I never understood it.

Let´s work from these things as a given:

- RPGs can be used for collaborative story-construction

- "Story" in this context shall be understood not as resulting narrative, but as an exploration of the human individual´s condition, like it is understood
on "Story-Games" aka Thematic aka Expressive aka Thesp aka XY

- There´s an overlap with genre media emulation

- let´s assume there´s games that successfully yield that kind of experience. Let´s not debate that point, I´m gleefully taking it as a given that they are doing what they are supposed to.

What I don´t understand:

One of the most appealing aspects for me, is that in RPGs I can interact with fictional worlds, as if they were real. This is in stark contrast for me to how fictional universes act in the media: In Star Trek, we know Kirk will win in the end. Any emulation of Star Trek for example, in which the Captain does not automatically save the day isn´t really one.

Another example: The movie Spiderman 3. It was awful for me to watch it, because of the "story". The contrived and clichéd soap opera elements were everyone was related to everyone else, and all problems really are relationship problems was a tremendous fun-sink for me.

I always saw RPGs to get away from the "I´m your father, Luke!" kind of clichés and haphazard collection of cheap emotional tricks.
Look at books: It takes a highly skilled author to turn a novel about realationship from something with a Fabio cover on it into something readable and enjoyable. The plot elements and turns might even be the same, but the presentation in the form of language can save so much. Especially, good literature creates figures, who´s motivations and introspection are gripping, copmpelling and interesting.
What I´m trying to say is, that to explore the human condition in a non-trivial, overused and clichéd way, you need the skills of a nobel prize winner.

Obviously, most RPG players aren´t.

But 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).
There´s noone forcing you to introduce a cute little robot or a love interest for the male actor. The constraints of Blockbuster and Fabio-covered novels aren´t there.
That´s very powerful appeal in my book.

So I cannot understand the fun in retreading the exact stuff I was trying to get away from: contrived coincedences, dramatic structure, script reasoning etc. ad nauseam.

Please help me out what is fun for those people to re-enact the very elements in media that drove me to roleplaying games with these very roleplaying games?

Why?

Where´s the fun?
I´m not saying you don´t have fun, you surely do.
But I cannot see that fun. All my forays into the games that specialize on these elements were ripe with "Spiderman3" moments. I honestly don´t see the appeal, yet many are indeed apalled by it.

Why?

I dunno, does anyone actually do this - create elaborate, collabartive stories intentionally?

That sounds like work to me, not a game.

I always thought the "story" simply developed through game play. The story is an end result, not something you actively work on and create.

Well, there´s tons of different understanding of what "story" means.
What you are referring to, is not what is meant by me here.
Sure, by playin you create a narrative, but that´s not "it" right now.

Quote from: SettembriniOne of the most appealing aspects for me, is that in RPGs I can interact with fictional worlds, as if they were real.

Yep!  This is a good thing that many people enjoy ... and knowing that you enjoy it is a damn useful piece of information.  You can seek out games that provide it.

Quote from: SettembriniWhat I´m trying to say is, that to explore the human condition in a non-trivial, overused and clichéd way, you need the skills of a nobel prize winner.

Hasn't been my experience ... but maybe part of the reason you've experienced it differently is that you're not already inclined to enjoy this sort of thing.

Like, I don't particularly like artichokes.  Not a big aversion, the stuff just isn't very interesting to me.  It'd take a fairly good chef to make something artichoke-based that would make me enthusiastic.  My wife, by contrast, loves artichokes:  She'll eat them pretty much straight.  I dunno ... maybe she does something to them.  Not being interested in artichokes I haven't really gone out of my way to find out.  Anyway, the point is that it doesn't take any skill for someone to make an artichoke-based meal that will make her enthusiastic.  Her enthusiasm for the ingredients means that she doesn't need fancy preparation.

Likewise ... I love-love-love shoujo manga, with the hesitations and miscommunications and the people getting their hearts torn to shreds and finding the strength to go on and all that.  Love 'em.  If someone runs a game that gets our group into that territory, I do not care if it's hugely well crafted and ground-breaking, doing something non-cliche and all-new.  I like the cliches.  I like Kare Kano (which is magnificent) but I also like Ai Yori Aoshi (which is ... not magnificent).  So I'll quite happily play a hokey, cliched story along these lines.  My enthusiasm for the ingredients means that you don't need fancy preparation.

Same as with action films:  I like Raiders of the Lost Ark, but I also like Last Action Hero ... even though it's hokey and cliched and (by all objective standards) pretty terrible.  I'd totally play a cliched action story along those lines ... it'd be a hoot.  Heh.  "Get up Slater, it's just a flesh wound."

I'm not looking for nobel prize winning material ... it's just a game, and I have a lot of fun with even our amateur-night stories.  If you need a higher level of quality in certain genres before it becomes fun for you then that's cool too.  To thine own self be true, and all that.

Does that help to explain the appeal?

That made it a lot clearer for me, Tony. I think it's like fanfic - some people love it even though its amateur and terribly cliche-ridden and all. I stay away, but my wife eats Alias Smith and Jones fanific up like candy. I knew it was all based on tastes differing, but your concept of the enthusiasm for the main ingredient overwhelming the preparation clicks in my head and makes sense.

To me, story has always been a by-product, not a thing to be valued for its own sake.

