TheRPGSite

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. :o

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?

Quote from: SettembriniI 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.

...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.

That's pretty much how I feel about RPGs. I have a genuine intest in human drama - I just find that the drama presented in genre fiction, movies, and TV rarely rises above hackneyed schlock. That's why I don't buy fantasy novels anymore - they just make me cringe. And when genre drama does rise above the hackneyed - as it sometimes does in Buffy or Battlestar Gallactica - I'm aware of the enormous amount of talent, craftsmanship, and reworking that went into it.

Maybe this makes me an elitist prick. I don't know. I mean, I have friends who write, act and direct in local theatre. And frankly, though I support them, I find the shows pretty difficult to watch. For me, drama is something that, when done with true art and mastery, can move me deeply. I try to go in with an open mind, but every bit of hackneyed dialog, every overly pointed characterization, every indulgence in mawkish sentimentality just jars me out of any immersion in the drama. I can't help myself - I honestly can't endure 98 per cent of popular drama without jeering and hooting with derision (my wife doesn't like watching TV with me).

So no, my group doesn't try to explore the human condition or emulate genre drama in our games. I should note that none of the guys I play with are plugged into 'geek' pop culture. No Buffy or wuxuia (sp?) fans, no X-Files afficianados, or Tolkien enthusiasts. Even my player with an English degree - a newspaper columnist who loves to write - doesn't have any interest in crafting genre storylines with heartaches, betyrayals, redemption, etc, in our games. We just make some broadly drawn characters, plunk them in a vividly-realized and perilous setting, and see how many amusing situations they can back into before they die.

Now, I'm not slagging narrative gaming or genre fiction. Whatever turns your crank. But I think it's a mistake to think that gamers who don't want to explore characterization or engage in melodramatic storylines in their games aren't interested in character or drama. Some of us are very interested; we just don't expect or want those elements in our roleplaying games.

I think more along the line of creating dramatic elements so the character can develop outside of levels, equipment, etc...  It's a game but it doesn't need to be Gauntlet either.  That's a big distinction for roleplaying games for me.  The characters develop as the players make decisions regarding what they "feel" their characters should do.  The game aspect of RPGs is fun but I remember the characters.  They're what made the campaign come alive.  As a GM my first priority is to assist the character into defining moments without stepping on the players concept.  

Action is only as dramatic as what fuels the characters into action.

Quote from: Elliot WilenSo 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 can't be Sett's question, as he is an avowed D&D fan and that game, by design, is hugely dependent upon cliches (from class and race descriptions, to spell entries and the classic "quest" model for adventures).

I have no idea what Sett is trying to say and for once Elliot is not effective in his (welcomed) role as "interpreter". It seems to me there a whole lot of assumptions and conflation of ideas/rhetoric in the OP.

Perhaps it's best if Sett gave us an AP so that I (for one) can get where he is coming from.

Regards,
David R

I agree with David R that I'm not sure what Settembrini is on about, he's rambling and mixed stuff up in his OP. But -

Quote from: droogRoleplaying 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.

I agree with this whole-heartedly. It's the same as making anything else as a hobby. Okay, it's not brilliantly-done, but it was interesting to do and I made it.

Or in the case of rpgs, we made it.

Quote from: jdrakehThat can't be Sett's question, as he is an avowed D&D fan and that game, by design, is hugely dependent upon cliches (from class and race descriptions, to spell entries and the classic "quest" model for adventures).

Ah, I foresaw this response, especially after droog's reply to me. I could explain but I think it'd be better for Sett to clarify instead of me potentially putting words in his mouth.

While I think Settembrini's OP was posted before it was really formulated in his mind, the points he brings up about genre emulation are pretty thought-provoking. This returns us to one of Pundit's recent arguments: that what is considered sophisticated by many is in reality emulating middle-grade schlock at best (because, really, cop shows and superhero comics aren't Camus and Merle any way you slice it).

QuoteOne 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.

I think this needs to be worded more precisely. The need is not for the realism of accurate physics or social structures, but the realism of in-game consequences resulting from player input and interior processes. What makes this exciting, and what makes the often clichéd nature of game environments not as important as you'd think, is the ability to make a difference. This is why I agree with the quotes below:

QuoteAnother 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.

QuotePlease 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?

Well, taking out those elements of his post as Melan did, we get some funny things.

1) people like things in their games which they like in movies.

Some do. Probably not a lot. rpgs are different things to movies and books and comics. As droog said, participation's the key difference. It's not a brilliant creation, but it's my creation. And there's the fact that creation is a joint one - it's nice to do things in a group. We've got a social creative hobby. Movies and books can be sort of social - but not a lot compared to an rpg session - and are almost never creative for the audience.


2) those things are lame.

Well, maybe for Settembrini they are. Bear in mind those "cheap emotional tricks" and "cliches" actually make for very popular movies.


3) cliches are bad

Then why play D&D?

Melan's said what I had in mind, which already answers Kyle's last response: it's not an issue of cliched elements or inputs, rather it's cliched narrative and outputs.

[EDIT: trying to help David out]

Settembrini Says:

• He likes to interact with fictional worlds as if they were real, rather than how their reality works on TV (etc).
• He thinks most genre fiction is crap (I have to say, old man, I'm right with you there).
• Forgenik narrativista games are implicated by having universes that run on dramatic logic and containing lots of genre elements.

See my reply.

Quote from: Elliot WilenMelan's said what I had in mind, which already answers Kyle's last response: it's not an issue of cliched elements or inputs, rather it's cliched narrative and outputs.

This is where we need some examples.

Quote from: Elliot WilenMelan's said what I had in mind, which already answers Kyle's last response: it's not an issue of cliched elements or inputs, rather it's cliched narrative and outputs.

That doesn't answer anything, really. Cliched input produces cliched ouput. A game built around cliched portrayals of certain mythical races, fantasy occupations, and acting out one of many different types of cliched quest archetypes produces an output that is, for better or worse, cliched. The only way you get around this is if you ignore or "revision" the fundamental underpinnings of such a game.

elements and inputs, narrative and outputs, this ridiculous definition of "story" as "an exploration of the human individual´s condition", etc - it's all hopelessly vague and muddled. We need examples, as droog said.

Huh?

Jdrakeh, you are mistaking an Elephant for a rope right now.
The clichéd nature of a quest settup is of no import. The execution of the quest is what you actually play.

Quote from: SettembriniThe execution of the quest is what you actually play.

And? Executing (i.e., acting out) a time-honored cliche somehow makes it less cliche? Sorry. I don't buy it.

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

Quote from: David RAnd yes Pierce, wanting to fly a starship IMO is wallowing in Capbellian trivialities or rather engaging with them.

Only if you're a Campbellian. In which case you either got your B.A. in the 1950s (Hi, Old Geezer), or something went seriously wrong with the humanities part of your college education.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityOnly if you're a Campbellian. In which case you either got your B.A. in the 1950s (Hi, Old Geezer), or something went seriously wrong with the humanities part of your college education.

Nah, just taught by an old geezer (not tBP one)

Regards,
David R

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

Regards,
David R

It certainly is wallowing in Campbellian trivialities! Oh! Wait! You didn't mean John Campbell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_W._Campbell)? Who's this Joseph Campbell fellow? :O

-clash

Quote from: SettembriniMmm. 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.

This is a communication problem. "soapy-drama". I am not sure what you mean by this. I am going to guess that is about shows that have a drama elements, a formula, continuing plots, and/or characters.

