Quote from: RPGPunditYou know, I'm getting the sense that if this was rpg.net, you and a few others here would already be getting bans for being "intentionally obtuse" (I think that's the term you use over there, right?).

You all know what I'm talking about: a PC dies in an early combat,  or tries to kill off an NPC you had later plans for, or a PC thinks of doing something that cuts out half of what you had "planned" for the adventure, or a PC acts in some other kind of unexpected way that you hadn't thought of that fucks up your "plans".

If you choose to "fudge" the process or the results in some way or another, you are choosing "story" over "play".

I don't fudge anything.  I'm of the opinion that if you're fudging dice that means the system isn't doing what you want it do.  Fudging is a stopgap, but the real solution is to change the rules so they do what you want.  Metagame mechanics where the PCs can choose to recover from damage or get a large bonus on the roll.  I place those decisions in the hands of the players.

QuoteIf the "vision of the process" in NO way interferes with the play, then it doesn't really exist as far as the play is concerned. You're just PLAYING THE GAME. You're not creating fuck all. Its just a pretty little thought you have in your head, but if you don't actually do anything to make sure it happens, you are essentially just engaging in wishful thinking and if it turns out the way you envisioned it, this is only because you got lucky in that nothing in the play got in the way of that, and you had no active role in "creating" that story. The story was just an accidental byproduct.

I'd suggest that if the rules of the game interfere with the kind of story you want to create you need to change the rules of the game to suit your group.  I use a variety of techniques to help create a good story at the table - scene framing, pacing, and the way conflicts are presented.  The story is what comes about from the characters dealing with those conflicts.

QuoteOn the other hand, if you're willing to "fudge" in order to push your "vision of the process"; you are choosing story over play, and the conflict exists.

There is no clever semantic way around this: if you are TRYING to create story, then the story is a goal, and that goal is in CONFLICT with the goal of "playing the game" (except if the game you are playing is one that has changed so much from the Traditional concept of the RPG that it can't rightly be called an RPG anymore).

Creating a story does not conflict with playing a game.  Creating a story is non synonimous with railroading.  Heck, it isn't even correlated - a traditional, exploration of predefined locations kind of game can be just as railroading.

I'm really not trying to be obtuse.  Perhaps I'll create a post on the theory forum explaining exactly what I do both in prep and at the table.  It might help communication.

Quote from: blakkieThis seems erily similar to something I read in Ron Edward's essay that just doesn't work for me.  That you have to choose one or the other.  Well that pure bullshit. It is from him and it is from you.  You can serve two masters.  You can just play the game and the story flows out.

Given good rules.

Again, one more time: I'm not saying that story doesn't come out of RPG play. On the contrary, story is a very frequent byproduct of RPG play!

In my campaigns, a shitload of "story" happens, and my players often enjoy retelling and recreating said stories later in conversation.

What I'm saying is that you can't make that the GOAL of a game session ("we must create a story"), and not run into a conflict with the format of the RPG as a game.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Settembrini@blakkie: You mean a different thing with story than at least fifteenhundred other persons.

Congratulations! You should form a club based on these misconceptions. These guys did.

QuoteAnd if you had read carefully, instead of trying the troll game,  

How about a big fuck you?  That is by far the least constructive thing I've ever seen you type out.

Quoteyou`d know, that  the negative connotations were there before Settembrini joined teh intarweb, and that I was reflecting on that phenomenon.

Yes, the misconception didn't start with you.  But you picking up and perpetuating the prejudice and misinformation isn't exactly helping the situation. :/

Quote from: blakkieTrying to dress up "front loading" and "setting up the scenario" as not placing the conflict of your own choosing smack dab in the way of the player is a pure semantic dodge.  So tell me what you do when they turn and give your "front loaded" scenario the finger and turn and head the other way?

If your goal is actually playing the game, you LET them turn and head the other way. Case closed.
Which is why "front loading" is not the same as "creating story".

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditWhat I'm saying is that you can't make that the GOAL of a game session ("we must create a story"), and not run into a conflict with the format of the RPG as a game.

And I'm saying my experience has been very much the opposite.  Sorry if you can't get your game together.  Maybe you should look into some rules that can aid this? :pundit:

Quote from: Levi KornelsenAnd you, of course, would never force players to address a conflict.

You have, for example, never run a dungeon.

Usually, my players don't need to be "forced" to play in one of MY dungeons.  I don't know what's wrong with your players or your dungeons that you have to force them to play it, but you might want to look into that...

And if my players want to turn around and leave the dungeon, then they turn around and leave the dungeon.

RPGpundit

:yesmaster:

Quote from: RPGPunditIf your goal is actually playing the game, you LET them turn and head the other way. Case closed.
Which is why "front loading" is not the same as "creating story".

Sure, they turn and go the other way. Then what do you do. You did the front loading for a reason, right? Without the front loading there what do you do?

EDIT: I mean after these 3 or 4 tinpot tyrants up and told you how the game was going to be. :yesmaster:

Quote from: RPGPunditBut what if the roll doesn't make for better "story-stuff"?

It will.

That's part of the process - I always set terms for the roll so that it always creates such stuff, whichever way it comes out, then rolling, and abiding by the roll.

I call this "making the roll interesting".

QuoteYes, the misconception didn't start with you. But you picking up and perpetuating the prejudice and misinformation isn't exactly helping the situation. :/

Afraid much of views other than your own?
Or is Settembrini now an authority in gaming, who`s every word is writ unto stone tablets and passed around GenCon for the midnight chant?
Why TF are you implying that I`m wielding some sort of power?
My only power comes through convincing people. Instead of whining and bitching, you should try to convince the readers of your point. Right now you are just attacking my right to try to make a point.

Quote from: RPGPunditUsually, my players don't need to be "forced" to play in one of MY dungeons.

Exactly.

You don't use force.   Neither do I.

Quote from: blakkieAnd I'm saying my experience has been very much the opposite.  Sorry if you can't get your game together.  Maybe you should look into some rules that can aid this? :pundit:

I don't WANT that kind of game.

But I know that there's a lot of people who do. And there's nothing wrong with that; but they should go and do it with games that are made for that, instead of trying to force RPGs to change into being able to do that for them.

RPGPundit

Quote from: blakkieTrying to dress up "front loading" and "setting up the scenario" as not placing the conflict of your own choosing smack dab in the way of the player is a pure semantic dodge.  So tell me what you do when they turn and give your "front loaded" scenario the finger and turn and head the other way?

As a big believer in "front-loading," absent some of the other discussion, I want to address this.

1. When I say 'front loading' I mean giving the players information about:
(a) How to build characters for the game.
(b) What the opening situation will encompass in terms of what they need to know to engage with the situation.

Example: In a modern-day horror game where the characters are going to work with a 'cult' that claims to be able to solve anyone's problems I instruct the players to make characters who have had their actions cause something horrible to be going on in their lives and that their characters are in a desperate situation--when offered a chance, even an unlikely one--they will investigate it because they are desperate.

(I actually qualified this a bit more--the PCs had no easy or likely way out of their situations on their own)

2. If the PCs declined to engage at all when play started, I would likely stop play and discuss with them whatever went wrong. I've never had this kind of agreement fail once it happens before play starts. What I don't do is "front load" something and forget to tell the players (and get their agreement).

-Marco

Quote from: Settembrini
Afraid much of views other than your own?.

More like tired of people that have the access and ability to use dictionary but apparently refuse.

Quote from: RPGPunditBut I know that there's a lot of people who do. And there's nothing wrong with that; but they should go and do it with games that are made for that, instead of trying to force RPGs to change into being able to do that for them.

Too fucking bad.

This is a good back-scratcher.

@blakkie: So please define Story for us, once and for all.