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.  )

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.  )

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.