The answer not all show are suitable as a RPGs. In general the shows that have "action adventures" like "Alias Smith & Jones", "A-Team", "Dukes of Hazzards", "Star Trek". Are going to be used for RPGs. I have no hard data to support this other than the handful of games I seen or heard about.

The popular action adventures show have elements that are very applicable to gaming. A lot of them start with a hook something that draw the main character into the situation. The hook is a classic roleplaying plot device used to draw PCs into an adventure. Used so much that is been extensively cliqued and mocked.

 I will be honest if you are looking for me to break down a show to tell which element are useful to a RPGs. I don't have that for you.


The only specific thing I remember is my own Star Trek game.

QuoteIt was run in the 80's before Next Generation. The players played their own crew. My secret ingredient is that I had an episode encyclopedia an an extensive VCR tape collection and so I will continually throwing in little references to original episodes. Like a minor crewmen from TOS would show up as part of the current story. Lt Riley I think was one of them.

The best adventure I ran was where the players was sent to mark the area where the USS Defiant disappeared ("Tholian Web"?) as it was considered a navigation hazard. As it turned out it was a time portal and the player's ship (The USS Challenger) caught a Klingon ship entering the stressed zone.

Well the plot was that the Klingons used the portal to go back into time and shoot a missile at the United State during the Cuban Missile crisis causing Earth to suffer World War III a century earlier. When the Klingon when into time portal the spatial distortion (how l love that term) expanded to encompass the player's ship and rendered it immune to the timeline change.

When they got out. They found the subspace relay network gone. And couldn't get a response from the nearest starbases. When they ventured further into the Federation's Core they found it to be dominated by the Andorian Star Empire locked in a losing war with the Klingon Empire. Vulcan was conquered by the Romulans. Earth was a nuclear wasteland of warring medieval nations.

The highlight of the adventure was a hour long debate over the ethics of changing the time-line back. Everyone was in character and debated as their characters. It was coolest bit of role-playing I ever remembered.

Finally they helped the Andorians against the Klingons in exchange for cloaking technology to allow them to slip between the lines to get back to Earth. They used the slingshot method of going back into time to 1962 . Hid behind Earth's Moon and blew up the Klingon ship before it could launch it's missile. They returned home to find the Time-line restored back to normal.

The point of that campaign was that we wanted to play in the Star Trek world and have our own Star Trek episodes. I was the GM because I knew both the episodes and elements well enough and could GM well enough to pull it together for everyone and make it a Star Trek Game.

Star Trek is not the only show that suitable for an RPG. Obviously Star Wars is and there are dozens of other that been adapted by dedicated groups. It seems to me that the shows that had to most expansive elements seem to be the most popular to use.

Quote from: SettembriniThat 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.

Sure there is

you equip yourself,
go into some nasty dungeons
beat the hell out of some monsters until you are beat to hell.
Retreat
Heal


And luckily they added

When you reach 9th Level you can establish a stronghold and men will flock to your banner and make you their lord.

And this all supported by

The Official Monster List
The Official Treasure List

which gives D&D it sense of time and place. Western European medieval.

Understand D&D is rooted in Wargaming. That it wasn't a radical break from what went before. Its initial appeal that was neat that you got a reason for your miniature army to be fighting and that your commander had cool items and a history. Of course the whole thing was so open ended it that people figured out it could do a lot more.

Mind you that today that this story of D&D has been overdone so much that is seems clique.


 

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.

People don't think of Campbellian trivialities. Most are not that knowledgeable about Campbell. They want to be like Han Solo, Bo Duke, James Kirk, or Hannibal Smith. Which are archetypes that Campbell attempts to describe.

Since you mentioned that you played Star Wars. How that playing that different what you are complaining about? Haven't been in a game using Star Wars rules that wasn't really star wars. And vice versa where you felt like you  were in your own brand new Star Wars Movie and the game was good.

I really love wallowing in Bruce Campbells trivialities!

I thought you guys meant Campbell Brown - and wallowing in her...uhh...well...nevermind..

I really like wallowing in Naomi Campbell's trivialities...but this is not the forum for it.

Regards,
David R

Dammit you all pissed me off ;)

I am going to eat some Campbell Soup

You're disgusting..eating Campbell....

Edit: estar did you read the link Pierce provided ?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: SettembriniSo 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.

The redshirts are the hit points of Trek. The major characters cannot suffer serious damage until they are all gone.

Quote from: David RYou're disgusting..eating Campbell....

Regards,
David R

But it's Mmm Mmm Good.

Fine.  Be that way.  I'm off to  Camp Bell (http://www.passport-america.com/campgrounds/united_states/new_york/campbell/camp_bell_campground/Default.asp) for some rest.

Quote from: estarDammit you all pissed me off ;)

I am going to eat some Campbell Soup

Andy Warhol did that every day for ten years. AND made art out of it!

estar,

The problem with both of us, is that we have the exact same taste and outlook!
For whatever reason, you don´t seem to have encountered the "story-creators" that I´m referring to.

The point is, leaving Campbell aside, that wanting to be like Han Solo is totally different from wanting to emulate the "story"-structure of Star Wars.

In my Star Wars reactor explosions, of which we had many, it never was clear who would get out of the exploding craft/mine/planet/speeder/etc. in time.

We had totally over the top action scenes. And we had a pretty high PC body count.

But having cinematic vs. realistic action adventure isn´t the problem here. The problem here are people who think Star Wars is not about exploding reactors, but really is about TEH HERO, TEH MENTOR and TEH FATHER.
And who try to warp action-adventurey gaming into exercises of recreating the shallow drama of tv soaps or star wars.
Without the space theme and special effects, Star Wars is a horrible, horrible movie.

But still there´s people out there thinking the family ties of the protagonists are something worthwhile to re-enact via copying plot twists from Grey´s Anatomy. Without effort, just by saying :"it would be cool, so it will be just like that."
Without any in-universe plausability.
Just like in the (blockbuster) movies.

And why, oh why should one wallow in the worst that US-media have to offer (formulaic portrayal of the human condition)? Why?

Quote from: GrimGentThe redshirts are the hit points of Trek. The major characters cannot suffer serious damage until they are all gone.

Now, that´ll only work in a parody like Galaxy Quest.

Again: were is the fun of doing it like it, except in a parody?
It´s stupid, why repeat the stupidity?

Does nobody else see the problem with Sett and his posts?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RDoes nobody else see the problem with Sett and his posts?

Regards,
David R

You mean the posts where he posts some inscrutable zen-like koan which he expects will burst in our heads and enlighten us but instead kind of flops around in our brains like a mutant fish gasping on a river bank? No, not really. If you tell me, we'll both know. :D

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceIf you tell me, we'll both know. :D

Maybe later. I misread your post as zen-like mutant fish and thought... what does After the Bomb have to do with this :D

Regards,
David R

Quote from: SettembriniYou are not acting it out. You are playing it. How´s that clichéd?

The structure of what you are playing is still heavily rooted in cliches, both of the 'genre tenet' variety and of the 'Creative Writing 101' variety. You're arguing that telling an introspective story is a some kind of crime against humanity because it is sooooooooo cliched but that adventuring for the sake of adventuring and fighting monsters for the sake of fighting monsters while pursuing classic, tried and true, goals cribbed straight from fantasy literature like "Save the kingdom!" or "Find the treasure!" is not cliched? Sorry, man -- that's bullshit.

You are an idiot. A real big one.

EDIT: And I pity you, because you must never have had a an adventure gaming session in your whole life.

