TheRPGSite

This is a spinoff of my now-regretably named "why the angst" thread (regrettably because the word "angst" triggered all the wrong meanings).  That thread was trying to analyze why it is that game designers, and most GMs, are incapable of portraying more sophisticated concepts and emotions in their games, than the most basic infantile expressions, often even more basic than the sort of junk you find on television.

I'm not saying that this is the only reason, but I suspect ONE of the reasons is that far too many geeks these days think that being "educated" and "reading a lot of books" are the same thing.

In reality, they aren't.

In reality, if you spend your whole life reading nothing but Harlequin romances, then even if you've read tens of thousands of them, you really aren't going to be a very educated person, or capable of making work that portrays very sophisticated concepts.

And, unlike what some geeks seem to believe, your average fantasy/scifi novel or comic book is no more sophisticated than your average harlequin romance.

Whether its Fabio on the cover, or Drrzt Do'Urden, or Wolverine, reading tons and tons of crap isn't going to make you a good writer or a good game designer or a good GM.

I'm suspecting that the reason that so many games and campaigns are so deeply infantile in their emotional quotient is because if your highest level of reading material is the latest Robert Jordan novel, you're only going to be capable of doing work of your own that is inferior to Robert Jordan.

I had a friend once who was desperate to become a sci-fi author, he had given me one of his novels to critique, and after reading it, and noting a little bit of raw talent, I took him aside and asked him what it was he read as inspiration.  He listed all kinds of sci-fi books, mostly heavy militaristic sci fi a la David Drake.

My 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.

Which gets to my other point: a GM who hasn't actually done fuck all with his life is going to be a pretty piss-poor GM, and a game designer who hasn't done fuck all with his life is going to be incapable of writing anything interesting.

Note that I'm not saying that a straightforward, low-Emotion dungeon crawl is in any way bad. I love that shit, and all of you know it. I'm definitely not suggesting that games need to deal with sophisticated themes to be good.  What I'm talking about is games that ATTEMPT to deal with more sophisticated themes, and fail miserably.

RPGPundit

I'm curious, can you name one game that has rules that comes even close to meeting your personal criteria for setting up for a sophisticated theme? Or at least describe what a game would look like that does this? What does it, very specifically and explicitly stated, need to do?

Because what I think you are asking for might be hard to identify as such if you are looking for anything like a book or movie or such that does since games themselves really only provide the framework. Even with prefab modules for a set of rules a large portion of the actual content is provided by the players.

Really RPGs are tools for creating a story in much the same way as any collection of general literary techniques. It sets you up, but you can still easily pooch it and come up with some hackneyed tripe. Especially if the GM and/or some players fall into the lack of depth catagory themselves. Or if they don't really care and aren't looking to create the next Old Man and the Sea, they are just there to bang around and drink a few brews.  Or if the GM and the players aren't pulling in the same direction to the point they sabatoge each other.

QuoteReally RPGs are tools for creating a story in much the same way as any collection of general literary techniques.

RPGs are games. Don`t get Story-Creative with us.

Apart from that you are right: RP as a method is a tool, and you can use it for tripe or travesty.

its more a setting issue than a rules issue. I agree you don't do this with the rules. When I say "game designer"; I'm talking about game line writers.

RPGPundit

Quote from: SettembriniRPGs are games. Don`t get Story-Creative with us.

What? Nobody at the table is making up a story? Because of the sample play I saw of your game you sure as hell were.

Quote from: RPGPunditI agree you don't do this with the rules.

I never said that. I said quite the opposite of that. The rules can be another tool, [EDIT if not part of the medium itself]. Sort of like a scratch pad to jot down ideas to work on later or a good cigar to get your mind in the spot you want to write, but closer to the literary devices I was talking about.

QuoteWhen I say "game designer"; I'm talking about game line writers.

Ah, I see what you are getting at now. The backstory "fluff" that is out there isn't to your liking. That I get. Well I think it's more an issue of there aren't that many exceptional writers period, by definition I suppose. ;)  I see no need to expect a disproportional number of them to have gotten into, or stayed in, a market like RPGs where instead of just having only a longshot at hitting big you basically toss away even the slim chance of it.

EDIT: Incidentally, though I don't know many actual RPG writers personally, I would say that the secondhand descriptions of Nigel Findley and the breadth of his actual work, suggests he was very much what you are describing. That certainly didn't keep him from coming up with damn goofy Shadowrun stuff. Though quality goofy I'll say.

QuoteWhat? Nobody at the table is making up a story? Because of the sample play I saw of your game you sure as hell were.

Story might be the result, but game is the  purpose, YMMV.

Quote from: SettembriniStory might be the result, but game is the  purpose, YMMV.

But the story is still there. And if it's tripe then it's tripe. And if you don't care about it at all, which I also do NOT get from your example game, then that would definately be a good reason for it to be tripe.  Or if you wanted to be able to tell and enjoy the story later but were A-OK with it being tripe that would be another reason for it to tend to come out that way. Because what is thought of as tripe, especially what RPGPundit seems to be describing, is generally overlayed with the path of least effort.

Quote from: SettembriniStory might be the result, but game is the  purpose, YMMV.

Some would say, the story is the prupose and the game just the means to achieve that end.

Regards,
David R

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

Regards,
David R

Shhhh, he's in denial. Don't provoke his rhetoric. ;)

Quote from: RPGPunditits more a setting issue than a rules issue. I agree you don't do this with the rules. When I say "game designer"; I'm talking about game line writers.

RPGPundit

Could you give us some examples of designers, games etc. Reading crap lit (subjective and all that) never helps - well that depends on the group - but neither does reading good lit.

I mean some of the stuff out there depending on ones point of view is pretty infantile - but you know something I'm sure the writers of said products are reading some of the more obscure high brow material out there- I dig some of the White Wolf games, but come one - some of their writing is pretty wanky.

I'm sure going out and living expands your world view and all, but lets be honest, some of the most interesting, complex stuff are written by desk bound geeks, who have assimilated the good stuff they have read some place else (or maybe even thought up own their own) and reproduced it in an inventive and original manner - I'm talking about the emotional stuff here in terms of setting fluff etc. And I'm sure they are GMs who do the same thing.

Regards,
David R

Somewhere within the last year or two, "story" has become something of a dirty word for certain gamers.  We can all imagine the variety of reasons for this, so I don't intend to provide a rundown here.

I think, however, that it's something of a shame that a simple enough term as "story" has been abandoned by some people just because of others using it in a highly specific manner that doesn't jibe with their notion of gaming.

Or, if you prefer: Reembrace story, dammit.

Settembrini is both wrong and right when he says that "Story might be the result, but game is the purpose."  For most people, I imagine that "game" is a purpose somewhat higher than "story" if we're using that more specific meaning of story.  I don't want to use of the standard code words here, as those seem to just derail any conversation whenever they're used, so I hope that everyone can parse what I'm trying to say here without actually saying it.

That aside, I also think Settembrini is a bit wrong when he says that "Story might be the result..."  No, story is the result or, perhaps more delicately, it is a large part of the result.  More than that, "story" is part and parcel of "game".  

Resistance to that notion seems to be rooted in a desire to make a philosophical/theoretical stand against those more specific uses of "story" more than anything else.  It seems to be more of a case of "Well, my games aren't about that.  My style of play isn't that.  So, my games aren't "story", thank you very much."

And, you know what?  I can understand that to an extent.  Perhaps not the extent that it sometimes goes, descending into counter-productive vitriol, but to the extent to wanting to distance yourself from something that you have considered and have concluded that doesn't work for you, yet can be forced upon you by others.

But, in a way, refusing to acknowledge that one's game has "story" just further promotes what one is trying to disavow.  Reclaim the word, make it your own thing.

Because any game, no matter it being lowbrow or having airs towards something more complicated, still produces "story" and still has "story as a fundamental component to its nature.

"Four of us went into a dungeon, to fight monsters and claim treasure.  Three of us emerged, having defeated some monsters and claimed some reward.  One of us was eaten by a giant frog."

That's a story, even if absolutely no forethought went into the process.  A story was created by the simple act of playing the game.  I would say that's a fundamental aspect of RPGs that seperate themselves from some game like cribbage or parcheesi.  It's a by product of assuming a role, even in the most general meaning of that word.

Unless I've greatly misunderstood why there's an objection to the use of "story" here.  I allow that I could be misreading people's objections here.

Thoughts?

@Pebbles:
I think you are right.
Will have to think deeper about it.

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

Those people would be wrong, or talking about something other than RPGs.

RPGPundit

Where'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).

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

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.

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 agree with both this point - that it is the relationships with others and society as a whole that create real emotion - and Balbinus' point - in that it is easier to emesh a character into a web of relationships if the character is really human to begin with. Working with superheroes tends to produce ersatz angsty comic book emoticons because it's harder to set them into a living, functional set of relationships.

-clash

Quote from: GrimGentBut 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.

Beautifully put, GrimGent! It's the more poignant for being unfulfilled.

-clash

I think that playing easily identifiable roles, or in an easily identifiable place IE things that we as players can experience in our day to day lives, can certainly lead to the creation of a more emotionally mature roleplaying experience.

But i don't think it ends there by any means. The most important factor in gaining that complexity is context. If your character is operating in a vacuum, where the world stops over the next hill, outside the door or beyond his own actions, then you're stripped of a context for your character to play in. Inserting that context into a genre game that we haven't experienced in real life is more challenging, but it can be done. It just needs a bit more work.

Quote from: RPGPunditRPGs are for when you want games, not stories.

Awesome truth.

Quote from: RPGPunditThat thread was trying to analyze why it is that game designers, and most GMs, are incapable of portraying more sophisticated concepts and emotions in their games, than the most basic infantile expressions, often even more basic than the sort of junk you find on television.

...but why the fuck would game designers need to portray "more sophisticated concepts and emotions"?

As you say, IT'S A FUCKING GAME! RPGs are Games! Anyone who tried to make RPGs into anything more than games by trying to inject sophisticated concepts and emotions are, altogether now, filthy pretentious Swine!

So why do you turn all queer now and wanting more Sophisticated Concepts and Emotions in your game? Wanting those things in a GAME is the realm of the SWINE! C'mon man, you're going all Mark Foley on us now...

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

(OH, ok then. Then this is a manifesto response. I'm not actually interested in reading any response you might have)

Quote from: flyingmiceSince 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

Well fuck me. Now I get why I liked your RPG so much.

RPGPundit

Quote from: GrimGentBut 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.

You're missing the point. The point is that if the game is about dying when you take 50 points of damage, its not about creating a structured story. It will have story-like elements, but whatever "story" is created will end up being a random account of the things that happened in the session, and that's it.

IF your goal is to create a "Story", then you will have to run the whole thing very differently, and it stops being a Roleplaying Game.

RPGpundit

As with most issues the truth is in the variation of grey btween two extremes. If we remove all story from an RPG we get something like this:
GM: There is a room with three figs in it.
Player one: I attack fig 2 and deal 3 hp.
Player two: I attack fig 1 and deal 5 hp.
Player three: I use Stealth and move behind the figs.

Sounds a lot like a minis game to me. On the other extreme we have cooperative story telling:
Jim the Horrible: I stride into the room bellowing my challenge tot he three Troll witches of the Underdark! "Prepare to taste the wrath of my blade slayer of children!"
Organa the Pure: Outraged at the cruel and senseless acts, the cleric of Athena rejects the Trolls, placing a curse upon them.
Narator: Jim the Horrible engages the Trolls. Swords flash as he darts in and out of the reach. Organa calls upon her goddess to make Jim the Horrible's arm swift and strong. The fighting is intense and bood flows from the wounds of the Trolls as well as those of the fierce barbarian warrior. One strike to a Trolls exposed neck and the Trolls lose one of thier brethren. A slash to the thigh and the tallest of the three fall. No sooner has this victory seemed assured then the last and largest troll has Jim the Horrible hard pressed.
Kirin the Elf: I enter to find Jim the Horrible, my long time comrade, hard pressed by a garish green Troll. I fire a single arrow from my powerful bow into its eye killing it instantly.

As with most stories, it takes more words to describe than that of a game turn. My simple point being, I think there is story involved in RPGs as much as mechanical game play. If you remove one or the other then you are no longer player and RPG, you are playing a minis (or board) game or you are telling a cooperative story.

As to the original post, I personally do not believe complex emotional structures have a place in RPG rules/settings. They are the reserved domain of the GM. It is only in the execution of the campaign that the need fo rsuch structures can be evaluated and included. To do so with the setting would only complicate an already complex structure.

Bill

Quote from: flyingmicePlay is the immediate happenings - what is going on, who is doing what. Story is the recounting of play as a linked series of events.

Exactly.

QuoteAll play creates story

I would amend this to, "recounting any play is a story."  As we agree, the story is not the event but the recounting of the event.  This is nothing that would be contested by anyone: people tell stories about chess games they play, about fish they catch, and about toast they eat, and no one disagrees that (while not always interesting) these are stories.

Quote from: MaddmanI think a lot of gamers have taken a stance against 'story' because they associate it with railroading.

No, I take a stance against "story" because a concern with story creates a concern with story quality, and having read dozens of books on writing stories, things designed to improve story quality tend to have a detrimental effect on what I do want, which is verisimilitude.  I play for the experience of playing.

Quote from: MaddmanThe 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.

That definition of "story" is so broad as to be useless.  If any imagined series of events is a story, what would it mean for something to be a "good story" or a "bad story"?  And if you can't distinguish between the two, then of what use is this observation?  

I offer this essay for you consideration:

http://www.hollylisle.com/fm/Workshops/suckitudinous.html

...and suggest that Holly Lisle's point is that a good story is more than just "an imagined series of events".  I wish the postmodernist meme to redefine everything so that it means anything and thus nothing would just crawl into a corner and die.

Quote from: Pebbles and MarblesLikewise with board games.  I don't pretend to be the bishop in chess.  

I've always looked at a chess game as pretending to be the general. I'm manipulating the army in way that allows me to defeat the enemy while protecting my liege.

I know, not much of a contribution, but it's what I got ATM :) .

Quote from: Pebbles and MarblesLikewise with board games.  I don't pretend to be the bishop in chess.

You've never played a game like Axis and Allies while speaking in appropriate accents and taking on the role of the leader of the nation in question?

Quote from: Pebbles and MarblesI 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.

Why?  

If I'm playing a character playing baseball or backgammon and enjoy the experience, in character, in much the same way I enjoy doing such things myself, then how is the experience intrinsically different?

Quote from: Pebbles and MarblesHowever, 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?

Once the concern shifts toward the quality of the story produced, then the focus and nature of the game changes.  Once the GM and/or players are concerned with story quality then the lack of detail, subtext, and so on becomes a problem and GMs and players become tempted to force those things into the game to make it produce a better story.  That has a detrimental affect on other goals for playing.

Quote from: Pebbles and MarblesIf 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.

It isn't a matter of creating or not creating a story.  It's a matter of trying to create a good story and trying to avoid a bad story which makes a story-oriented game very different from a world-oriented game because what makes a bad story can produce strong verisimilitude and what makes a good story can destroy verisimilitude.

Quote from: hgjsI would amend this to, "recounting any play is a story."  As we agree, the story is not the event but the recounting of the event.  This is nothing that would be contested by anyone: people tell stories about chess games they play, about fish they catch, and about toast they eat, and no one disagrees that (while not always interesting) these are stories.

Yes - thank you for clarifying. That is exactly what I was fumbling at.

-clash

Quote from: RPGPunditYou're missing the point. The point is that if the game is about dying when you take 50 points of damage, its not about creating a structured story. It will have story-like elements, but whatever "story" is created will end up being a random account of the things that happened in the session, and that's it.

IF your goal is to create a "Story", then you will have to run the whole thing very differently, and it stops being a Roleplaying Game.

RPGpundit

I'm not one to be over restrictive in definitions - the greater meaning of Roleplaying Game may very well cover a game focused on storytelling, and it's not my job to define it - but it certainly produces a game very different than what I am interested in from a roleplaying game. Storytelling games, like De Profundis and Baron Munchausen, can be a lot of fun, but the type of fun they produce is not anything like the type of fun a traditional RPG produces. Other than that, I'm in full agreement with Pundit.

-clash

Quote from: John MorrowIt isn't a matter of creating or not creating a story.  It's a matter of trying to create a good story and trying to avoid a bad story which makes a story-oriented game very different from a world-oriented game because what makes a bad story can produce strong verisimilitude and what makes a good story can destroy verisimilitude.

Thank you, John - very well put!

-clash

Quote from: John MorrowNo, I take a stance against "story" because a concern with story creates a concern with story quality, and having read dozens of books on writing stories, things designed to improve story quality tend to have a detrimental effect on what I do want, which is verisimilitude.  I play for the experience of playing.

In what ways?  Can you give me some examples?  I've become rather experimental as of late, and trying to put structures in to make for better stories (strong pacing and scene framing, ending sessions with either a satisfying climax or cliffhanger, etc) has consistantly made for better gaming.  The last three years has produces more memorable games than the previous fifteen.  Verisimilitude I can groove on, I'm big into genre emulation.  Story isn't the only consideration and yes there's good and bad stories.

Do the things I mentioned interfere with verisimilitude, or was it something else you've encountered?  I don't see why verisimilitude needs to suffer at the hands of story, if the kind of story you want the game to create falls into your genre.

My definition is for those that say games aren't stories, because I can't wrap my mind around something that isn't a story yet could reasonably be called an RPG.  If you don't like it, that's fine.  I don't want to get everyone using the same words as me, just trying to let you know where I'm coming from.

Quote from: MaddmanIn what ways?  Can you give me some examples?  I've become rather experimental as of late, and trying to put structures in to make for better stories (strong pacing and scene framing, ending sessions with either a satisfying climax or cliffhanger, etc) has consistantly made for better gaming.

The fact that you have to put structures in to produce better stories means that those structures are not entirely natural.  If it's not natural, that can be noticed by the player and in character.  Two imperfect illustrations of what I'm talking about can be found in the movies Last Action Hero (where various characters are aware of the presence or absence of certain genre rules) and The Truman Show (where the main character realizes that the world is reacting to him).  And just as the characters in those movies could test their reality to see if it follows natural logic or story logic, so can PCs, if they have doubts.  The bottom line is that stories don't match reality, a point that many books on writing fiction point out.

Repetition and predictability can be a big part of the problem.  Disarming one timebomb with seconds left (if it weren't already a cliche) can feel realistic and tense.  After a few times, it becomes a predictable cliche (another movie that as fun with characters being aware of genre story conventions is Galaxy Quest).  The same thing with red shirts, villain escape pods, carefully balanced opponents, and so on.  The occasional use of story techniques might not be noticable.  Their intense use over time usually will be.

Quote from: MaddmanThe last three years has produces more memorable games than the previous fifteen.  Verisimilitude I can groove on, I'm big into genre emulation.  Story isn't the only consideration and yes there's good and bad stories.

The issue is that when you have a choice between a bad story and verisimilitude or a good story and some sacrificed verisimilitude, which do you pick?

