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.

You wouldn't play it but you run one...or three?

http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2157

QuoteAnd, in other words, the structure of RPGs is running smack into your desire to create a certain story, exactly like Settembrini said.

Who said I desired to create a certain specific story??? See that is the misconception, a story in a general direction by the outcome is vague. Not just little details of the outcome, but large swaths of the outcome.

In other words you just not be reading and thinking before posting.

QuoteI 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.

.....and then just role out empty words when you do post.

Mindless rhetoric? Come on, engage your fucking brain man. You got one, I know you do.

Quote from: ImperatorI don't see how you come to that conclusion.

I do. He running like a Eliza bot. Having prefab rants triggering on words with no context. Even if one post following the other is well, contradictory. It's like he is desparate to find something in the world to bitch and rile about. But really, it isn't that hard to find real things to bitch about if you just take the time to look.

EDIT: Really, you can't take him too seriously. If you did somehow try to implement things to address his rants then noboby playing the game would make any sort of decisions at all.  Nor the game rules either because then it would be the game designer dictating how you play. :pundit:

Quote from: ImperatorI don't see how you come to that conclusion.

To Pundit, creating story = illusionism.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenTo Pundit, creating story = illusionism.

Well, I think that's a big misrepresentation.

I think that, in every game, some sort of story is created. It may be not the purpose of the participants, but that happen.

Sometimes, my players make decissions with their PCs by this question: 'What would my character do in this situation, that would be a cool thing for everyone and made the action (and thus the story) advance?' And they act according to that. They are roleplaying their characters. They can be also addresing a premise or theme. And they are kicking ass and taking names. All of that at once. And I, as GM, try to address a theme or premise (sometimes), but I don't interfere with their actions other than to say 'roll some dice and get this result or better.'

I don't think that I am railroding my players. But we're creating a story. Sometimes is intentional (i.e., we played Sorcerer with the premise 'How much is your soul worthy?'), sometimes it is not (i.e., my g/f and I play James Bond 007, and a story develops, though we are not pecifically looking for it.

I think that the Pundit confuses some things.

Creating Story: Process v. Product.

I think one of the major points of discussion here falls into the process v. product category.

Product: A story. That is, a sequence of events, characters, etc. that fits some reasonable definition of a story. Basically that it would be interesting if told / written down / filmed to people not-necessarily-involved in creating it.

Process: How one goes about creating a story.

In RPGs, the *product* is somewhat dependent on the *process* used. It can be challlenging to get a high-quality story out of RPGs because

1) RPGs are collaborative (many forms of story-creating such as novel-writing and oral story telling are far *less* collaborative)
2) In traditional RPGs not all the collaborators have the same / complete information; they may have radically different *visions* for the focus, tone, or type of story
3) RPGs happen in real-time with very little ability to edit
4) The tools for getting all the collaborators on the same page are limited (something theory attempts, in part, to address)

Given these difficulties, one common, if relatively ineffective *process* for creating story is the GM railroad. This has an 'advantage' that it produces (if it works) the *GM's* story...

But I think we all agree that that's a remarkably inefficient way to use RPGs to create story.

But there's other ways to create virtually the same product -- and, in fact, they're used in domains other than RPGs. In both books and movies, story-creators (i.e. authors and directors) sort of "let the characters go" and "see what happens." In a lot of movies and books, the people in charge are "making it up as they go" to a very large extent.

This process is very similar in many ways to what happens in RPGs. Those kinds of stories are high-quality; often compelling. Same with RPGs, no?

The big difference that I can see is that in the trully collaborative, set up a cool situation and let things go approach, you don't get someone's pre-planned story. But you still get a story -- potentially, a very good one.

I think if we can separate process from product, we can agree that "a good story" -- one that would be actually interesting if someone told it to you (e.g. not "Let me tell you about my elf...") is a fairly common priority for players.

I also think we'd agree that traditional RPGs are pretty good at delivering those stories so long as the initial conditions (character, situation, setting, etc.) are in good shape...

And finally, agree that using RPG's you're not going to get one person's story; the whole point of playing a collaborative game is to have everyone contribute.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: blakkieEDIT: Really, you can't take him too seriously. If you did somehow try to implement things to address his rants then noboby playing the game would make any sort of decisions at all.  Nor the game rules either because then it would be the game designer dictating how you play. :pundit:

I don't take him seriously when he's ranting.