DoubleEDIT: And because I pity you, I´ll explain:

When you say "Save the Princess!", that´s not the game.
Our games in which princesses are saved, are not concerned with the princess. We are concerned with shooting the TIE Fighters, dying via Thermal Detonator misfires, breaking the lock or cutting through the Star Destroyer Bridge window with a lightsaber, spending a force point, and still be blown out into outer space through decompression, flying out the Kazellis light freighter to rescue our jedi friend, donning spacesuits and storming the Star Destroyer once again, this time with a better plan and backup troops.

Fuck the Princess. She´s an excuse for going unto SPACE ADVENTURES!

Quote from: SettembriniYou are an idiot. A real big one.

Ummm... Which one of us?

-clash

The JDRAKEH, of course.

Quote from: SettembriniYou are an idiot. A real big one.

Why? Because I refuse to support your assertion that playing through a plot structure that has been in existence for thousands of years isn't cliche based solely on the criteria that you personally enjoy it?  I guess that I'd rather be a moron than a frothing, hypocritical, bigot with an agenda to force his personal vision of "adventure" on the unwashed masses.

QuoteAnd I pity you, because you must never have had a an adventure gaming session in your whole life.

What the fuck ever. You can't even nail down what an adventure game is, can you? When you can provide some examples based on something other than liquored-up anecdotal rants, maybe we can talk. That said, I suspect that you you will never be able to do this, since your platform is based entirely in the purely subjective realm of personal taste rather than fact.

Welcome to REALITY -- where your personal tastes don't set the standard for the rest if the free world.

Quote from: Settembriniestar,

The problem with both of us, is that we have the exact same taste and outlook!

Thanks, I think we are on the same page just trying to relate our separate experiences.

Quote from: SettembriniFor whatever reason, you don´t seem to have encountered the "story-creators" that I´m referring to.
Official


The point is, leaving Campbell aside, that wanting to be like Han Solo is totally different from wanting to emulate the "story"-structure of Star Wars.

But still there´s people out there thinking the family ties of the protagonists are something worthwhile to re-enact via copying plot twists from Grey´s Anatomy. Without effort, just by saying :"it would be cool, so it will be just like that."
Without any in-universe plausability.
Just like in the (blockbuster) movies

So in a nutshell you are talking about people who play the character directly. Like taking the Star Wars Saga Edition and one person plays Han, another Luke, and the other Leia?

I am going to give you an answer based on that because I have run into that situation.

Basically in my experience it comes down to player's ability and player desire.

First not all RPG players have the same ability or capacity for acting and imagination. It nothing to condemn it just how it is. So they find it easier and fun (the fun part is important) to play a character directly.

Second, they really really and I do mean really like a particular character and/or show. I don't know why this happens. Science still probably doesn't know why either. But it happens. They happen to like RPGs as well. The two intersect and they play. Note it seem to me that the younger a person is the more obessive they are about one thing. I know I got a 10 year old and  3 year old. Sometimes they never outgrew this obsession. (some friends I know).

BTW I not talking about the life crippling obsession as a hard core Trekkie. I am talking about the interests that influence what you want to do in your normal spare time. I known otherwise normal people that have nothing but star trek dvds in their dvd collection and are not really interested having anything else. delete Star Trek and substitute something else and you get what I mean.

That it really. There no deeper meaning or reason other they like it.... or it is a lot easier to play ... by far.

Now flipping over to the RPG table.

If you look at the totality of Role-playing sessions. I bet a donut that you find these type of games to be a very small percentage. Why? Because they are difficult to pull off well. The moment you enter "Bo Duke blasts Boss Hogg with a 12 gauge" land the whole feel is ruined. This compounded by a less than stellar GM who lapses into railroading his PCs all the time.

Btw your comment about red shirts is is a "Bo blasts Hogg" type feeling that ruins the game for you. I am not criticizing you for it just holding at an example why these type of games doesn't work for many people.

On the Good side, when these games work they really work. Because not only you get the fun of playing the "Game." you are getting what is essentially a whole new episode of your favorite show.

Finally one criticism of what you said. It is similar to what the Pundit said about D&D. Don't fall into the trap that American Show or any particular show is bad just because it has to be bad. If it had the numbers then it worked. We may not know why it worked at times. But it worked for a lot of people. And it doesn't work for you. Which is OK.

I am sure back in the 13th century some noble was ranting how cheesy ass this Arthur character was.


Finally, if my explanation isn't helping. Then just pull a page from the game you like a lot. The RPG. I am sure when you GM you don't use bullshit reasons for your plot and characters. You think it through.

Well pretend that you are making one of these "players". Use the skills you have honed for your game. Surely you made and played NPCs that you find personally idiotic. Come up with the plausible motivations for their actions. You make find such a character unappealing but at least you understand why.

That how I reasoned it and why I could run LARP events for ten years. (Lets say herding cats is easier).

@JDRAKEH

Now, Special Jim, I´ll be speaking s-l-o-w-l-y for your benefit.

Take a seat.
Good boy.
Take a look at "Saving the Princess".
It´s a cliché.
How often does it come up?
Twice. In the beginning and in the end.
That´s about five minutes of session time.
The rest of the session is spent on, let´s say storming a castle.
The gaming is done storming the castle.
Finding a way in.
Sneaking around.
Fighting the Guards.
etc.

Does Special Jim understand now?
Or Special Jim too tired, too many words?

Sett,

I think you are focusing too much on the Game aspect.

There is the role-playing side too. Not just in the sense that you are acting out your character but there is a plot and a campaign world as well.


 Game-----------------|------------------Role-playing
   
I like to be here where the | is at


 Game--------------------------------|--Role-playing

Some like it where the | is at
Some think its superior
This annoys me

                                       
 Game--|---------------------------------Role-playing
Some like it here
This is how it started   in 1974.
Since different players and game designers moved the bar to where they liked it.

Brilliant!

estar, you've latched onto something about Sett that's been noticed before: an overemphasis on "game/challenge".

Being sympathetic to his viewpoint, I interpret it in a way that's more attractive to me. Namely, it's not that challenges are inherently attractive or "the point" of the game, but that the hallmark of emphasizing "story" is making in-game challenges impossible.

E.g., if I want to storm the castle, then in game-world terms, that should be a challenge. But in "story" type play, it's not a challenge (because for aesthetic reasons I must succeed), or at most it's a challenge on a highly metagame level having nothing to do with the nature of my goal--I'll succeed if I've properly hoarded plot points, or if I've properly aligned my Spiritual Attributes with my goal.

I should qualify by stating I don't see this as a rigid distinction since metagame concerns can have a greater or lesser weight. E.g. in Burning Wheel you can accomplish things without spending Artha, and spending Artha isn't necessarily going to hand you success. However there are games where virtually everything happens for "meta" reasons, whether it be the GM fudging or stacking the deck in your favor, or "narration trading" mechanics with virtually no connection to concrete internal game-world dynamics.

I´m not even understanding the reasons for WANTING "story" in your gaming. I cannot see any redeeming value to it.

@estar: that axis of exchange you built up is ridicolous and damaging, it´s roll-playing vs roleplaying all over. But I know you and I mean the same when we think about what a good game is. The real axis of exchange for this debate is:


freedom -'------------------------- drama
(I´m over here *wave*)

To be clear, I think estar's post is brilliant because you could make those scales for a ton of different aspects in games - they are easily understood. And because they make little to no judgement about where one stands, only that the scale exists.

Combine a number of them, and you might just have something.

Rob tells it like it is, Settembrini. Face it: You and Luke have a gamist mancrush!

No.
*sigh*
It´s totally not like that.
If even you misunderstand me, I digress.