These techniques can certainly produce better games for players with different priorities than mine, so if what you are doing works for your group, by all means keep doing it.  Just don't expect them to produce a similarly better experience for everyone else.

Quote from: MaddmanDo the things I mentioned interfere with verisimilitude, or was it something else you've encountered?  I don't see why verisimilitude needs to suffer at the hands of story, if the kind of story you want the game to create falls into your genre.

It's verisimilitude.  Stories and genres don't comply with reality.  That's what makes parodies and things like the Tough Guide to Fantasyland possible.  A life that contains an absence of things that make for a bad story isn't natural.  The absence is noticeable.

Quote from: MaddmanMy definition is for those that say games aren't stories, because I can't wrap my mind around something that isn't a story yet could reasonably be called an RPG.

Is your life a story?  Do you worry about whether the life you are living is a good story or bad story?

Quote from: MaddmanIf you don't like it, that's fine.  I don't want to get everyone using the same words as me, just trying to let you know where I'm coming from.

It's not so much that I don't like it but I don't find tautology definitions very useful.  Saying that every role-playing game is a story misses why people say that they aren't.  Yes, you can define "story" so broadly that no role-playing game could ever not be a story, but I think that's eliminating the word's ability to make distinctions.  And so long as you use such a broad definition, you aren't going to understand where other people are coming from.  If you take a look at books on writing fiction or even games like Theatrix, there is a definite technique and form to conventional fiction stories and that's what most people are talking about.  Plenty of role-playing games are not played to produce good stories in that sense.  It's just not the main concern.

Several people have already responded but it's only fair for me to answer P&M's post. Though I should mention that I cross-posted with him somehow (yes, I write very slowly sometimes) and my earlier post was mainly a response to blakkie & David R.

Quote from: Pebbles and MarblesThe 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.

Arguably when you play baseball you are pretending to be a baseball player because you're taking on the role of a person who cares about purely social/mental constructs such as "outs", "strikes", "foul territory", etc. You're implicating yourself in a web of constructed meaning. Whereas when I cook an omelette I'm not taking on a role because I'm dealing with concrete things like heat, oil, eggs, burned/not-burned, etc. I'm not pretending to be anybody or anything when I'm cooking.

More important is that as several others have said, one does indeed "pretend" to be someone else when playing boardgames--or one can. Bruce Pandolfini tells the kid in Searching for Bobby Fisher, while pointing at the king, "This is you!" Wargames dating back to 19th century Prussian Kriegspiel were designed to place the players in specific imagined roles as commanders of bodies of troops. Avalon Hill wargames advertised themselves with the blurb "Now YOU Command," inviting players to imagine themselves filling the shoes of historical commanders. Modern policymakers and human resource consultants engage in "roleplaying games" to explore the dimensions of problems in international relations and human interaction. Yet there is no more or less story in these activities than there is in playing a game of Othello. The difference is only that while all games use constructed meanings to regulate activity and evaluate outcomes, these games use highly representational categories and mechanics. That is, their meanings and interactions map to concepts "outside" the game (such as real life, or the "imagined worlds" of various fictions).

QuoteI 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.

It really depends, as others have pointed out, what your concept of "story" is, and whether "story" is a goal or a byproduct of the game action. A tactical dungeoncrawl will yield a story in the sense of a coherent, connected series of events; so will a "map maneuver" conducted between rival groups of military cadets with a presiding referee. But it will only be a story in the same way as a newspaper report on last night's ball game. (A journalist can turn it into a "story proper", though, through various narrative techniques which aren't part of the activity itself.) Furthermore, the production of "story" isn't the slightest concern of the participants--although it may be a concern of the people selling the tickets. E.g., baseball has a history of having its rules and other details adjusted over time to tweak the balance between pitcher and batter, with the goal of keeping the game interesting in the face of other changes affecting gameplay. But the players themselves, on the field, are focused on winning and losing, not on making the game interesting or dramatic.

I'm just catching up after a day without electricity, so I'm responding for the most part to the original post.

You are correct in saying that only reading genre fiction makes for piss-poor writing. I do, however, notice that alot of the 'greats' of science fiction were in fact piss-poor writers... at least in that their writing style wouldn't stand close scrutiny in my AP English class. HP Lovecraft (father of American horror... oh wait, that's Poe) and Isaac Asimov spring to mind as being rather dry. But I have to say that the character focus of, say, Wuthering Heights isn't exactly what I'm looking for when I read a sci-fi novel. Also, in-depth description (a good thing in most genres) needs a little playing down thanks to its capacity to clutter already confusing (or at least alien) concepts. I can think of exceptions to the former rule, though. Most notably, the anime Paranoia Agent. That was pretty damned 1337. Of course, again, character focus is not always a good thing (two words: Shinji Ikari).

Also, while depth and breadth of personal experience can make for good writing, that isn't necessarily the case. I've been through Christian school (once upon a time I actually had about half the Bible memorized... how's that for an extended literary backgound?) I then spent middle school in a correctional facility (look up New Dominion... they're affiliated with Three Springs... I was in the one in Maryland) and then I moved on to art school. Also, I'm an Iranian-American schizoid (the paranoia without the hallucinations... my sister hallucinates but isn't paranoid) Green Party advocate. I've been beat up, I've fought back, I've been kicked out of my house twice already... You name it I've done it. But... I'm still a piss-poor writer and I know it. Depth of experience is no substitue for elloquence.

In terms of game design, it isn't about the writing. It's about the ideas. Waste words on delivery and you just lose your readers' attention and waste space that could be filled with more ideas. If anything, a science fiction writer should be better at writing games than fiction (to me, sci-fi has always been a matter of content over delivery). Maybe I'm wrong, though.

Quote from: John MorrowThe fact that you have to put structures in to produce better stories means that those structures are not entirely natural.  If it's not natural, that can be noticed by the player and in character.  Two imperfect illustrations of what I'm talking about can be found in the movies Last Action Hero (where various characters are aware of the presence or absence of certain genre rules) and The Truman Show (where the main character realizes that the world is reacting to him).  And just as the characters in those movies could test their reality to see if it follows natural logic or story logic, so can PCs, if they have doubts.  The bottom line is that stories don't match reality, a point that many books on writing fiction point out.

You just made me want to run an Unknown Armies game where the characters slowly come to the realization that they are characters in a roleplaying game.  Awesome.  But I see what you're saying.

QuoteRepetition and predictability can be a big part of the problem.  Disarming one timebomb with seconds left (if it weren't already a cliche) can feel realistic and tense.  After a few times, it becomes a predictable cliche (another movie that as fun with characters being aware of genre story conventions is Galaxy Quest).  The same thing with red shirts, villain escape pods, carefully balanced opponents, and so on.  The occasional use of story techniques might not be noticable.  Their intense use over time usually will be.



The issue is that when you have a choice between a bad story and verisimilitude or a good story and some sacrificed verisimilitude, which do you pick?

Granted, I pick a good story.  But part of a good story is verisimilitude, which is the reality of the genre you're trying to emulate.

QuoteThese techniques can certainly produce better games for players with different priorities than mine, so if what you are doing works for your group, by all means keep doing it.  Just don't expect them to produce a similarly better experience for everyone else.



It's verisimilitude.  Stories and genres don't comply with reality.  That's what makes parodies and things like the Tough Guide to Fantasyland possible.  A life that contains an absence of things that make for a bad story isn't natural.  The absence is noticeable.

Reality.  I don't run realistic games.  They have vampires, ninjas, rayguns, and shit like that in them - most games are like this.  I mean "reality" is just another genre.  What's "realistic" in a gritty military game and what's reality in an action movie game are not the same thing.

QuoteIs your life a story?  Do you worry about whether the life you are living is a good story or bad story?

My life is not a roleplaying game.  (If it is the rules are broken and I think the GM hates me.  :p)

QuoteIt's not so much that I don't like it but I don't find tautology definitions very useful.  Saying that every role-playing game is a story misses why people say that they aren't.  Yes, you can define "story" so broadly that no role-playing game could ever not be a story, but I think that's eliminating the word's ability to make distinctions.  And so long as you use such a broad definition, you aren't going to understand where other people are coming from.  If you take a look at books on writing fiction or even games like Theatrix, there is a definite technique and form to conventional fiction stories and that's what most people are talking about.  Plenty of role-playing games are not played to produce good stories in that sense.  It's just not the main concern.

I'm pointing out that while it's not a main concern for some it is always there in anything that could reasonably be called a roleplaying game.

Hello All,

I'm in the middle of something else right now, so I can't give the response that this discussion deserves, but I would like to say that I've been given several things to think about.  In particular, John Morrow's comments have made me reconsider what I've stated earlier.

Likewise, a conversation with my girlfriend this afternoon -- a gamer herself, but one entirely uninvolved with any online discussion and theorizing, more of a self-taught/instinctual GM/player sort -- has made me reconsider my statements of being unable to imagine play not amounting to "story" within a RPG.

Much of that reconsideration comes down to realising that I'm using "story" in a very vague, possibly weak manner, where others mean something fairly specific.  When I consider what others mean by "story", it does become apparent how a RPG game be just play and not amount to a story.  Or, as my girlfriend pointed out about one of our last games -- a straightforward play-through of N1: Against the Cult of the Reptile God -- "there was a sequence of events, "plot" if you like, but I don't think I could consider it a story."  Okay, the conversation was rather more detailed that that, including her comparing and contrasting that game to earlier campaigns/games where we both used the term "story" to describe the proceedings.

Therefore, I acquiesce that "story" is not automatically a part of "play".  A RPG can include play, but not necessarily involve a "story".

All that said, I have a question, which can be broken off into a seperate thread if it's distracting from the core of this one:  Is it automatically a bad thing if "story" is introduced into a game?  For the sake of this particular question, I'm asking purely in terms of your traditional RPG, with the standard GM/Player division, and all that jazz.

Quote from: MaddmanGranted, I pick a good story.  But part of a good story is verisimilitude, which is the reality of the genre you're trying to emulate.

Verisimilitude isn't a genre issue.  Many genres have story-oriented components that do not support verisimilitude because the characters in the genre are not allowed to notice patterns that are obvious to anyone reading or watching a work in the genre.  

Red shirts don't die in Star Trek because it's realistic.  They die because the bridge crew are series regulars and have script immunity and the writers need a convenient way to show how dangerous the situation is without killing off a regular.  Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock are never aware of the genre rules of red shirts because it would change their behavior, and it would become much more difficult to convince an Ensign Liebowitz to beam down with the bridge crew if he realizes he's slated to die to show how dangerous the situation is for the privileged bridge crew.

In fact, many GMs in Star Trek games have fits trying to keep their players from using the transporter as a weapon and (like Project Genesi) it really is a wondeful weapon.  It's part of the Star Trek genre that the transporter not be used as a weapon but there is really no reason why it can' t be used as one except that the writers just don't let the characters use it that way.  That's another example of a genre rule conflicting with verisimilitude.

Quote from: MaddmanReality.  I don't run realistic games.  They have vampires, ninjas, rayguns, and shit like that in them - most games are like this.  I mean "reality" is just another genre.  What's "realistic" in a gritty military game and what's reality in an action movie game are not the same thing.

There is even more complexity to that.  Is the "reality" of Star Trek transporters, starships, phasers, and the Federation or is it also the red shirts, never using a transporter as a weapon, winking at violations of the prime directive and chain of command, script immunity for the bridge crew, and so on?  Verisimilitude generally requires that the genre elements make sense in the context of the setting and to the characters.  Some genre rules do.  Others don't.

Quote from: MaddmanMy life is not a roleplaying game.  (If it is the rules are broken and I think the GM hates me.  :p)

When I play a character, my goal is to think in character and experience the setting through that character's eyes.  As such, my objective is to experience the character's life as a real life much like my own.  Thus I am no more interested in my character's actions making a good story than I am in my own life making a good story.

Quote from: MaddmanI'm pointing out that while it's not a main concern for some it is always there in anything that could reasonably be called a roleplaying game.

If you define it broadly.  But if something is always there, what's the value in mentioning it?

Quote from: Pebbles and MarblesIs it automatically a bad thing if "story" is introduced into a game?  For the sake of this particular question, I'm asking purely in terms of your traditional RPG, with the standard GM/Player division, and all that jazz.

No, of course not.  That's why I said to Maddman, "These techniques can certainly produce better games for players with different priorities than mine, so if what you are doing works for your group, by all means keep doing it. Just don't expect them to produce a similarly better experience for everyone else."  The issue is matching the GM technique to what the players want out of the game.  Basically, it's a bad thing to sacrifice what the players enjoy to give them something they don't want.  

That can mean that it's bad to sacrifice verisimilitude for story or genre if the player values verisimilitude.  But it also means that it's bad to sacrifice story or genre for verisimilitude if the player values story or genre.  If your players are having fun, you are doing something right.  If they aren't having fun, try something different.

I highly recommend Robin Laws' book Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering published by Steve Jackson games for a good (though imperfect) analysis of some common player preferences and how to cater to them.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe point is that if the game is about dying when you take 50 points of damage, its not about creating a structured story. It will have story-like elements, but whatever "story" is created will end up being a random account of the things that happened in the session, and that's it.

Well, yes. Although genre expectations and bits of foreshadowing ("Flaw: Dark Fate") can of course be encoded into the game system, creating a story naturally enough differs from following a script: what other structure could you plausibly expect than the old Aristotelian beginning-middle-end, the precise details of which are determined only through play? "We shall storm the fortress of Margrave Vilestone, save the royal couple, and live in the lap of luxury for the rest of our lives?" That's not a story; that's a plan, and we all know that those gang aft agley. The story is generated moment by moment as the brave band of adventurers attempts to follow that plan, regardless of whether they succeed gloriously or later die an ill death in the Margrave's dungeons.

GrimGent, under your description of "story", any sporting match "generates a story". Is that the point of a game? It might be, for the audience, if any. However, the generation of story is irrelevant to the players, which is a key distinction in my mind between playing a game and telling a story.

I will say that on reflection, RPGs tend to have a heightened relationship to a kind of "story" compared to other games. In chess and most other two-player competitive games, the history of the game is unimportant to the players: the best move is always the same regardless of the moves that have led up to the current situation. In nonzero-sum games and many multiplayer games, though, elements of cooperation and betrayal are introduced, so that your current move may be influenced by how other players have acted earlier in the game. "I must retaliate against attacks, even if it's costly in the short term, to deter future attacks." (Two-player games of bluff, like Poker, also have this characteristic in practice, although theoretically you can use a conservative "history-less" strategy, analogous to secretly rolling a die to pick your move in rock-scissors-paper.)

RPGs can be played exactly like a two-player boardgame. Again, the military map maneuver or cooperative tactical dungeoncrawl is such that players can (or will tend to) play the game based only on their knowledge of the current game-state. If you have 10 HP left and you sneakily spy into a room full of treasure, guarded by gnolls or whatever, your decision to attack or not won't be affected by whether you lost your first 5 HP to orcs or kobolds.

On the other hand, RPGs also offer the opportunity to play in a manner that's highly mindful of the history of the game. E.g., if your 2nd-level character was once rescued and nursed back to health by a group of villagers, then even if you're now 20th level and they could barely have any impact on your future, you might be more inclined to help them deal with a threat than if you had no prior history with them.

In this sense, while players of an RPG needn't be interested in construction of a story, the story-byproduct of play can impact further play in an enjoyable manner--not just from the standpoint of a putative audience.

Quote from: Elliot WilenHowever, the generation of story is irrelevant to the players, which is a key distinction in my mind between playing a game and telling a story.

Not necessarily, and not in every game, and not to every player. Consider, for instance, the Third Rule of Puppetland: "The tale grows in the telling, and is being told to someone not present." Here the group is explicitly creating a story with no predetermined outcome. Everything the players say must be part of that tale.

My point, which you still seem to be willingly ignoring, is that in normal RPGs you can go one of two ways; either the most important thing is "having a good story", or the most important thing is "playing the game". Those are two goals that will often end up in conflict with each other, and anytime that they do, one must make a choice one way or the other.

By definition, an RPG is where you pick the game over the story every time.  You aren't TRYING to make a story, you're trying to play a game.  As soon as the goal is "story",and you can suspend or delete the rules, the autonomy of the players, the authority of the gamemaster, or the emulation of the setting in order to get "story", you may as well throw the whole RPG thing out the window and just go back to telling a fucking story around a campfire, because the whole RPG thing was just a pretense for you anyways and it wasn't working out.

That's why the Forgites have so much trouble with our hobby and want to radically transform it by force; its no coincidence that all the things I listed above that can end up clashing with the goal of "creating story" are things that at one time or another, in one form or another, they've tried to somehow alter or excise from RPGs.  They don't actually want to be playing a game, they want some kind of fucking tool for story creation, and they realized too late into their participation in the hobby that RPGs, as they currently exist, are fucking awful for that.  That you would be far better off, in fact, writing the fucking story without using some kind of byzantine rules-system to frame it with.

So now, having had this realization, instead of just quitting the hobby or going to find some new way of making stories, they feel that they need to force the hobby to fit THEIR interests and needs, ruining it for the rest of us. That's the part I don't get.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditAs soon as the goal is "story",and you can suspend or delete the rules, the autonomy of the players, the authority of the gamemaster, or the emulation of the setting in order to get "story", you may as well throw the whole RPG thing out the window and just go back to telling a fucking story around a campfire, because the whole RPG thing was just a pretense for you anyways and it wasn't working out.

...Except none of that is the case with Puppetland, which is based on both the dreaded GM fiat to a greater degree than any other game I know and a form of enforced immersion which doesn't even allow acting out of character during play. And in spite of this, creating the story of how the rebellious puppets finally came to confront Punch the Maker-Killer in his castle is the game. There's no need for any conflict between the two.

Except that if its a "story-making" game, then its really not a Roleplaying game anymore.

RPGPundit

Quote from: GrimGentNot necessarily, and not in every game, and not to every player. Consider, for instance, the Third Rule of Puppetland: "The tale grows in the telling, and is being told to someone not present." Here the group is explicitly creating a story with no predetermined outcome. Everything the players say must be part of that tale.

Of course. I'm reacting to the claim which we've seen in this thread, that RPG's are necessarily about creating stories.

"Not necessarily about creating stories" does not equal "necessarily not about creating stories".

Quote from: Elliot Wilen"Not necessarily about creating stories" ? "necessarily not about creating stories".

I think it's a question of intent or primary purpose. I could use a painting as a weapon (or poison ivy for toilet paper, newspaper to put out a fire, or a flashlight to cut a piece of fish), but that really isn't what it's made for.

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.

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

RPGPundit

Certainly not, it's a game in which people play roles, which is a totally alien beast that must be opposed.

Quote from: BalbinusCertainly not, it's a game in which people play roles, which is a totally alien beast that must be opposed.

I'm growing more and more convinced that the distinction is one of the more pointless things ever.

Quote from: RPGPunditThat's why the Forgites have so much trouble with our hobby and want to radically transform it by force; its no coincidence that all the things I listed above that can end up clashing with the goal of "creating story" are things that at one time or another, in one form or another, they've tried to somehow alter or excise from RPGs.

