Within the first couple of weeks of my joining the forum here I got involved in some heated debate regarding GM style. I dont want to bring any of that up again, Please God! But upon doing a lot of reading around the net since that time I have come to realize that there are a ton of gamers on either side of the fence upon which those threads were flaming. There are whole articles dedicated to the art of narrative elements, story gaming, railroading or whatever one wants to call it, just as there are those condemning it. Chalk it up to preference of course but... my question is where does the angst come from?

It would seem that its obviously just a different approach and as RPGs are played any of a thousand different ways you wouldnt think the arguments would be so staunch. Its not like we are talking politics or something? Where do you think the apparent hatred for story gaming by the pure sandbox guys comes from and for that matter, visa versa?

Q: Why the hate for narrative/story elements in a RPG?

A: If you mean games where the GM is "telling a story" and the players "contribute to a story," it's probably because immersion is minimal to nonexistent and it's more metagaming than gaming, would  be my guess. I like to pretend I'm the character, not to pretend I'm writing a story about the character.

Best post you've ever made.

This seems to be an inherent part of human nature, manifesting itself in the gaming nerd community.  "What I like is RIGHT and what you like is WRONG!"

This is not isolated to gaming.  Sports fans get into fistfights over teams.  Model railroaders... HAH!  Find "Model Railroader" magazine in a library from the 40s and 50s and read it.  They couldn't swear, but the way grown men talked to each other about whose toy trains are better makes gamers sound like a bunch of pikers.  Wargamers -- for some reason, Napoleonics is the "king of Wargaming" and if you like another period, you're wrong.

I'm sure given time, we could find another thousand examples.

And, of course, for most people, once somebody says "Your preference is WRONG" instead of merely different, the natural reaction is to counterattack.

I don't know WHY human beings are like this, you understand.  But the incredible venom with which they assert the correctness of their choices seems to be a feature of the species.

When the storygames movement first began, there was a prophet. He proclaimed "the old ways" as brain damaged and predatory and exclaimed the new ways as sacred. Many heard his words and followed him.

Some who loved the old ways also followed, intrigued by the passion and movement following this new prophet.

But the games did not play anything like the old games. In fact, they were unto themselves a new type of game. But the prophet hated the creators of the old games and wanted them to be cleansed from the Earth. The new games would be described as better versions of the old games. They would replace the old games and make the world of games better for it.

Some of the people who appreciated the old games, and were tricked by the demagoguery of the new games, grew angry at the new games prophets for trying to destroy the old games' ways.

And so the Story Games Wars began!

Amongst the traditional gamers arose a counter-prophet. His truth rang hard and direct. He fought in front, with courage, taking the slings and arrows of his enemies in stride, never relenting.

The war was long fought, with many casualties on both sides - the memes plumed thick across the InterTubes, the rhetoric spewed vitriolic fire that sapped the enthusiasm from the most dedicated of adherents. The Prophets and their adherents waged holy war across every corner of the web, no forum was untouched, no user-group unturned! The battle raged so fierce that many worried ALL games would be consumed by it's rage!!

But alas, as all wars go... a ceasefire settled across the empty battlefields. There was nothing left to give.

ALL gamers gained clarity on the truth. There is not one true way. Story Games are of their own kind and traditional RPGs remain of their own kind. You can play either or both, and enjoy either or both. Equally. If one discusses their passion with enthusiasm without trying to erase or ruin the other, then that sincerity reigns true, and peace can be known across the gamer-verse.

And so it was written. The Story Games Wars came to a close. Each side claiming victory and yet no side gaining triumph.

And we were all wiser for it.

Just to be clear, up above I was trying to answer your question. Personally I  don't care about the gaming habits or styles of people I've never met, am unlikely to ever meet, and am not forced to play games with, so I don't know why gamers get fixated on it.

It's like caring whether someone in De Moines has a pink flamingo on his lawn because here in San Diego I prefer to have a gnome in my rock garden.

For myself, I think placing too much emphasis on story elements ignores the game/simulation aspect.  And that's not how I like to play. Now, standard disclaimer, play however you like, if you're having fun, you're doing it right, yadda yadda.