It´s time to quit the site, I fear.

Sad day, sad day.

Quote from: SettembriniI´m not even understanding the reasons for WANTING "story" in your gaming. I cannot see any redeeming value to it.

Because the concept of story appeals to human beings on a fundamental level. It's the organisation and categorisation of information in such a way that entertains as well as informs. It provides a linear emotional context for events that otherwise may be regarded as dry or dull.

Just look at professional sports. Commentators, whether they be describing boxing, football or bowls are continually injecting as much narrative into competetive events as they can. Newspapers and websites follow the private lives of atheletes in such a way as to make them the heroes and villains of modern society. Grown men in the pub will wax lyrical about the trials and tribulations of their favorite team, reducing themselves to tears as they describe how victory was snatched from the jaws of defeat.

It's not an cop-out to describe the phenomenon as human nature, because in essence that's exactly what it is. It's also therefore no surprise that such a universal urge will be expressed in rpg's, in one form or another.

Quote from: Settembrinifreedom -'------------------------- drama

So ... drama is the inherent enemy of freedom?

>blink, blink<

Remind me ... you are trying to understand other people and why they value a focus on drama in their games, right?  This seems like an awfully critical point-of-view to be trying to gain that understanding from.

Quote from: Elliot Wilenestar, you've latched onto something about Sett that's been noticed before: an overemphasis on "game/challenge".

Being sympathetic to his viewpoint, I interpret it in a way that's more attractive to me. Namely, it's not that challenges are inherently attractive or "the point" of the game, but that the hallmark of emphasizing "story" is making in-game challenges impossible.

I understand completely. One aspect of my personal GM style is to play with the rules how they are. What fudging I do I do it with plot. Choosing plot alternatives that are the most fun or interesting. But if a Total Party Kill happens. It happens. Without the risk the reward isn't as sweet.

But I have experience with the alternative.

In LARP, you can't be as free form as in table-top. Within a event real world limitations means you can't plan and execute every eventually. In short you have to railroad the PCs somehow from the start of the event to its conclusion. And amazingly do this without making the PCs feel they are being railroaded and with the fact that many have run events and know they are probably being railroaded.

Note: this only within a event. The next event certainly can change on the result of the previous event.

The first trick is that before the event preplan only a handful of major modules that has to happen for your plot (an event is comprised of module in the NERO LARP) Then during the event you allow the players to choose the path they get to the major modules. Making them up on the fly or from a stack of generic templates.

So if the plot is killing the dragon in its lair. The events starts with the dragon attacking the town for the big opening fight (a standard clique opening in NERO LARPS). Soon they find out that the dragon's lair is unknown. So you start putting out modules that have clues to the lair. Some players may go to the hag on the river. Other may fight through the orc forest to the seer's tower. And so on. Eventually somebody will have a clue the dragon's lair assemble the town and go for the big closing fight (another NERO cliche)


It can be more complex than that. Hopefully you get the picture. As you can see this a lot more railroading than I would on for table top. And it is a challenge to do but if you plan it right it can be done and be fun.

But if you come to a NERO event expecting to tromp into the woods and goto the Dragon's Lair then you won't have fun. But there may be 50 people playing and only 15 on the staff back at the NPC Shack. We don't have the logistics to track and allow individual groups to whatever they want.

Enjoy
Rob Conley

P.S. The upside of NERO LARP is that

a) you are physically there in costume or in armor.
b) there is a person playing just that role in role-playing with you.
c) your fellow players both cooperate and compete with you and there is a lot of them with you.
d) You physically get to adventure.

Note that c keeps players in the game and a,b,d attract players to the game.

Quote from: SettembriniNo.
*sigh*
It´s totally not like that.
If even you misunderstand me, I digress.

It´s time to quit the site, I fear.

Sad day, sad day.

What's with the drama queenery, sector duke?!

I read your buddy Skyrock's ARS manifesto the other day: one-dimensional gamism drivel. If your own position is different, you need to work on elaborating that difference. It comes through occasionally but not systematically.

Quote from: estarSett,

I think you are focusing too much on the Game aspect.

There is the role-playing side too. Not just in the sense that you are acting out your character but there is a plot and a campaign world as well.


 Game-----------------|------------------Role-playing
   
I like to be here where the | is at


 Game--------------------------------|--Role-playing

Some like it where the | is at
Some think its superior
This annoys me

                                       
 Game--|---------------------------------Role-playing
Some like it here
This is how it started   in 1974.
Since different players and game designers moved the bar to where they liked it.

That's sheer genius.

[Edit: Removed Snark]

Quote from: SettembriniAnd why, oh why should one wallow in the worst that US-media have to offer (formulaic portrayal of the human condition)? Why?

There's a reason that the worst that US-media has to offer is popular.

Now, I'm on your side here; I have no desire whatsoever to emulate the cheesy drama of popular tv, movies, and books. Neither do my players, thankfully. But playing out hackneyed plots, melodramatic crisis, and sentimental characterization in RPGs is popular because all that stuff is popular in other dramatic mediums. I share your opinion that RPGs can do a lot more cool stuff than create a collaborative piece of Buffy fanfic. But it shouldn't be suprising that pop culture sensibilities are, well, popular.

Quote from: SettembriniI´m not even understanding the reasons for WANTING "story" in your gaming. I cannot see any redeeming value to it.

@estar: that axis of exchange you built up is ridicolous and damaging, it´s roll-playing vs roleplaying all over. But I know you and I mean the same when we think about what a good game is. The real axis of exchange for this debate is:


freedom -'------------------------- drama
(I´m over here *wave*)

I going to have to disagree. I am not sure why you put drama as the enemy of freedom. The correct axis, in my opinion is:

freedom ------------------------- railroading


drama is a plot point and nothing to do with freedom.

Drama for a game oriented person is where you enter the dragon's lair and go "oh shit" in you are in the fight for your life. Or when you have to win this battle or pick this lock.

Drama for a role-players is like that Star Trek time travel debate. Is the party going to change time to return home. Or this going to be the universe they stay in.

 You can have a campaign totally focused on blowing star-destroyers yet the GM is railroading you from battle to battle with no meaningful choice.

You can have a campaign that has you under the influence of a magic deer that totally dictates your moral choices or suffers the penalties of a dark force. (Oh wait this has been done)

So a proper understanding of the issues is to combine the axis of game versus Role-playing with freedom versus railroading.

Note that even a dual axis may be too simple. Which where the Forge falters in my opinion. Because RPGs are open ended they can focus on a lot of different things at once.  The key is understand the choices you made for your game, and what your players consider to be fun.

So far it seems to me that you enjoy the gaming side i.e. the wargaming part of RPGs more than the role-playing side. Which is great. Lots of people have fun with RPG campaigns that are essentially a series of scenarios that are related by a plot. Not saying that what exactly what you play but it sounds like you are on that area of the whole RPG spectrum.

I would pick the nit, then, that it's not just railroading - that's just the GM side of things. What about the players?

It's approaching a game with the idea that certain dramatic/thematic/narrative goals outweigh other considerations (in game consistency, for example).

I don't agree with Sett's view that one is this type of gaming and the other is that, or that one is good and right and the other bad-wrong-fun.

But I do see a scale here where those could be represented as polars as the tension of the two play against each other.

Yeah, but ... freedom? :confused:

Every game is going to restrict your freedom to play an entirely different game.  That doesn't make them opposed to freedom generally.  In a D&D session I don't have the "freedom" to have my character suddenly access a new reserve of power just because it's dramatically appropriate (i.e. the princess he loves is imperilled).  However, I don't leap to the conclusion that there's a spectrum with tactics on one side and freedom on the other.