You can rest your head here. No one can change the hobby. If WotC tried they wouldn't be able, so you can stop worrying. :rolleyes:

Quote from: ImperatorI'm growing more and more convinced that the distinction is one of the more pointless things ever.

I don't think there is a distinction at all.  I think Dogs, MLwM, Sorceror, Gurps, Runequest, DnD, to me these are all rpgs.

And if some are not, I don't really care.  There are games I like and games I don't, and they don't fit neatly into indie or mainstream categories.

I refuse to get upset because some guy I've never met is playing a game I don't personally enjoy, the idea is frankly bizarre.

Quote from: mythusmageNow 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.

Suppose that you meet a man on a streetcorner, extemporizing about the adventures of a wandering gunslinger come to bring justice to a lawless town; and whenever this hero ends up in a dangerous situation, the man flips a coin and lets it decide how badly things turn out. Now, ask the people passing by whether he's telling a story. I think we all know what the answer to that would be.

Then picture some of those passers-by joining in after listening for a while, reaching into their pockets for some loose change and becoming companions to the gunslinger. (A boozehound doctor, a whore with a heart of gold, a kid who wants to be the fastest gun in town: whatever stereotypes of the Wild West strike their fancy.) The man doesn't mind at all, and so now they take turns, each telling about their characters' actions after another. Would any of those who still look at the scene from the outside see it differently from how it used to be in the beginning?

And finally imagine this little ensemble getting tired of standing out there in the open (where they would no doubt get their fair share of strange looks), and heading to a local bar where they continue the adventure over refreshments. Furthermore, imagine that a local group of roleplayers uses the backroom of that very same bar for their weekly game of Deadlands, about the adventures of a wandering gunslinger come to bring justice to a lawless town. What is the distinction between the gamers and those who met earlier on the street?

Quote from: BalbinusI don't think there is a distinction at all.  I think Dogs, MLwM, Sorceror, Gurps, Runequest, DnD, to me these are all rpgs.

And if some are not, I don't really care.  There are games I like and games I don't, and they don't fit neatly into indie or mainstream categories.

This is the first time that particular opposition has been brought into this thread--best to keep it out IMO; it only muddies the waters in light of the existence of games such as The Adventures of Baron Munchhausen, Puppetland, Once Upon a Time--not to mention all the technically "creator owned" games that are thoroughly traditional RPGs in terms of mechanics.

QuoteI refuse to get upset because some guy I've never met is playing a game I don't personally enjoy, the idea is frankly bizarre.

The conversation has gone through a bunch of twists and turns but I believe it headed down this path when blakkie asserted without qualification that RPGs are tools for creating a story. Disagreeing with that claim doesn't have anything to do with telling other people how to play their games, does it? The point that a number of us are pushing is that there's a difference between creating a story and assuming a role. Sometimes the two can be combined fairly effectively (as in improv and, perhaps, Puppetland) but that doesn't make them identical, and it's possible to pursue one without the other.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThe conversation has gone through a bunch of twists and turns but I believe it headed down this path when blakkie asserted without qualification that RPGs are tools for creating a story. Disagreeing with that claim doesn't have anything to do with telling other people how to play their games, does it? The point that a number of us are pushing is that there's a difference between creating a story and assuming a role. Sometimes the two can be combined fairly effectively (as in improv and, perhaps, Puppetland) but that doesn't make them identical, and it's possible to pursue one without the other.

Absolutely, I was responding to Pundit's characterisation of the games, which I don't really agree with.  But sure, creating a story and assuming a role are different endeavours that can be combined but need not be.

Crossed wires, then. :)

I feel dumber after reading this thread.

-O

Quote from: obrynI feel dumber after reading this thread.

-O

I thought the first two pages - or at least page 2 as I remember it - were actually getting somewhere.

Then it got all Internet-ed up.

Quote from: ImperatorYou can rest your head here. No one can change the hobby. If WotC tried they wouldn't be able, so you can stop worrying. :rolleyes:

You must be very young (as a roleplayer anyways); or else you'd remember that in fact, White Wolf almost DID change the hobby.  They proved it can be done; it just costs the life of 9/10ths of the hobby; they almost destroyed gaming, but they also almost changed it.

Thank god, we stopped them.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYou must be very young (as a roleplayer anyways); or else you'd remember that in fact, White Wolf almost DID change the hobby.  They proved it can be done; it just costs the life of 9/10ths of the hobby; they almost destroyed gaming, but they also almost changed it.

Thank god, we stopped them.

RPGPundit

What the christ kind of alternate reality do you remember?  White Wolf filled the void left by the gutting of TSR and brought in entirely new gamers.  This is completely out of left field.

You make a lot of sense when you aren't rambling about your RPG conspiracy theories.

Quote from: GrimGentSuppose that you meet a man on a streetcorner, extemporizing about the adventures of a wandering gunslinger come to bring justice to a lawless town; and whenever this hero ends up in a dangerous situation, the man flips a coin and lets it decide how badly things turn out. Now, ask the people passing by whether he's telling a story. I think we all know what the answer to that would be.

Then picture some of those passers-by joining in after listening for a while, reaching into their pockets for some loose change and becoming companions to the gunslinger. (A boozehound doctor, a whore with a heart of gold, a kid who wants to be the fastest gun in town: whatever stereotypes of the Wild West strike their fancy.) The man doesn't mind at all, and so now they take turns, each telling about their characters' actions after another. Would any of those who still look at the scene from the outside see it differently from how it used to be in the beginning?

And finally imagine this little ensemble getting tired of standing out there in the open (where they would no doubt get their fair share of strange looks), and heading to a local bar where they continue the adventure over refreshments. Furthermore, imagine that a local group of roleplayers uses the backroom of that very same bar for their weekly game of Deadlands, about the adventures of a wandering gunslinger come to bring justice to a lawless town. What is the distinction between the gamers and those who met earlier on the street?

You are the first person I've ever read who tried to erase a distinction that is there. I have to ask, do you in any way understand what you were trying to say?

So we have a guy who's telling a story, and using chance to decide how the story will go at decision points. No different really than what other story tellers do when they have to decide how the story goes. But then you turned it into a roleplaying game by allowing others to take part and take control of characters. The nature of the event changed.

You are deliberately missing the point, things don't have to be anything. Things are what they are. The mice in Maus are stand ins for the Jews during the holocaust, and that's all they need to be. RPG play does not have to be story, it is enough for it to be imaginary lives in an imaginary world. A shared experience between the players.

Do we get a better experience when we think of RPGs as story? No. If anything, we get a worse experience. By insisting on treating play as tied to story we limit we we are willing to do. We limit our options and so limit our enjoyment. We limit ourselves to following a plot, and we limit ourselves to the tropes of fiction or the particular genre the game seeks to emulate. And these limitations aren't necessary. The hard-nosed, cynical, burnt out, alcoholic gumshoe with the secret hots for his secretary is not limited to stories.

And I'll tell you one big beef I have with RPGs as story. It makes the players think their characters are the damn heroes. What do you get with that kind of thinking? You get bitching and moaning and acting like a spoiled brat whenever their characters get killed. Adventuring has just two rules. Rule number one is, adventurers die. Rule number two is, you can't change rule number one.

Let me put that in more basic terms. There are two rules to life. The first rule is, people die. The second rule is, you can't change rule number one. Adventuring, war, crossing the street all have casualties, and you're not going to change it. By insisting on making RPGs into story, and giving the PCs authorial immunity, you are degrading the experience and cheating the players of the full experience possible in a good session.

Let your games live. Let them have as much of the range of possibility as they can, mindful of the limitations inherent in this new, incohoate art. We really don't know what RPGs could do, and we never will know so long as we continue to crowd them into the ghetto of story.

As I said over on the Theory board, I think there is a massive difference in the approaches of players who came into this hobby before videogames and those who came after.

Mythusmage's view of RPGs is a perfect example of an attitude held by many "old school" players.  

QuoteAdventuring has just two rules. Rule number one is, adventurers die. Rule number two is, you can't change rule number one.

Mortality.  Chance.  Skill.  

Compare that to the Phantasy Star series.  There you play through one set story.  Play PSIV ten thousand times and your ten thousandth play will be pretty much like your fiftieth.  Your characters have inviolable plot immunity.  Death is a status effect.

That's enough to make you puke your guts up, right?  But this is the product that has killed tabletop RPGs dead.  Blame it anything you like, but generations of gamers now have enjoyed and internalized these games, and they seek out experiences that will reflect that.

Last week I dug up my old HeroQuest box.  Inside were a bunch of yellowed character sheets from my first RPG.  A friend of mine and I had been so shaken up by the experience of Final Fantasy II that we played through a free-form, largely diceless game as a sort of spinoff.  (Yes, this means I invented Wushu as a nine-year-old.  Please withhold your death threats.)  This was maybe two weeks before my buddy's mother introduced us to box set D&D.

And there you may well have the dividing line.

Even now, new generations of gamers are playing, enjoying and internalizing games that make those old 16-bit RPGs look like Keep on the Borderlands.  Final Fantasy XII is infamous for its "Gambit System", through which it plays itself.

The PlayStation 2 is unthinkably ancient to kids in their early teens.  That would make this "young" medium of RPGs something akin to the Trilobite in their minds.

So let the designers fiddle.  Maybe the GNS guys will figure out how to capture this new imagination.  Maybe it'll be one of the more traditional indies, like the guys who post here.  Maybe WotC will find the perfect formula with D&D 4e or 5e.

All I know is: my desires have ever been different from the guys who came before me; the desires of the guys who came after me are just as different from mine.  Only God knows what the generation after theirs will want.

Games will have to shift to meet those desires.  Unless, of course, you want to go the way of Advanced Squad Leader.

I find exactly the opposite to be true. Video game players seek out paper-n-pencil games because of what it gives them that videogames won't. Otherwise they'd have stuck with videogames and left it at that.

Quote from: beejazzI find exactly the opposite to be true. Video game players seek out paper-n-pencil games because of what it gives them that videogames won't. Otherwise they'd have stuck with videogames and left it at that.

I don't disagree with that at all.  The main point I was hoping to make is that the experience that those roleplayers want has been informed and influenced by their videogaming.

Quote from: RPGPunditYou must be very young (as a roleplayer anyways); or else you'd remember that in fact, White Wolf almost DID change the hobby.  They proved it can be done; it just costs the life of 9/10ths of the hobby; they almost destroyed gaming, but they also almost changed it.

Thank god, we stopped them.

RPGPundit

I've been playing for 21 years. Don't know if that makes me young in your book. And I don't remember people stopping playing other games than WW games. There was people who liked them and played them only, people who didn't liked them and never played, and people who didn't give a shit, and played WW one week, RQ the next, and so. I freely admit that the storytelling fad had an influence in the way some things were made on RPGs, specially in the advice for GMs section. But life continued as always did.

Maybe in Canada or in Uruguay things have been different. But I'm more and more inclined to think that's not the reason.

Quote from: mythusmageSo we have a guy who's telling a story, and using chance to decide how the story will go at decision points. No different really than what other story tellers do when they have to decide how the story goes. But then you turned it into a roleplaying game by allowing others to take part and take control of characters. The nature of the event changed.

That's precisely what I was looking for: the defining point at which something becomes (or ceases to be) a game for you. So in your opinion, the requirements include more than one player, and something that wasn't a game to begin with can be turned into one by simply throwing more people into the mix? A single man acting out the part of a gunslinger and letting the coin decide the efforts of the guys in the black hats isn't roleplaying (or in a game any more than someone playing Solitaire, then?), but anyone else joining in makes it so?

QuoteAnd I'll tell you one big beef I have with RPGs as story. It makes the players think their characters are the damn heroes.

Not heroes as such: main characters, or protagonists if you will. The spotlight is always on them. They can die, certainly, but those deaths shouldn't be random or meaningless unless you are explicitly playing a game in which the characters are little more than easily replaceable chess pieces, or in which the constant reminder of mortality is a feature of the setting. Still, obviously that doesn't suit you, and I'd be the last person to tell anyone that there's something wrong with their gaming preferences. Personally, I never ran even OD&D in the late eighties with disposable PCs.

QuoteThe hard-nosed, cynical, burnt out, alcoholic gumshoe with the secret hots for his secretary is not limited to stories.

"A man with a gun steps into your office and *clatter of dice* shoots you dead. Roll up another character." Ah, the joys of random violence.

Fonkaygarry, that's an interesting theory, but "story-telling" was already identified as a style of RPG play as early as 1980. Glenn Blacow described it in his article,Aspects of Adventure Gaming (http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/models/blacow.html).

GrimGent, I hope you can appreciate the difference between preferring RPGs as stories and claiming that all RPGs have "making stories" as their goal.

Quote from: ImperatorI've been playing for 21 years. Don't know if that makes me young in your book. And I don't remember people stopping playing other games than WW games. There was people who liked them and played them only, people who didn't liked them and never played, and people who didn't give a shit, and played WW one week, RQ the next, and so. I freely admit that the storytelling fad had an influence in the way some things were made on RPGs, specially in the advice for GMs section. But life continued as always did.

Maybe in Canada or in Uruguay things have been different. But I'm more and more inclined to think that's not the reason.

So apparently in Spain there wasn't a massive exodus of old-school gamers in the late 90s who left the hobby in disgust because there weren't any games for them in it anymore; because Story-based gaming had turned everything into limp-wristed metagame-full teh-drama?

Story-based gaming COST the rpg hobby FAR more players than it ever generated. A handful of goths who played vampire a couple of times and then never played anything else does not make up for the thousands and thousands of dedicated gamers who left the hobby at that time because the hobby told them they weren't wanted anymore.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditSo apparently in Spain there wasn't a massive exodus of old-school gamers in the late 90s who left the hobby in disgust because there weren't any games for them in it anymore; because Story-based gaming had turned everything into limp-wristed metagame-full teh-drama?

Story-based gaming COST the rpg hobby FAR more players than it ever generated. A handful of goths who played vampire a couple of times and then never played anything else does not make up for the thousands and thousands of dedicated gamers who left the hobby at that time because the hobby told them they weren't wanted anymore.

RPGPundit

Do you have any, what's the word I'm looking for, oh yes, evidence for these rather remarkable claims?

Quote from: RPGPunditSo apparently in Spain there wasn't a massive exodus of old-school gamers in the late 90s who left the hobby in disgust because there weren't any games for them in it anymore

By "games for them" do you mean published game books, or campaigns/gaming groups?

Quote from: Elliot WilenGrimGent, I hope you can appreciate the difference between preferring RPGs as stories and claiming that all RPGs have "making stories" as their goal.

Naturally.But I also find the claim that no RPG can ever be and has never been used to tell a story a tad oddish. A story isn't a story while being told?

Perhaps someone has made that claim and I've been blinded by my sensitivity to the equally preposterous claim that RPGs are necessarily about story-creation.

Oh, maybe you mean RPGPundit, who says that if you're creating stories you're not playing an RPG? That's a different matter, really it gets to the distinction between roleplaying and storytelling. Of course you can use an RPG to tell stories, but then you aren't doing the thing that for many people is the core concept of what one does with an RPG. At that point you're either fighting over semantics, which is ultimately silly, or you're denying the difference between roleplaying and storytelling, which is wrong.

Quote from: Elliot WilenBy "games for them" do you mean published game books, or campaigns/gaming groups?

Published game books.  In fact, some of those thousands and thousands didn't quit altogether, but retired from active participation in the hobby, bunkering out with their small immediate gaming group playing the old games they enjoyed. Some of them are still out there, like our very own "Lost tribe".

RPGPundit

Quote from: Elliot WilenOh, maybe you mean RPGPundit, who says that if you're creating stories you're not playing an RPG? That's a different matter, really it gets to the distinction between roleplaying and storytelling. Of course you can use an RPG to tell stories, but then you aren't doing the thing that for many people is the core concept of what one does with an RPG. At that point you're either fighting over semantics, which is ultimately silly, or you're denying the difference between roleplaying and storytelling, which is wrong.

Well, I think beyond that the point is that grimgent is using something of a red herring.  What I actually say is:

1. an RPG is not a game where the MAIN GOAL is to create story; as in where the priority of "creating story" does NOT trump the priority of "playing game".  And because of that, people who want a story-making engine instead of an RPG get frustrated by RPGs.
2. You can of course, technically speaking, make story-creation the goal of your game with a traditional RPG; you will just find that its inefficient. You will end up playing a half-assed RPG on the one hand, and making a hampered effort at collective story-making on the other.  You'd have more fun playing the game if you just played the RPG as an RPG on the one hand, and on the other hand you'd find the collective storytelling far easier if you just collectively "storytold", rather than trying to do it within the ill-suited framework of RPGs.
3. You can of course also create games that DO specifically serve to generate stories, with that as the main priority of those games. But those games are, by definition, no longer RPGs. They're some other kind of game (a "story game"?).

RPGPundit

Quote from: GrimGentNaturally.But I also find the claim that no RPG can ever be and has never been used to tell a story a tad oddish. A story isn't a story while being told?

I'd say a story is a story while it's being told. More importantly, I think that setting up a non-railroaded starting situation for a traditional PC-driven RPG *is* creating a story ... in a fashion.

I'll explain (my viewpoint is a bit nuanced so ... long post ahead).

1. I believe that the distinction between 'a story' and 'a narrative' that I most like is that the 'story' has 'a point.' Digging into the idea of "a point," I believe that it's something like this:
(a) a structure that involves some lit-style elements (rising actiont to climax, resolution). A 'tighter' structure is not *necessiarly* better so long as the 'story' isn't totally meandering.
(b) the 'story' has some meaning to the audience. This is subjective. You can find meaning in Sinefield. You can decide Sinefield has no meaning.

[ in fact, Sinefield is an example of a show that violates most of my precepts about story--it's more like each show is a 'just' a narrative--save for the fact that most shows illustrate the bookending comedic routines. But it's subtle. ]

2. Given that definition of story, I believe that RPGs can, and often do, "create story." I also think that "story" can be a preferable aspect to RPG-play.

It is for me. When I set up a game (in, say, GURPS--the simmiest of the 'sim,' I would think) I go to a certain amount of effort to set up a story-promoting structure.

For example:
1. Instructing the PCs specifically about what their characters should be like and what kind of action the game may involve.

In a game where the PCs were members of an elite secret-agency that fought a mysterious enemy on American soil, they were instructed to each have an issue going on in their secret-ID mundane lives--and the game would sort of hilight the difference between being a soccer-mom with family problems and being called out to go on wet-works missions.

2. When running the game, I will run things with a strong eye towards *internal* cause (i.e. I don't manipulate things for hightened drama and I try to keep things as well based on the initial situation as I can)--but that means I try to create an initial situation that is gonna have things happen and continue to happen at a good pace and with increasing pressure.

In the game, the sleeper cell the PCs were a part of happened to be in the small town where The Enemy was staging its attempt at final victory. This invovled their mundane lives being caught up in The Enemy's plot. This would ensure that even if play "bogged down" there would be external actors (The Enemy) to keep things moving.

