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.
Quote from: flyingmiceThe 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
Super! Thanks. :)
- Mark
Quote from: flyingmicePlot 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.
Plot is what you plan for your game. Story is what results from playing the game. Every RPG has a plot even it is the unstated assumptions of the setting.
I am not sure I would make the distinction you do between plot and metaplot. There is plot that you write, and plot that other people write. I think metaplot is more about the level of background. What you write for your players that impacts them is plot. What you write about your setting is metaplot. GMs will take from their metaplot elements to use in their session's plot.
But before we get hung up labels I think the concepts are there whether we agree on what to actually call them.
1) A GM writes down NPCs, locations, items, and events and uses them for a session
2) A GM reads about NPCs, locations, items, and events and uses them for a session
3) A GM writes about NPCs, location, items, and events that focuses on a setting
4) A GM reads about NPCs, location, items, and events that focuses on a setting
5) A GM runs a session using all the elements of what he has read and/or written, responding to the player's action using the rules of the game.
I call #1 and #2 plot, I call #3 and #4 meta plot, and the result of #5 is a story that you tell your friends about.
I use the word plot rather than story or other terms because the world plot encompasses both the result of what you are doing before a game session (or during as the case may be) and what you are doing.
http://www.answers.com/plot&r=67
# The pattern of events or main story in a narrative or drama.
# A secret plan to accomplish a hostile or illegal purpose; a scheme
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?
I like stories in my RPGs and find them to be a powerful and effective tool for telling stories.
By "stories" I mean that
* The game has action and conflict that generally rises to a climax and then has a satisfying resolutoin (where satisfying could, in some cases, be an anti-climax, but generally means the climax is resolved)
* The characters have recognizeable human motivations and depth of character enough for me to identify with them and relate at an intellectional and emotional level to what's going on
* The setting, situation, and so forth is described well enough for me to have a sense of place and time
* The action and events in the story have a coherent and identifiable "theme" and "tone" the way a movie or book might
* I want the game to have a vision and ideas that are interesting and surprising. I like games that introduce me to new ideas or new ways to look at things (the way, say, the work of authors and directors I like do). To be clear: I expect this from the GM, not the game author (I'm not interested in games that have this kind of thing built in)
* etc.
I also want this story to be created during play rather than pre-planned (although I expect the initial situation to be pre-planned). I don't want the GM or anyone else neutralizing my actions. As a GM I don't have a pre-planned plot.
My main way to achieve this is to set up a starting situation that's likely to lead to good story and unleash the PC's in it. Typically the starting situation is calibrated to the PC's goals and the player's preferences -- to help ensure that everything clicks.
This system has some drawbacks --
1) Games, in general, do not allow editing so there's more stuff that doesn't fit, tangents, etc. than you'd find in an edited, finished work.
2) The freedom of the PCs to do whatever they want means that sometimes things will not go well and the story will end in an unsatisfying anticlimax... but that risk actually makes the games that do work (most of them IME) more fulfilling and fun.
3) A lot of the stuff I ask for relies on the GM's story-telling skills: characterization of NPC's, the ability to describe setting, improv skills, sense of pacing, etc. When I'm GMing, it takes a significant amount of work; IME it's worth it.
Anyway, bottom line: I think table-top RPGs are a great way to generate and enjoy "story"
Cheers,
-E.
Quote from: estarPlot is what you plan for your game. Story is what results from playing the game. Every RPG has a plot even it is the unstated assumptions of the setting.
I am not sure I would make the distinction you do between plot and metaplot. There is plot that you write, and plot that other people write. I think metaplot is more about the level of background. What you write for your players that impacts them is plot. What you write about your setting is metaplot. GMs will take from their metaplot elements to use in their session's plot.
But before we get hung up labels I think the concepts are there whether we agree on what to actually call them.
1) A GM writes down NPCs, locations, items, and events and uses them for a session
2) A GM reads about NPCs, locations, items, and events and uses them for a session
3) A GM writes about NPCs, location, items, and events that focuses on a setting
4) A GM reads about NPCs, location, items, and events that focuses on a setting
5) A GM runs a session using all the elements of what he has read and/or written, responding to the player's action using the rules of the game.
I call #1 and #2 plot, I call #3 and #4 meta plot, and the result of #5 is a story that you tell your friends about.
I use the word plot rather than story or other terms because the world plot encompasses both the result of what you are doing before a game session (or during as the case may be) and what you are doing.
http://www.answers.com/plot&r=67
# The pattern of events or main story in a narrative or drama.
# A secret plan to accomplish a hostile or illegal purpose; a scheme
Umm, then your personal definitions don't mesh up to commonly held definitions, which is a bear for mutual understanding.
-clash
Quote from: -E.I like stories in my RPGs and find them to be a powerful and effective tool for telling stories.
[SNIP GOOD STUFF]
Anyway, bottom line: I think table-top RPGs are a great way to generate and enjoy "story"
Cheers,
-E.
E runs his games exactly like I do, except I wouldn't give a bat's penis whether there is a good story or not at the end. To me, the story is just a by product I have no use for. I expect, though, that a good story arises as often in my games as his, because the method is identical.