Certainly Sett expressed his opinions but his original post stated that he didn't understand. Which I  am trying to explain based on my witnessing actual play and others playing. Also with why gamers think they stink or not stink.

Because running a LARP I had to very pragmatic about "theory". I had to come up with some "theory" because when you are running events for 50 or more people at a expensive campsite you don't want just throw plot out there and just hope the shit just works. You need to take  a hard view at what happened in previous events. Take what was good and build on it. This include plots as well the logistics of running things.

Some of it I found is applicable to running a good tabletop game.

Quote from: TonyLBYeah, but ... freedom? :confused:

Every game is going to restrict your freedom to play an entirely different game.  That doesn't make them opposed to freedom generally.  In a D&D session I don't have the "freedom" to have my character suddenly access a new reserve of power just because it's dramatically appropriate (i.e. the princess he loves is imperilled).  However, I don't leap to the conclusion that there's a spectrum with tactics on one side and freedom on the other.

Oh...so close, Tony.

That's right, you don't, but it's not because of any rule in D&D. you could very well have that happen in D&D if you wanted to play it that way - that is, in a way that allowed a dramatic need to override the internal consistency.

But I agree with you that "freedom" is not on the other side - it's the wrong word but perhaps Sett's just not ready with the right one - or he's referencing a more intricate interlocking situation where I can't act consistent with the framework is someone else's "dramatic" focus takes precedence.

This is the weird nebulous part of GNS that kinda makes sense (watch the flames there, boys).  If two people have different games in mind, they will have to work out a way to play together or the game will struggle.  That's as far as I would take any idea of Creative Agendas from GNS and apply it - you have to bring in Cheetoism to handle the rest!

Quote from: TonyLBYeah, but ... freedom? :confused:

Every game is going to restrict your freedom to play an entirely different game.  That doesn't make them opposed to freedom generally.  In a D&D session I don't have the "freedom" to have my character suddenly access a new reserve of power just because it's dramatically appropriate (i.e. the princess he loves is imperilled).  However, I don't leap to the conclusion that there's a spectrum with tactics on one side and freedom on the other.

On the two axis posted so far it is rare that a RPGs is totally pegged to one extreme. If it is the campaign won't last for long.

The ideal point for me on freedom axis is that you have a GM that is flexible enough to handle players going off in any direction but savvy enough to keep putting plot hooks and keep players interested enough to in the plot to follow it of their own volition. Because once they are willingly following a plot prep time becomes way easier.

Otherwords the player are railroaded because the they want to be.

And Sett one of things going on with the "story" games you mentioned that the player are willingly accepting the railroading that involved to make them work.

Quote from: SettembriniFuck the Princess. She´s an excuse for going unto SPACE ADVENTURES!

So the game isn't about the characters, it's about the cool stuff the characters can do?  That's a little too harsh of a polarization for what constitutes drama or story in a RPG to me.  I want to do all of that COOL stuff too but I also want to have a reason why my character wants to save the princess.  I need that reason for putting my character's ass on the line or from the players if I'm GMing.  I don't need a half hour dialogue in character to achieve this either.  In game it would look like this:

Player 1 (Luke):  We should probably save the Princess.  She's here and it's the right thing to do.

Player 2 (Han):  Screw that!  I'm not putting my character's ass on the line.

Player 1 (Luke):  She's rich and you could use the money to pay off Jaba.

Player 2 (Han):  Uhhhh... Ok, I'll do it.  

Player 3 (Chewie):  ROWWRRRLLLL!  (he's the thespy type)

The game is about what the characters want to do based on whatever the agreed upon premise is (defeat empire).  What are the characters trying to accomplish and why?  The trick for the GM is to find themes that the players want to engage their characters in.

So all it comes down to "Why folks like story games" or rather "why do folks prefer one sort of distinction over the other".

What is clearly evident is this.

1. Sett "knows" what Star Wars is really about and the rest of us are reading it wrong.

2. Some of us are playing Star Wars (if we are playing it/basing our adventures on it) wrong.

Then there is this:

QuoteSett wrote:
Again: were is the fun of doing it like it, except in a parody?
It´s stupid, why repeat the stupidity?

So I wonder what folks would think if Sett was talking about D&D ?

Just as uncle Ron has his apologist, there seems to be an endless supply for Sett.

QuoteDrew wrote:
Because the concept of story appeals to human beings on a fundamental level. It's the organisation and categorisation of information in such a way that entertains as well as informs. It provides a linear emotional context for events that otherwise may be regarded as dry or dull.

You're an old school gamer much like me. This word "story" ain't used how it used to be. I remember reading an editorial by Roger E. Moore in Dragon about how to create an epic campaign based on LotR where the word "story" was thrown about. I don't even think he was using the word "emulate". Story is the heart of the rpg experience, IMO.

Regards,
David R

I don't know, maybe Sett's doing a bad job of communicating, David, but you seem to keep running into a brick wall on what is, to me, a pretty straightforward distinction. Nevertheless I recognize that even in a form that gained a great deal of currency back in the 90's, that is the RGFA "Threefold Way", a number of people just didn't "get it".

One way I can conceptualize this is to draw from the Threefold concept of Dramatism, bearing in mind that that old "theory" took the GM/Player "split" for granted. (Let's please not get caught up in arguments over what a "theory" is, and also note that I'm crediting the Threefold as a source, not asserting it as an authority.) Or even better we could draw from Everway's Law of Drama. The basic idea of which is: when the GM is called on to make a decision, the GM weighs would make a good story, or what would be a good continuation of the story thus far, and decides partly or entirely on that basis.

Is that clear? It needs to be in order to proceed.

Elliot I totally get the distinction. I agree that there is a distinction. Do you get Sett's Swine-ish behaviour of elevating one playstyle over the other (not to mention his analysis of how/why gamers choose to emulate certain kinds of fiction)?

Regards,
David R

In that case you tend to do a really bad job of separating the two issues.

Okay, granted there's a distinction, okay? Because, really, giving the impression that you're denying there is one is infuriating. I think simply acknowledging that Sett's talking about a real distinction and not engaging in some kind of delusion (via language like, "so, you always do that in RPGs", "how can you play an RPG otherwise") will raise the level of discourse immensely.

So then you're left with: Sett doesn't like games where the GM (or anyone on whom "GM-like powers" are bestowed by the system) is expected to decide things using the Law of Drama. So what?

So...nothing so far. If we get the distinction, then it should be easy for Sett to explain his critical biases and work from them in conversation instead of having to argue, repeatedly, whether they're a solid foundation.

But beyond that...maybe recognition of the distinction can also be a foundation for truly trying to understand the appeal of the "other side".

Maybe not...I mean, he does belabor the point. I just think it's because he feels his opinion isn't even being heard as a legitimate opinion. Frankly I think there are a lot of people in online RPG circles who do deny the legitimacy of Sett's tastes. (Of course I feel that because I share them to a large degree.)

What I don't understand is people saying he's incomprehensible.

What the fuck is with these losers? Get some rigor, get some language skills, stop watching TV, take a reading comprehension class.