3. When the results produce focused action that tends to have ... um ... reinforcing themes (and that's a terrible term due to the baggage of the term 'themes') I'm most pleased. I feel like, as the GM, I did something really cool (assuming the Players are happy--and they were). I consider it non-trivial to do this (especially with a scenario as weird as sleeper-cell super-spies where their mundane-lives inter-cut and finally intersect with their secret IDs).

If this is done right:
1. The PCs drive most of the action. Sure, there is a situation and, yes, it does put pressure on them--but it isn't guaranteed to end any one way and some of the most interesting decisions (one of the characters decided to leave her husband and tell her kids the whole story) aren't part of the "script" (the initial starting situation) at all.

2. The Players care about the content of the game because they were told to make characters that they have some stake in that intersect with the themes of the game (i.e. they are told this will involve their mundane lives so they are asked to come up with an unresolved situation in their mundane life that will play out during the game. If the Players do their jobs right, this makes it highly likely they'll engage with the action on more than a cursory level).

----------------
I believe that in almost any reasonable way this can be said to "create a story during play."

I would say that, for me, the more on-target the actual play stays (we completed the scenario in about 6 3-4hr gaming sessions) the happier I am. When some parts reinforce others (the question of whether the PCs would choose family over agency on a number of levels) I think that's cool. As a GM, constructing a situation that way feels like a creative act to me--a lot like writing a story without knowing at all how it'll turn out.

So given that, I believe that a reasonable goal of RPG-play can be to create story and that this can be done from a traditional immersed perspective (as it always has been) as well as from a more alternative authorial perspective.

-Marco

(reply to post #100) Well in that case I doubt your argument. It seems to boil down to people leaving the hobby because the publishing leadership bought into the "story-based" idea. But surely that was TSR's fault, not White Wolf's.

Quote from: Elliot WilenPerhaps someone has made that claim and I've been blinded by my sensitivity to the equally preposterous claim that RPGs are necessarily about story-creation.

I've been responding to post #75 (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=31930&postcount=75). You might have missed it:

Quote from: mythusmageYou 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.

...

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.

Marco, your methods are lot like the baseball gods (and their equivalents in other sports) who've tinkered with the game to make sure it stays interesting over time.

Personally I think those methods are of a completely different ilk from what commonly goes by "storytelling", and however you classify them semantically, we shouldn't fall into slippery-slope arguments which erase the distinction between game/simulation on the one hand, and story on the other hand. (Over in my livejournal I've pointed to Gonzalo Frasca's and others' essays on the difference between simulation and emulation, between top-down representation and bottom-up emergence. [Note: "emulation" here isn't the way that Pundit uses it.])

Quote from: RPGPunditSo apparently in Spain there wasn't a massive exodus of old-school gamers in the late 90s who left the hobby in disgust because there weren't any games for them in it anymore; because Story-based gaming had turned everything into limp-wristed metagame-full teh-drama?

Story-based gaming COST the rpg hobby FAR more players than it ever generated. A handful of goths who played vampire a couple of times and then never played anything else does not make up for the thousands and thousands of dedicated gamers who left the hobby at that time because the hobby told them they weren't wanted anymore.

RPGPundit

I suppose you think Magic: The Gathering had NOTHING to do with the problems RPGs had in the late 90s.

Quote from: GrimGentI've been responding to post #75 (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=31930&postcount=75). You might have missed it:

Yes, I saw that. Well, mythusmage will have to speak for himself, but RPGPundit's point 2 above is I think a reasonable phrasing of the same sentiment that's a lot less likely to be misunderstood. And actually, I don't know if Pundit would be happy to hear this, it's very close to what the Forge-ites say. Except that they also tend to--wrongly--assume that the "enrichment of meaning" process I wrote about in an earlier post (this one in this thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=31721&postcount=54)) is the same thing as storytelling and therefore, by linguistic magic, people who enjoy that process are deluding themselves (or worse) by trying to "create story" with traditional RPGs.

QuoteDo you have any, what's the word I'm looking for, oh yes, evidence for these rather remarkable claims?

Balbinus, at least here in Germany, it`s seen as common knowledge, that Vampire and Magic totally changed the gaming demographic. And the various TSR history articles show, that AD&D 2nd was way too story and metaplot intensive, fractured the market with stuff like planescape, dark sun etc.

This is all backed up by years of TSR employees.

Don't forget: Vampire outsold AD&D for some time. It`s the era of the attitude games, and you can also read more about it in the "Fantasy Roleplaying Gamer`s Bible" 2nd Ed.

You can say the change in demographic and style is to be lauded, but change there was.

Settembrini, sure, it definitely changed the demographic.

But, as far as I know, by bringing people in.  It's the notion that it drove a swathe of gamers out of the hobby I'm challenging.

Quote from: RPGPunditSo apparently in Spain there wasn't a massive exodus of old-school gamers in the late 90s who left the hobby in disgust because there weren't any games for them in it anymore; because Story-based gaming had turned everything into limp-wristed metagame-full teh-drama?

No, there weren't any exodus. Actually, when Vampire was in all its height around here, AD&D2e was one of the three biggest sellers around (maybe the biggest, though I have not actual figures of sales).

Around here, people plays a lot of different games, and playing one doesn't preclude you from playing others. So people plays D&D3E one week, and Vampire the other, and CoC the next. The gaming magazines and boards in Spain (such as Inforol.com, and others) shows that D&D is and has been one of the main games around.

I'm sure that around here you can find this or that prick that only plays a game and finds the rest of hobby 'childish' or whatever he may call it. I've found some people who thought that only Vampire was a real RPG. But I also have found the ocasional idiot that thinks that only D&D is a true RPG, and won't play any other thing and will despise people who do. I find both positions to be ultimately the same.

Quote from: RPGPunditStory-based gaming COST the rpg hobby FAR more players than it ever generated. A handful of goths who played vampire a couple of times and then never played anything else does not make up for the thousands and thousands of dedicated gamers who left the hobby at that time because the hobby told them they weren't wanted anymore.

I would be more inclined to believe such statement if someone was able to produce some figures, either on sales or in number of gamers that showed that. I think that you don't have those figures; neither do I. So, lacking actual data to back up your claim, I'll have to trust my impression (just as you do), and I can say that around here, the hobby grows healthy, and haven't experienced any glitch. RPGs keep being a fringe hobby, but attendance to cons is getting bigger and bigger, year after year.

I will admit that, in other countries, situation can be different. But then, that does not support your claim that the storytelling fad was neither good nor bad to the hobby. I think that it had no impact in the number of gamers, that has keep growing slow and steadily (IMO); the impact of storytelling fad has been just an impact in the way the games were designed after that, both my imitation and by rejection of it.

Actually I know of a few folks who returned to gaming because of WW. Most of them switched to other games after a couple of years (the ones I know of at least).

I have no actual evidence but I really think that WW in a way helped bring in a lot of people who never thought of giving gaming a try. I was pretty interested in their games awhile back - I'm running a WW game now, but it's heavily modified and the main reason I'm running it is because my current who had never played a WW game, wanted to try it out.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Elliot WilenWell, mythusmage will have to speak for himself, but RPGPundit's point 2 above is I think a reasonable phrasing of the same sentiment that's a lot less likely to be misunderstood.

Yah, I tend to get the creeping suspicion that someone is using "story" in a way that doesn't bear even a passing resemblance to what I understand by the word... Incidentally, I've even played a distinct role in Once Upon a Time, although that's not exactly common in the game: in that case, except for brief visitations, we weren't playing the characters caught in the story itself, but rather Life and Death and Fate who were telling how certain events came to pass and so making it all happen. "The world is the language of the gods."

Quote from: MaddmanI suppose you think Magic: The Gathering had NOTHING to do with the problems RPGs had in the late 90s.

Actually, I've heard people complaining of the loss of players due to Magic: the Gathering, and FLGS' owners telling about RPG sales dropping because people spent their money on cards rather than in RPGs. But I've never known of any saying that he couldn't keep playing D&D because there was no support for them (I disagree quite a lot with the idea that publisher's support is needed for a game, but that's an entire different thing). If you went to any FLGS in Madrid, Sevilla, Barcelona or Granada (the cities I'm most familiar with) you could find a lot of WW products, along with a lot of many other products. So, people who didn't like Vampire didn't have any problems.

Quote from: ImperatorActually, I've heard people complaining of the loss of players due to Magic: the Gathering, and FLGS' owners telling about RPG sales dropping because people spent their money on cards rather than in RPGs. But I've never known of any saying that he couldn't keep playing D&D because there was no support for them (I disagree quite a lot with the idea that publisher's support is needed for a game, but that's an entire different thing). If you went to any FLGS in Madrid, Sevilla, Barcelona or Granada (the cities I'm most familiar with) you could find a lot of WW products, along with a lot of many other products. So, people who didn't like Vampire didn't have any problems.

In the US, you can either get to a game shop, or you cannot.  If you could get to a game shop then you had available every RPG ever made.  If you could not, you could go to a bookstore where you could get D&D.  I didn't start seeing White Wolf in local bookstores in these parts until well after 2000.

Which shows nothing except neither of our experiences are universal.

The sales for AD&D 2nd where dwindling at that time, blame Magic or Vampire whoever your favorite bogeyman is. Actually, WotC blamed the story-heavy approach of those final days of TSR, at least according to the accessible articles.
The only "Punditry" inside Pundits argumentation is his blaming the story-heavy nature of AD&D 2nd stuff on TSR trying to imitate WW, therby driving out regular gamers, who came back when 3rd Ed. came out, with it`s Dungeon and rules heavy outlook.

It`s internally consistent.

Quote from: MaddmanIn the US, you can either get to a game shop, or you cannot.  If you could get to a game shop then you had available every RPG ever made.  If you could not, you could go to a bookstore where you could get D&D.  I didn't start seeing White Wolf in local bookstores in these parts until well after 2000.

Which shows nothing except neither of our experiences are universal.

That's the reason why I find Pundit's claims unbelievable. I don't think that anyone knows really how the hobby is going, apart from his reduced inmediate experience. Publishers only know about their own sales, but they don't know how many people plays their games. When you go to a con, you don't know if the figures of attendance really represent the number of local gamers. If the con is a national one, you have even less idea.

Most gaming groups are totally under the radar. They don't appear over the web discussing things on boards, and its presence may be forgotten or ignored. But they are there.

If an indie publisher says me that they're changing the hobby because indie games are having big web exposure, I will laugh out loud, because we (the gamers who go around boards) are a minority of gamers. We are the minority of gamers that have time to spend on the web discussing stuff, and give a shit about it. Most gamers don't, but his evidence is totally biased.

But if another guy (as in Pundit's case) says me that this or that tendency is going to destroy the hobby, I will also laugh out loud. Because most probably my experience is far different from his, and says a different thing. So, his experience (and mine, of course) will be biased.

The 'lost tribe' who mentions the Pundit is a laughable concept, and strikes me as paternalist. There's no war. There's no lost people that must be rescued.

Yes, but it's also false seeing as AD&D 2nd Edition wasn't story-heavy by any stretch of the imagination AND the fact that the whole "old skoooool" thing started well before AD&D 2 folded.  I remember Dragon Mountain and that staff of 4 parts (or whatever it was called) being advertised as proper old school adventures.

Quote from: SettembriniActually, WotC blamed the story-heavy approach of those final days of TSR, at least according to the accessible articles.

Well, I don't trust WotC either as an unbiased source or an accurate one. On the other hand, it must be noted that the storytelling games existed before WW, and that things commonly associated with them (as heavy metaplot, über pet NPCs) and the like were present on the mainstream gaming well before Vampire hit the shelves. Dragonlance is a perfect example of that, and on the emphasis of telling stories and yadda yadda.

As Mr. Analytical said, the old skoooooool thing started well before Vampire. Vampire is the most outstanding example of a fad that is prior to it.

QuoteAs Mr. Analytical said, the old skoooooool thing started well before Vampire. Vampire is the most outstanding example of a fad that is prior to it.

As I said, the only  as yet unproven assumption in Pundits reasoning is the line of influence from Clanbook:Toreaodir to the Planewalkers Handbook, to speak figuratively.

Quote from: Elliot WilenMarco, your methods are lot like the baseball gods (and their equivalents in other sports) who've tinkered with the game to make sure it stays interesting over time.

Well, for one thing, whatever else I am doing, I am fully engaged with the mechanics--and I do care about how those work for running these games. I don't change them in order to get a better result on a case-by-case basis (I did change the initiative system in GURPS early on--but not "in order to do this"). I didn't, for example house-rule hero and despite the minor initiative change to GURPS, we did play by the printed rules in all other respects (and often used the normal init system especially if there was a new player who expected it the normal way).

What I'm doing that is, I think, maybe "notable" (but I wouldn't hazard as to whether it is *unusual* or not) is running fairly short one-shots with generic systems that are set in no standard published genre.

Considering that there are major games out there (GURPS, Hero) that are designed to do exactly that, I'm not sure that it can be considered tinkering in the sense that houseruleing usually is.

And I don't think my "talk to players before making the adventure" approach is all that novel either (although prehaps my formalization of it is somewhat unusual).

QuotePersonally I think those methods are of a completely different ilk from what commonly goes by "storytelling", and however you classify them semantically, we shouldn't fall into slippery-slope arguments which erase the distinction between game/simulation on the one hand, and story on the other hand. (Over in my livejournal I've pointed to Gonzalo Frasca's and others' essays on the difference between simulation and emulation, between top-down representation and bottom-up emergence. [Note: "emulation" here isn't the way that Pundit uses it.])

Along the same lines, I agree that what goes by "storytelling" usually means something different (at least on line). However:
1. I think my definition is reasonable. Therefore, so long as I qualify my terms, I believe it's fair for the discussion. When someone is talking about "story" in games, I am interested in the conversation and have a stake in the idea that 'story,' (especially when unqualified) as an outcome or intent is reasonable for someone to have (it is for me).
2. I think that the skills that are found in someone who is "a good storyteller" are the same skills I am looking for (plus some directly related to RPGs) in a GM.
3. I think my discussion meets certain entry-level critera for several bodies of RPG thought. I want a set-up that is within the domain of GDS Dramatism. I lean towards GDS Simulationism as a GM during games (and prefer it from my GMs--but not to the level of a zealot). I find that what I do in games has certain resonances with GNS Narrativism (but I prefer GNS 'Simulationist' systems for it, making me think the theory has some blind spots).

The WhiteWolf linear adventure is absolutely not what I'm looking for (although I have never seen a WW module or meta-plot book so I have no first hand experience with how these were put together).

But with that many points of connection to the discussion, I'm not so sure this is a slippery-slope. I suspect that a lot of GMs, who would self-identify as having an interest in "story," an interest in "immersion," and an understanding that railroading is a bad thing ... and who like traditional games would find the story-interest bent in what I'm saying at least somewhat familiar.

-Marco

Quote from: MaddmanI suppose you think Magic: The Gathering had NOTHING to do with the problems RPGs had in the late 90s.

Of course they did; as did TSRs grotesque mismanagement.  Those two and WW's Story-based Gaming combined to create the trifecta of disaster for the RPG  hobby.

But while Magic explains a lot about why a whole generation of young people didn't get into RPGs (they got into magic instead), it doesn't really do anything to explain why a shitload of people who were ALREADY into RPGs abandoned them in the 90s.  The reason is that RPGs as a hobby changed radically in the 90s, as they were hijacked by the Story-based crowd, and went from being a game that you played for fun with your buddies to being an "art" that you had to be an "artist" to play.  

RPGPundit

Quote from: ImperatorNo, there weren't any exodus. Actually, when Vampire was in all its height around here, AD&D2e was one of the three biggest sellers around (maybe the biggest, though I have not actual figures of sales).

Around here, people plays a lot of different games, and playing one doesn't preclude you from playing others. So people plays D&D3E one week, and Vampire the other, and CoC the next. The gaming magazines and boards in Spain (such as Inforol.com, and others) shows that D&D is and has been one of the main games around.

I'm sure that around here you can find this or that prick that only plays a game and finds the rest of hobby 'childish' or whatever he may call it. I've found some people who thought that only Vampire was a real RPG. But I also have found the ocasional idiot that thinks that only D&D is a true RPG, and won't play any other thing and will despise people who do. I find both positions to be ultimately the same.

Well that's fine, but then, its Spain.  Uruguay here is pretty similar to what you're saying about Spain.
But neither of these are the primary markets, or what I was talking about. I was talking about the hobby in North America, which is where the bulk of gamers were in the 90s and still are, mostly, today.  And the gaming hobby there is a very different thing with a very different group of players than what I know it to be like here in Uruguay, and what I imagine its like in Spain.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditWell, I think beyond that the point is that grimgent is using something of a red herring.  What I actually say is:

1. an RPG is not a game where the MAIN GOAL is to create story; as in where the priority of "creating story" does NOT trump the priority of "playing game".  And because of that, people who want a story-making engine instead of an RPG get frustrated by RPGs.

RPGPundit

I can't parse this.

The top priority of "playing a game" is, by definition, to "play the game."

For example: "When you're playing chess, your *top priority* -- at that moment -- is to... "play chess." This works for any other activity, absent coercion.

But absent tautology, I'd commonly articulate my "top priority" when playing chess as "to win" most of the time. In other cases it's to "learn to play better" (when I'm playing someone I'm pretty sure will beat me), or to "teach" when I'm playing a beginner.

All of these priorities are *met* by the activity of "playing chess."

When I'm playing RPGs, I have a variety of priorities, all of which are *met* by playing the game.

One of those -- a fairly common one, I think -- is cooperative story telling.

I find RPGs like GURPS and D20 (D&D, M&M, etc.) and Hero work *remarkably* well for this sort of thing -- so clearly I'm not really understanding what you're saying.

Hint?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.When I'm playing RPGs, I have a variety of priorities, all of which are *met* by playing the game.

One of those -- a fairly common one, I think -- is cooperative story telling.


-E.

I hope I'm not wrong to suggest that a large part of cooperative story telling is the "what happens now/next" element that is a big draw of rpgs in general.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RI hope I'm not wrong to suggest that a large part of cooperative story telling is the "what happens now/next" element that is a big draw of rpgs in general.

Regards,
David R

Absolutely -- we make it up as we go along; and in traditional games, we work "without a net" with the possibility of TPK or at least anti-climax behind every trapped door.

Not knowing how things are going to go -- or even how they *might* go -- and embracing all of the attendant risk that goes along with that is what makes RPGs so immersive and the stories they generate so *tasty* :D

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: MarcoBut with that many points of connection to the discussion, I'm not so sure this is a slippery-slope. I suspect that a lot of GMs, who would self-identify as having an interest in "story," an interest in "immersion," and an understanding that railroading is a bad thing ... and who like traditional games would find the story-interest bent in what I'm saying at least somewhat familiar.

Familiar? In the way of a lot of insightful, reasonable stuff I've been seeing recently, I'm exceedingly interested in your newsletter, as the kids say.

Quote from: MarcoWell, for one thing, whatever else I am doing, I am fully engaged with the mechanics--and I do care about how those work for running these games.

