Quote from: RPGPunditExcept that if its a "story-making" game, then its really not a Roleplaying game anymore.

Unfortunately I'll have to say that I don't see the contradiction there. A roleplaying game that "makes stories" is still an RPG, and to claim that playing a role has less significance in Puppetland than in, say, D&D is patently absurd.

QuoteI think it's a question of intent or primary purpose.

I had sort of an argumentative response to that, but, yeah.

Within the broad class of games that anyone here might call an RPG, there are some which are primarily intended to tell stories. Not "make stories" or "yield stories", but to serve as a framework for people who want to engage in the activity called "story telling". Others aren't designed to that intent (or they're designed poorly for that intent); instead their primary purpose is "play". It's a bit like comparing a stage show, improv, pro wrestling, and a game of chess. Pro wrestling is theater dressed up as a contest. It works for some, but it really isn't the same thing as Sumo or freestyle.

Quote from: GrimGentUnfortunately I'll have to say that I don't see the contradiction there. A roleplaying game that "makes stories" is still an RPG, and to claim that playing a role has less significance in Puppetland than in, say, D&D is patently absurd.

As I read it (using web.archive.org to access the html version) Puppetland is basically a framework for mostly freeform RP, although it's interesting to note that the designer describes it as "a storytelling game" and "bear[ing] more resemblence to some sort of group storytelling than to normal RPG play."

Quote from: Elliot WilenAs I read it (using web.archive.org to access the html version) Puppetland is basically a framework for mostly freeform RP, although it's interesting to note that the designer describes it as "a storytelling game" and "bear[ing] more resemblence to some sort of group storytelling than to normal RPG play."

"A storytelling game with strings in a grim world of make-believe", yes: I have the printed version published by Hogshead which also features more information on the setting. The mechanics need to be simple, since during play no one is allowed to refer to anything outside the world of the game (including the rules and mechanics themselves), and during that one hour everyone acts constantly in character. That is the most notable difference between a Puppetland session and the way most other RPGs are played.

Grim, I'm going to have to look at the rules more closely and/or play a game sometime. (I know someone who could probably be persuaded to run it for me.) My impression is that the storytelling in Puppetland is optional but strongly encouraged. The rules per se are so spare, in fact, that I think the participants' expectations ultimately determine if the game will be "play" or "story time". But the text encourages storytelling: the GM is told to rule the game according to story-logic, and the players are expected to follow suit and be rewarded for doing so. (Note the Third Rule.) It's also notable that the players are allowed to make the puppets act contrary to their physical natures by paying a "story-logic" price: this also encourages thinking in "story" terms.

All in all it looks like a fun activity, and certainly a game in the general sense of the word. But clearly an activity aimed at improvisational storytelling, and as such it differs from other activities that aren't aimed at storytelling. My point here, against the story-hegemonists, is that many RPGs fall into the second category.

BTW, I think we've been hijacking this thread for some time. Pundit had a point in this one (and the angst thread) that still hasn't been addressed. I'm going to start another one on that point.

Quote from: Elliot WilenIt's also notable that the players are allowed to make the puppets act contrary to their physical natures by paying a "story-logic" price: this also encourages thinking in "story" terms.

It's more than merely physical: if a puppet who "cannot tell a lie" nevertheless does so, she will also suffer the consequences. And the penalty is harsh, since there is no way to repair the unavoidable damage which going against your nature causes. Do so once too often, and you won't wake up again in the morning, and that's the end of that.

Still, that's necessary. A game requires some method of regulating PC actions, after all.

I'm just uncomfortable( even this word is too strong because really I'm not that invested in my particular playstyle ) with the fact that some people (myself included) who use rpgs to create stories are somehow not playing RPGs - I mean, people play the game in different ways, and when somebody says , but the game was not created to tell stories (or rather it's primary purpose is not to tell stories), even though as FlyingMice (I think) pointed out, it is a byproduct, I'm thinking, what's the big deal here?

My original response to Sett was not biasness on my part but really a reminder that some people do use rpgs to tell stories - perhaps the word story is the wrong word to use, and this is a mistake on my part, I was just using the word as it made sense to me.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: GrimGentIt's more than merely physical: if a puppet who "cannot tell a lie" nevertheless does so, she will also suffer the consequences. And the penalty is harsh, since there is no way to repair the unavoidable damage which going against your nature causes. Do so once too often, and you won't wake up again in the morning, and that's the end of that.