And on the rest of your post: well, not making any decision has some... zen-like charm

Quote from: ImperatorAnd on the rest of your post: well, not making any decision has some... zen-like charm

Some of my friends and I have talked, in that semi-serious "This'll never happen, but what if it DID?" way about making a "Waiting For Godot LARP."

Put it in the schedule of the con, show up well before the game-slot and litter index cards with fragments of character, situation and rules around the room, then never show up to give anyone any direction on how to use them or what the point of the game is.

Quote from: -E.But there's other ways to create virtually the same product -- and, in fact, they're used in domains other than RPGs. In both books and movies, story-creators (i.e. authors and directors) sort of "let the characters go" and "see what happens." In a lot of movies and books, the people in charge are "making it up as they go" to a very large extent.

Having read literally dozens of books on writing fiction, I don't think this is true at all.  Not only do fiction writing books frequently suggest planning, outlines, and revisions but agents and publishers ask for the first three chapters and the last chapter for a reason.  They want to make sure that the author knows where the story is going because they know that if the author doesn't know that, they aren't likely to finish or produce a good book.

For example, Holly Lisle's essay How to Finish A Novel begins with this initial piece of advice, "First, know how it ends."

She explains, "This may seem obvious -- but then again, maybe not. Back in my days of thirty-page novel starts that never went anywhere, I never knew how the story would end. It was only when I figured this key point out that I finished a novel."

She also suggests "Write your ending, and then write to it" and "Use an outline."   She, like other authors, also advises revision and editing.

So, sorry, I'm not buying it.  Do books get written and movies get made where the author makes it up as they go?  Sure, and it usually shows.

Quote from: -E.This process is very similar in many ways to what happens in RPGs. Those kinds of stories are high-quality; often compelling. Same with RPGs, no?

Can you name me a successful author, book, or movie that you know was written by simply "let[ting] the characters go" and "see[ing] what happens"?  I'm curious what you have in mind here.

Quote from: -E.I think if we can separate process from product, we can agree that "a good story" -- one that would be actually interesting if someone told it to you (e.g. not "Let me tell you about my elf...") is a fairly common priority for players.

Given that most of the stories that role-players tend to tell each other seem to be of the "Let me tell you about my elf..." variety and the rest are so boring that the boredom of listening to someone else talk about their game has become almost as cliched as the boredom of listening to someone talk about their vacation, I disagree with this assessment, too.

Quote from: TonyLBPut it in the schedule of the con, show up well before the game-slot and litter index cards with fragments of character, situation and rules around the room, then never show up to give anyone any direction on how to use them or what the point of the game is.

I've done this.

Not at a con, but in an abandoned house; I invited the players anonymously, with pregenerated characters, prepped the house, and then came to game after it had started as just another late player.  It was a 'modern occult' game, and I had set up all sorts of weird shit - the neighboring kid had been paid to throw glass bottles out his window to smash on the back driveway every so often, and other strangeness.

Some of the players still talk about it.  It gave some of them nightmares.

Levi:  You rock.  'nuff said.

Quote from: John MorrowHaving read literally dozens of books on writing fiction, I don't think this is true at all.  Not only do fiction writing books frequently suggest planning, outlines, and revisions but agents and publishers ask for the first three chapters and the last chapter for a reason.  They want to make sure that the author knows where the story is going because they know that if the author doesn't know that, they aren't likely to finish or produce a good book.

Not exactly.  A good many don't ask for the last chapter; the first three is standard.  And they generally want a new writer's manuscript to be complete before they bother to look at the submission because not everyone can finish a book successfully, whether or not they have an outline.

On the other hand, veteran writers may sell incomplete manuscripts or proposals, whatever their method of getting to the end of the story is, because they've shown that they can get there.

QuoteFor example, Holly Lisle's essay How to Finish A Novel begins with this initial piece of advice, "First, know how it ends."

That's Holly Lisle's method.  It's not the method of every working writer -- as she says, right in the opening: "These are the techniques that have worked for me."  If you want more information and a view on the variety of processes writers use to produce stories, go to rec.arts.sf.composition -- a fair number of published writers hang out there -- and either ask around or use Google to find posts by Patricia C. Wrede.  (There are others, of course, but she's particularly helpful in discussing writing processes.)

Different writers find different procedures to be useful.  The process that one writer finds essential to creating a story, another may find a deadly block to creativity.

QuoteSo, sorry, I'm not buying it.  Do books get written and movies get made where the author makes it up as they go?  Sure, and it usually shows.
...
Can you name me a successful author, book, or movie that you know was written by simply "let[ting] the characters go" and "see[ing] what happens"?  I'm curious what you have in mind here.

