Quote from: ImperatorOh, 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.

You may feel that, but I'd have to see evidence for such to believe it myself. The earliest I'm aware of is Glenn Blacow's Aspects of Adventure Gaming from 1980.

Ron Edwards makes claims similar to yours in A Hard Look at Dungeons & Dragons but, again, without citations, it just looks like so much "Myth of the Golden Age".

Quote from: MaddmanNo, 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.

The fundamental question is this: If a player does something or wants to do something, or the dice (through combat or through random rolls) result in something where your vision of "the story" would end up being fucked up, do you accept what has happened, or do you alter the results or frame the situation in such a way to keep it "on track" with what your vision of "the story" is?

If you do the latter, then you have a conflict between story vs. game. And, incidentally, you are probably doing a sort of railroading.

If you do not, then you aren't really actively "creating story" at all, you are just playing the game, and any story that gets created is purely a "byproduct", and not a "goal".

RPGPundit

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

Of course not. So we are all on the same here.
@blakkie: you are again, proving, that "story" as a word in a gaming context is way to broad, and has to be defined for the individual.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe fundamental question is this: If a player does something or wants to do something, or the dice (through combat or through random rolls) result in something where your vision of "the story" would end up being fucked up, do you accept what has happened, or do you alter the results or frame the situation in such a way to keep it "on track" with what your vision of "the story" is?

You question misses the mark utterly.

He has no fixed vision of what the story is.  He has a vision of the process that creates story naturally.

Quote from: -E.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).

Not true at all.  Apocalypse Now is a thinly veiled retelling of Conrad's Heart of Darkness.  It has a very specific theme and end that you'll find in the movie.  

Added: To further clarify, re-shooting and editing, which are used to change the tone and outcome of a story are revision, something very few role-playing games use.  It's how you turn a random mess of stuff into something coherent.  Without it, you have a random mess of stuff.

@Olden Days: That quickly, dramatic-structure-lovers sprang up on the concept of MoR as delivered by D&D is a strange albeit totally logic artifact of the betwixtness of Fantasy/SF readers and Wargamers.
Humans are paradoxical in their desires, that`s part of our, human, condition. But:
D&D as a text, is supportive and (written with it in mind) of the wargamey approach. If there is one thing Ron does not know too much of, it`s D&D. It`s way safer to ask someone at or from ENWorld, or MythusMage, or Col Pladoh himself, than Ron.

Quote from: -E.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 really don't see how this, along with Keran's anecdote about Tolkien, doesn't completely support Settembrini's arguement. Both anecdotes are examples where in order to meet the needs of "story", the first impulse of the creators had to be mindfully overridden.

Quote from: Settembrini@blakkie: you are again, proving, that "story" as a word in a gaming context is way to broad, and has to be defined for the individual.

What a crock of bullshit. Because what you are doing is defining what you want "story" to mean, loading the word with negative connotations and striping it of it's English language meaning, and then painting that on each and every other person's (certainly mine) use of the word. In doing so you are helping kill a little bit of the English language.

Go you. :/

Quote from: blakkieYou wouldn't play it but you run one...or three?

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

Nope, I'm running three campaigns with a timeline (or rather, two right now, the third hasn't started yet).

In that campaign, the players through their characters could be able to change history by their actions, and what would challenge them in doing so would not be my desire for the story to go a certain way, but the "weight of history".

In other words, if they try to start up a movement to cause the Roman empire to embrace christianity in 100ad instead of far later, I wouldn't try to stop them because it would "ruin my story"; they would, however, have to face the fact that neither the social situation of the Roman Empire of that time nor the nature of the Christianity of that time were really in a situation where they were ready to undergo that change (which is why, historically, christianity was not embraced by the roman mainstream in 100ad but much later).  Said player could try to undertake a monumental effort to change that, and might succeed to one degree or another, depending on what he does and how well he rows "against the stream" of history.
On the other hand, if said player decided (for whatever reason) that he would stab the Emperor Trajan through the heart without warning the next time he saw him, assuming he made his rolls, he would succeed, the Emperor Trajan might die, and all of history would change radically.  Likewise, some character might end up doing something without consciously planning it, something that they do essentially "by accident" (say, arranging to have Tacitus imprisoned, or blocking a certain young officer's ascension through the ranks because they don't personally like them) that could end up having tremendous historical consequences down the road.