Right, it seemed important to me to stress "physical" because going against one's nature is, after all, one's prerogative; in many or even most cases in roleplaying, I don't think you can distinguish between "playing out of character" and "developing your character". Granted that Puppetland doesn't have a system for character development, and also that "cannot tell a lie" may be construed as an actual, physical limitation. I just didn't want to get mixed up in that when it's much easier to point to the ability of a player to make himself fly or morph into a lion or whatever.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI just didn't want to get mixed up in that when it's much easier to point to the ability of a player to make himself fly or morph into a lion or whatever.

Eh, your character isn't capable of those things without some manner of strange magic, any more than an ordinary human being in any other RPG could teleport around the world or summon pink unicorns. A shadow puppet might be able to perform a long and gliding leap, or a hand puppet might have someone sew it into the semblance of a lion, but that's about it. The jigsaw penalty applies when a character does something from the concise list of the things which it by rights cannot do, not when a player decides to try something that is blatantly impossible. Just as there's no need to jot down "talk" on the can list since it's taken for granted that everyone can speak, mentioning "fly" on the cannot list would be pointless since no one can do that.

Player: "Yes! I shall spread my arms like so, and fly to the Castle!"
GM: "Oh, foolish marionette! Addled by the hammers of the nutcrackers, it had quite forgotten how heavy its battered bulk was..."

Quote from: David RI'm just uncomfortable( even this word is too strong because really I'm not that invested in my particular playstyle ) with the fact that some people (myself included) who use rpgs to create stories are somehow not playing RPGs - I mean, people play the game in different ways, and when somebody says , but the game was not created to tell stories (or rather it's primary purpose is not to tell stories), even though as FlyingMice (I think) pointed out, it is a byproduct, I'm thinking, what's the big deal here?

My original response to Sett was not biasness on my part but really a reminder that some people do use rpgs to tell stories - perhaps the word story is the wrong word to use, and this is a mistake on my part, I was just using the word as it made sense to me.

Regards,
David R

I don't think it's a problem if you are having fun - that's the key test. If your group is enjoying what you're all doing, it doesn't matter if you're tearing the pages out of the book and making pirate hats out of 'em. It's only when you aren't enjoying the result that there's a problem, whether or not you are going as the game designer intended. It's up to you what you want and where you want to go.

-clash

Quote from: David RI'm just uncomfortable( even this word is too strong because really I'm not that invested in my particular playstyle ) with the fact that some people (myself included) who use rpgs to create stories are somehow not playing RPGs - I mean, people play the game in different ways, and when somebody says , but the game was not created to tell stories (or rather it's primary purpose is not to tell stories), even though as FlyingMice (I think) pointed out, it is a byproduct, I'm thinking, what's the big deal here?

My original response to Sett was not biasness on my part but really a reminder that some people do use rpgs to tell stories - perhaps the word story is the wrong word to use, and this is a mistake on my part, I was just using the word as it made sense to me.

Regards,
David R

I don't think it's worth fighting over the term "RPG", though I'll defend my right to my core notion of "what roleplaying is", as I did a while back on RPG.net. More important is getting the story-people to recognize that a lot of other folks don't want to concern themselves with making stories, nor do they want their GMs to focus on making stories. (Going back to the beginning of the thread, based on what you're saying now, it looks like your comment got swept up into blakkie's story-hegemonist agenda.)

Actually, there's a wide range--I think a lot of people are okay with story-based approaches as long as they're circumscribed and limited. E.g., constructing campaigns and scenarios to maximize the likelihood of an interesting narrative-byproduct, but then eschewing any effort at story-management thereafter. That's a lot like the baseball rulemakers who've tinkered with the height of the pitcher's mound to maintain a good balance of power between offense and defense: they do it before the season, but they don't step in mid-game to "even out" a 15-2 laugher and ensure a tense 9th inning.

Not to mention that there are people who appreciate "making stories" but find the goal conflicts in various ways with "roleplaying". Puppetland looks like fun; so does Polaris (in fact I had a brief session that I enjoyed) and a bunch of other games that I'd consider "more storytelling than roleplaying". What I dislike are games where I feel the two are at odds. In the old days those were mainly occasions of railroading and instances where the GM and players would weave together rationalizations for rules/mechanics outcomes that didn't fit how the group wanted the narrative to go. (Yes, I prefer the possibility that the narrative will suck, to the certitude that it will turn out "okay" through fudging.)

