Quote from: droogBut it has a higher chance of happening if the participants are focused on creating a 'story'. Their narrations will be bent towards that goal.

Do you agree that, in principle, an RPG can therefore be used as a storytelling medium? Even if the story is ephemeral and exists only for the participants?

I agree that collaborative storytelling is a storytelling medium. I agree that the traditional RPG format can be used for collaborative storytelling. I do not agree that the traditional RPG format is a superior format for collaborative storytelling than other models out there, including Once Upon a Time, campfire stories, and online zero-rules RP communities on LiveJournal.

If you want an analogy: television can be a great storytelling medium. I would not, however, expect to get a better story out of the sports result than out of The Sopranos.

QuoteI think that your view of what happens in 'traditional' RPGs is limited. In any case, I'd argue that none of those special techniques are actually required. It's certainly possible to argue about whether certain techiques are or are not more effective, but you can do 'story' without formally-shared authorial control etc.

How are you defining story? If you are saying that story is plot - a series of event that happens - that's fair enough, but traditional RPGs yield story either organically (and thus we accept the possibility that the story will be suboptimal) or in a pre-planned way (in which case railroad ahoy).

Quote from: WarthurI agree that collaborative storytelling is a storytelling medium. I agree that the traditional RPG format can be used for collaborative storytelling. I do not agree that the traditional RPG format is a superior format for collaborative storytelling than other models out there, including Once Upon a Time, campfire stories, and online zero-rules RP communities on LiveJournal.

If you want an analogy: television can be a great storytelling medium. I would not, however, expect to get a better story out of the sports result than out of The Sopranos.

I think your first point comes down to preference. For example, I have no interest in the online freeform stuff, for various reasons.

On the second point, that may be so, but it seems obvious that a show produced with an eye to telling a story is going to be prima facie a better story than a gladiatoral contest. Not necessarily better entertainment, of course.

QuoteHow are you defining story? If you are saying that story is plot - a series of event that happens - that's fair enough, but traditional RPGs yield story either organically (and thus we accept the possibility that the story will be suboptimal) or in a pre-planned way (in which case railroad ahoy).

I think there's a much wider variance and tolerance in 'traditional' gaming than you're giving it credit for. There are many techniques beyond and between 'let it work itself out' and 'railroad plot'.

We haven't yet arrived at a solid definition of 'story' in RPGs. I'd suggest that beyond a simple series of events, a 'story' has a unifying element, a 'point'. In a 'traditional' setup, you might:

• Have strong characters with lots of goals and motivations.
• Targeting of the players' goals by the GM.
• Drive towards resolution of conflict and achievement of goals.
• Mutual agreement, not always explicit, as to overall style of game.
• Social rewards (esteem, respect) for good story play.

All that can push a game strongly towards 'story play' without ever leaving the traditional reservation.

Quote from: droogI think your first point comes down to preference. For example, I have no interest in the online freeform stuff, for various reasons.

On the second point, that may be so, but it seems obvious that a show produced with an eye to telling a story is going to be prima facie a better story than a gladiatoral contest. Not necessarily better entertainment, of course.

Exactly, but a show produced with an eye to telling a story will take an entirely different approach from the ground up. This is why I feel that the goal of "story games" requires abandoning an awful lot of what makes a traditional RPG, to the point where it will end up not resembling an RPG at all.

I'd say that the breadth of playstyle you're pointing to, droog, is indisputable; at the same time, the "story approach" is IMO historically a kind of distortion*, even if it did appear fairly early commercially and, most likely, even earlier in actual play. In a way I rather swinishly agree with comments that have come out of the Forge suggesting that such play, while possible, is like teaching yourself how to eat salad with a spoon (my analogy). It can be done, and possibly quite gracefully, but it doesn't flow naturally from the tools at hand.

*Evidence: accounts of Weseley's Braunsteins and Arneson's early games, which strike me as experiential games of pretend. And I mean that in a way which puts "story" very low as a priority of the game just as much as "story" is a very low priority in a sports match.

I can't believe you're making a 'system does matter' argument, Elliot. But anyway, that's beyond the point I'm driving at.

Personally, I really don't care about the historical roots (beyond the basic interest I have in history). The roleplaying industry stemmed from a 'distortion' in the wargaming market. With such a broad array of possible approaches to the new form, it was pretty inevitable that it would splinter into interlocking groups of preferences.

Quote from: WarthurExactly, but a show produced with an eye to telling a story will take an entirely different approach from the ground up. This is why I feel that the goal of "story games" requires abandoning an awful lot of what makes a traditional RPG, to the point where it will end up not resembling an RPG at all.

Et tu, Warthurius? But what have you to say to my 'traditional' techniques?

If it surprises you, I don't know what to say. I don't think I've ever said that game systems don't influence how a game is played, or that one game isn't better for certain styles of play than others. From some of your responses to things I've said, I think you've tended--frankly, like many sympathetic interpreters of the Forge--to assume that its critics haven't thought through these issues at all.