Such as weak response Elliot. I see you can't use the S word to describe Sett's behaviour. Very cultish. Sett begun this thread conflating a whole lot of concepts. Then he insults playstyles which he has no interest in. He continuosly brings up this distinction not as a way of understanding how other folks play but in the service of the so-called war. He's not misunderstood, most folks see where he's coming from. It's losers who can't/won't call out his behaviour that enable him and his silly little war. Look back on all his posts in this thread and tell me that his behaviour is not the kind of nonsense that the Swine exhibit all the time. Who cares if Sett does not like a specific kind of play...what is fucking insulting is when he continues to insult those who do. You're very gung ho when it comes to calling out the Forgers, why don't you show some guts and call out Sett.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Elliot Wilen
So then you're left with: Sett doesn't like games where the GM (or anyone on whom "GM-like powers" are bestowed by the system) is expected to decide things using the Law of Drama. So what?
[/QUOTESo rather than using buzz words like the Law of Drama why don't you tie it back to examples of actual play. In the later posts I felt Sett's points were not coming across clearly.

My impression thus far he likes something like a wargame with some of the elements RPGs. That if was the mid 80's he would be very happy with Mechwarrior and Battletech. Or maybe around 2000 with Prime Directive and Star Fleet Battle. But he also sounds like a player that loves stuff like the Wilderlands or Traveller's Spinward Marches where there are huge choices for wandering around the landscape.

Plus I have to keep guessing what he is calling a story game. It sounds like I got into the ballpark but I am not 100% sure.

Nothing wrong with his choice of gaming. But he did asked for an explanation. Essentially the Point of View of gamers with different style.

This part has nothing to with Sett, but through the years, I always been a little surprised that RPGers as a whole aren't better at getting along. One of THE elements of RPGs is putting yourself elsewhere. With a different point of view. Role-playing you know.  This is an activity that literally forces you to get into another person's head. Even if you treat RPGs like a super wargame you still got get inside what your opponent is thinking.  

But alas in the end people are people with all their strengths and weakness. And in the final analysis I really rather not have it any other way.

Sadly, David, we're miscommunicating on a fundamental level.

I don't care if someone else has different tastes from me, even if they express their dislike of my favorite game in the rudest language. The behavior I associate with "Swine" is closer to refusing to acknowledge the existence of other tastes, or analyzing the reported experiences of others in terms of "denial" (basically saying they don't count). The classic maneuver is claiming that if you don't have Forge-like metagame mechanics, the inevitable outcome is a GM-led illusionistic story. Or that a GM-improvised game conducted under a "dramatic" aesthetic gives the players exactly the same experience of freedom and exploration as a game that works from prepped material and a "neutral referee" type of GMing.

Sett isn't doing those things.

Quote from: David RYou're an old school gamer much like me. This word "story" ain't used how it used to be.

Which is a shame. I'm all for the evoloution of terminology, but what we have here is dialect masquerading as language. Critical to this is the misapprehension (at least to my mind) is that story as as a retelling of events is somehow inferior to story as a preplanned goal with a set of assumptions and conventions that must be adhered to. What's even more disconcerting is that the opponents of this view have begun to adopt the interpretation, further polluting the online waters to the point of spawning threads like this.

QuoteI remember reading an editorial by Roger E. Moore in Dragon about how to create an epic campaign based on LotR where the word "story" was thrown about. I don't even think he was using the word "emulate". Story is the heart of the rpg experience, IMO.

Absoloutely. I strongly suspect that 99% of offline gamers still use "story" in the same dynamic, spontaneous way as Mr.Moore, where setbacks, sudden reversals of fortune and even death are seen as contributing factors intead of scripted tropes that have to be anticipated and accommodated in order to work. Of course there's an overarching structure, but one that explicitly allows for change and redirection.  

One of my great loves of RPG's is the notion that everything can change on the roll of a die. An heroic tale can become a tragedy, which can later evolve into unrequited love, victory or absoloute defeat. It's exactly this kind of dynamism that keeps me coming back to the table.

Quote from: estarSo rather than using buzz words like the Law of Drama why don't you tie it back to examples of actual play. In the later posts I felt Sett's points were not coming across clearly.

You're basically right about this. I brought up the Law of Drama because the distinction I'm talking about has a long history of being explained, repeatedly, using a variety of methods, only to be denied. I reckon Tweet at least lends a bit of respectability (he's not just another Internet crank) and of course he offers yet another wording of the concept, regardless of terminology.

But you're correct, actual examples of both the type of play that Sett enjoys and the type he dislikes would help a great deal. I can at least offer one of the latter, from an unlikely source:

QuoteLast night was Star Wars, or a sad mockery thereof. After hours of doing very little, my character attempts to disarm a bomb he's discovered on his ship.

The GM says, "you notice a peculiar pattern of blinking lights-"

"Oh, fuck that," I say, interrupting him. "I don't do the puzzle solving stuff. What do I need to roll?"

So I roll and get a 1. And everyone else is like, "the bomb goes off! You're dead." The GM panics, worried that his story is going to be fucked, so he pulls a total Deus Ex Machina, having the force-sensitivek character sense a potential disturbance and bail my guy out.

Now, I'd be pissed off about this just as much as Matt Wilson was. But I come to a different conclusion from Matt--he wouldn't want his character to die, he just wants some kind of bad consequences: "wouldn't it be cooler if a 1 just added more complications to the story, like the ship is really damaged now, and we have to get involved with a crime lord and stuff?" "I also don't want my choices or die rolls to sever my ability to participate in what happens next."

If you can work out mechanics for what Matt's proposing (I suspect Heroquest or TSoY would be good), it'd be a game I'd enjoy.

On the other hand, having my character die would also be okay for me, provided the GM didn't essentially impose a "save or die" situation out of the blue. Rather I'd want to have some way of avoiding the situation beforehand via game-world savvy & good tactics, or else I'd like to be given a choice of either trying to disarm the bomb, or bugging out in an escape pod.

It's reasonable to ask: why do I even deserve a chance to avoid, or an opportunity to escape? After all the GM could reasonably have judged that an extraordinarily skilled assassin had planted the bomb; the GM might have secretly rolled the PCs' chances of detecting the sabotage and come up negative. My answer is that there should be an assumption that the PCs are roughly competent to face the challenges and dangers of the overall campaign. Hypothetically, if the campaign were exhaustively prepped beforehand, it should have been tailored along these lines, or else the PCs should have been given enough points or whatever to match the campaign. Although the PCs might not be able to beat any challenge at the outset, they should be strong enough and have access to enough information to stand a reasonable chance of survival--otherwise you have a killer campaign with a foregone conclusion, which is boring. So I think it's reasonable to construct characters and campaign together in such a way as to give them a fighting chance.

Furthermore I don't really expect a GM to have an entire clockwork universe detailed before play: improvisation and invention in the course of play is a given. But if we work from the initial assumption of PC competence, then any new elements introduced by the GM shouldn't fall so far outside the range of "danger" and be so unavoidable as to, basically, turn the PCs into unwitting chumps.

Some might read me as calling for tailoring improvised campaign elements to the current ability level of a party. I'm not--you could have a single random encounter table for Region X that never changes; you just need to ensure that 1st level characters either have the information and freedom to avoid a Region X if it's too dangerous, or the ability to survive in Region X if they can't avoid being there. I'm also not saying that PCs always deserve a fighting chance if, say, they try to take on an army head on. Nope, not unless that level of ability is a premise of the campaign.

Instead I'm saying that taking "save or die out of the blue" off the table can be interpreted as proceeding from reasonable assumptions about the overall construction of the campaign, rather than the GM deliberately pulling punches in mid-game. And given a campaign constructed on the assumption that PCs are competent enough to deal with threats imposed on them, and both free and knowledgeable enough to avoid dangers that are out of their league, I'd be happy to have PC death on the table.