Didn't mean to imply that you changed the mechanics of the games you run (although that'd be okay, given what I'm trying to get at). What I meant was that you engineer the starting conditions to frame what will hopefully be an interesting game, but beyond that you don't intervene. A strict analogy to sports might be the institution of salary caps or tinkering with the league composition and playoff structure. It doesn't affect how the games are played but it's designed to make them more interesting (balanced/unpredictable) and meaningful (crucial to determining a world champion).

Quote from: GrimGent"A man with a gun steps into your office and *clatter of dice* shoots you dead. Roll up another character." Ah, the joys of random violence.

Life sucks, don't it? :)

So you let the player create a new PI character. Who learns of his good friend's untimely murder and investigates it. He brings in other party members, and in due time they uncover the evidence needed to bring the killer to justice. And whoever's behind the killer if any.

Quote from: mythusmageLife sucks, don't it? :)

So you let the player create a new PI character. Who learns of his good friend's untimely murder and investigates it. He brings in other party members, and in due time they uncover the evidence needed to bring the killer to justice. And whoever's behind the killer if any.

Leaving alone the "Well, suppose he wanted to play the guy you just killed?" portion...

Yes, it does. But I'd like you to try an experiment. Take a black d6 and put it in a paper bag. Write "Life" on it. Now take a white d6 and put it in a paper bag, writing "playing an RPG" on it. Place the "Life" bag on your kitchen table. Now convince NASA to take the other bag with them on the next launch to the ISS.

Contemplate the fact this is insufficient distance to express the differences that should exist between the real world and things done for fun.

Quote from: Christmas ApeContemplate the fact this is insufficient distance to express the differences that should exist between the real world and things done for fun.

Christmas Ape, you have achieved simian apotheosis with that statement.

Quote from: fonkaygarryChristmas Ape, you have achieved simian apotheosis with that statement.

...is that good?

Use your newfound godhood to decide!

Quote from: -E.I can't parse this.

The top priority of "playing a game" is, by definition, to "play the game."

For example: "When you're playing chess, your *top priority* -- at that moment -- is to... "play chess." This works for any other activity, absent coercion.

But absent tautology, I'd commonly articulate my "top priority" when playing chess as "to win" most of the time. In other cases it's to "learn to play better" (when I'm playing someone I'm pretty sure will beat me), or to "teach" when I'm playing a beginner.

All of these priorities are *met* by the activity of "playing chess."

When I'm playing RPGs, I have a variety of priorities, all of which are *met* by playing the game.

One of those -- a fairly common one, I think -- is cooperative story telling.

I find RPGs like GURPS and D20 (D&D, M&M, etc.) and Hero work *remarkably* well for this sort of thing -- so clearly I'm not really understanding what you're saying.

Hint?

Cheers,
-E.

Sure. Let's put it this way, since you mentioned Chess:

In chess, you are essentially recreating (in a very abstract way) a battle. And  in essence, there is an element of "story" to the game of chess, each game can be seen as a kind of "story" of how said battle goes.

But surely, no one would say that the GOAL in chess is to create that story.  The "goal" is to play the game of chess (and, as you mentioned, to win).

If someone comes along who is more interested in the story of a medieval battle and making a really interesting/exciting story than in the game of chess itself, he will either:
a) change the game, ignoring the structure of the game itself to tell a better story
or
b) become highly frustrated with the game because the "rules" are about winning chess and not about making a story.

Its the same in RPGs. An RPG is less abstract than chess, and instead of "winning" per se, the goal in an RPG can be more closely be described as "successfully playing a character in a simulated world".  That's what the game is for, that's what the rules are for.
Certainly, there are far more "storylike" aspects to RPGs than to chess, but the "goal" of RPGs is no more to make a story than it is in chess.  If you try to play RPGs with that as the primary purpose of your play, you will end up becoming frustrated with the structure of RPGs, or find yourself trying to change RPGs themselves into some new kind of "story game" that have little in common with real RPGs.

I hope that explains it better.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditCertainly, there are far more "storylike" aspects to RPGs than to chess, but the "goal" of RPGs is no more to make a story than it is in chess.  If you try to play RPGs with that as the primary purpose of your play, you will end up becoming frustrated with the structure of RPGs, or find yourself trying to change RPGs themselves into some new kind of "story game" that have little in common with real RPGs.

I see your point here, but I think a little detail can be added here: maybe some people are trying to use the basic idea of RPGs to achieve new things.

Take a look at my thread on that issue. It's chock full of superiour insightTM :cool:, that might help the discussion here.

http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2152 (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2152)

I'm doing that right now ;)

Quote from: RPGPundit...
Its the same in RPGs. An RPG is less abstract than chess, and instead of "winning" per se, the goal in an RPG can be more closely be described as "successfully playing a character in a simulated world".  That's what the game is for, that's what the rules are for.
Certainly, there are far more "storylike" aspects to RPGs than to chess, but the "goal" of RPGs is no more to make a story than it is in chess.  If you try to play RPGs with that as the primary purpose of your play, you will end up becoming frustrated with the structure of RPGs, or find yourself trying to change RPGs themselves into some new kind of "story game" that have little in common with real RPGs.

I hope that explains it better.

RPGPundit

Yes -- that explains it better -- thanks;

I think your articulation of the goal of playing an RPG is a good one:

Quotesuccessfully playing a character in a simulated world

But I think it fails to capture one important element: the characters in RPGs live, as they say, in interesting times. RPGs typically have some action that's of interest to the players

The point is, I think you've left out the bit where the story comes in. Most people want something to *happen* in their games that's interesting, exciting, humorous, or otherwise engaging to the players involved.

I say the request for those events and the request for them to be meaningful to the players (and thus meaningful in the character's world) is a desire for story.

It's not a desire for a specific story (e.g. a GM's railroad) and it's not necessicarily a desire for Shakespear. But I don't think it's uncommon for RPG players to want more continuity, more human-nature interaction, and so-on, than, say World of Warcraft gives you.

I think that's story; I think traditional RPGs are execellent at delivering it.

They suck at delivering one person's story -- they suck at telling novels. But that's not news.

Cheers,
-E.

QuoteIt's not a desire for a specific story (e.g. a GM's railroad) and it's not necessicarily a desire for Shakespear. But I don't think it's uncommon for RPG players to want more continuity, more human-nature interaction, and so-on, than, say World of Warcraft gives you.

I think it`s called plausability,
I think wargames are great at delivering it...

Quote from: SettembriniI think it`s called plausability,
I think wargames are great at delivering it...

Plausibility is important, but I think it falls into the "necessary but not sufficient" category.

The game has be plausible for me to enjoy it, but a game with no significant, meaningful action could be 100% plausible and still be deadly dull and not enjoyable.

When thinking about stories from RPGs, I think about stories from real-life (where there's no guiding, literary hand... at least not in my cosmology).

Ever day I go to the office and most days I come home with a story worth telling. No one had to do "meta-reality" or "railroad me" to create interesting, story-worthy events.

Now, it's true -- a lot of what happened *isn't* story-worthy; but RPG's don't focus on the minute-to-minute minutia, either. Both real-life and RPGs create stories when the action that occurs is interesting across some dimension.

Reality is often "implausible" -- but RPGs suffer worse when they're implausible than reality does...

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: ImperatorI see your point here, but I think a little detail can be added here: maybe some people are trying to use the basic idea of RPGs to achieve new things.

Maybe. But then they shouldn't be calling it "RPGs". Just like if someone invents some wacky chess variant where its considered more important that the horsies be able to talk to each other than that the game be played, they shouldn't go around still trying to call it Chess and telling people that its just as much normal chess as the other chess.  Or getting all shocked and insulted when most chess players don't go for that idea.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditIts the same in RPGs. An RPG is less abstract than chess, and instead of "winning" per se, the goal in an RPG can be more closely be described as "successfully playing a character in a simulated world".  That's what the game is for, that's what the rules are for.

There's a problem with this statement as an explanation for anything: the word successful is completely subjective in it. For some, successful means "kill it and take its stuff." For others successful means "tell an engaging interactive story." For others it might mean "successfully recreate a historically accurate ___."

It seems that for you story is not the measure of success, but for large amounts of gamers it is. I personally like to find a balance between creating a believable character, overcoming challenges (and then possibly taking its stuff), and telling a story. If any of those three areas is unsatisfactory I've failed to "successfully" play my character.

Quote from: mythusmageYou can't tell a story with a roleplaying game.

In  your campaign (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=31908&postcount=23) we have "a grown man and his 11 year old boy lover assisting the authorities in the apprehension and arrest of a sexual predator and his grown male victim".

While perverted and demented, that is a "story."

Quote from: mythusmageYou can have an imaginary adventure, you can live an imaginary life, but you can't tell a story with a roleplaying game.

An "adventure" is a story. A "life" is a story. You silly pederast.

Quote from: MaddmanWhat the christ kind of alternate reality do you remember?

RPGPundit remembers the reality in which he is a great hero championing the downtrodden masses.

Me, I enjoy those fantasies, too - but I keep them at the game table. Others like to spread the bullshit more liberally. Thus, self-proclaimed heroes, internet CIA ninja warriors, etc.

Quote from: James McMurrayIt seems that for you story is not the measure of success, but for large amounts of gamers it is. I personally like to find a balance between creating a believable character, overcoming challenges (and then possibly taking its stuff), and telling a story. If any of those three areas is unsatisfactory I've failed to "successfully" play my character.

I think for the Pundit the word story has nothing to do with how rpgs are played and that he disputes the fact that it is a factor for large amounts of gamers.

Maybe this has to do with the fact that there are some games out there - story games - which are played differently than your normal rpg. Now, I'm not sure if there is a normal rpg or that said games are played any differently - well I suppose they could be/are played differently - but IME most folks who play rpgs don't play to win anything - sure they want to overcome obstcales and such, but the main thing is always creating or being a part of a tale? story? whatever where they are the heroes.

Er...so I'm agreeing with you...my post has no point :D

Regards,
David R

Quote from: JimBobOzAn "adventure" is a story. A "life" is a story. You silly pederast.

While it's occuring? That's my point, in an RPG the events are occuring. They are happening right then and there. You can't say with any real assurance how things will turn out. You can say how you hope they turn out, but you have no guarantees they will.

QuoteI think for the Pundit the word story has nothing to do with how rpgs are played and that he disputes the fact that it is a factor for large amounts of gamers.

If that's the case then the only response I can think of is "there is none so blind as those who will not see."

Quote from: mythusmageThat's my point, in an RPG the events are occuring. They are happening right then and there. You can't say with any real assurance how things will turn out.

But that is the same fallacy of "a story isn't a story while told" which came up in the other thread. If some storyteller is improvising, starting from scratch and heading towards an uncertain ending, and along the way decides the course of events by flipping a coin (heads for fortune, tails for disaster), does that mean that she is no longer telling a story? And if she is, then in what meaningful way does the fictional world of her tale differ from that of any RPG?

Story != Script.

Quote from: GrimGentStory != Script.

QFT

One Last time folks: I'm not saying that there aren't story-elements that occur in RPGs. They do. They occur ALL THE FUCKING TIME.

What I'm saying is that this does not add up to any kind of story aside from an "anecdote" (ie. telling people about how you slew the ogre or how you outwitted the malkavians is about the same as telling people how you caught a 9pounder fishing).  Its not a conscious creation of story.

Furthermore, I'm saying that anytime you set out to engage in conscious creation of story, you will run into a conflict with the structure of RPGs as they are. This structure is such that either your attempt will be thwarted or you will be forced to warp/bend/break the structure of RPGs (the rules or the group conventions) to get your story told the way you want it.

So basically, any game that has "making a story" as its primary goal and is set up in such a way that it doesn't conflict with the rules and the player group structure etc, is not an RPG.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditOne Last time folks: I'm not saying that there aren't story-elements that occur in RPGs. They do. They occur ALL THE FUCKING TIME.

What I'm saying is that this does not add up to any kind of story aside from an "anecdote" (ie. telling people about how you slew the ogre or how you outwitted the malkavians is about the same as telling people how you caught a 9pounder fishing).  Its not a conscious creation of story.

Why not?  Mine certainly do.  What definition of "story" are you using?  Why isn't an anecdote a story?

QuoteFurthermore, I'm saying that anytime you set out to engage in conscious creation of story, you will run into a conflict with the structure of RPGs as they are.

Why.  This has not been my experience.

QuoteThis structure is such that either your attempt will be thwarted or you will be forced to warp/bend/break the structure of RPGs (the rules or the group conventions) to get your story told the way you want it.

No I don't.  Why do you think that this would be required to create a story.  And to reiterate the desire to have a story created at the table does not mean that you want it created in a certain way.

QuoteSo basically, any game that has "making a story" as its primary goal and is set up in such a way that it doesn't conflict with the rules and the player group structure etc, is not an RPG.

RPGPundit

So if it focuses on something you don't like it doesn't count as an RPG.  Do I have brain damage from only using d10s?  What do you mean by an RPG, and why would a game that doesn't conflict with story creation not be one?  You talk as all this is self-evident.  It is not, and it clearly contradicts the experience of several posters on this board.

Ah, I see. You're working on a definition of story explicitly chosen to prove your point, rather than the standard definition. By disallowing the collaborative story being told in a game session from your definition of the word you've set up an illogical but unassailable position. Truly you deserve the use of "pundit" in your name. :)

What then would constitute a valid story in your opinion? Does it require it be written in a book?

I know my group has consciously engaged in the creation of story many times. Being a collaborative story nobody has full artistic license to veto anything, only react. The GM I suppose has veto powers, but only uses them when necessary to stick to the rules of the game and genre (for example, nobody learns to fly like a superhero in a Babylon 5 campaign as it's against both rules and setting). That's not a negation of the story process though, merely a limitation placed on it.

Quote from: GrimGentBut that is the same fallacy of "a story isn't a story while told" which came up in the other thread. If some storyteller is improvising, starting from scratch and heading towards an uncertain ending, and along the way decides the course of events by flipping a coin (heads for fortune, tails for disaster), does that mean that she is no longer telling a story? And if she is, then in what meaningful way does the fictional world of her tale differ from that of any RPG?

The issue is not one of story but story quality.  There are good stories and bad stories, interesting stories and boring stories.  That's what the craft of writing fiction is all about -- writing good and interesting stories.  Once a player or GM becomes concerned with story quality and tries to inflience it, their decisions will no longer be about other things that might matter more to the players.

Quote from: John MorrowThe issue is not one of story but story quality.  There are good stories and bad stories, interesting stories and boring stories.  That's what the craft of writing fiction is all about -- writing good and interesting stories.  Once a player or GM becomes concerned with story quality and tries to inflience it, their decisions will no longer be about other things that might matter more to the players.

That much is clear; but apparently it's also not what mythusmage is arguing about, as earlier in this thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=31930&postcount=75) he has already claimed that "using RPGs to tell stories" of any kind (good or bad, interesting or boring) is unequivocally impossible, that no one has ever done it and no one ever will. That's the position I find untenable, as a number of people even in this discussion have done so.

Quote from: GrimGentThat much is clear; but apparently it's also not what mythusmage is arguing about, as earlier in this thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=31930&postcount=75) he has already claimed that "using RPGs to tell stories" of any kind (good or bad, interesting or boring) is unequivocally impossible, that no one has ever done it and no one ever will. That's the position I find untenable, as a number of people even in this discussion have done so.

Yeah, but is a claim that absurd really worth responding to?

I agree with John's point, but the notion that story is impossible (which he isn't saying of course) is too silly to really merit reply IMO.

Quote from: BalbinusYeah, but is a claim that absurd really worth responding to?

Probably not, granted.

Quote from: RPGPunditSo basically, any game that has "making a story" as its primary goal and is set up in such a way that it doesn't conflict with the rules and the player group structure etc, is not an RPG.

So all these years I thought I was roleplaying I only thought I was roleplaying? Because I set with the conscious desire to make a coherent story with a point to it, I wasn't really roleplaying? Wow, I thought I was! You know better than me what happens at my game table?

Fuck you, Ron Edwards.

Quote from: JimBobOzSo all these years I thought I was roleplaying I only thought I was roleplaying? Because I set with the conscious desire to make a coherent story with a point to it, I wasn't really roleplaying? Wow, I thought I was! You know better than me what happens at my game table?

Fuck you, Ron Edwards.

Rather than this unproductive wailing, why not back up your argument?

Tell me, what game do you play, precisely, that allows you to consciously create a story, as its primary goal, and that goal doesn't end up conflicting with either player autonomy, GM authority, or the rules themselves?

RPGPundit

What I'm seeing here is a number of people who can't get their head around the idea that something can have story elements, but not be story.

How do people in general use the word, "story"? Does RPG play resemble how people most commonly use "story"? To the last I can only reply; no, it doesn't

Game play is not the relating of events that have occured, it is the events as they occur. The crap is happening right now. The fictional, the imaginary nature of the events makes no difference, what matters is the immediacy, the fact they are happening now.

The point is, you can't tell a story using an RPG. You can use what happened during play as the basis for a story, but you can't tell a story while play is going on.

Nor do you need to tell a story while playing an RPG. You don't need a plot, you don't need a sequence of events. All you need to do is set up the basic situation and watch as the PCs come in to bollix up all that scheming, conspiring, and skullduggery. Means prep work of a different kind, and a fair amount of mental flexibility, but the rewards can be fantastic.

PC's Dad: Mark, I need you to go pick up the horses I just bought down at the fair. Be careful, there's a wizard and his goblins in town, and folks say he's looking for something.

Mark (the PC): Right, Dad. I'll take Cheryl, Tom, and Allie (fellow PCs) to help with the string.

Mark's Player to the DM: Bob, is the plot hook the horses or the wizard?

Bob: Depends on what you guys do.

Quote from: RPGPunditRather than this unproductive wailing, why not back up your argument?

That was not unproductive wailing, but unproductive abuse. Get it right, Mirror Ron.

QuoteTell me, what game do you play, precisely, that allows you to consciously create a story, as its primary goal, and that goal doesn't end up conflicting with either player autonomy, GM authority, or the rules themselves?

I play games GMed by me and my friends. Given that we've done it with Fate, with GURPS, with HKAT!, and others, the system itself is irrelevant. "People first", the Cheetoist motto.

We create a story as our primary goal, as our end, and player autonomy, GM authority, and the rules are the means to that goal.

GM: "Here is a situation. A NPC dear to you has a dilemma, two choices, both wrong, both right. Which choice should he make?"

There's GM authority being used, to describe the situation, to set up the basis for the story.

Players: "Why should we care what he does?"
GM: "Here on your character sheet you wrote that you were loyal to this guy."

There's player autonomy being used to set up the basis for the story.

Players: "Okay, we decide to -"

There's player autonomy which then drives the story forward.

GM: "You try to persuade him to do X, but he seems unconvinced."
Players: "We use our Diplomacy skill to persuade him. If the die roll fails, we use the Fate Point / Luck Advantage to get a reroll/success."

There's game rules being used to drive the story forward along a particular path desired by the players - player autonomy again.

