You are not acting it out. You are playing it. How´s that clichéd?
No one knows whether you make who will live, who will die, what will happen. No one knows whether the traps will be circumvented or not.
In long campaigns, no one knows how the battle will end. No one knows if it will be suspenseful. It could all end up with huge anticlimactic moments, but still be a win for the good guys.
Nobody knows, because the results are not acted but played out.

I´m wondering what you are saying here. Have you never played a regular game, or are you on an semantics crusade here?
EDIT: The important thing is the way an action comes to be and resolves. Let´s say we have a typical fantasy campaign, where a Siege is going on. A Siege might be a staple of Fat Fantasy or Knight novels. But in my game, the Siege is not resolved through collaborative decision making, but through game play, in the sense of simulation. So, he who wins wins so because he has won.

In other RPG setups, the results of the Siege might be either scripted in the module, railroaded by the GM or decided upon plot points or belief markers or whatever fancy mechanism there might be. All three are done for the sake of a "better story", and without actually engaging or interacting with the Siege itself. This is a major killer for suspension of disbelief. Because at that moment, it´s not about the Siege anymore, but about someones idea of "cool ending" for a siege. And thusly you can apply techniques of literary critique to that cool ending, can proclaim it to be cliché. Whereas in a Siege that is played out, the resulting ending has plausability and gravitas gained via it´s emergent genesis in it´s own context.
And fuck, I´m totally not interested in a "cool" ending for a Siege. That invalidates evrything I sat down to play to begin with.

But I´m aware there are Gamers in different games who dig "cool Story". I just cannot see why. What´s the appeal?

droog thanks for the clarification but ....he's still babbling on about something he dislikes, I think.

For instance, what the fuck is this shit:

QuoteEDIT: The important thing is the way an action comes to be and resolves. Let´s say we have a typical fantasy campaign, where a Siege is going on. A Siege might be a staple of Fat Fantasy or Knight novels. But in my game, the Siege is not resolved through collaborative decision making, but through game play, in the sense of simulation. So, he who wins wins so because he has won.

In other RPG setups, the results of the Siege might be either scripted in the module, railroaded by the GM or decided upon plot points or belief markers or whatever fancy mechanism there might be. All three are done for the sake of a "better story", and without actually engaging or interacting with the Siege itself. This is a major killer for suspension of disbelief. Because at that moment, it´s not about the Siege anymore, but about someones idea of "cool ending" for a siege. And thusly you can apply techniques of literary critique to that cool ending, can proclaim it to be cliché. Whereas in a Siege that is played out, the resulting ending has plausability and gravitas gained via it´s emergent genesis in it´s own context.
And fuck, I´m totally not interested in a "cool" ending for a Siege. That invalidates evrything I sat down to play to begin with.

Emulation...inspiration...story, these are heavy concepts that get conflated in all of Sett's posts. If he's saying that collaboration that leads to a particular outcome an outcome agreed before the game, then, yeah, I would not find that very interesting. Other folks may, but that's not my style.

If he thinks that the above is the only kind of emulation, then he needs to do a serious rethink. I mean IHW - and Clash correct me if I'm wrong - is inspired by a lot of literary/film sources. Most folks who play the game like the historical aspect but also on the fiction this game is based on. They are interacting in a make believe world informed by many of these literary/fictional sources and yet do not conform to the description of the kind of play Sett has been going on about.

Or is this about playstyle/theory/mechanics/a specific game that he does not like.

Edit: Are my posts hostile? Because they are not meant to be.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: SettembriniBut I´m aware there are Gamers in different games who dig "cool Story". I just cannot see why. What´s the appeal?

Is this rhetorical? I answered that.

No, you just said people like that.
That´s no explanation.

It's just one of those things, lad.

Look, it's fun to sit around and make up stories together. If you don't find it fun, that's not my problem, same as it's not your problem if I'm over the sort of play you mention in post #31.

But you've got misconceptions, man! This:

QuoteYou are not acting it out. You are playing it. How´s that clichéd?
No one knows whether you make who will live, who will die, what will happen.

could be talking about a game of Sorcerer.

Quote from: David RIf he thinks that the above is the only kind of emulation, then he needs to do a serious rethink. I mean IHW - and Clash correct me if I'm wrong - is inspired by a lot of literary/film sources. Most folks who play the game like the historical aspect but also on the fiction this game is based on. They are interacting in a make believe world informed by many of these literary/fictional sources and yet do not conform to the description of the kind of play Sett has been going on about.

Regards,
David R

You are absolutely correct, David. The game is based on the historical novels and films of the genre, not purely on history, though you could play it that way if you want. In one of my games, the PCs have met and interacted with Hornblower and Aubrey, for example. They are, in effect, making up a series of historical stories as they play, purely through the mechanism of play. They are not primarily interested in the story, but if they were IHW could be played that way. The tools used to emulate the fiction could be used to build stories directly if the group is so inclined.

-clash

Quote from: droogLook, it's fun to sit around and make up stories together. If you don't find it fun, that's not my problem, same as it's not your problem if I'm over the sort of play you mention in post #31.

But you've got misconceptions, man! This:



could be talking about a game of Sorcerer.

So what? I´d usually challenge that assumption, it is not what we are talking about here. Even if we were, you just saying something holds no value.
Please provide actual play, if you really care to convince.
And even more important, even if Sorcerer WOULD enable me to play a game instead of creating a story: There still are games and gamers that use RPGs to get a kick out of  re-enacting TV-Drama.

