Is it just me, or do RPGs seem like a weak medium to tell stories? I think that the strong point of video games (and pen-and-paper RPGs) is interactivity. To many gamers, story is just a side-affect. That's why I don't understand why some people consider games such as the Final Fantasy series to effective when there is, in my view, a lack of interactivity in the series in comparison to other RPGs. If interactivity is the virtue in gaming, then I think pen-and-paper is king. Still, electronic gaming may hold some of it's own virtues over pen-and-paper (though none come immediately to mind-other than, perhaps, convenience. i.e. it's faster to turn on a console and slip in a game than it is to gather a party of friends.) If people are looking for good stories, it seems to make more sense just to open a book or watch some movies or shows. Any thoughts on all of this?

Quote from: creabotsIf people are looking for good stories, it seems to make more sense just to open a book or watch some movies or shows. Any thoughts on all of this?

I think it's always best to assume that people who choose to play role-playing games rather than doing something else like playing a board game, opening a book, watching a movie, etc. do so because there is some feature of the role-playing medium that makes it preferable to doing those other things.  Just because you don't see the attraction doesn't mean it isn't there for others with different preferences than your own.  So my advice is to ask other people why they want to tell stories in the role-playing medium and listen to what they say, even if it doesn't always seem to make sense to you, rather than assuming that they'd be better of doing something else.

I think you're right, John. What I'd like to know is why other people are enjoying the medium, while I am apparently not. I suppose I just went about asking the question the wrong way. Perhaps I should do as you suggested and ask others that play why they tell stories in RPGs. I didn't mean to insinuate that role-playing was a waste of time, though I was looking at the situation from my limited perspective. I suppose the role-playing medium has an advantage with the element of personal experience. I believe that every art medium has it's own virtues and perhaps even drawbacks. I am sorry if my post offended you, though.

Quote from: creabotsI am sorry if my post offended you, though.

You didn't offend me because I don't play games for stories, but I've had people ask me similar questions about my style and found it annoying.  So let's just say that I'm trying to keep you from offending other people.

I think you're mixing up several things here.

Quote from: creabotsIs it just me, or do RPGs seem like a weak medium to tell stories?

Depends who you ask. I've found roleplaying games to be a kickass medium to tell stories for 27 years now.

Quote from: creabotsI think that the strong point of video games (and pen-and-paper RPGs) is interactivity. To many gamers, story is just a side-affect. That's why I don't understand why some people consider games such as the Final Fantasy series to effective when there is, in my view, a lack of interactivity in the series in comparison to other RPGs. If interactivity is the virtue in gaming, then I think pen-and-paper is king.

I like interactivity in games. Interactivity, is just one of many features games can have. Interactivity is not "king" in gaming. It might be king based on someone's personal preferences, that's all. As for video games, they offer different features that may attract gamers, such as preconceived plots, great visuals and music, ease of play, etc...

Quote from: creabotsStill, electronic gaming may hold some of it's own virtues over pen-and-paper (though none come immediately to mind-other than, perhaps, convenience. i.e. it's faster to turn on a console and slip in a game than it is to gather a party of friends.) If people are looking for good stories, it seems to make more sense just to open a book or watch some movies or shows. Any thoughts on all of this?

Yeah. I think that putting yourself in other people's shoes is definitely not your forte. You seem to be totally clueless about what gaming has to offer, other than your very narrow preferences.

Plus I don't get how you jump from "RPGs aren't good to tell stories" to "RPGs are better than Video games" to "if you want stories, read books/watch movies".

Stories existed long before movies and books and RPGs. Why should I watch movies if I prefer to hear a buddy's fishing story, or the story of a date-gone-wrong, or to have fun with friends and create and live our own stories?

I guess I should keep in mind that everyone has different preferences and tastes when it comes to entertainment. Perhaps their isn't an ideal form of entertainment.

The way I look at it is that when you have a group of Characters tromping around in someones World, it *is* a story.  The question is, how good a story is it?  In some worlds I've played in, for various reasons, it became a good story.  We cared about the Characters and what became of them in the context of the World at large, and the games were long term campaigns that turned out to have some fascinating histories, dramas, and plot lines.  All of which, for me, is good story.  So when I say, I'm looking for Good Story in my RPGs, that's what I mean.

