, going to infiltrate the other one, to find out secrets, assassinate key figures; &c.

To accomplish this aim, HGGA's GM decides to use D&D.  Take your pick which edition.

What's being done here are two things: 1) everyone's decided to play a game wherein they try and accomplish those ends with their character's abilities and probably something of their own ingenuity and creativity; 2) everyone's decided to help create the story of whether or not they're successful, and to what extent if so.

The game, both in terms of the setting and the use of D&D, is a means to accomplish both of those aims.  

It honestly seems to me that you cannot seperate those two aims, either.  Even if you replace the propose scenario with "Go into yonder dungeon, whack beasts and scary things, and take the money and run." it's still the same thing.

How in the world would you be able to run either of those scenarios without "story" being an aspect of play?

I usually say "story happens." It's a by-product of the game, what is left behind after the desired end-product, the play itself, is complete. All games have story as a byproduct - even cribbage or baseball - due to the connected nature of the play. Role playing leaves as a by-product particularly rich story in comparison to most games, but not different in nature. Some people seem to be more concerned with this by-product than with the play itself, but I think that is a misunderstanding fostered by poor choice of words.

-clash

Returning to the original post, I think some games are better at producing genuine character drama than others, though for various reasons I don't think our hobby is best suited to more than pastiche.

Anyway, those capable of better than pastiche, however rarely I think it actually gets achieved, for me would include?

Classic Traveller
Call of Cthulhu
In Harm's Way

No doubt others will occur to me.

What do these have in common?  Simple, you play credible people.  Guys working a job, albeit in an extraordinary setting, everyday folk who discover a terrible truth, officers vying for notice and worldly success.

Most rpgs focus on motives and characters utterly unlike those in the real world, get the new power, get the gleaming sword even though you will only use it to get a better one.

Most games do not focus on credible characters, by which I mean people one can imagine actually meeting in real life.  Obviously one wouldn't now meet an early 19th Century naval officer, but they did once live and aspire as the characters in IHW do.

And that's the thing, make games about uberfolk with motives none of us recognise and you'll only get so much drama, make games about real people with real hopes and fears and you have more of a shot.

Lose the kewl powerz and drama has more room to grow.

Another time, I'll go into why I once opposed the use of fantastic settings in narrativist (to use a term I don't think has much meaning, but I have none better right now) rpgs as I see the fantastic as diminishing rather than enhancing theme.

Quote from: flyingmiceI usually say "story happens." It's a by-product of the game, what is left behind after the desired end-product, the play itself, is complete. All games have story as a byproduct - even cribbage or baseball - due to the connected nature of the play. Role playing leaves as a by-product particularly rich story in comparison to most games, but not different in nature. Some people seem to be more concerned with this by-product than with the play itself, but I think that is a misunderstanding fostered by poor choice of words.

-clash

I don't see them as being fundamentally different.  Nor do I see story as a by product - story *is* the play.

I think a lot of gamers have taken a stance against 'story' because they associate it with railroading.  Meaning that 'story' means the GM writes a plot in advance and they play it out.  At best you have options to choose from to get to one of a couple possible end points like a Choose Your Own Adventure book.  I would agree that this is generally not good gaming.  Even if the GM pulls it off in an entertaining manner he could do better by doing things more dynamically.  Story should be created during play by all players, not beforehand.  IMO anyway.

The first step to communication is using common terms.  When I say story, all I mean is an imagined series of events.  If that isn't taking place in your games, we do not share the same hobby.

Quote from: BalbinusWhat do these have in common?  Simple, you play credible people.  Guys working a job, albeit in an extraordinary setting, everyday folk who discover a terrible truth, officers vying for notice and worldly success.

Most rpgs focus on motives and characters utterly unlike those in the real world, get the new power, get the gleaming sword even though you will only use it to get a better one.