You are, as always just saying "no" in a very unsmart, uninsightful way. If you don´t care to elaborate, you could as well remain silent.


@Clash: I´m not sure I understand, you can use any RPG to have the kind of "Story" I so do not understand being fun. Railroading GMs, for example are a staple of all kinds of games. Can you really emulate the "story" aspect, the dramatic structure, the plot turns of Hornblower Novels?
Isn´t your game really enabling the players to experience a Hornblowere-esque universe, instead of re-enacting the plot-turns and revelations?

Quote from: SettembriniBut they don´t need to be, because in RPGs, you can take the fictional universes at face value, and interact with them, AS IF there was no script (because, hopefully, there is none).

Why?

There may be no scripts in RPGs but there is plot which is created by the GM.

Plot + GM Role-playing + Player Role-playing + random dice roll = A story.

GMs that confuse plotting with scripting are often are accused of railroading.

I have seen groups that are trying to actively emulate some specific show/movie/genre. On the outside they appear to have really restrictive plots. I can't remember specifics. My impression is that some shows have specific structures and set-pieces that happen over and over again. Think of how a typical Duke of Hazzard, or A-Team, episode is structured and you get the idea. These shows are most prone, in my experience, to used in a rpg setting.

The GM of these groups seem to know these idioms cold and the since players are trying to emulate whatever role they have they tend make choices from a limited set of options that are found in that show.

The fun in the best of these games comes from the random chances of the dice combined with players choosing their own path (within parameters)

For example the GM may have choose have Boss Hogg do X. Now the players know the Dukes usually choose one of 4 to 6 things to do when the Boss is up to something. The GM then knows the show well enough to know how the Boss will respond to those choices down. This goes back and forth down to the climax of the adventure. Modified by good luck or bad luck of course.

Often times new option will be created because they see "Something the Dukes would do" by group consensus. But something like a player having Bo going into Boss Hogg's office and blowing him away with a 12 gauge shotgun would would be seen not in the spirit of the game.

The worst of these games is nothing but a big railroad session. They have a bad reputation because to pull it off you have to know the show's style and elements as a GM. And it not that easy to do.

The appeal of these more limited games is the same appeal that the formula shows have in the first place. The same reason that D&D is so popular as game. It is comprised of X elements that in combination appeal to people. A RPGs allow people to write their own version of these shows with the same element of surprise because of the dice and the choices being made.










That how I view it.

Quote from: Settembrini@Clash: I´m not sure I understand, you can use any RPG to have the kind of "Story" I so do not understand being fun. Railroading GMs, for example are a staple of all kinds of games. Can you really emulate the "story" aspect, the dramatic structure, the plot turns of Hornblower Novels?
Isn´t your game really enabling the players to experience a Hornblowere-esque universe, instead of re-enacting the plot-turns and revelations?

Yes, Sett. The game is designed to let the players be Hornblower (or Aubrey, or Maturin, or Ramage) types in a setting derived from the novels. There's a very limited LUCK stat that allows the players to change certain outcomes within limits, but it's a character stat, not a metagame thing. Some people are lucky, some aren't. In the optional rules, though, there are various playstyle options, some of which can be more story-oriented. In any case, it's not the main thrust of the game. That's what I was referring to.

-clash

QuoteThe appeal of these more limited games is the same appeal that the formula shows have in the first place.

Mmm. Aren´t the things making them popular counterproductive to gaming? I can bear with soapy-drama if it´s fast-paced and imaginative, like the new Doctor. But only as a consumer and only for about an hour.
And in my book gaming is way more fun than watching telly.

QuoteThe same reason that D&D is so popular as game.

That I don not understand: D&D is a game that has no script in it if there ever was an unscripted game. If there is one source of learning text against dramatic structure then it´s AD&D adventures.

QuoteA RPGs allow people to write their own version of these shows with the same element of surprise because of the dice and the choices being made.

This is the faultline, that´s so problematic: When I´m playing a Star Wars game, I want to fly a starship, because I want to fly a starship. Not because I can wallow in Campbellian trivialities.

Quote from: SettembriniThis is the faultline, that´s so problematic: When I´m playing a Star Wars game, I want to fly a starship, because I want to fly a starship. Not because I can wallow in Campbellian trivialities.

You think wanting to fly a starship is not wallowing in Campbellian trivialities?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RYou think wanting to fly a starship is not wallowing in Campbellian trivialities?

OF COURSE NOT, David. What kind of question is that, I mean holy SHIT.

In a more constructive vein, what we're talking about here, a propos story/emulation, is this:

http://www.jonathantweet.com/jotgametry.html

and this

http://www.treasuretables.org/2006/01/and-then-james-bond-spends-a-month-in-the-hospital

Not meaning to indulge in self-quotation or anything, but the argument against the above is contained in Settembrini's sig.

In other words, "story" is a possible outcome, achieved under the threat of utter unfun humiliation, not a surefire result.

So what fun could it possibly be, to be the away team and have one red shirt with you as an NPC. To have him die.

What is the fun of that?
I don´t get it.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityIn other words, "story" is a possible outcome, achieved under the threat of utter unfun humiliation, not a surefire result.

This would surely depend on how one defines story.

The links you provided were interesting, but does not tell the whole story (so to speak). I'm sure Koltar when he runs Star Trek is not falling into any Kirkliness (maybe he is, I don't know) or that the 3 considerations in your second link are the only way to go about emulating  TV shows or movies.

And yes Pierce, wanting to fly a starship IMO is wallowing in Capbellian trivialities or rather engaging with them.

Regards,
David R