Indeed, in my Roman campaign my players have attempted and both failed or succeeded at doing things that change history, and certain aspects of Roman history have changed from "our" reality as a result. Up till now they have yet to do something that has monumentally transformed history in the sense that the game would be more accurately described as an "alternate history" campaign, but they certainly could do so.

Ditto with my Legion campaign, and eventually with my Chinese campaign when I run it.

As a responsible GM, I do not let any impulse I might have for the story to go a certain way block my player's autonomy and free agency.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditAs a responsible GM, I do not let any impulse I might have for the story to go a certain way block my player's autonomy and free agency.

So how is that different that me? Well hello fucking dollie it ain't! You dipshit. That was my point, you are bitching at something that you are doing.  But pretending it is something else.

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.  

This is generally true. Whereas in RPGs, "knowing the ending" is pretty much the worst thing you can do as a GM.
Which is why I say that simply letting things go as they will with no influence is not "creating story", its just "playing the game":  what "story" happens is only created as a byproduct.

QuoteCan 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.

Roger Zelazny claimed that he wrote much of the Amber novels in this way.
But then, Roger was brilliant and could get away with that.
On the other hand, Stephen King generally writes in such a way that its obvious he has no idea how most of his stories will end, which generally causes his endings to suck ass.

RPGPundit

Quote from: blakkieSo how is that different that me? Well hello fucking dollie it ain't! You dipshit. That was my point, you are bitching at something that you are doing.  But pretending it is something else.

Illusionism = The "hidden railroad" form of GMing.

To Pundit, all story-making games = Illusionism.

As I said.  I've explained another common way to him before, but apparently it just didn't stick.

Quote from: John MorrowNot true at all.  Apocalypse Now is a thinly veiled retelling of Conrad's Heart of Darkness.  It has a very specific theme and end that you'll find in the movie.  

Added: To further clarify, re-shooting and editing, which are used to change the tone and outcome of a story are revision, something very few role-playing games use.  It's how you turn a random mess of stuff into something coherent.  Without it, you have a random mess of stuff.

I agree with you about revision -- my point was that you can, in fact, start a story or a movie without knowing the ending.

Knowing the broad strokes ("Guy goes up the river to meet Kurtz who is/has become homicidal") is all in the set up.

I will also note that the original screen play had a very different ending from the one on-screen. It might not be as true to the novel as you're thinking...

Back to revision:

Without revision, the story-product from an RPG is going to be less finished than one from an edited, revised work; but that doesn't mean they're "not stories" it may reduce the quality of the story -- but that's an aesthetic judgement.

I think Heart of Darkness / Apocolypse Now is a good example because it would make a pretty decent RPG scenario right out of the box, and almost any ending would be appropriate / themeatic.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe fundamental question is this: If a player does something or wants to do something, or the dice (through combat or through random rolls) result in something where your vision of "the story" would end up being fucked up, do you accept what has happened, or do you alter the results or frame the situation in such a way to keep it "on track" with what your vision of "the story" is?

There's an easy answer to this, of course, although for some unfathomable reason it doesn't seem to satisfy everyone...

"Never Say 'No'."

Quote from: Levi KornelsenIllusionism = The "hidden railroad" form of GMing.

To Pundit, all story-making games = Illusionism.

As I said.  I've explained another common way to him before, but apparently it just didn't stick.

I know, and that's a great way to put it. I'm just giving 'er another good old college try to get it to stick.  Using a few quick, brief strikes with a verbal mallet.