A "story" is someone or something going from A to B, and a change happening along the way, and all that described. Asking whether "player autonomy" or "GM authority" or whatever is more important than the "story" is just muddled confusion. The story is the end, these things are the means of reaching that end. If I want to reach Perth, it's meaningless to ask whether "reaching Perth" is more or less important than driving, walking, or taking the train - those are means to the end of reaching Perth.

Players and GM and rules interacting aren't something separate from "making a story" - they're the bricks and mortar of the structure. When you put those together, you get a story. The decisions the players and GM make along the way determines the final shape of the structure.

Remember, despite what certain idiots are saying here, a story doesn't have to be exactly scripted to be a story.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Mirror Ron. Quit saying something's impossible when people are telling you they've done it. Or else go to The Forge where that kind of thinking is mandatory.

If you want more concrete examples, see the Game Circle link in my sig, and have a look at the campaign wikis.

Quote from: mythusmageWhat I'm seeing here is a number of people who can't get their head around the idea that something can have story elements, but not be story.

Why is this pederast still here? Him and the Klansman should be out the back of the Ban Shed, making each-other squeal like a pig.

Quote from: mythusmageGame play is not the relating of events that have occured, it is the events as they occur. The crap is happening right now. The fictional, the imaginary nature of the events makes no difference, what matters is the immediacy, the fact they are happening now.

The point is, you can't tell a story using an RPG. You can use what happened during play as the basis for a story, but you can't tell a story while play is going on.

:confused:  What you seem to be getting at is that game play is improvisational.  However, stories can be made up on the spot, too.  So if I'm making up a story as I tell it, it has the same quality of immediacy -- i.e. the events are happening "now".  But note that no actual events are happening either way.  The only way that you know the fictional events are happening is that the participants (i.e. players and GM) are saying what happens.  Functionally, what is happening is that the people there are saying what happens in the fiction.  

Quote from: mythusmageNor do you need to tell a story while playing an RPG. You don't need a plot, you don't need a sequence of events. All you need to do is set up the basic situation and watch as the PCs come in to bollix up all that scheming, conspiring, and skullduggery. Means prep work of a different kind, and a fair amount of mental flexibility, but the rewards can be fantastic.

Note that you're saying that you don't need to have a pre-prepared plot and sequence of events.  However, the play itself is going to generate a sequence of events -- i.e. events will happen, in a certain order.  I don't think anyone is arguing that a pre-prepared plot is necessary -- it's not suggested by any of the more recent "story games", for example.

Quote from: JimBobOzGet it right, Mirror Ron.

You have given me a good laugh. :)

Quote from: JimBobOzWe create a story as our primary goal, as our end, and player autonomy, GM authority, and the rules are the means to that goal.

I clearly see this as what usually happens at my table.

Quote from: JimBobOzWhy is this pederast still here? Him and the Klansman should be out the back of the Ban Shed, making each-other squeal like a pig.

See? This I don't like. It's not needed, man.

Yeah, I'd agree with imperator on that last one. Dragon Earth is teh suxxors, but let's not get straight into attacking (and, more specifically, banning) people we don't agree with or even those we don't like.

Quote from: beejazzYeah, I'd agree with imperator on that last one. Dragon Earth is teh suxxors, but let's not get straight into attacking (and, more specifically, banning) people we don't agree with or even those we don't like.

Agreed.  Unless they're using gaming to justify child molestation or something.

Quote from: mythusmageGame play is not the relating of events that have occured, it is the events as they occur. The crap is happening right now. The fictional, the imaginary nature of the events makes no difference, what matters is the immediacy, the fact they are happening now.

The point is, you can't tell a story using an RPG. You can use what happened during play as the basis for a story, but you can't tell a story while play is going on.

Ah, someone else using their own definition of story to back up their claims. I've checked various online dictionaries and none of them agree with you. In fact, there's something called "present tense" which some stories use to tell events as they occur. It's how most television shows and movies order their actions. The only difference between a movie script in present tense and a story oriented game session is that the game session is improvisational and uses a set of rules to determine some of the outcomes.

QuoteNor do you need to tell a story while playing an RPG. You don't need a plot, you don't need a sequence of events.

Agreed. The flip side of that statement is that you don't need a scripted plot or preordained sequence of events to tell a story.

Quote from: mythusmageWhile it's occuring? That's my point, in an RPG the events are occuring. They are happening right then and there. You can't say with any real assurance how things will turn out. You can say how you hope they turn out, but you have no guarantees they will.

I think that when Stephen King is writing a story, he's still "creating a story" even as he scratches on paper. It isn't "a narrative" or "just some words on paper" until he's done. I see no reason to say King isn't "Creating a story through the process of writing" (and by extension that a group "Creates a story through the process of play").

-Marco
[ Not all stories are good, of course. King has that Buick 8 book. ]

Quote from: MarcoI think that when Stephen King is writing a story, he's still "creating a story" even as he scratches on paper. It isn't "a narrative" or "just some words on paper" until he's done. I see no reason to say King isn't "Creating a story through the process of writing" (and by extension that a group "Creates a story through the process of play").

-Marco
[ Not all stories are good, of course. King has that Buick 8 book. ]

While I usually agree with Marco, I don't here, and I believe it's because I have a different working definition of story in my brain. I've gamed with him enough to know that story (in my sense) is not his primary goal while gaming, though he says it is in his sense. Therefore we are obviously not agreeing on the base terminology, and getting all screwed up as a result.

I shall extend that further and state that, IMO, the disagreements about story in gaming are due mosty to differing expectations of what story is about. I think Pundit and John and I share the same definition of story, one which is different than that of Marco and others.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceWhile I usually agree with Marco, I don't here, and I believe it's because I have a different working definition of story in my brain. I've gamed with him enough to know that story (in my sense) is not his primary goal while gaming, though he says it is in his sense. Therefore we are obviously not agreeing on the base terminology, and getting all screwed up as a result.

I shall extend that further and state that, IMO, the disagreements about story in gaming are due mosty to differing expectations of what story is about. I think Pundit and John and I share the same definition of story, one which is different than that of Marco and others.

-clash

Right--clearly there are different meanings of the word floating around. So here's the question: How does one defintion vs another serve us?

So let's say:

Story-as-a-goal (n): The participants interest is in experiencing a pre-defined plot created by the GM where the PCs are essentially actors to the GM's script.
Applicability: It makes the GM advice in WW games (so I've heard) story-telling advice.
Cons: It means that story-games are railroaded. This def'n means story in an
RPG is usually/always dysfunctional.

Story as a main goal of play (n): When story is held as a goal it is another way of saying that all actions of play will be first examined for how they fit into things like thematic focus, literary structure of the action, and elements of symbolism, foreshadowing, etc.
Applicability: If this is the definition then it makes players cognizant authors of the game action. Players are not immersed or acting from what is often called "actor stance" but rather from what is usually called "author stance" (in theory-speak). All play is meta-game and very *intentional*.

Cons: This means that story-as-a-goal of play doesn't match up with GNS Narrativism and everyone is confused. This definition, because of the context of a whole lot of RPG-theory discussion will be, IME, damaged. It also means that story-as-goal is pretty antithetical to anything that could roughly be considered immersion.

That said, if we accept these things (or can argue them away sos I'm convinced) I'd be okay with it. And it wouldn't be my primary goal of play.

Story as a goal means (n): The participants place value on the precepts that (a) the thematic content* of play is meaningful to them as real people (to separate the events from being a simple narrative) and (b) that play has a somewhat tight literary structure (does not meander entirely, has some kind of climax or resolution, etc.)

Applicability: This kind of play will distinguish games where there is not work done to either engage the players with regards to thematic content or games where there is, for example, simply a random series of encounters from story-goal games.

There are others. Clearly my present persepctive favors the last. But here's the thing: before someone decides what they want story-as-a-goal to mean, take a look and see if you think:
1. The other versions are reasonable--so you should get more context in the discussion.
2. The one you have chosen will get you the results you want (if I choose #1, my result will be arguing with everyone that story-games are always railroads. If I choose #2, then I will be arguing with guys like Marco who don't agree that story-as-a-goal requires conscious agency during play. If I choose #3, I may argue with guys like Clash who think story-as-a-goal requires conscious effort during play).

Final note: I think #3 requires some conscious effort *before* play starts and from the StarCluster adventures I've read, I think Clash's prep-work more than qualifies as what I'm talking about.

-Marco

QuoteCons: This means that story-as-a-goal of play doesn't match up with GNS Narrativism and everyone is confused.

Why must everyone be confused? If they go into it knowing what the goal and means are there should be no confusion.

I personally agree with all the definitions (minus that part above). It depends on what you want your game to be, and the same group might use different definitions in multiple campaigns, or even the same campaign.

Quote from: MarcoThere are others. Clearly my present persepctive favors the last. But here's the thing: before someone decides what they want story-as-a-goal to mean, take a look and see if you think:
1. The other versions are reasonable--so you should get more context in the discussion.
2. The one you have chosen will get you the results you want (if I choose #1, my result will be arguing with everyone that story-games are always railroads. If I choose #2, then I will be arguing with guys like Marco who don't agree that story-as-a-goal requires conscious agency during play. If I choose #3, I may argue with guys like Clash who think story-as-a-goal requires conscious effort during play).

Final note: I think #3 requires some conscious effort *before* play starts and from the StarCluster adventures I've read, I think Clash's prep-work more than qualifies as what I'm talking about.

-Marco

OK - I agree with you entirely. I think this nails the difference. I am definitely coming from #2. Using #3 changes things completely. Setting up a scenario/setting/character in such a way as to maximise possible thematic conflicts does not require any meta-game/concious choice by players during play. It cannot guarantee a good story, but it does increase the chances that one occurs. The rest is up to how things actually happen.

-clash

Quote from: James McMurrayWhy must everyone be confused? If they go into it knowing what the goal and means are there should be no confusion.

I personally agree with all the definitions (minus that part above). It depends on what you want your game to be, and the same group might use different definitions in multiple campaigns, or even the same campaign.

Sorry--not clear on my part. The actual participants need not be confused.

What's confusing is that GNS-Narrativism doesn't require conscious intent on the part of the participants (and this has led to lots of knock-down-drag-out on the Internet). What this means is that if you choose #2 as your definition of story-as-a-goal you are telling the premier story-as-a-goal group that their definition *does not fit*.

This creates all kinds of confusion in discussion that is, IME (and that's in my experience only) is bad for the discussion.

If you choose #3, you let in both author and actor stances (up to the participants and the group) and you avoid conflicting with the general story-now manifesto (which I see as a plus).

However, you have to be very clear when talking to people like Pundit or whatever that when you cite story-as-a-goal you are talking about setting up the situation as to assist the production of a deemed-good story rather than talking about (necessiarily) focused mechanics and intentional story-generating play to try to ensure creation of a deemed-good-story.

Or else there's confusion in a different quadrant. However: I think it might be easier to convince guys like Clash and Pundit that story-as-a-goal can be held by a person without destroying the traditional RPG-play experience than to convince GNS theorists that Narrativism doesn't necessiarily meet the definition of story-as-a-goal (as #2 sets up).

But I could be wrong, of course.

-Marco

I imagine the likelihood of convincing anyone with "pundit" in their name of anything that isn't based wholly in facts is probably pretty slim. :)

Quote from: James McMurrayI imagine the likelihood of convincing anyone with "pundit" in their name of anything that isn't based wholly in facts is probably pretty slim. :)

Well, maybe. But I'd hold out some hope. The key (and this *is* key) is not whether #2 or #3 is right or not. The key is whether either one is reasonable. If someone wants to argue that #3 is not a reasonable interpertation of story-as-a-goal then I think we can talk and I can show that for common definitions of all those words in the context of a run of the mill traditional RPG, the person who says that is not talking nonsense.

If we establish that, then the question is simply which definition is more valuable on a per conversation basis. Then: glory! Successful communication! (as opposed to the first strike of telling someone they're wrong based on what you thought they said--something I, myself, have certainly been guilty of).

-Marco

Quote from: JimBobOzA "story" is someone or something going from A to B, and a change happening along the way, and all that described. Asking whether "player autonomy" or "GM authority" or whatever is more important than the "story" is just muddled confusion. The story is the end, these things are the means of reaching that end. If I want to reach Perth, it's meaningless to ask whether "reaching Perth" is more or less important than driving, walking, or taking the train - those are means to the end of reaching Perth.

Not if you're bent on taking the train, but the train goes to Sydney instead.  And that's the case for RPGs.
You claim cheetoism is about the people, so I figure its safe to assume "the people" is your primary goal?
In that case, is making a story more important than people having a good time?

QuotePlayers and GM and rules interacting aren't something separate from "making a story" - they're the bricks and mortar of the structure. When you put those together, you get a story. The decisions the players and GM make along the way determines the final shape of the structure.

The story is only a side effect. The game's the thing. The game isn't a "story making game"; its a "role playing game":  The "end" is to roleplay, the means is the game. The story, when it happens (and it often does) is only a byproduct.

RPGPundit

QuoteIn that case, is making a story more important than people having a good time?

No, but nobody has claimed that it is. The claim has been that some groups play to tell a story. If this is the case, and there's no reason to assume the posters are lying, then story is not interfering with a good time, it's causing it.

QuoteThe story is only a side effect. The game's the thing. The game isn't a "story making game"; its a "role playing game":  The "end" is to roleplay, the means is the game. The story, when it happens (and it often does) is only a byproduct.

At this point I believe you're making a fairly common mistake in assuming that your view is the same as everyone else's, or worse, that those who disagree "just don't understand." Your reason for playing an RPG is to role play. For some (a minority) the story is the goal. Had that first sentence started with "In my games, " it would have been right, but as it chose to speak in absolute terms regarding opinion it is not.

Quote from: RPGPunditNot if you're bent on taking the train, but the train goes to Sydney instead.  And that's the case for RPGs.
You claim cheetoism is about the people, so I figure its safe to assume "the people" is your primary goal?
In that case, is making a story more important than people having a good time?

I can only speak for myself, but I think me and JimBobOz are pretty close to the same page.  People are more important.  I try to create a story with the game because it leads to the people at my table having an awesome time.  They are not seperate goals, they are not at odds.  Creating the story leads to the people having a good time.  If it didn't, I wouldn't do it.

QuoteThe story is only a side effect. The game's the thing. The game isn't a "story making game"; its a "role playing game":  The "end" is to roleplay, the means is the game. The story, when it happens (and it often does) is only a byproduct.

You see a dichotemy where I don't.  I really don't get what you mean by seperating 'the game' from 'the story'.  The roleplay is the creation of the events in the story.  Quite literally, the means by which we find out what happens next - the combination of playing a role, game rules, and rolling dice in most cases.

The ones who are really creating the dichotomy are the ones who are suggesting that "the story" should be a goal in and of itself.  If the game as played becomes a story, then there's no conflict. But if you are TRYING to make a story out of the game, then of course there must be a conflict, because then you have to pick whether the game or the story is the greater priority.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThe ones who are really creating the dichotomy are the ones who are suggesting that "the story" should be a goal in and of itself.  If the game as played becomes a story, then there's no conflict. But if you are TRYING to make a story out of the game, then of course there must be a conflict, because then you have to pick whether the game or the story is the greater priority.

RPGPundit

I would have thought that the dichotomy was created by people saying that these are real RPGs and those aren't. Go figure :rolleyes:

Quote from: beejazzYeah, I'd agree with imperator on that last one. Dragon Earth is teh suxxors, but let's not get straight into attacking (and, more specifically, banning) people we don't agree with or even those we don't like.

People justifying violent murderous racists do so because they themselves are or wish to be violent murderous racists. Fuck 'em. People justifying paedophilia do so because they are or wish to be paedophiles. Fuck 'em.

When a man in his fifties develops a game world in which paedophilia is not considered a crime, then you have to wonder why. And after you finish throwing up, you ban his trenchcoat-wearing, basement-dwelling, catpiss-smelling, twinkies-munchking fat arse off the site.

Liberal or Labor, communist or Jewish, Hindu or Manidean - these are matters of agreement or disagreement, of ideas and opinions. Racist violence and paedophilia are crimes. People advocating criminal activity are not welcome in my hobby. They draw attention to the website from law enforcement officials. They can fuck right off.

If you enjoy the company online of violent racists and paedophiles, there are websites for that. As I understand the purpose of therpgsite, this is not such a website.

Quote from: MaddmanI can only speak for myself, but I think me and JimBobOz are pretty close to the same page.  

Damn right. There's even a quote from you in d4-d4 :D

Quote from: MaddmanPeople are more important.  I try to create a story with the game because it leads to the people at my table having an awesome time.  They are not seperate goals, they are not at odds.  Creating the story leads to the people having a good time.  If it didn't, I wouldn't do it.

Absolutely.

We don't want "story" for its own sake, we just want fun. It just so happens that we have more fun when there's a "story" - something happens, and there's a point to it, and the events go somewhere, even if it's a rather meandering route (compared to a movie or novel) - than if there's no story - nothing much happens, or the events are random and unconnected and have no point to them, etc.

If no-one feels like a story that night, then as GM I say, "fuck this, let's watch a DVD," or whatever. People first.

Quote from: RPGPunditBut if you are TRYING to make a story out of the game, then of course there must be a conflict, because then you have to pick whether the game or the story is the greater priority.

Not at all. They both work together equally for the same overall goal: having fun. You can use rules to craft a story without having either suffer, unless you're insistent upon a single outcome for your story that the rules would interfere with.

If someone started advocating for criminal behaviour, or disrupted the site in a serious way, especially if it was clear that it wasn't out of any real interest in roleplaying, then I might have to ban them.

And clearly, this isn't a website for engaging in advocacy of any non-roleplaying cause or ideology.

I'm not ready to ban anyone just yet, though.

RPGPundit

Quote from: James McMurrayNot at all. They both work together equally for the same overall goal: having fun. You can use rules to craft a story without having either suffer, unless you're insistent upon a single outcome for your story that the rules would interfere with.

Random events generation, random results, both of which are pretty well staples of most RPGs; and unexpected player actions/choices, generally do interfere with any planned "story".

RPGPundit

I'm very sad.
I "proved" how discussions are meaningless, without definition of "story" for the person involved.
And you guys keep talking about "Story" in RPGs, where everybody means something different...

Still, Forced Dramatic Structure destroys player freedom, that is for sure.

I personally cannot understand how a player could derive fun from a game which has the main goal of creating a dramatically structured
story. To me, it is a form of collective wankery, without possibility of failure for the characters.

Story means something else for you, than dramatically structured? Well, more power to you. But please tell us, instead of discussing circles into the void.

Quote from: SettembriniI'm very sad.
I "proved" how discussions are meaningless, without definition of "story" for the person involved.
And you guys keep talking about "Story" in RPGs, where everybody means something different...

Still, Forced Dramatic Structure destroys player freedom, that is for sure.

I personally cannot understand how a player could derive fun from a game which has the main goal of creating a dramatically structured
story. To me, it is a form of collective wankery, without possibility of failure for the characters.

Story means something else for you, than dramatically structured? Well, more power to you. But please tell us, instead of discussing circles into the void.