The people who've made it up as they go along include Stephen King and Tolkien.  (Tolkien's early drafts have been published, and they certainly don't indicate that he had everything all planned out; and if I am recalling correctly, in one of his letters he thought he was most of the way through the story when he was writing Moria.)  Regardless of your personal reaction to either of these authors, I don't believe you can make a case that the method of making it up as you go along produces results that are generally deemed substandard fiction.

Quote from: John MorrowHaving read literally dozens of books on writing fiction, I don't think this is true at all.  Not only do fiction writing books frequently suggest planning, outlines, and revisions but agents and publishers ask for the first three chapters and the last chapter for a reason.  They want to make sure that the author knows where the story is going because they know that if the author doesn't know that, they aren't likely to finish or produce a good book.

For example, Holly Lisle's essay How to Finish A Novel begins with this initial piece of advice, "First, know how it ends."

She explains, "This may seem obvious -- but then again, maybe not. Back in my days of thirty-page novel starts that never went anywhere, I never knew how the story would end. It was only when I figured this key point out that I finished a novel."

She also suggests "Write your ending, and then write to it" and "Use an outline."   She, like other authors, also advises revision and editing.

So, sorry, I'm not buying it.  Do books get written and movies get made where the author makes it up as they go?  Sure, and it usually shows.



Can you name me a successful author, book, or movie that you know was written by simply "let[ting] the characters go" and "see[ing] what happens"?  I'm curious what you have in mind here.



Given that most of the stories that role-players tend to tell each other seem to be of the "Let me tell you about my elf..." variety and the rest are so boring that the boredom of listening to someone else talk about their game has become almost as cliched as the boredom of listening to someone talk about their vacation, I disagree with this assessment, too.

I wouldn't begin to argue with the authors of "how to write fiction" books -- certainly I lack their qualifications.

I'm basing my assessment on what I've heard from successful authors and directors talk about *their* process.

I watched a marvelous movie about the making of Apocolyps Now a few years ago.

The ending was re-written several times during shooting. The original ending was scrapped before shooting began. One of the main characters (Kurtz/Brando) refused to learn his lines and ad-libbed most of his dialog. There was chaos on the set from beginning to end.

They began without knowing how it would end. They re-edited the ending after finsihing shooting (it's my understanding that this is *common* -- even up to re-shooting and totally changing the tone and outcome of the story).

I'm not sure Apocolypse Now stands up to the classics Holly Lisle has created; I may be shooting too low when I say that I'd be thrilled to have a game that played like Coppola's masterpiece.

I can provide some other examples of exactly the same sort of thing, if you'd like.

Cheers,
-E.

Folks, you are, by "dissenting" with me, totally supporting my main points:

1) RPG is a historic term

2) there can be other games which use the MoR, and are called RPG too, because they are lumped together even though they are different for historic reasons.

3) Story has only meaning in the mind of the user of this word, so there can be no general statements about story, except that you have to define it first.

Story vs Freedom is the exchange axis if story == "having dramatic structure"

And I never said story is good or bad, or that I only play the extreme structureless RPGs or adventures. Of course I want to have drama in my games too, and gleefully and conciously sacrifice some freedom on the altar of drama. But a choice as to be made, and every person likes a different mix of freedom and dramatic structure.

For me, "weather manipulation for mood support" is already way too far on the "drama/story" side of the axis. For most it is not, while still being adventure games.

Reality is complex, freedom vs story is just one of many axis were a Game can be. Think politics:
Freedom vs Government is not the end all in political debate, there is also Laicism vs Religion, Centralism vs. Federalism, Interventionism vs Isolationism etc ad nauseam.

Don`t let anybody tell you there is only two or three styles of gaming  going on...it`s a huge multidimensional cube where every thinkable spot can be filled.

Quote from: SettembriniStory vs Freedom is the exchange axis if story = "having dramatic structure"

Story vs Freedom is the exchange axis if story = "having dramatic structure imposed on the game."

If dramatic structure arises naturally, there is no such exchange.

Quote from: SettembriniFolks, you are, by "dissenting" with me, totally supporting my main points.

The problem you seem to think you aren't about the story as you are trying to descibe it. But in truth you are very much more about the story than many of the games you seem to think provide less freedom. :/

Further story verses freedom doesn't exist.  Predetermined story vs. freedom does.