Some parties in the hobby/industry appear, near as I can tell, to be rather anal about their RPGs and what they need to be. These people show every indication that RPGs have to be important, inspired, I think by people such as Karl Marx and some author who's name I forget writing on storytelling and why you must use an item you mention in a description at some point in the narrative. Its an idea imitated by people in Academia. To those people, and academics, I have this question, "Sez who?"

Nothing has to be anything. All it needs to be is what it is, if somebody finds a use for it, good for him. But worth is not dependent on utility, and that is my position.

As a certain Galilean once said, "They also serve who only stand and wait."

Or, you don't have to turn that meadow into a golf course.

RPGs are an entertainment, they're supposed to be amusing. They're supposed to be fun. If they aren't fun you're doing it wrong. An RPG is an emultion of life on a large or small stage, often with fantastical elements. An RPG doesn't need to be anything portenteous or polite (to borrow from A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum). They don't have to mean a damn thing.

But some people don't feel comfortable unless they're doing something important, something that has meaning. To those people I say, "May you get assigned to tend a pack of dogs some day. Young, active, well rested, well fed dogs." (For an example of joy in chaos you can't beat a pack of young dogs.) As numerous people have said over the years, "Some people just need to lighten up."

That's my take on certain role-gamers, how about yours?

(Crossposted on my WotC RPG blog.)

I think most of those sorts of people are the ones involved in the hobby "talking about RPGs online" but not so much in the hobby "actually playing RPGs"

I'm friends with people who aren't gamers but are the same way about books or movies.  

As long as they're not burning portions of my library or locking me in a room with a projector playing art films, I could care less.

Are you like reading old online arguments from ten years ago and just now getting incensed about them?

Quote from: TristramEvans;608324I think most of those sorts of people are the ones involved in the hobby "talking about RPGs online" but not so much in the hobby "actually playing RPGs"

Unfortunately their attitudes re RPGs does influence RPG design, and influence it badly.

Actually I blame it not on the WoD from White Wolf, but on the Dragonlance series from TSR. That's the first adventure path I recall which invoked narrative and called on the GM to railroad his players. Narrative is restrictive and tries to force RPGs into a model not suited for it.

Quote from: talysman;608333Are you like reading old online arguments from ten years ago and just now getting incensed about them?

There is a difference between you being tired of a subject and the subject being settled.

Quote from: mythusmage;608343Actually I blame it not on the WoD from White Wolf, but on the Dragonlance series from TSR. That's the first adventure path I recall which invoked narrative and called on the GM to railroad his players. Narrative is restrictive and tries to force RPGs into a model not suited for it.

The very reason every GM and Players guide should say, "The rules are more guidelines."  Rule hound GMs love to target high level magic-users casting chain lightning with hits, just so they can extend the combat.  We should allow players to play what they want, how they want within reason.  If you want a surfer wizard, who carries a long sword, and uses armor.... so be it (if the others in the group and the GM have no problem with it).  Also, the players need to have the freedom to change the story through action.  When I ran Dragonlance, I killed Rastlin.  Why?  The players saw him and attacked.  I design games, and play, and run them.  I would LOVE to see someone strip my game of everything I wanted to make it, just to show me it still plays well.

Quote from: mythusmage;608298... and some author who's name I forget writing on storytelling and why you must use an item you mention in a description at some point in the narrative. Its an idea imitated by people in Academia. To those people, and academics, I have this question, "Sez who?"

CS Lewis said that, when writing a work, to excise all that is not necessary for the story.  Anton Chekhov, infamously, warned authors that if they put noteworthy elements into a work they must refer to them again before the end, saying "If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it's not going to be fired, it shouldn't be hanging there.".  Hemingway argued for iceberg theory, that one could and should describe only the most immediate and necessary aspects of a story, to strengthen the impact and meaning of the omitted aspects.  The concepts are central to arguments against purple prose or meandering and indirect narratives -- anyone who hates Catcher in the Rye (and you should hate Catcher) says these things.

Think of it in terms of player characters entering Ye Olde Tavern.  You could describe every person and thing inside for the atmosphere, and the players are going to neither care about any part of it, yet will be locked into the terms of your described environment.  If you give only the outline, they'll know that the parts you do describe are relevant (or at least red herrings, or at least important parts of the atmosphere), and will be able to imagine the world within their own constraints.

You can take these matters too far, certainly.  A story trimmed to its summary lacks motion and meaning, and ornamentation is necessary to keep works from becoming trite.  Iceberg theory only works if readers aim for understanding and that if those readers share certain perceptions: it's quite easy to think Hills Like White Elephants is just about a couple bickering, if you're not the target audience (it is bizarre to modern Russians, for example).  But even if you do, there's nothing mandating you create a golf course, or a railroad.  All things need only have a purpose; they do not need to only have one purpose, or an incredibly deep purpose.

That's all the Famous Literary Guy stuff says.

Quote from: gattsuru;620485CS Lewis said that, when writing a work, to excise all that is not necessary for the story.  Anton Chekhov, infamously, warned authors that if they put noteworthy elements into a work they must refer to them again before the end, saying "If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it's not going to be fired, it shouldn't be hanging there.".  Hemingway argued for iceberg theory, that one could and should describe only the most immediate and necessary aspects of a story, to strengthen the impact and meaning of the omitted aspects.  The concepts are central to arguments against purple prose or meandering and indirect narratives -- anyone who hates Catcher in the Rye (and you should hate Catcher) says these things.

Think of it in terms of player characters entering Ye Olde Tavern.  You could describe every person and thing inside for the atmosphere, and the players are going to neither care about any part of it, yet will be locked into the terms of your described environment.  If you give only the outline, they'll know that the parts you do describe are relevant (or at least red herrings, or at least important parts of the atmosphere), and will be able to imagine the world within their own constraints.

You can take these matters too far, certainly.  A story trimmed to its summary lacks motion and meaning, and ornamentation is necessary to keep works from becoming trite.  Iceberg theory only works if readers aim for understanding and that if those readers share certain perceptions: it's quite easy to think Hills Like White Elephants is just about a couple bickering, if you're not the target audience (it is bizarre to modern Russians, for example).  But even if you do, there's nothing mandating you create a golf course, or a railroad.  All things need only have a purpose; they do not need to only have one purpose, or an incredibly deep purpose.

That's all the Famous Literary Guy stuff says.

Well frankly both of them can suffer. Not everybody follows the utilitarian school of story, nor does everybody want to. Sometimes that Winchester is only decoration.

Quote from: mythusmage;620600Not everybody follows the utilitarian school of story, nor does everybody want to. Sometimes that Winchester is only decoration.

That's certainly an option.  You can choose to be wrong, and there are even places where choosing to be 'wrong' adds to the strength of the work.  Rules do exist to be broken.

It's important to understand why the rule is proposed, before you break it.  Otherwise it's easy to see players confused or frustrated when your lovingly detailed Winchester is nailed to the wall, does not have a single operational cartridge in the tri-state area, and could only be used against bullet-proof enemies anyway.

Quote from: gattsuru;620609That's certainly an option.  You can choose to be wrong, and there are even places where choosing to be 'wrong' adds to the strength of the work.  Rules do exist to be broken.

It's important to understand why the rule is proposed, before you break it.  Otherwise it's easy to see players confused or frustrated when your lovingly detailed Winchester is nailed to the wall, does not have a single operational cartridge in the tri-state area, and could only be used against bullet-proof enemies anyway.

Doubt not the adaptability of the typical human.