I would say that attempted dramatic structure is what I'm looking for. I'm willing to lose it to keep the integrity of the game--but I'm happier when I get it and try to work with the players before play starts to give the game a good shot at it (i.e. "Here's the mission briefing I'm thinking the characters will get--are you guys good with that?")

This doesn't destroy player freedom and it (IME) reliably produces story in the way I think you mean it.

Still sad?
-Marco

QuoteI would say that attempted dramatic structure is what I'm looking for. I'm willing to lose it to keep the integrity of the game

I'd say it's a thin red line you are walking - between your inner longing for story and your intellectual side, acknowledging player freedom.
That`s very human, being inconsequential and paradoxical. As long as you know you are walking a thin red line, I say: Go, Play! :cool:

Quote from: SettembriniI'd say it's a thin red line you are walking - between your inner longing for story and your intellectual side, acknowledging player freedom.
That`s very human, being inconsequential and paradoxical. As long as you know you are walking a thin red line, I say: Go, Play! :cool:

Well, just so it's *clear*--I want that as a *player* at least as much (if not more) than I want it as a *GM*. So the thin-red-line as a player is pretty thick, really (IMO).

Secondly: there are some very, very easy things to do in order to facilitate this sort of thing. A well-wrought situation, a GM with a decent sense of pacing, a grabby set of conflicts, a character I can get into, some preliminary agreement on game direction ... these are all tools in the tool box that help a lot.

-Marco

QuoteI want that as a *player* at least as much (if not more) than I want it as a *GM*.

Which is even more paradoxical. Not that I don`t believe you, but those aims hinder each other:

Want real challenge and accomplishment?
*clatter [1]* The door closes before your nose, and the stone ball crushes you to death!

Or want drama?
*clatter[1]* You barely escape, only your hat remains behind the door, which you can swoosh back to your shaking hands with your whip!

When you are in drama mood, and the GM is in accomplishment mood, you might end up with a nasty clash and a dead character.

Quote from: SettembriniWhich is even more paradoxical. Not that I don`t believe you, but those aims hinder each other:

Want real challenge and accomplishment?
*clatter* You die!

Or want drama?
*clatter* You barely escape, only your hat remains behind the door, which you can swoosh back to your shaking hands with your whip!

When you are in drama mood, and the GM is in accomplishment mood, you might end up with a nasty clash and a dead character.

Well, again, I'm afraid I'm not seeing the conflict. I want drama and risk. Rather than being paradoxical, they build on each other.

I'm not a big fan of "roll or die" situations (as you have here) and I'm far more willing to put up with "roll or fail" situations, especially if that failure is interesting or has interesting consequences (which is up to the situation).

I don't "want drama" at 5:00 and then "want challenge" at 6:00. It's both at once. I highly prefer situations that are structured so as to have a reasonable chance at dramatic development and then run 'straight.'

That's two goals for the price of one!

But if that seems paradoxical to you, I'm okay with that--it seems to be working well for me (you can ask Flyingmice--a GM dedicated to situation driven gaming--or read transcripts of my actual play in his games run over IRC!)

-Marco

QuoteI'm far more willing to put up with "roll or fail" situations, especially if that failure is interesting or has interesting consequences (which is up to the situation).

What failure is that, if you like it to fail?

No risk, no fun.
No pain, no gain.
I say.

You have found what you like, very good.
But you are already making great compromises in lieu of "story"/drama.

Well, unless you're dealing with very unusual probability functions, any game that's made up of a series of "roll or die" situations is going to lead to death pretty soon. Surely you can have an overall scenario where the PCs have enough resources so that they don't have to put their lives on the line all the time, and have a fair amount of control over their exposure to risk. For example, D&D does this by giving experienced characters enough hit points that they can usually react to a dangerous situation and pull out before it becomes deadly.

In the larger scheme of things, defeat can mean losing the battle but not the war. Again with D&D this could mean that pulling out of a fight to save your skin will have ramifications you don't like, but you can still play on.

QuoteFor example, D&D does this by giving experienced characters enough hit points that they can usually react to a dangerous situation and pull out before it becomes deadly.

Have you ever played D&D?
Do you know where "save or die" comes from?
Do you know what a critical hit by a axe-wielding orc means to low level characters?

Quote from: SettembriniWhat failure is that, if you like it to fail?

No risk, no fun.
No pain, no gain.
I say.

You have found what you like, very good.

Well, it's not like I like to fail (I said "put up with")*--it's that failure doesn't always equal death and/or the end of the game. It's also not like any failure of any dice roll destroys the dramaic structure of the game. My requirements for dramatic structure are moderately high but not absolute.

So long as the game has a sense of rising action, a point, some kind of coherent theme, etc. not every scene has to be perfect for me to appreciate the story-form of it.

QuoteBut you are already making great compromises in lieu of "story"/drama.

You don't really know much about the way I play, I'm thinking. Are you just saying this because I disagree with your presented theory?

-Marco
* The idea of failing something being interesting isn't that much of a leap, I'm thinking. If, for example, my hacking roll fails to penetrate the system, we may have to organize a team to go inside and get the data physically. That hacking-fail leads to a potentially more interesting (and more risky) solution. See?

Quote from: SettembriniHave you ever played D&D?
Do you know where "save or die" comes from?
Do you know what a critical hit by a axe-wielding orc means to low level characters?

I have. I found that horrible Indie game (Fantasy Hero) to be more enjoyable for "starting characters" for a story-form game. I found D&D at low levels to be a bit more like survival horror!

:)

-Marco

QuoteAre you just saying this because I disagree with your presented theory?

No, my line of reasoning is fine, as you should know if you understood it.
I'm saying this, because I am talking about my preferences. And yours are different. Which supports my statements.

QuoteI found D&D at low levels to be a bit more like survival horror!

Then you should see high level D&D

QuoteMy requirements for dramatic structure are moderately high but not absolute.

Everyone is a moderate, if you ask them.

QuoteThe idea of failing something being interesting isn't that much of a leap, I'm thinking. If, for example, my hacking roll fails to penetrate the system, we may have to organize a team to go inside and get the data physically. That hacking-fail leads to a potentially more interesting (and more risky) solution. See?

That only postpones the instance where this increased risk comes down to some bullets in your PCs brain. If not, then it`s not more risky.

Quote from: SettembriniEveryone is a moderate, if you ask them.

Not sure I understand this--but it sounds snarky! I mean that while I prefer more-focused games to less focused these days not *every* scene must forward the action in some kind of expository manner. Radical?

QuoteThat only postpones the instance where this increased risk comes down to some bullets in your PCs brain. If not, then it`s not more risky.

The hacking is relatively safe (done from afar with fewer finger-prints). The insertion team involves physical security and guns. If the hacking attempt would be a clean get-away, I can't see how it's "equally risky" to the insertion. Maybe you know something I don't?

-Marco

Quote from: SettembriniNo, my line of reasoning is fine, as you should know if you understood it.
I'm saying this, because I am talking about my preferences. And yours are different. Which supports my statements.

I probably don't understand it. It seemed you were stuck on the idea that story-as-a-goal meant the person wanted Forced Dramatic Structure.

That didn't make sense to me (since I believe in story-as-a-goal and don't want Forced Dramatic Structure) so I guess I didn't get it.

I'll take a closer look in the morning. Sorry for the tangent.

-Marco

I think I first played D&D around 1977 or so. Not so much since 1984.
I forgot about saving throws vs. death. You're right...but it isn't too hard to see a game that works like D&D, but doesn't have "instant death", only "save or lose 'X' hit points".
I imagine a critical hit in modern D&D* is pretty bad for low-level characters, but that's why I specified "experienced" characters.

Now part of the reason I stopped playing D&D was that I really didn't like the number of situations where players could count on being warned they were in danger well in advance of the danger reaching criticality. But I realized later that if I wanted to play long-running campaigns with lots of derring-do and fights, a system with even a small chance of critically-bad things happening on a die roll would need to be balanced by some kind of metagame resource, something to buffer those crits. So for that type of campaign I think a fate point system is preferable to the alternative of GM fudging and pulling punches while everyone looks the other way. While if you're willing to forego the long-term campaign (at least in terms of long-term characters), you don't need that stuff, but you do need players who aren't going to get upset when PCs die.

*There were no crits in original D&D or AD&D1e. I came up with a few crit systems including one where you rolled on the Assassination table when you got a natural 20, and another that's very similar to what I've read about Star Wars D20.

QuoteRadical?

Is someone who allows polygamy under special circumstances a radical?

Seriously, as hammered oftentimes before

dramatic structure enforcement and freedom are an axis of exchange.

And you support that, by your utterings.

I was just saying that my point on the axis is way more on the "freedom" side than yours. I, personally, don't like that much enforced story/drama. YMMV, of course. It`s just a matter of preferences.

But you keep talking as if your goals are compatible, but you already made all the neccessary sacrifices in player freedom. To say then, that it is not an exchange axis, because you succesfully found your place on that axis, is well, strange.

QuoteSo for that type of campaign I think a fate point system is preferable to the alternative of GM fudging and pulling punches while everyone looks away. While if you're willing to forego the long-term campaign (at least in terms of long-term characters), you don't need that stuff, but you do need players who aren't going to get upset when PCs die.

So, this is also your personal point on that Axis. Congrats!
The point?

Settembrini:

Any thought to expanding on your axis theory, or is it pretty much where you want it?

I like that axis, it's pretty much the only "theory" (though I see it as more of a DM tool) that I think has any use in the real world.

Quote from: SettembriniBut you keep talking as if your goals are compatible, but you already made all the neccessary sacrifices in player freedom. To say then, that it is not an exchange axis, because you succesfully found your place on that axis, is well, strange.

What sacrafices am I making?

-Marco

QuoteWhat sacrafices am I making?

You will know better than me.
For example, you are not willing to let a team of snipers kill the hacker, if he isn`t careful enough. You are not willing to face the dangers of low-level D&D, it`s too dangerous for you.
Thereby you sacrificed at least the ability to play the NPCs in an optimized  way, thusly reducing plausibility of the setting and sense of achievement.
Obviously the impairment in aforementioned game qualities strikes you as not being great at all, namely you think of those elements being downplayed as being a great thing. Of course, not to an extreme. As you are a moderate.

So you sacrifice some stuff, and keep the stuff that is important to you.

Quote from: SettembriniYou will know better than me.
For example, you are not willing to let a team of snipers kill the hacker, if he isn`t careful enough.

Well, in the situation, I *was* the hacker--and we were attacking the corp from our safe-house. If the GM had ruled snipers in, that would've beggared belief and not made sense in the game.

Failing the roll was not "fun" but the raid was an intersting side-effect of it.

QuoteYou are not willing to face the dangers of low-level D&D, it`s too dangerous for you.

I play low-level D&D. Survival horror (run into the dungeon, quick grab and combat, run out--don't go too deep ... or else). High death rate means I'm not so attached to my characters for a while but that's okay for those kinds of games.

QuoteThereby you sacrificed at least the ability to play the NPCs in an optimized  way, thusly reducing plausibility of the setting and sense of achievement.
Obviously the impairment in aforementioned game qualities strikes you as not being great at all, namely you think of those elements being downplayed as being a great thing. Of course, not to an extreme. As you are a moderate.

I wouldn't say that every corporation with any competency has snipers trained on every potential hacker.

QuoteSo you sacrifice some stuff, and keep the stuff that is important to you.

Your examples don't seem to work for me so well ...
-Marco

Quote from: SettembriniSo, this is also your personal point on that Axis. Congrats!
The point?

Mainly that buffering mechanisms aren't necessarily part of the drama-freedom exchange. Just as in sports, rules are often constructed to make it hard for a team to run away with the competition prematurely. E.g., playing a series of games to settle on a champion, instead of just one game. Or in wargames, you usually can't score a knockout blow right away with competent opponents.

Quote from: Elliot WilenMainly that buffering mechanisms aren't necessarily part of the drama-freedom exchange. Just as in sports, rules are often constructed to make it hard for a team to run away with the competition prematurely. E.g., playing a series of games to settle on a champion, instead of just one game. Or in wargames, you usually can't score a knockout blow right away with competent opponents.

They can also be called a pacing mechanic. I'm not sure if I'm reading the theory right, but it appears that freedom is limited by *everything*--not just dramatic structure.

The same way that if I want to play an AD&D Magic User. The game choice of GURPS limits my freedom.

-Marco

QuoteThe same way that if I want to play an AD&D Magic User. The game choice of GURPS limits my freedom.

Exactly.

Story: I've got some dictionaries to consult. I'll get back to it later.

Kids and Sex in Our Society: Big problem there. As sexual as children and adolescents are, we're not ready to acknowledge it in any real way, and probably won't be for some time to come. The biggest road block are the pedophiles. We don't really understand them, and because we don't understand them we're not ready to deal with them as they should be dealt with.

True pedophiles are predators. They are into control and domination. Their victims are children because children are easily controlled and dominated, and the pedophile's weapon is the penis for that is where the pedophile's psyche is focused. Pedophilia is really a form of psychopathy, and it cannot be successfully treated. For it is not a matter of choice, but rather the core of the pedophile's nature. So long as these people are allowed to go free after a time in prison, our children will be in danger.

Dragon Earth? No different in many ways than Shogunate Japan or Classical Greece. It's a different cultural dynamic than our own, and being a fantasy world (for all intents and purposes) it has woes and weals we cannot know.

Real World Sex With Children: Stupidest thing you could ever do. I'm not talking about what happens to you, I'm talking about what happens to the child at the hands of the authorities. Some of the greatest crimes against children are done for the benefit of children. Best to limit yourself to cuddles, hugs, and tickles. And a bit of roughhousing when the kids are bored, restless, and driving mom to distraction while the weather is inclement outside.

We live in a very different world than Dragon Earth, and so cannot do as the people of Dragon Earth do.

Child Prostitution: Very rare on Dragon Earth. Prostitution is legal for the most part, but only for those who can enter a legally binding contract. In many jurisdictions this is 25 years of age, the age at which a person can legally rent a car. Forcing anyone into prostitution is considered an act of rape and punished accordingly. Patronizing a child prostitute is prosecuted as contributing to the delinquincy of a minor, with punishments of its own.

Man, lemme try to help you.

Stop trying to defend it. You're not defeating the squick factor by going "But here's why it's okay, and here's why we're not allowed to here!" I'm not gonna grab my torch and pitchfork, but more squicky details won't diffuse anyone calling you foul names, and revealing the depths of...work...you've invested in this isn't gonna push anybody on the fence into the pro-DE camp.

It's just not gonna be a popular setting here, I think. As it turns out, this particular group of RPG enthusiasts are not interested in child-sex.

Plus your research on pedophilia and psychopathy is a little dated.   Adjustment ("treatment") is possible if the patient can be encouraged to want to change.  Most don't, unfortunately

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonPlus your research on pedophilia and psychopathy is a little dated.   Adjustment ("treatment") is possible if the patient can be encouraged to want to change.  Most don't, unfortunately

Then I'm guessing the voltage isn't turned high enough.

Quote from: Christmas ApeStop trying to defend it.

Like I said,

When a man in his fifties develops a game world in which paedophilia is not considered a crime, then you have to wonder why.

Quote from: Christmas ApeIt's just not gonna be a popular setting here, I think. As it turns out, this particular group of RPG enthusiasts are not interested in child-sex.

I certainly fucking hope so. mythusmage tells us on his blog (http://www.mythusmageopines.com/wp/?p=929) that he thinks the government is investigating his blog, and tells the story of another gamer who had the FBI investigate him. Which demonstrates not only his own tendency to conspiracy theory-nuttiness, but that he's gullible, too. Believes bullshit as well as bullshitting!

Quote from: SettembriniExactly.

Okay, well--I agree with that. Any decision we make for any reason usually limits other decisions in some way.

If I decide to play Call of Cthulhu, I am limiting my ability for a "complete victory." If I play Toon, I usually can't perma-kill other PCs. If I play Paranoia, while some people have run serious games, the odds are low.

However: describing one of these axis as dramatic structure and the other as player freedom seems as arbitrary to me as describing one of these axis as "character type" and the other as "system."

If you said "choice of system" limits "character type" I don't think anyone would disagree with you.

But dramatic structure? I think I can get an equivalent dramatic structure in Kult or Mutants and Masterminds or Hero. So clearly some things are *way more* limiting than a preference for dramatic structure if player-freedom is the right to do anything (visit the Ringworld, be a member of the Watchmen, meet Cthulhu) one might concievably do in a game.

-Marco

QuoteRandom events generation, random results, both of which are pretty well staples of most RPGs; and unexpected player actions/choices, generally do interfere with any planned "story".

Completely true, but doesn't give the whole picture. you keep insisting that the story must be planned. You're absolutely right that if the GM and/or players have decided how things will end and/or how the PCs will get there the rules will interfere. However, it is possible to tell a story without knowing where it's going ahead of time.

QuoteThat only postpones the instance where this increased risk comes down to some bullets in your PCs brain. If not, then it`s not more risky.

Not true at all. Death is but one of the many risks a GM can throw at the group. It's certainly amongst the most scary, but a game that requires every situation be life-or-death is a game that misses out on a huge swath of possibilities. I've found that a lot of times, especially in high fantasy games, death is just a minor setback. Likewise if it happens frequently the players become numb. Which is worse: your 3rd character death of the evening (14th for the month) or the possibility that your character's mom will get raped if you don't finish the task set to you by the villain?

QuoteI, personally, don't like that much enforced story/drama.

Again, someone claiming that stories must be enforced. Is it that hard of a concept to think that people like to tell impromptu stories? There's little difference between a parent making up a bedtime story and a group playing a story-focused but not railroaded game. The primary difference is that the parent uses a "what my child should hear" method of conflict resolution, while the gamers use probability based rules instead.

Is it the limitations that people don't like? There was a post about AD&D Magic-users being limited by the choice of GURPS for the game which made me think that. If so, every story (or at least every good story) is limited somehow. There aren't regomented rules to follow as with an RPG, but there are rules. Rules are enforced by logic, genre, and audience. Those same rules are enforced in games leading to stories, with one more set of rules found in the game system used.

Quotehe primary difference is that the parent uses a "what my child should hear" method of conflict resolution, while the gamers use probability based rules instead.

Hahaha!

Nice rhetoric trick!
The "only" difference!
Hell, the method of conflict resolution is for fuck`s fucking sake also known as the game.
Change that, and everything changes.

Um... Yeah. If you change the game a lot changes (not everything, just a lot). What's your point? Didn't I say that the primary*difference is in conflict resolution methods? Saying "you changed resolution methods! that changes things!" isn't exactly a counterpoint, or even really a point at all.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you meant to say in that post?

*Edit: I said "primary" not "only" as you misquoted.

You say: little difference between bedtime story and RPG
I say: big difference.
Easy as that.

But I leave you now talone in this thread, as I'm repeating myself.
Have a nice story.