As Techrion said, there was a push from some sectors of the gaming community to put their story style above gamist/simulationist as objectively better. And so there was a lot of pushback, and a lot of flame wars.

http://whitehall-paraindustries.com/Theory/Threefold/GNS.htm

I think another major reason is the desire of some gamers to play a game of the type where there is a situation that they can experience in the way of exploring and trying things and having impartial rules determine chances of unknown actions etc, as in a wargame with fog of war and a referee. If/when they find out that they spent days thinking they were playing such a game, and then find out that the GM was pretending to them that's what was going on, but in fact was doing something quite different, such as he wanted to tell a story he pre-conceived, and so was changing the situation and the rolls and outcomes to make that story happen, there can be some natural upset & disappointment.

Combine this with a variety of published products which say different things all over the spectrum, the infinite combinations of personal taste, the desire for agreement, and then all the weird polite-police forums and ranting rambling blog posts and general Interwebs confusion, and you get a lot of people with strong and/or confused opinions who will gladly erupt into ranting when given a place to opine and vent.

Quote from: rgrove0172;980495There are whole articles dedicated to the art of narrative elements, story gaming, railroading or whatever one wants to call it, just as there are those condemning it. Chalk it up to preference of course but... my question is where does the angst come from?

It metagaming and is a form of cheating in a RPG campaign by allowing the players to do things that their characters couldn't do because of their abilities.

I don't have a problem with narrative games as along as they are honest about being their own thing focused on collaborative storytelling. I do think trying to use a wargame as engine for collaborative storytelling is overkill that there other ways that millions are using for this kind of thing. (Google for collaborative fan fiction).

Personally, I think it's impossible to play a game in which you try to "tell a story."  By that I mean rpgs are not novels or short stories...when I am a player in an rpg I'm interested in doing stuff, figuring out what happens when I do stuff, and then choosing what stuff I want to do next.  I'm not interested in fulfilling my character's pre-ordained narrative/dramatic story arc.  If fate (aka "the dice") determine that my character slips on a ledge and falls to his death on his way into the dungeon, so be it.  That guy was one of life's sorry shlubs rather than Conan.  Perhaps the next guy will be more heroic.  

Just like when I get up in the morning with a plan for the day.  That plan almost never includes things like getting a flat tire or running out of gas, tripping and falling down a flight of stairs, getting a cold...reality includes all sorts of things that nobody would plan for themselves.  I want the game world to feel like a sort of reality...not a novel where things happen because the story dictates it.

estar points to another way narrative games can be very much a different thing from trad RPGs and games, which is having the players make up stuff that would traditionally be the domain of the GM or game situation, whether it's description, situation, or outcome of an action. For many players who like a trad game, those make the game quite not what they want, so games and players that would otherwise be interesting, but then add those elements with a touch of "isn't this great?" can be upsetting and inspire loud expressions of "no!" Similar responses for players and GMs who do like those narrative elements and who aren't sensitive to why they're not wanted by others. Especially when we've been trying to not be annoyed on some moderated/censored overly-PC place like rpg.stackexchange, where on such a topic there may be 100+ upvotes for "GMs should use the same page tool" instead.

In my own case, I'm also frequently disappointed by _fiction_ where the narrative elements seem lazy and forced and the supposed situation and logic is given little or no attention in favor of the "cool" story. I'm also amazed how many people don't share my interest in story logic, continuity, plausibility, etc., in both fiction and games, and I tend to vent my incredulity and disapproval on Interwebs forums from time to time.

Speaking from my own personal experience, in chronological order best I can recall...

#1, Frustration with a GM who ran what we call "follow the red line" style campaigns. Ostensibly, it was plain AD&D. No touchy-feely crap. But he had a pre-determined story line. He'd send overwhelming forces to make sure we stayed on track. And death was no escape either. More than once we had PCs struck down to -30 hp and he ruled them at 0 hp and unconscious.

#2, Vampire: the Masquerade, a lot of people who played it were so pretentious you just wanted them to be wrong. About everything. If they insisted their game was better because story-telling. So not only do they need to be wrong, that AD&D does story-telling quite admirably (my friend with his stupid red line is proof) but story telling is dumb anyway.

#3, Idiots on Usenet. Bunch of liars, one and all. They'd justify their opinions at every turn by saying stupid shit like "Oh, that requires too much record keeping" or "That's too complex." As if failure to comprehend basic math is supposed to make me want to defer to this person's opinion. Story would be another bullshit reason to blast anything that might be remotely fun. "Oh, doing it this other way is better for story." Which never seems to address there are many kinds of stories.