This is an excellent point.  I've gotten the best portrayls of genuine emotion out of players in my Buffy game.  Why?  Because these are credible characters, as you put it.  They aren't a collection of powers that want revenge on someone.  They have parents, a school to go to, hopes for the future, relationships.  How is a character supposed to get sophisticated emotions out there if they don't associate themselves with society or have things they care about?

The first step is to get rid of the idea of an 'adventurer'.  It implies someone that is outside of the cares of society and perhaps this hinders getting these sophisticated emotions out of players that Pundit is talking about.

As for the game lines, I'd have to know exactly what products he is talking about to comment.  Though Unknown Armies does occur to me as a game that would do what he is talking about.

I think you kind of answered you're own question right here:

Quote from: RPGPunditMy response to him was that if he really wanted to become a good sci-fi author, the very first thing he needs to do is to stop reading sci fi novels. To stop reading David Drake, and start reading Hemmingway, or Herodotus, or the Romance of the Three Kingdoms. And pointing out to him that most of the guys who were truly good sci-fi authors spent a hell of a lot of their time reading and learning about all kinds of things OTHER than sci-fi. Zelazny wasn't a great sci-fi author because he read Asimov; he was a great sci-fi author because he'd read books on zen, and books on fencing, and he'd read Mark Twain, and besides all that because he'd actually gone out and DONE shit. He'd travelled, he'd had wierd relationships, etc etc.

UA occurred to me too, but I don't know it quite so well.

What do real people strive for?  Wealth, status, attracting the people they find attractive, popularity, power, satisfaction in their work, security for their families, stuff like that.

What do rpg characters strive for?  Wealth I guess, though they rarely seem to have any long term goals for it or plans to enjoy it.  Status hardly ever (though it is hugely important in human affairs, people lie, steal and kill to climb the greasy pole), attracting people rarely (most could be monks, albeit very violent monks), popularity generally not, power only in the most crude and immediate way, satisfaction in their work tends not to be an issue unless their work involves killing people, most don't have families.

And yes, the concept of the adventurer is fuckwitted, again, what are they adventuring for?

Most rpg characters are risk-addicted sociopaths, moving from one adrenalin-fuelled thrill to the next, it's hardly surprising such emotional simpletons don't produce great drama in the process.

Quote from: Pebbles and MarblesI don't see how either of those things would have to be true.

Hypothetical Gaming Group A gets together.  HGGA's GM decides that the game is going to be about a war between two neighboring city-states.  The players are spies from one city-state, going to infiltrate the other one, to find out secrets, assassinate key figures; &c.

To accomplish this aim, HGGA's GM decides to use D&D.  Take your pick which edition.

What's being done here are two things: 1) everyone's decided to play a game wherein they try and accomplish those ends with their character's abilities and probably something of their own ingenuity and creativity; 2) everyone's decided to help create the story of whether or not they're successful, and to what extent if so.

The game, both in terms of the setting and the use of D&D, is a means to accomplish both of those aims.  

It honestly seems to me that you cannot seperate those two aims, either.  

Except that what they're doing with said city-states is not the creation of a story.
Its the playing of a game that has a few of the components recognizeable in stories. But what they're making isn't a structured story per se.

The second someone says "Ungar takes 50 points of damage, meaning he dies" and Ungar's player responds "No, that doesn't make any sense because Ungar has an unresolved sub-plot, so we can't kill him now", THEN you're using RPGs to create a story. And you'll find that RPGs are actually a piss-poor method of doing so, because they add nothing to the story-creation process.

In other words, if its a story you want, you're better off just collaborating on a story with your buddies WITHOUT actually playing an RPG.  RPGs are for when you want games, not stories.


RPGPundit

Quote from: MaddmanThis is an excellent point.  I've gotten the best portrayls of genuine emotion out of players in my Buffy game.  Why?  Because these are credible characters, as you put it.  They aren't a collection of powers that want revenge on someone.  They have parents, a school to go to, hopes for the future, relationships.  How is a character supposed to get sophisticated emotions out there if they don't associate themselves with society or have things they care about?

The first step is to get rid of the idea of an 'adventurer'.  It implies someone that is outside of the cares of society and perhaps this hinders getting these sophisticated emotions out of players that Pundit is talking about.

Yup, I don't think its really got to do with whether or not the characters have power; its got to do with whether or not the characters have some kind of meaningful connections in the world.
Amber is the highest-power game around, yet it consistently manages to make the kind of emotive-heavy RPGing I am talking about. Why? Because you're part of a huge dysfunctional family. Unlike most RPGs where your family is essentially window-dressing if they exist at all; Amber is all about your relationship with your family.
On a personal note, aside from Amber some of the best emotional maturity in my campaigns has been in the Roman campaign (both of them, in fact). Which are, again, games where interpersonal relationships are very important, as well as bigger issues like one's relationship to the state, one's relationship with one's ethics, etc etc.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Mystery ManI think you kind of answered you're own question right here:

This thread wasn't actually an "asking a question" thread, it was a manifesto thread.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThe second someone says "Ungar takes 50 points of damage, meaning he dies" and Ungar's player responds "No, that doesn't make any sense because Ungar has an unresolved sub-plot, so we can't kill him now", THEN you're using RPGs to create a story.

But even if the player doesn't object in any way and Ungar simply keels over, the group is still creating the story of a man who dies before his time, before finishing something important. The "subplot" is resolved by the death: he never fulfilled his goals.

Quote from: RPGPunditThis thread wasn't actually an "asking a question" thread, it was a manifesto thread.

RPGPundit

Ah, I guess I was still stuck on the "why the angst" thing.

Frankly, I'd rather just have the mechanics available to me and do my own thing.

But I see where you're coming from. I knew a DM who thought he knew all he needed to know about knights, chivalry and all that from reading DnD books. I tried to point out that he was a complete idiot (but in a nice way) but he would have none of it. So perhaps employing more sophisticated concepts are a designers great waste of time and they need to appeal to the lowest common denominator?


p.s. Whoo, I need to get down off my high horse there...

Speaking of Harlequin novels and fantasy....

My genre has been invaded by female writers strapping a sword on Fabio and disguising their romance book as "fantasy". It's getting harder to find the gems in the bottom of a big barrel of shit.

Quote from: MaddmanI don't see them as being fundamentally different.  Nor do I see story as a by product - story *is* the play.

I think a lot of gamers have taken a stance against 'story' because they associate it with railroading.  Meaning that 'story' means the GM writes a plot in advance and they play it out.  At best you have options to choose from to get to one of a couple possible end points like a Choose Your Own Adventure book.  I would agree that this is generally not good gaming.  Even if the GM pulls it off in an entertaining manner he could do better by doing things more dynamically.  Story should be created during play by all players, not beforehand.  IMO anyway.

The first step to communication is using common terms.  When I say story, all I mean is an imagined series of events.  If that isn't taking place in your games, we do not share the same hobby.

I'm not talking about railroading at all. I consider play and story to be two separate things. Play is the immediate happenings - what is going on, who is doing what. Story is the recounting of play as a linked series of events. All play creates story - "Queen's knight takes king's bishop, king's rook takes king's bishop, checkmate" is a story where the characters are White and Black.  It may be a a boring, abstract story, but it's a story nonetheless. The purpose of any game is the play, not the story that play creates. No one would argue that the purpose of playing chess is to produce that god-awful story.

Since RPGs have much more vivid characters than White and Black, the stories created from RPG play take on far more emotive power and resonance than other games, particularly with a group who enjoy the character aspect of play. Because of this, people tend to fall into the trap of thinking it's the story that's the desired end product when, like any game, it's the actuality of doing now that's vital. Aiming for story rather than play, IMO, produces better structured but not necessarily more powerful story, and interferes with some people's - I certainly know iinterferes with my - play by littering it with artificialities. You lose the sense that this is a life being lived, and replace it with the sense that this is a character being scripted, even though the scripter is yourself.  

-clash