I forgot to mention that the freedom<--->story axis (note: STORY) also doesn't involve an exchange merely because the stakes of the scenario exclude character death as an option. Yes, you are giving up freedom if PCs can't die. No, you aren't necessarily doing so for the sake of story unless "story" means "anything other than absolute freedom". A very clear example is, once again, sports: players in most sports aren't allowed to kill each other--to a greater or lesser extent, ranging from badminton to rugby to boxing. Just so, a scenario could exclude character death as part of the stakes (or make it very, very unlikely to happen, no matter how hard someone might try), while allowing freedom to operate within the rules without any regard to issues of "story".

Quote from: Elliot WilenYes, you are giving up freedom if PCs can't die.

This would probably be the time to point out that in Nobilis, a game which very much respects the freedom of the players, immortality by default means just that: nothing in the universe can kill such a character. Not a stake through the heart, not decapitation, not nuclear annihilation... Nothing.

And that Gift only costs six points out of the twenty-five which you get to spend during chargen.

Quote from: SettembriniYou say: little difference between bedtime story and RPG
I say: big difference.
Easy as that.

Not if the parent asks the child to take part in spinning the yarn, and encourages her to identify with a specific character: "And what do you think happened next?"

Come on, GrimGent, Settembrini is just using the RPGPundit version of RPG vs. not-RPG here. Do you not like the terms chosen, or do you really not see a difference?

I mean this is like somebody saying, "For my purposes, any number under 100 is small, and any number 100 or greater is big. Now, in the decimal system, large numbers all have three or more digits--" And then someone else butts in and says, "99 is big and it only has two digits."

Quote from: Elliot WilenDo you not like the terms chosen, or do you really not see a difference?

It's more that I see the alleged difference as largely illusionary, regardless of the terminology. If the parent starts out by telling the child that much of the time it will be up to her to decide whatever the hero (a princess or a woodcutter or what-have-you) might want to do during the adventure, the resulting experience is both an RPG session (as defined by its structure) and a bedtime story (as defined by its purpose).

What he said. :)

If you really don't see the difference between perceiving a fictional world as a virtual entity which operates according to conventional, impersonal notions of cause & effect, and seeing it as something where effects are influenced by aesthetic concerns, I'm not sure we have much more to discuss.

I'll make a last stab at it, though. If the parent tells the child that the hero sees a mountain, and the child announces that the hero will jump to the top of the mountain in a single bound, how does the parent decide what happens?

Quote from: Elliot WilenI'll make a last stab at it, though. If the parent tells the child that the hero sees a mountain, and the child announces that the hero will jump to the top of the mountain in a single bound, how does the parent decide what happens?

Always assuming, of course ,that the hero hasn't earlier found seven-league boots, or that he doesn't have the natural ability to leap over mountains? Apart from simply stating that try as he might the hero cannot jump quite that high, the easiest solution would be to say that he climbs the mountain so swiftly that it feels like a single bound. Straight GM fiat is still a resolution mechanic, although not a particularly effective one.

What makes you think that the setting is "impersonal" and doesn't care for "aesthetic concerns", by the way? Perhaps that world runs on drama, and the likelihood of success is determined by the extravagance of the effort...

Quote from: Elliot WilenI'll make a last stab at it, though. If the parent tells the child that the hero sees a mountain, and the child announces that the hero will jump to the top of the mountain in a single bound, how does the parent decide what happens?

The same way I'd handle it if it were a player announcing it in a game I run. If it makes sense without the structure of the story / game then it happens, otherwise it doesn't. The parent in that instance is in effectively the same boat as someone running a game that didn't come with jumping rules.

Quote from: James McMurrayThe same way I'd handle it if it were a player announcing it in a game I run. If it makes sense without the structure of the story / game then it happens, otherwise it doesn't. The parent in that instance is in effectively the same boat as someone running a game that didn't come with jumping rules.

I think some of the emphasis that Seb is drawing here is a bit weird but I do think there are some likely notable differences between most traditional RPGs and bedtime stories (diceless, no char-gen rules, played with one player laying down, usually a huge age difference, GM is literal authority figure, etc.)

I mean, you can say the interactive bedtime story falls within the same spectra as the free-form, diceless RPG so long as you assume a legitimate goal of play is to put a child to sleep--but I think that in the general group of RPGs, the bedtime story is at *best* an extreme edge condition.

-Marco

I've said all along that there are differences (including in my first post on this subtopic), most especially in the region of conflict resoultion. I'm not trying to say that they're the same, only that they're similar in many respests, especially when the RPG is being played by a group focused on story.

GrimGent, James, I'm asking for the criteria you'd use in deciding what happens, not what you'd decide. Viz.,

QuoteAlways assuming, of course ,that the hero hasn't earlier found seven-league boots, or that he doesn't have the natural ability to leap over mountains?

Why would that matter?

QuoteApart from simply stating that try as he might the hero cannot jump quite that high, the easiest solution would be to say that he climbs the mountain so swiftly that it feels like a single bound.

Why pick the first option? Why pick the second?

QuoteWhat makes you think that the setting is "impersonal" and doesn't care for "aesthetic concerns", by the way? Perhaps that world runs on drama, and the likelihood of success is determined by the extravagance of the effort...

Yes, an edge condition. There are two ways to deal with that. The mundane response: we do agree that in the real world there are things we can physically attempt where success isn't influenced by aesthetic concerns, don't we? The alternate response: so, if the hero is fleeing the villain, what criteria would you use to decide if the villain could also bound after him up the mountain?

Quote from: James McMurrayThe same way I'd handle it if it were a player announcing it in a game I run. If it makes sense without the structure of the story / game then it happens, otherwise it doesn't. The parent in that instance is in effectively the same boat as someone running a game that didn't come with jumping rules.

I'm not sure I understand--did you mean to type "within the structure" where  you have "without the structure"?

Sorry, yeah, that should have said within. Storytelling leaves it to our imaginations what makes sense within the structure of the story / setting. Gaming puts it in rules.

QuoteWhy would that matter?

It matters because of the idea of suspension of disbelief and plausibility. It's one of the things that turns a story into a memorable event. In GrimGent's case he has decided that jumping over mountains isn't possible by the average Joe, and used that rule to determine the hero's ability. Another Storyteller / GM might choose otherwise, for instnace if the story takes place on a low gravity planet.

QuoteGrimGent, James, I'm asking for the criteria you'd use in deciding what happens, not what you'd decide.

Logical possibility vs. dramatic repercussion within the structure of the setting is the only criteria I use when telling my son bedtime stories. It's also the only criteria I use when running a game.

Quoteso, if the hero is fleeing the villain, what criteria would you use to decide if the villain could also bound after him up the mountain?

Again, logical possibility vs. dramatic repercussion. If it's possible and the reward is there, the villain follows. If it's not possible or the possibility vs. reward ratio isn't right, he doesn't.

Gaming has the benefit and downside that possibility is determined by the rules. It limits your story somewhat, but most every story has limits dictated by genre, target audience, etc. The dice are just one more limit. But they're also an additional source of excitement. You know where you want your story to go, but will it actually make it or will something happen along the way to surprise you?

Quote from: Elliot WilenWhy would that matter?

Using previously established facts about the setting to enforce internal consistency? As the common adage about writing fantasy fiction goes: "If absolutely anything can happen at absolutely any time, then none of it matters at all." If we have already determined that the hero does indeed possess the power to leap over mountains (or that anything the child says will take place precisely as described), then him choosing to do so shouldn't cause any difficulties at all. If we haven't, there is no reason to assume that he will spontaneously develop such an ability, which leads to...

QuoteWhy pick the first option? Why pick the second?

The problem with the second option is that without specific confirmation from the child, it calls a reinterpretation of what was originally intended, and that can generally be every bit as annoying as GM hyperliteralism. Now, the first is preferrable in that it's based on the conventional range of possible actions, through a simple application of the "you can try" aspect of the "always say 'yes'" principle. There is nothing that cannot be attempted, but the success of that attempt isn't in any way guaranteed.

QuoteThe mundane response: we do agree that in the real world there are things we can physically attempt where success isn't influenced by aesthetic concerns, don't we?

Certainly, but that doesn't apply to nearly all RPG settings: for instance, consider the ever-popular "Pattern Spiders Love Stunts" explanation for Exalted, or the way someone might survive an otherwise lethal fall in Nobilis because gravity loves him. Have we established and agreed that leaping to mountaintops is possible right here, right now, under these circumstances, for this particular character? If that is the case, then the GM cannot plausibly deny it.

Thanks for your answers, guys. I'd like to request that GrimGent return to this:

QuoteThe mundane response: we do agree that in the real world there are things we can physically attempt where success isn't influenced by aesthetic concerns, don't we?

GrimGent, let's assume that we're talking about a game set in "the real world". If it's nonsensical to talk about imaginary events set in the real world, then I think we're at an impasse, but hopefully we aren't. How would you decide if the hero leaps to the top of the mountain in a single bound?

QuoteThe alternate response: so, if the hero is fleeing the villain, what criteria would you use to decide if the villain could also bound after him up the mountain?

This is actually more interesting--we're positing a world where success is dependent on the extravagance of the attempt. I'd love to hear your answer to this question.

Quote from: Elliot WilenGrimGent, let's assume that we're talking about a game set in "the real world". If it's nonsensical to talk about imaginary events set in the real world, then I think we're at an impasse, but hopefully we aren't. How would you decide if the hero leaps to the top of the mountain in a single bound?

The world as we know it could be considered a "baseline" for any setting: all deviations from it should be negotiated well in advance. Without those modifications, obviously no one leaps miles into the air only to land safely on a snowy mountaintop, no matter how hard he might try to jump up and down. In a fairytale, that's something a noble hero (or a nefarious villain) can do while wearing seven-league boots. In Nobilis, that's a level 7 Aspect miracle. In both cases, there are precedents for what is possible: the appropriate rules have been established beforehand.

Thanks. I agree with everything you say. What about the second question?

Quote from: Elliot WilenWhat about the second question?

Why would the situation be significantly different from the hero chasing after the villain? If one of them has access to resources which allow him to soar (supernatural strength, magic boots, friendly sylphs, rage powerful enough to send someone hurtling through the air), so might the other. The same rules are still in force, after all, and apply equally to all characters unless the system sets the PCs apart in some way.

Sure, if you want the hero to be chasing the villain, that's okay, too.

Since we're going around in circles, though, I think I should just cut this short by going to James's answers and making a few assumptions. He describes his criteria as "logical possibility vs. dramatic repercussion". If I understand him, then if he's faced with making a judgment that doesn't have a strong precedent in the rules or setting (What are the natural laws of a fairy tale?), he'll choose the option that has the highest dramatic payoff, provided it doesn't stretch plausibility. This is what I'd like to call "motivated GMing". "Sure, the villain could follow the hero, and equally plausibly the villain may be unable to follow the hero. Let's make a determination based on whichever has the greater dramatic impact."

I believe you can apply the same criteria to any situation where the GM has to make a judgment call for something that isn't spelled out in the rules and which hasn't been previously established in the setting. The hero realizes that while he's been distracted, the bad guys are about to attack his aunt & uncle's farm. Does the hero arrive on the scene before, during, or after the attack? Well, we haven't been keeping track of time, so what criteria do we use? We might reason, "Since either is equally plausible, we'll rule that the hero arrives after the attack. This is more dramatic since it gives him motivation without allowing him to act on it immediately...and furthermore, if he did arrive during the attack, he'd almost certainly get killed." That is a "motivated" judgment in my book, since it brings in something besides baseline plausibility to decide what happened.

But we could reduce the possibility of "motivation" playing a role, couldn't we? Yes--the GM could develop a timeline and a map to track the movement of the enemy and the location of the hero. Or the GM could roll a d6, with 1-2=before, 3-4=during, 5-6=after. While we could play around with the probability distributions, ultimately any approach which uses randomness in situations of uncertainty is going to mitigate the impact of "motivation".

However, do we really want to eliminate or mitigate that impact? Even assuming a negligible cost in terms of learning and applying rules designed to minimize the need for GM discretion, aren't there some areas we'd like to leave open? Probably. But if we prefer GM discretion to a mechanistic/stochastic representation of game-reality, for any reason other than the practical impossibility of addressing every possibility with a formal rule, it must be for the fact that a GM can make "motivated" decisions, whereas impersonal rules can't.

The more you crave the ability to have "motivated GMing" in the game, as opposed to having the GM operate as a stand-in for an impossible ideal of completely representing an imaginary world via rules, the further you move away from the paradigm where players can expect the game-world to operate as a virtual entity which operates according to conventional, impersonal notions of cause & effect. Instead you are moving toward a paradigm which sees the game-world as something where effects are influenced by external aesthetic concerns.

Hmm. In those terms, I most definitely lean towards "motivation".

Some of us want more, some less. Some want it to be out in the open, some prefer it to be hidden to some degree. (The latter needn't be deception so much as an understanding that the GM will be subtle so as to allow the players to entertain the belief that all their actions could have consequence.) And of course the motivation itself can vary.

QuoteSince we're going around in circles, though, I think I should just cut this short by going to James's answers and making a few assumptions. He describes his criteria as "logical possibility vs. dramatic repercussion". If I understand him, then if he's faced with making a judgment that doesn't have a strong precedent in the rules or setting (What are the natural laws of a fairy tale?), he'll choose the option that has the highest dramatic payoff, provided it doesn't stretch plausibility. This is what I'd like to call "motivated GMing". "Sure, the villain could follow the hero, and equally plausibly the villain may be unable to follow the hero. Let's make a determination based on whichever has the greater dramatic impact."

Yes, although it would come into play more if I were telling a bedtime story then running a game, as most games will tell you if/how gravity can be defied, and if I've got a villain prepared I'll most likely know in advance whether he can jump mountains or not. But if for some odd reason I don't know, and the game / setting is silent on how jumping mountains works, I'll go with the most entertaining response I can come up with that doesn't defy plausibility.

Moving that into the more general discussion you followup with, I don't think it comes up as often as you may think. For instance, if as a GM I know that the villain will be attacking the hero's family at a certain time, I'll definitely be keeping track of time. I do find myself relying on random die rolls at times though, such as when I can't decide without using GM knowledge which PC should be attacked by a specific enemy. I'll decide some vague probabilities (often 50/50) and roll to see what happens.

QuoteThe more you crave the ability to have "motivated GMing" in the game, as opposed to having the GM operate as a stand-in for an impossible ideal of completely representing an imaginary world via rules, the further you move away from the paradigm where players can expect the game-world to operate as a virtual entity which operates according to conventional, impersonal notions of cause & effect. Instead you are moving toward a paradigm which sees the game-world as something where effects are influenced by external aesthetic concerns.

First I'll state that with the proper group of players and GM, external aesthetic influence is a great thing. With the wrong group it's disastrous. For most non-railroad groups you end up somewhere in the middle, with the GM handling whatever situations arise as impartially as possible, but interjecting dramatic decisions when necessary or when he feels it is "best for the campaign." I tend to fall heavily on the side of rolling the dice, and using the results of that coupled with cause and effect to drive the story being generated by the game. But I'm not above tossing some motivation in whenever necessary.

For example, let's say your party members are in some random dungeon somewhere and manage to subdue a wyrmling dragon. They know there's a wizard nearby and think he might buy the dragon so they bundle it up onto their wagon and head to town. At one point it wakes up and bites and breathes, so they knock it back out, tie it's mouth shut, shred it's wings so it can't fly away, and pull out all its teeth for good measure. they then successfully sell it to the wizard. The possible effects of this are (nonexhaustive):

1) Nothing. They get some cashola and have a good time. The dragon is never heard from again.

2) The dragon escapes and tries to kill them all.

3) the wizard decides they should be killed  or rewarded for their services to him and becomes a new enemy or ally.

4) Something more far reaching and (hopefully) fun.

I opted for #4. I had a general idea of what I wanted to run next, and as it happened it involved time dilation a bit. The party was supposed to lose a couple of years in a short excursion to another plane. I tossed the adventure's proposed ration of time loss out the window and decided that no matter when they came out it would be X years later. I don't remember X, but it's long enough for the dragon to have escaped and gained an age category plus some levels in wizard from studying in the wizard's lab. My decision to ignore the rules resulted in the most memorable villain and campaign I've ever run, and I'd do it again in a heartbeat.

One place where I am fastidious about the rules is combat. I will not save a villain nor a PC with a fudged die roll, at least not normally. I give the PCs in some of the deadlier games their own control in the form of fate points they can use to survive various scenarios. When they're used I tally it up and "keep" a portion to use for enemies. Some games have this built in.

Another thing I've tried and plan to fully incorporate into the game session for the campaign I'm starting tonight is giving the PCs some literary license. If they're in an alley and want to grab a broken bottle I'll just let them narrate it instead of rolling. If something is really out there but possible we'll figure out a way to roll.

P.S.

You said "stochastic." Does that mean we've stumbled into intellectualized theory and are about to be reviled as that most foul of creatures, a Forgie?

This is great. I think we have actually been able to communicate.

Yes, absolutely, I'd expect the bedtime story will contain a greater frequency of "motivated" decisionmaking than a typical RPG. I'm also sure I couldn't say how often you use it in your games, without possibly playing in your game. The dragon example is pretty much the sort of "motivated" GMing that I would appreciate. In fact, by reusing an element from an earlier adventure in a plausible fashion, you've enhanced the continuity of your game world. Note that your new development really didn't negate the earlier actions of the players, and was no more of a "motivated" decision than you'd probably have to engage in anyway to set up a new scenario.

QuoteYou said "stochastic." Does that mean we've stumbled into intellectualized theory and are about to be reviled as that most foul of creatures, a Forgie?

I don't think so, since my use of the term is in line with accepted usage. The problem with much of Forge terminology is that the commonplace meaning of the word chosen is perfectly relevant to RPGs, but it differs from the specialized Forge meaning; and worse, the specialized meaning is often incoherent or inconsistent across different speakers and conversations.

Yeah, running that campaign gave me a very Minbari viewpoint on the interconnectivity of all things, at least from the GM chair. I try to keep the motivated GMing to a minimum, and my players are usually good enough to find all sorts of crazy stuff to get mixed up in all by themselves, but sometimes an opportunity presents itself to create a polymorphing dragon wizard that joins adventuring parties to trick them into killing other dragons (usually Good) and then kills the adventurers to take the hoards for themselves. And honestly, can you say no to that? :)

The group eventually (as they crossed the threshold into epic levels) learned that the universe is in a cycle of self discovery, and this particular cycle had been focused on the baser emotions and how they could affect even the staunchest of those that think they're "good." For instance, at one point the samurai subjected a respected elder / underling to what was effectively eternal torment simply because when he'd bathed in the pool he came out feeling stronger and as if he could withstand any pain in the multiverse because he'd already felt the worst it had to offer. Unfortunately the game died soon after we hit epic levels, mostly because of how long combats take when everyone's defenses are that high.

Hopefully this won't get me branded as one of those bastards that beats people over the head with ideas, especially since I've already denounced those types in another thread, and don't actually believe the idea presented in the campaign. ;)

One of the reasons I've never taken a serious stab at writing is because I lack experience. I've never been in love successfully, or in a real relationship.
I can write about death, but not about love, and not about life. So at best I'd be missing 2/3 of the equation. Gaming is easier. You can get by on cliche and 2 dimensions a lot longer.