-clash

Some people want to experience stories that are told in other media as though it were happening to them. Rpg's are another step toward that, cliches and all. It's not something I'm personally into, but I can certainly understand the appeal.

To expand, I love the idea of story in rpg's, but find it far more satisfying as an emergent property rather than a goal unto itself.

EDIT: And I've just realised that flyingmice made the exact same point above. Bugger.

People still remember Alias Smith & Jones? That was a great TV show! Or at least I thought it was when was like six or seven, haven't seen it since.

Anyway, I can't answer the question, Sett, as you can probably guess. But it's not really the "exploration of the human condition" that's problematic for me. After all I'm fairly convinced that a number of folks (particularly round here) play games that "explore the human condition" and present "difficult moral choices for the character", basically by means of the initial campaign framing and development.

Or am I misunderstanding--on second reading, the problem you have is with the overlap you mention, genre media emulation, and therefore--I'm guessing (because I certainly feel this way)--with games that leave so much up to the players and don't offer enough support to keep them from falling back on cliche.

Quote from: flyingmiceThat made it a lot clearer for me, Tony. I think it's like fanfic - some people love it even though its amateur and terribly cliche-ridden and all. I stay away, but my wife eats Alias Smith and Jones fanific up like candy. I knew it was all based on tastes differing, but your concept of the enthusiasm for the main ingredient overwhelming the preparation clicks in my head and makes sense.

To me, story has always been a by-product, not a thing to be valued for its own sake.

-clash

Yes, I will add my praise to Tony's summary.

Also, to back you up Clash, Linda love Harry Potter Fan fic as well as the books. I find them trite and riddled with plot holes, the books and the fanfic is cliched to death. The key here is Sett's use of "I like" and "I want". Different tastes and all.

That said, I have played in a wide range of styles. Until recently, I did not realize that was abnormal. I can enjoy a syrupy sugar fest with story plot hooks taken from the latest romance novel as much as the one-step above miniatures war-games. It may take me a bit to adjust to the style (about 30 minutes of game time) but then I am down with it. I think this has to do with having less enthusiasm for style tropes and more for character development. I will be bored as sin if all my character can do is make paint dry 5% faster (I think anyone would) but if he has a seduction skill, an R-Map that includes other player-characters and fabulous blond locks then I can get on board. Equally, if you stat me out a troll with a panther cannon and a list of equipment as long as my arm I can make that work too. Give me a vanilla fast food worker from Chicago with no ambitions and expect me to play just that...meh, I will take that fast food worker to weird places in the character development cycle or get bored REAL fast and leave the game.

In the end, it is, as Tony said, mostly about enthusiasm (where ever you find it in the game) and your style preferences.

Bill

I've always thought "cliche" was more about the consumer's opinion of the execution than the actual content of a relationship or event.  

A love triangle is a love triangle is a love triangle, whether it's early Luke and Leia and Han or characters from Chekhov.  I do certainly think that it'd be difficult to enjoy any storyline/relationships created in the course of an rpg if you were consciously attempting to create a new examination of the human condition worthy of sitting on the shelves next to the greats.

Quote from: Elliot WilenPeople still remember Alias Smith & Jones? That was a great TV show! Or at least I thought it was when was like six or seven, haven't seen it since.

It appears to be immensely popular among fan-fic writers. I was absolutely staggered myself. I personally liked the show, a lot, but hadn't given it a thought for thirty years or so.

-clash

Quote from: HinterWeltYes, I will add my praise to Tony's summary.

Also, to back you up Clash, Linda love Harry Potter Fan fic as well as the books. I find them trite and riddled with plot holes, the books and the fanfic is cliched to death. The key here is Sett's use of "I like" and "I want". Different tastes and all.

Bill

Exactly.

-clash

Quote from: Settembrini- "Story" in this context shall be understood not as resulting narrative, but as an exploration of the human individual´s condition, like it is understood
on "Story-Games" aka Thematic aka Expressive aka Thesp aka XY

If you mean 'Story' in the sense Ron Edwards uses it (eg Story Now), I believe this is backwards.

Rather, the question is: how do we make Story in an RPG (given that we reject GM railroading)? One way is to throw dramatic situations at people and see how they react. A series of dramatic decision points makes a story.

Since we are human beings, decisions that involve human emotions and cultural mores are of interest.

Ron has never claimed to have invented this way of playing, and certainly David, among others, has seemingly developed strong techniques using many different games.

Quote- There´s an overlap with genre media emulation

Purely historical and contingent in my view.

QuoteOne of the most appealing aspects for me, is that in RPGs I can interact with fictional worlds, as if they were real.

My immediate response is to say, well they're not. Pertinent to your later comments is that in order to give the fictional world even a degree of plausibility, one must be a Nobel prize-winner in multiple fields, and a consummate actor.

Roleplaying is a field of amateurs. What we lose in polish and professionalism we gain in spontaneity and ownership.

So the fun is in creating your own entertainment. Better than TV.

Droog, I believe Sett's emphasis is on genre media emulation, as I suggested above.

So the question isn't "What do you get out of exploring the human condition?" but rather, "How come your games are riddled with thematic cliches? Wouldn't you get a fresher perspective by using tools that jar you out of cliche?"

That's just the nature of the beast, Elliot. Some people have and are doing things that aren't genre. Lots of others don't, because they're all from the same geek pool as most roleplayers.

Lots of people play schlocky space opera. How many play Transhuman Space or Blue Planet?