#4, "Modern Game Design" More like modernist game design. We shall have "fluff" over here and "crunch" over there, two completely separate things, that way you just pick how much you want of each. Gee, that sounds swell. Why don't we try eating the way we game. Instead of table salt, we'll have one shaker labeled "Sodium" and the other labeled "Chlorine" that way if you're on a low sodium diet you can just say "Pass the chlorine, please." Likewise, they hold "game" as separate from "sim" and separate from "narrative" and we're told you always have to sacrifice at least one of them. Preferably two.

#5, The Holy Opinion. Really. Opinions are like assholes. I don't respect your opinion. I don't respect the opinions of others. I don't even respect my own opinion. What I care about is reality. Yes, yes. So much of RPGs do come down to a matter of taste. Congratulations. You've graduated from the Freshman class. But let's at least try to move beyond sophomoric thinking and figure out how you use that basic irrefutable fact to make the game more fun for others, whether you're a player, GM, or a game designer. Put it out there and let reality, not opinions be the judge, and then actually change your fucking opinion as you get feedback from reality. In other words, find a way to have fun while simultaneously appealing to what OTHERS enjoy, rather than say "But that's not what *I* find fun" or "But that's not the fun *I* want to have."

Maybe the biggest problem is people who love story don't seem to know what story is. Story just happens. You can just go about, everyone playing their characters, and you have a story. Yes. Story "now." Not only that, but a lot of those facets of literature that gets off professors and critics also spontaneously emerge. "Now." Not just in the re-telling. Of course, like with any other field of study, some of the theories better than others. Some will be debunked in 10, 50, or 100 years. Joseph Campbell's work I think is of a higher grade than most, and that seems to emerge almost necessarily. You don't have to try or put it conscious effort into "story." The ones that don't flow necessarily? It's highly likely those theories will one day be laughed at.

Now that doesn't mean you can't put in conscious effort. That doesn't mean some people won't enjoy it. That doesn't mean it's not worthwhile. That doesn't mean it's not fun. But specifically calling your activity "story-telling" or "story-gaming", as if what the rest of us are doing aren't making stories, as if villains aren't making plots that spring out of the minds of human participants, as if we aren't as a group creating a narrative is just patently false.

Finally, to revisit #4, my personal ideal for an RPG is where description/narrative have mechanical import, and the mechanics shapes the narrative. Meaning not only do I find modern RPG theory to be less than useless (I say less than because without any theory at all you'll occasionally bump into something that works), my "playstyle" as it were serves as a shining counter-example for all of it.

Why is this relevant to "narrative play"? Because I feel it's a lot like imaginary numbers. We know full well in the real world there ain't no such thing as the square root of a negative number. However that little 'i' works as a placeholder and allows the math to work out. But it does not really exist; it's an artifact of an analytical method. Similarly, I don't know that "narrative play" is a real thing; just an artifact of GNS theory. As discussed, it's not like these games actually accomplish anything other games don't; they just perform poorly set against a broader array of play styles.

Quote from: rgrove0172;980495It would seem that its obviously just a different approach and as RPGs are played any of a thousand different ways you wouldnt think the arguments would be so staunch. Its not like we are talking politics or something? Where do you think the apparent hatred for story gaming by the pure sandbox guys comes from and for that matter, visa versa?

I can only speak for myself, but I'm not really starting out trying to tell a story in an RPG.  If we have fun sessions or campaigns, we'll be able to tell good stories about them, but the fun of roleplaying is in playing the role.  It's like extreme improv theater, and that's about as close as it comes to drama or storytelling.  Going into a game with a predetermined story misses the point entirely and takes all the fun out of it.

Okay, what's wrong with my reading comprehension?  I could have sworn the first posting was asking the question "where does all the hate and vitriol on both sides come from," not "why don't you like narrativist stuff," despite the title of the thread.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980545Okay, what's wrong with my reading comprehension?  I could have sworn the first posting was asking the question "where does all the hate and vitriol on both sides come from," not "why don't you like narrativist stuff," despite the title of the thread.

You forgot Rule No. 1 of the Internet.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980545Okay, what's wrong with my reading comprehension?

In this case nothing. You answered the question that was asked. So far very little, if anything, has been added to your answer beyond, "Someone who liked storygames was mean to me so now we hates it, we hates it, we hates it forever!" :rolleyes: