"Story is not the main goal of RPGs" is an statement as valid as "Story is the main goal of RPGs." There's no unavoidable fact that proves things one way or the other.

I agree with Settembrini about story as a loaded word. And I really like the idea of axis of exchange (which I'm still thinking about). But I will disagree with anyone who says "THIS is the main goal of RPGs." My answer will be probably something like "So you say."

Imperator,

It`s easy: RPG is to be understood as ahistorical term. if you exchange RPG with Adventure Games, than all comes together. We are of basically the same opinion.

Quote from: SettembriniImperator,
It`s easy: RPG is to be understood asa historical term. if you exchange RPG with Adventure Games, than all comes together. We are of basically the same opinion.

Oh, I'm sure of that. But I also feel that people have used RPGs for very diverse things since the very beginning of the hobby. RPGs (wether adventure - games, story - games or whatnot) are a highly personal thing.

That's the reason why I'm not a big theory fan. Every RPG theory I've seen (be it the Landmarks, GNS, GDS, or whatever) starts with a very small amount of anecdotal data, henceforth having a very weak foundations. Most of them, if not all, contain some very good ideas, but they born with that fatal flaw. People plays for very diverse reasons than can be to make a story or not, and no one has the definite answer.

Quote from: ImperatorAnd I really like the idea of axis of exchange (which I'm still thinking about).

The axis of exchange is a false dilemma  You don't have to restrict player freedom in order to focus on story elements.

QuoteThe axis of exchange is a false dilemma  You don't have to restrict player freedom in order to focus on story elements.

You need to design new games using MoR for that. They are called thematic games, and are a different hobby.

MoR is a ball, not a sport. People keep mistaking the part for the whole.

Basketball is not Baseball. Balls both use.

Short: In regular, traditional, adventure RPGs, it is an axis of exchange.

Quote from: SettembriniYou need to design new games using MoR for that. They are called thematic games, and are a different hobby.

MoR is a ball, not a sport. People keep mistaking the part for the whole.

Basketball is not Baseball. Balls both use.

Short: In regular, traditional, adventure RPGs, it is an axis of exchange.

No, it's not.

We're at an impasse.  My games focus on story but remain quite recognizable as traditional adventure gaming.  Despite your insistence that anyone who plays different than you isn't "really" playing RPGs I'm going to go ahead and keep playing if that's okay.  The games that I have right now do so just fine, and honestly I could do the same thing with any system, more or less.  It does favor rules lighter systems or at least games with good mook rules to let the GM go off the cuff easier.

Who are you exactly to decide what's an RPG and what isn't.  Maybe you need to call your games wargames or something and leave roleplaying games to those of us that like to play roles.  

Quote from: SettembriniYou need to design new games using MoR for that. They are called thematic games, and are a different hobby.

MoR is a ball, not a sport. People keep mistaking the part for the whole.

Basketball is not Baseball. Balls both use.

Short: In regular, traditional, adventure RPGs, it is an axis of exchange.

But I'll object something: though your distinction between adventure games and thematic games is interesting, I don't feel that it is so strong as to make two seperate hobbies.

I mean, in both games you make a PC, and roleplay him. There may be a GM or not, or any other elements, but the key concept (you create a character and make decissions) is present in both of them. So I don't see such a difference.

Quote from: ImperatorI mean, in both games you make a PC, and roleplay him. There may be a GM or not, or any other elements, but the key concept (you create a character and make decissions) is present in both of them. So I don't see such a difference.

The difference is mostly on the GM side.  The player just plays their character, though they may have some ways of affecting the larger game world depending on the exact system.  I'd wager that my players most of the time don't consciously realize that there's this story structure going on, they just know that it's an awesome game.

But this is just what I do - there's many ways to skin a cat, and just because someone skins it different than you that doesn't mean they're playing RPGs wrong.  Your way of pretending to be some gay-ass elf isn't any better than anyone else's.

Quote from: ImperatorBut I'll object something: though your distinction between adventure games and thematic games is interesting, I don't feel that it is so strong as to make two seperate hobbies.

Interesting?  It is the same pack of misconceptions he is roling out again. And he is hammering on them over and over in this thread.  The very choice of "adventure games" belies this.

And that be my point Settembrini. You are lumping a whole lot of stuff together with what seems to be the very worst of Vampire the Mascarade. :/  This effect of an Axis you are talking about is a false dichotomy, at least the way you think it does. Because look again at your own game and how you set up the story in the making.  You predetermining some things, you had whole charts of relationships and a series of events on a timetable that are triggered outside of PCs influence.  Of course the players and the PCs have direct influence on the outcome, but there is a lot of stuff that be preset by you.  So freedom of choice is in a lot of ways an illusion with your game, although I'll say that total freedom of choice is usually a bad thing.  EDIT: Hey, I even have fun with such a game from time to time. It is just that I'm not as often in the mood for it and I grow bored of it very quickly.