I can't say I'm completely disinterested in RPGs where outcomes depend strongly on aesthetic concerns, but to me they're a very different beast and I can understand why someone would dislike them in general.

Quote from: Elliot WilenSadly, David, we're miscommunicating on a fundamental level.

I don't care if someone else has different tastes from me, even if they express their dislike of my favorite game in the rudest language. The behavior I associate with "Swine" is closer to refusing to acknowledge the existence of other tastes, or analyzing the reported experiences of others in terms of "denial" (basically saying they don't count). The classic maneuver is claiming that if you don't have Forge-like metagame mechanics, the inevitable outcome is a GM-led illusionistic story. Or that a GM-improvised game conducted under a "dramatic" aesthetic gives the players exactly the same experience of freedom and exploration as a game that works from prepped material and a "neutral referee" type of GMing.

Sett isn't doing those things.

Your  narrow definiton of Swine strays from the traditional usage. I guess the trad Swine def of hypocrisy, pretension, elitism and disingenuity amongst others, is not really a concern of yours and not a barrier to open honest discussion. One of the good things about your def is that folks like Levi, TonyLB, JHKim, droog and well just about anyone really (since most realize that there are divisons in this hobby)  - traditional Swine suspects - are no longer considered Swine. Can we (I) expect that you will speak up when they are called Swine or have you no objection to the traditional usage as long as it is not used on Sett ?

Drew nothing much to add except...

QuoteDrew wrote:
I strongly suspect that 99% of offline gamers still use "story" in the same dynamic, spontaneous way as Mr.Moore, where setbacks, sudden reversals of fortune and even death are seen as contributing factors intead of scripted tropes that have to be anticipated and accommodated in order to work. Of course there's an overarching structure, but one that explicitly allows for change and redirection.

Exactly. I've never needed to clarify what I meant by "story" when talking to folks offline about rpgs and there has never been any miscommunication as to what I meant.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Elliot WilenBut you're correct, actual examples of both the type of play that Sett enjoys and the type he dislikes would help a great deal. I can at least offer one of the latter, from an unlikely source:

I would not have likely permitted the Dice roll and said it was for you to figure out. However if I had that player in my game I wouldn't be placing very many puzzles for him to solve. And the ones I did place would be to shake his expectations and act as a challenge.

Also, in the 70s, old school gaming was riddled with puzzles that the PLAYERS had to figure out, not the characters. Allowing a dice roll to solve such puzzles was one of the few things that would get you mocked.

And if the situation was such that it was do or die and the dice came up with a 1 I would not fudge it and the players would die. However I try to structure my plots so those type of circumstances are minimized (aside from combat). Because frankly most save versus death come across as cheesy.  

Quote from: Elliot WilenNow, I'd be pissed off about this just as much as Matt Wilson was. But I come to a different conclusion from Matt--he wouldn't want his character to die, he just wants some kind of bad consequences: "wouldn't it be cooler if a 1 just added more complications to the story, like the ship is really damaged now, and we have to get involved with a crime lord and stuff?" "I also don't want my choices or die rolls to sever my ability to participate in what happens next."

It would be better but the after the fact ruling is what I don't agree with. You should set it up in your mind before hand and go with what the dice turns up even if it is extraordinary bad. GM Fiat show its dark side way more than not.

Quote from: Elliot WilenIf you can work out mechanics for what Matt's proposing (I suspect Heroquest or TSoY would be good), it'd be a game I'd enjoy.

It would be more fair to have the GM list out the possibilities in his head before the roll and go with the result. It would be even better that the GM foreshadows the bad results so the PC has some kind of chance to gain positive modifiers in dealing with the situation.

Quote from: Elliot WilenOn the other hand, having my character die would also be okay for me, provided the GM didn't essentially impose a "save or die" situation out of the blue. Rather I'd want to have some way of avoiding the situation beforehand via game-world savvy & good tactics, or else I'd like to be given a choice of either trying to disarm the bomb, or bugging out in an escape pod.

Agreed for the most part.

Quote from: Elliot WilenMy answer is that there should be an assumption that the PCs are roughly competent to face the challenges and dangers of the overall campaign. Hypothetically, if the campaign were exhaustively prepped beforehand, it should have been tailored along these lines, or else the PCs should have been given enough points or whatever to match the campaign.

Not what I do, but I know GMs that do this and their groups do have fun. If you want to see this taken to an extreme, play any of the Eldar Scroll games.This approach has merits and disadvantage.

My style is to allow the players to wander freely in the gameworld. The trick is  effective use of foreshadowing so the PCs have enough information to make reasonable choices. Rarely in my games the PC unknowingly cross some border into super monster land and get quashed. Because they past through the surrounding villages or pass travellers and learn that maybe the forest ahead is more dangerous than usual.

The big disadvantage, particularly for a novice GM doing this, the PCs will feel lost and directions. "Where do I go?" My trick is to carve a place within my society and culture that gives the PCs a framework. Like most of the party are part of the Temple of Mitra. Or the party is part of the Mage's Guild. Or they all work for the Duke, or associated with the Black Lotus and so on. Within a couple of sessions they get their bearings and start establishing their own goals.

Quote from: Elliot WilenFurthermore I don't really expect a GM to have an entire clockwork universe detailed before play: improvisation and invention in the course of play is a given. But if we work from the initial assumption of PC competence, then any new elements introduced by the GM shouldn't fall so far outside the range of "danger" and be so unavoidable as to, basically, turn the PCs into unwitting chumps.

Again I feel fitting the challenge to the party approach has disadvantages that outweigh the advantages. Sometime all the PCs want to do is kick a lot of CR 1/4 ass. Makes them feel like they accomplished something.

One of the reason I play GURPS is that is easier for me to make the PCs feel like heroes yet retain some risks. Through the fights a 250 pt PC will know he improved a lot against the 50 pt Orcs he has fought since the beginning of the campaign. However, due to the way GURPS works, he still have to keep on his toe and there is still a risk because that 50 pt Orc can still gut him given a half of chance or some bad luck.

Quote from: Elliot WilenInstead I'm saying that taking "save or die out of the blue" off the table can be interpreted as proceeding from reasonable assumptions about the overall construction of the campaign, rather than the GM deliberately pulling punches in mid-game. And given a campaign constructed on the assumption that PCs are competent enough to deal with threats imposed on them, and both free and knowledgeable enough to avoid dangers that are out of their league, I'd be happy to have PC death on the table.

I agree.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI can't say I'm completely disinterested in RPGs where outcomes depend strongly on aesthetic concerns, but to me they're a very different beast and I can understand why someone would dislike them in general.

If a system outcomes are not based on some type of chance I would be hard to call it an RPG. It may be role-playing but it wouldn't be a game.

Weird how some people here are having trouble understanding the OP. It seems rather straightforward to me; and no, it's not that the narrative approach is a bad way to play RGPs.

What he's saying is 98 per cent of popular drama, and in particular genre movies, tv, and fiction, is absolute shit and worthy only of satire. And if you believe that to be the case - if you believe the human condition can only be genuinely examined by a master artist - then he doesn't see the point in playing games that cannot hope to come close to that level. If the source material is superficial and cliched, then the gaming styles immitating that material can't help but be superficial and cliched.

Challenging this assertion on a storytelling versus wargaming basis misses the point entirely. If you want to challenge the OP, then tell him either:

a) Why popular drama isn't superficial and cliched, or...

b) Why imitating stories that are superficial and cliched can be fun.