The difference between the development of RPGs from wargames, and the development of those various other styles of play within RPGs, is that the RPG has a cluster of structural differences from wargames (some wargames share some of these characteristics but no wargames share all of these characteristics with RPGs) to support its different style of play. The most prominent to my mind are non-rigid, less-than-fully-prescriptive rules, to support unexpected situations and actions, single-character identification, player-character/GM-world split, and lack of a clear-cut "victory condition". (The closest thing, death vs. gaining experience points is, well, different, partly because it gets folded back into the ongoing dynamic of the game.) At the same time, RPGs kept wargame elements like mechanical resolution systems which simulated a sort of objective reality. (Wanting to win a fight and winning it are two different things.)

The result: creation of an experiential structure of play supporting the idea that the player is the character.

Quote from: Elliot WilenIf it surprises you, I don't know what to say. I don't think I've ever said that game systems don't influence how a game is played, or that one game isn't better for certain styles of play than others. From some of your responses to things I've said, I think you've tended--frankly, like many sympathetic interpreters of the Forge--to assume that its critics haven't thought through these issues at all.

It's hard to sort out the knees from the jerks sometimes.

QuoteThe difference between the development of RPGs from wargames, and the development of those various other styles of play within RPGs, is that the RPG has a cluster of structural differences from wargames (some wargames share some of these characteristics but no wargames share all of these characteristics with RPGs) to support its different style of play...The result: creation of an experiential structure of play supporting the idea that the player is the character.

That's as may be. As I usually say, I think you're downplaying the historical diversity of play. But anyway, the future is not yet the past, and I still haven't managed to see what's wrong with development within a field.

Ultimately, aren't you saying that some people are doing it wrong?

System matters. Some people are doing it wrong.

If they're having fun, that's awesome -- but it's not a good example to follow for well designed games.

Hmmm, well I think that one thing that can throw people off is that theorywank is (or at least should) be kept to game design and maybe game prep and not focused on so much while actually playing. What's important during an actual game is having fun, for example in the Spirit of the Century campaign that I've been playing in "player empowerment" has mostly consisted of asking the GM:
1. "Does X exist in the area?" in an area where X would logically exist (a tray of eclairs in a patry shop etc.).
2. Asking the GM if we can pay a Fate point to add a fact to the setting (for example at one point we decided that it would be fun if there was a masquerade ball at the Imperial embassy going on when we broke in and handed him some Fate points. The GM thought that that was a great idea and had it be a themed costume ball with everyone in very similar costumes which resulted in a fun V for Vendetta-style sub-plot.
3. Asking the GM if we can add an NPC that it would make sense for our PCs to know (so far the only NPC who's been created this way was is a child street beggar).
4. Asking the GM to introduce a plot hook related to our backgrounds and giving him a Fate point.

In all cases the GM has veto power, but I don't think he's used it more than once in four adventures, hasn't been a need to...

Where all of those examples of forgy play? Dunno, but I DO know that they resulted in a lot of fun.

Also buried under a lot of theorywank are a lot of common sense ideas that people have been using for decades but having them written out in a logical manner is really helpful. For example while running D&D games I had some good adventures and some not so good adventures. Reading about "bangs" really helped me realize what made my good adventures good since every single one of my adventures that the players liked had textbook examples of "bangs" and every one of the adventures that sucked didn't. So a lot of the theorywank has been useful to me, at long as I avoided taking it to seriously.

Quote from: droogThat's as may be. As I usually say, I think you're downplaying the historical diversity of play. But anyway, the future is not yet the past, and I still haven't managed to see what's wrong with development within a field.

Nothing at all wrong with it.

QuoteUltimately, aren't you saying that some people are doing it wrong?

I agree, in a way I am. But it mainly applies to people who do it wrong and complain that it can't be done right. I'm looking at RPG rules as tools. If you use a tool improperly and get bad results, it's not the tool's fault. If someone uses it in an innovative fashion and gets great results, I can't exactly say they're doing it wrong. (Here's where I might suggest searching for "dance, voldo, dance", but it's common in art; I don't have examples off the top of my head but I think you even have industrial tools and materials used in visual arts not only to make some conceptual statement but also purely because they can be exploited in new ways.)

Where I think people tend to go off the rails--though here I suspect I'm in a vast minority, at least given trends in commercial "adventure design"--is in viewing (traditional) RPGs in terms of story vehicles: they're not story vehicles, by which I mean that, like sports, the construction of a story is less important than the "experience". But it doesn't follow that they can't appeal by engaging emotions and values or dealing with human relationships. The trademark of "Indie" games, insofar as they're seen as "Forgie", is rather tightly connecting the desire for play that's engaging on a "human" level with play that emphasizes those elements of construction that come from "story telling".

See also: what I just wrote in post #4 in this thread.