These days I have trouble with some Forge-ite game elements. I won't go into them because it'd require using some contentious jargon about "representational mechanics" and "character perspective", and that's not the point. The point is the second sentence of my first paragraph.

Quote from: GrimGentEh, your character isn't capable of those things without some manner of strange magic, any more than an ordinary human being in any other RPG could teleport around the world or summon pink unicorns.

Chalk it up to a quick read of the rules and a comment in an outside review. I don't think it rebuts the general argument I was making, though.

Quote from: David RSome would say, the story is the prupose and the game just the means to achieve that end.

Regards,
David R

A guy who comes to the gaming table to make story is like a dairy farmer who gets up at dawn every day to go out to the barn and munch on cowshit. If that makes him happy, fine, but keep that freak far away from me.

I go to the barn for milk. His hobby is not mine.

QuoteAll play creates story.

Only if the experience is revisted and retold afterward does it become a story, and even then only in the sense that I can tell a "story" about how I landed on Boardwalk and Park Place during my first two turns in Monopoly once, not in any, for lack of a better term, "artistic" sense.

Quote from: RPGPunditExcept that if its a "story-making" game, then its really not a Roleplaying game anymore.

But... if people are playing roles, then their different roles will, together produce a story. They will interact with one another, and there'll be conflict, and change. They can't help but change each-other and themselves, and a "story" is just a description of how one or more people changed themselves and/or part of the world.

I don't see how you can avoid having a "story" if you're "playing a role" for more than five minutes.

Unless of course you want to redefine what "roleplaying" is, or what a "story" is, using them in some way that people don't day-to-day. But then we may as well close down this site and all sign up for The Forge.

Now, as to the original question of the thread: why not have games deal with deeper treatments of emotions, etc. I'd say that not everyone is comfortable with that. Let's face it, for most gamers, a good campaign is like a bad tv series. It's cheesy, has excessive violence, and ham acting. Roleplayers generally like Gary Busey better than Sir Lawrence Olivier, Jackie Chan better than Kevin Spacey.

There are a minority who like even less role in their playing than that, and a minority who like more. But written rpgs have to cater to that middle ground. They can't include rules only 1% of readers will ever use.

Then during the game session the GM can give each player the freedom to play as they wish. So in one group you can have the mindless thumping guy, and the "immersive" guy. For example, in my own group, we're using Fate, where you get to make up your own Aspects for characters; these can be things mostly helpful or mostly a hindrance, mostly personality and hsitory, or mostly raw abilities, as the player wishes. One guy's chosen Strapping, Quick-Tempered, Chisel-Jawed, and Nemesis, while another guy's chosen Strong and Agile. So one guy chose interesting character things, thigns that would make things happen, and the other just chose to have good abilities. A good GM has to be able to make both players happy in the same session.

A bunch of rules about this and that emotion would get in the way of that.

I also don't know how we could have in an rpg this lengthy discussion of emotions and psychology, yet not have any "story" there. So what are we supposed to do, just contemplate our character's navel, but not have them do anything about it? Now we're getting into real Forger territory. "All roleplaying is group therapy." Fuck off!

You can't tell a story with a roleplaying game. You can have an imaginary adventure, you can live an imaginary life, but you can't tell a story with a roleplaying game. There are story telling games out there. But they are designed for telling stories. In a story telling game you don't play a role, you tell a story. Or part of a story in cooperation with others.

Now you can tell stories about your imaginary adventures or your imaginary life, but that does not make those adventures or that life stories when they are happening. It doesn't happen that way. At least not if you have any respect at all for your own language.

It comes down to this, we can't all be right. A word cannot mean what we wish it to mean, otherwise that word loses all meaning. For language to work as a way to communicate it has to have limits. This includes limits on what the words in a language mean. Stretch the meaning of a word too far and it becomes nothing but another word for "word".

For all the events in a game session are imaginary, fictional, they are still happening right then and there. By this RPGs are given an immediacy no story can ever equal. We speak of events happening to an imaginary stand in for you now. Not to a separate sub-creation as part of a fictional record.

That is what makes RPGs new. New in that they allow for something old, fictional situations and fictional people, to be used in a way they had never been used before. To be put into situations that are happening now. And just as important, in fictional worlds.

You're not telling a story, you never have been telling a story, you never will tell a story with an RPG. Complain, protest, contradict, opine all you want, it is that it is. All you're doing is beating your head against an uncaring wall.