Quote from: David RYour  narrow definiton of Swine strays from the traditional usage. I guess the trad Swine def of hypocrisy, pretension, elitism and disingenuity amongst others, is not really a concern of yours and not a barrier to open honest discussion. One of the good things about your def is that folks like Levi, TonyLB, JHKim, droog and well just about anyone really (since most realize that there are divisons in this hobby)  - traditional Swine suspects - are no longer considered Swine. Can we (I) expect that you will speak up when they are called Swine or have you no objection to the traditional usage as long as it is not used on Sett ?

1. I don't personally use the term much except as a colloquial shorthand intended either ironically or in a sense that implies "so-called", and I try to put scare-quotes around it when I do.

2. Yes, hypocrisy and disingenuity are the key elements that offend me about RPG discussion--though I think in most cases what reads as disingenuity is really arrogance.

3. Sorry, I'm going to call it as I see it. Sett's often been loud and rude, he may have been obscure and unfocused, but I don't see the hypocrisy. You know I have spoken up for John Kim; I have to admit he's a personal acquaintance and even before I gamed with him, I knew him through rgfa and viewed him as an ally against hypocrisy and arrogance--even though I've disagreed with him on a number of subjects. Along with others, John helped develop and refine the Threefold largely in response to exactly the sort of arrogant "one-true-wayist" attitudes that to this day make it difficult for people to carry on a discussion founded on a clear understanding of preferences. I believe I've also said several times either here or in Pundit's blog that lumping all "theorists" in with "Swine" is silly, particularly John and Levi. But at least in John's case there may be a bit of personal loyalty at work, something that others don't benefit from.

You put me in an uncomfortable spot with regard to droog & Tony; I generally get on well with them even though I think droog's been annoying lately. But both of them have at times engaged in argument that falls into the patterns I've decried. So I don't go out of my way to defend them. I suppose I could on the grounds that Pundit, AM, and Sett use naughty words, but frankly that isn't something I'm going to pursue extensively; we're adults, I'd prefer to see the language toned down in terms of form, but I'm frankly disgusted at the "innocence abused" mode of discourse (fairly prevalent in American politics), which uses an opponent's vehemence as an excuse to avoid engaging an argument.

Quote from: HaffrungChallenging this assertion on a storytelling versus wargaming basis misses the point entirely.

Now that's interesting, I hadn't noticed that angle to the discussion. I wonder if Sett would be happier with a storytelling mode of play if the GM was channeling Mark Twain.

Quote from: HaffrungWeird how some people here are having trouble understanding the OP. It seems rather straightforward to me; and no, it's not that the narrative approach is a bad way to play RGPs.

What he's saying is 98 per cent of popular drama, and in particular genre movies, tv, and fiction, is absolute shit and worthy only of satire. And if you believe that to be the case - if you believe the human condition can only be genuinely examined by a master artist - then he doesn't see the point in playing games that cannot hope to come close to that level. If the source material is superficial and cliched, then the gaming styles immitating that material can't help but be superficial and cliched.

Challenging this assertion on a storytelling versus wargaming basis misses the point entirely. If you want to challenge the OP, then tell him either:

a) Why popular drama isn't superficial and cliched, or...

b) Why imitating stories that are superficial and cliched can be fun.

The most awesomerest game to play at conventions is Hong Kong Action Theater! The conceit of the gme is that you're making a HK action movie. Your character can't really die, because you're making a movie. If your character's character dies, that can be beneficial to him. The rules are designed to support all the tropes and cliches of the genre, and to differentially reinforce their clever or creative use. The genre is so well-established that 10 total strangers can sit at the table, with nothing in common but their love of HK films, and use that common ground to develop a terrific story, using problem-solving, strategic manipulation of resources, and
intelligent implementation of genre tropes. It's a very satisfying game.

Quote from: Haffrungb) Why imitating stories that are superficial and cliched can be fun.

I did that. I observed that it is either that the person finds it easier to play a RPG with a known character, or people wanting to make new episodes of their favorite show.

Quote from: HaffrungChallenging this assertion on a storytelling versus wargaming basis misses the point entirely. If you want to challenge the OP, then tell him either:

a) Why popular drama isn't superficial and cliched, or...

b) Why imitating stories that are superficial and cliched can be fun.

Actually this is not really the point, the point was made by Sett here (bolding mine):

QuoteSett wrote:
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.

So Sett's bringing in his usual issues of differing playstyles. I could care less if Sett's thinks that specific media are cliched...actually I could care less if Sett, thinks certain playstyles are crappy, but this thread was started in bad faith and no amount of "interpreting" is gonna change that.

QuoteElliot wrote:

2. Yes, hypocrisy and disingenuity are the key elements that offend me about RPG discussion--though I think in most cases what reads as disingenuity is really arrogance.

So you don't find any of Sett's posts arrogant. You don't think he's making any assumptions of gamers and their playstyles.?

Quote3. Sorry, I'm going to call it as I see it. Sett's often been loud and rude, he may have been obscure and unfocused, but I don't see the hypocrisy.

You don't see the hyprocrisy when he rants against those who piss on the type of games he plays but does the same to games he does not like?

QuoteI suppose I could on the grounds that Pundit, AM, and Sett use naughty words, but frankly that isn't something I'm going to pursue extensively; we're adults, I'd prefer to see the language toned down in terms of form, but I'm frankly disgusted at the "innocence abused" mode of discourse (fairly prevalent in American politics), which uses an opponent's vehemence as an excuse to avoid engaging an argument.

Naughty words? Are you being disingenuos or arrogant here, Elliot? I don't object to "naughty words". I object to the assumptions Pundit makes of people who enjoy White Wolf games. I object to the assumptions he makes of folks who like to game in a particular way. I object to the way how they dismiss some games as not rpgs. I don't really mind the "naughty" words. You can both engage in their arguments and call them Swine even by your definiton it would seem.

Regards,
David R

Not really, David. The arrogance I'm referring to is assuming you understand more than you do, particularly assuming that you know more about someone else's experience than they do. I don't mind the arrogance of having an opinion, even one that's held forcefully.

People spout opinions all the time and I really don't care unless there's some consequence. You like my favorite game? And? You hate my favorite game? So...?

Elliot what about the assumptions made by Pundit & Co about folks who like certain games or playstyles?

Regards,
David R

"Assumptions"? What's wrong with those if they prove to be correct?

David, why do have a problem with value judgments backed up by argument?

Because value judgments backed up by argument = the very definition of an actual, meaningful, PRODUCTIVE discussion.

Everything else = collective recitation of private diaries in public, which are supposedly unassailable because, qua diary, they're the speaker's personal property. ("They're MY [idiotic] thoughts!" "That's just MY [pathetic] opinion!") Result: stagnation, orthodoxy, fear hiding beneath good vibes.

And besides, there's good music and bad music, yes?

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity"Assumptions"? What's wrong with those if they prove to be correct?

David, why do have a problem with value judgments backed up by argument?

Because value judgments backed up by argument = the very definition of an actual, meaningful, PRODUCTIVE discussion.

Everything else = collective recitation of private diaries in public, which are supposedly unassailable because, qua diary, they're the speaker's personal property. ("They're MY [idiotic] thoughts!" "That's just MY [pathetic] opinion!") Result: stagnation, orthodoxy, fear hiding beneath good vibes.

And besides, there's good music and bad music, yes?

Pierce I have no problems with assumptions backed up with argument. I don't consider gamer hate ons and rants to be suffcient arguments. And please don't play this silly game. I'm all up for discussion.

Edit: Also read Elliot's posts on assumptions with regards to his definition of Swine.

Regards,
David R