It kind of depends on what you mean by 'telling stories.' Some people mean that they want the events of the session to read well after the fact. Some people mean that they want to write a story and play it out. Some people mean that they want the session itself to have the same quality as a story. Which do you mean?

Quote from: creabotsI guess I should keep in mind that everyone has different preferences and tastes when it comes to entertainment. Perhaps their isn't an ideal form of entertainment.

Yes, that's one of the biggest take-aways that you can get from discussing game theory and practice online.

Quote from: creabotsIs it just me, or do RPGs seem like a weak medium to tell stories? I think that the strong point of video games (and pen-and-paper RPGs) is interactivity. To many gamers, story is just a side-affect. That's why I don't understand why some people consider games such as the Final Fantasy series to effective when there is, in my view, a lack of interactivity in the series in comparison to other RPGs. If interactivity is the virtue in gaming, then I think pen-and-paper is king. Still, electronic gaming may hold some of it's own virtues over pen-and-paper (though none come immediately to mind-other than, perhaps, convenience. i.e. it's faster to turn on a console and slip in a game than it is to gather a party of friends.) If people are looking for good stories, it seems to make more sense just to open a book or watch some movies or shows. Any thoughts on all of this?

RPGs have plots, the story results from the players interacting with the plot. RPGs are also games and this is both its strength and weakness. It is not a passive thing that you watch. You have to participate to get the full experience. Finally people have different tastes as to genre and game complexity. The elements that even most simplistic of RPGs have makes table-top roleplaying a niche market.  


Computer games generally excel at hiding complex rules. Plus computer games  have graphic art which appeals to many. This is one of the primary strengths of the Final Fantasy series. People will put up with limited gameplay if they have gorgeous eye candy to look at. I am not saying Eye Candy alone can cut it but it can be emphasized successfully over other aspects.

Quote from: estarRPGs have plots, the story results from the players interacting with the plot. RPGs are also games and this is both its strength and weakness. It is not a passive thing that you watch. You have to participate to get the full experience. Finally people have different tastes as to genre and game complexity. The elements that even most simplistic of RPGs have makes table-top roleplaying a niche market.  

Not all RPGs have plots, unless you mean that is the sense of "what happened in this game is the plot."

-clash

Also RPGs as in Our Game We Play On Saturdays may have plots.

If RPGs as in The Thing I Bought At The FLGS have plots, they should be referred to as 'metaplots" instead, to avoid confusion.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceAlso RPGs as in Our Game We Play On Saturdays may have plots.

If RPGs as in The Thing I Bought At The FLGS have plots, they should be referred to as 'metaplots" instead, to avoid confusion.

-clash

I'm not understanding the distinction, flyingmice.  Could you elaborate a bit on what the difference between "plot" and "metaplot" is?  Thanks.

- Mark

Quote from: VBWyrdeI'm not understanding the distinction, flyingmice.  Could you elaborate a bit on what the difference between "plot" and "metaplot" is?  Thanks.

- Mark

The first reference is to the game as played, what you do with your group.

The second is what is published in the game book. What Elminster did in his game, so to speak.

There is a bit of confusion between the game you play and the game you buy at the store. I was trying to avoid that.

Plot can refer to:

A: What was planned for your game, or
B: What actually happened, with or without A.

Metaplot always refers to what the designers have happening in the game world out of your control. Some people love metaplot, some despise it. Some metaplot is intrusive, some isn't. It's still metaplot because you don't control it.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceNot all RPGs have plots, unless you mean that is the sense of "what happened in this game is the plot."
-clash

Plot, in my view, is taking the people, locations, and things of the setting and projecting that into the "future" of the game's timeline. It can be silly as a Toon or Paranoia session, a plan for the DM to handle the PCs when they go to sack the dungeon, or an exploration of the human condition in the World of Darkness. The difference between story and plot is that plot is mostly descriptive, more like a series bible and a script than a novel.  A good GM uses plot as a guideline to respond to what the players do.