At some point someone has to make a decision. At several points actually. And if the GM isn't making any of those decisions, then he isn't really involved. Unless you have massively take charge players (EDIT: or rules that are making ALL the decisions about direction of the plot, which tends not to happen in RPGs because they are all general use to some degree or other) you'll likely end up with a game lost and adrift. Propably very uninteresting....unless you like rolling dice for the sake of that. Which is fine and works for some people, it is what it is.

EDIT: Actually the closesest of the latter is propably that hex lookup game where you walk your PCs across hex map and see what pops up behind door number 5. Damn, the name is escaping me but it's been discussed here. Works with the Rules Compendium I believe. It is very much NOT a generator of an interesting story by itself outside of "then we killed a beholder, then we got past a trap, then we killed a wildabeast".  You could try to knit together a story in dialogue, but it'd end up sort of like those games where you are asked for a series of words given only the limit of "noun", "adjective", "verb", excettera and then those words are plugged into predetermined sentences and read that way as a "story". The result being sort of silly randomness that is hit-miss funny.

Quote from: blakkieInteresting?  It is the same pack of misconceptions he is roling out again. And he is hammering on them over and over in this thread.  The very choice of "adventure games" belies this.

Well, I don't see a distinction between RPGs based on the focus of them as very damaging. At least not as damaging as other distinctions around there. I dispute the notion that adventure games are RPGs and thematic games are not RPGs, or the like.

Quote from: blakkieAnd that be my point Settembrini. You are lumping a whole lot of stuff together with what seems to be the very worst of Vampire the Mascarade. :/

Well, tha could be true.

Quote from: MaddmanThe difference is mostly on the GM side.  The player just plays their character, though they may have some ways of affecting the larger game world depending on the exact system.  I'd wager that my players most of the time don't consciously realize that there's this story structure going on, they just know that it's an awesome game.

But this is just what I do - there's many ways to skin a cat, and just because someone skins it different than you that doesn't mean they're playing RPGs wrong.  Your way of pretending to be some gay-ass elf isn't any better than anyone else's.

So basically, you do a whole hidden railroading job on them? Fuck I'd never want to be in your game. Your players must be pretty thick too, or by now one of them would have figured out that nothing consequential they ever do is actually going to change anything.

And, in other words, the structure of RPGs is running smack into your desire to create a certain story, exactly like Settembrini said. To make your story, you need to railroad, whether its visible or hidden; and in doing that you're violating the basic principle of PC freedom of choice that is a convention of the game.

RPGPundit

Quote from: blakkieYour point: Based on mistaken and blanket assumptions.

Ding! Now that was a classic pile of festering illogical crap. Unless you actually wanted to have the GM be the director of his own prewritten script with the players as amatuer actors cast in the roles of the PCs.

I don't want one tinpot dictator any more than I want the "3-5 tinpot dictators each trying to push the story in their heads on a helpless GM" scenario that is popular with theorists today.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditSo basically, you do a whole hidden railroading job on them? Fuck I'd never want to be in your game. Your players must be pretty thick too, or by now one of them would have figured out that nothing consequential they ever do is actually going to change anything.

And, in other words, the structure of RPGs is running smack into your desire to create a certain story, exactly like Settembrini said. To make your story, you need to railroad, whether its visible or hidden; and in doing that you're violating the basic principle of PC freedom of choice that is a convention of the game.

RPGPundit

No, that's not what I do at all.  I'm not doing illusionism, where I railroad but hide the rails.  There are no rails.  When I say I create a story I mean I do it at the table.  And strictly speaking I don't create the story the group does as a whole.  Nor do I create a certain story.  I don't figure out what's going to happen ahead of time.  I put a conflict out there, or the players introduce it themselves as is becoming more and more common, and the group resolves it.  There's no pre-determined way for this resolution to happen.

When I say I create a story I mean an interesting one.  I do that by scene framing, encouraging pacing with the way I describe things, and so on.  I'm not pushing them at a certain ending, I'm pushing so that when we put the books up for the night we have some kind of emotionally satisfying climax or an exciting cliffhanger.  I don't always get there, but that's the goal.

Damn, this is P&P all over again.  I wish those posts had been saved - every time I say I'm not railroading someone comes back with "So you're railroading your just doing whatever first."  But no I am not in any meaningful sense railroading or constraining player actions.  They have total autonomy, and do things I don't expect all the time.  I don't try to limit this but see where it goes.

Quote from: RPGPunditI don't want one tinpot dictator any more than I want the "3-5 tinpot dictators each trying to push the story in their heads on a helpless GM" scenario that is popular with theorists today.

I can agree on that much.  I see the GM as first among peers.  He's not telling the story, he's facilitating the envornment in which one can be created.  Players trying to tell their own pre-determined story is no better than the GM doing so.

Quote from: RPGPunditSo basically, you do a whole hidden railroading job on them? Fuck I'd never want to be in your game. Your players must be pretty thick too, or by now one of them would have figured out that nothing consequential they ever do is actually going to change anything.

I don't see how you come to that conclusion.