-clash
Plot: The pattern of events or main story in a narrative or drama.
Setting: The time, place, and circumstances in which a narrative, drama, or film takes place.
Context: The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting.
IMHO, people shy away from plot as a descriptor for Setting/Context because it hews to closely to the concept of predetermination. IOW, plot implies that the story is already written.
Instead, people are far more comfortable with the idea that the game/adventure/campaign/session begins in a start-state, a setting/context which may or may not have various plot hooks embedded, but has no specific plot, or series of events, required. The players' interactions with the start-state produce the next state, iterating until the end-state is reached.
It is preferred that the progression from start-state to end-state produces, in retrospect, a story. But to call the creation of the start-state a plot implies that the progression from start-state to end-state has already been determined - the story has been written.
Just a thought on the terminology obstacles....
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?
Yes, you're right. RPGs are a weak medium for stories. When story does happen, it only happens spontaneously.
Trying to use RPGs to "create" stories is basically a direct way to create a crappy story and a crappy RPG all at once.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditTrying to use RPGs to "create" stories is basically a direct way to create a crappy story and a crappy RPG all at once.
Assertion! Define 'story'.
Quote from: flyingmiceE runs his games exactly like I do, except I wouldn't give a bat's penis whether there is a good story or not at the end. To me, the story is just a by product I have no use for. I expect, though, that a good story arises as often in my games as his, because the method is identical.
-clash
I don't really see RPG's producing anything -- there's no "product" (from my perspective) any more than there's a "product" from me watching a movie or reading a book... maybe my memories. Maybe something to think about later (some scenes and events from games I played years ago stay with me...)
But I want the game to be interesting while we're playing it -- I dislike games where we wander aimlessly with no sense of purpose, or where there's no sense of challenge.
So maybe the story-product is important in this way: in my experience, the games I like make for interesting stories when written down or told.
I don't think that's because the transcript itself is interesting (necessarily, but some actual-play posts are) but because the factors that make a written story good are also the ones that make a game good:
* Memorable, well-drawn characters
* Interesting action
* Cool ideas
* A coherent narrative that ties the individual scenes together into a larger piece
* A satisfying climax and coda
* Etc. (I'm repeating myself from my earlier post)
I'm interested that you don't care about "story" -- if you had a game without any of these, would you consider it a success? Speaking from personal experience, when I've run games where one or more of these elements were missing (most recently, a game where one of the PC's was grossly over-powered and there was nothing 'satisfying' about their inevitable victory) I've considered them less-than-successful.
On the other hand, I think a lot of people might say something like, "If I got to play my character it's all good" without putting much emphasis on how the events of the game, taken holistically come out.
Cheers,
-E.
Quote from: -E.I don't really see RPG's producing anything -- there's no "product" (from my perspective) any more than there's a "product" from me watching a movie or reading a book... maybe my memories. Maybe something to think about later (some scenes and events from games I played years ago stay with me...)
But I want the game to be interesting while we're playing it -- I dislike games where we wander aimlessly with no sense of purpose, or where there's no sense of challenge.
So maybe the story-product is important in this way: in my experience, the games I like make for interesting stories when written down or told.
I don't think that's because the transcript itself is interesting (necessarily, but some actual-play posts are) but because the factors that make a written story good are also the ones that make a game good:
* Memorable, well-drawn characters
* Interesting action
* Cool ideas
* A coherent narrative that ties the individual scenes together into a larger piece
* A satisfying climax and coda
* Etc. (I'm repeating myself from my earlier post)
I'm interested that you don't care about "story" -- if you had a game without any of these, would you consider it a success? Speaking from personal experience, when I've run games where one or more of these elements were missing (most recently, a game where one of the PC's was grossly over-powered and there was nothing 'satisfying' about their inevitable victory) I've considered them less-than-successful.
On the other hand, I think a lot of people might say something like, "If I got to play my character it's all good" without putting much emphasis on how the events of the game, taken holistically come out.
Cheers,
-E.
Nope, I was wrong. It's just a differing interpretation of 'story' again. I'm right with you all the way, then.
-clash
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?
As was said above, define "telling stories".
I got started in old-time D&D as a "sandbox" world. That is, here is the world, here are your characters. What do you do?
There was no predetermined plot, quest, or goal. "Story" was whatever the players happened to do.
I don't play RPGs to "tell stories", I play RPGs to "have adventures". I'm damned if I can put the difference into words, but on an intuitive level it's real for me.
Quote from: Old GeezerAs was said above, define "telling stories".
I got started in old-time D&D as a "sandbox" world. That is, here is the world, here are your characters. What do you do?
There was no predetermined plot, quest, or goal. "Story" was whatever the players happened to do.
I don't play RPGs to "tell stories", I play RPGs to "have adventures". I'm damned if I can put the difference into words, but on an intuitive level it's real for me.
Word, Geezer! :D
-clash
Quote from: Old GeezerAs was said above, define "telling stories".
I got started in old-time D&D as a "sandbox" world. That is, here is the world, here are your characters. What do you do?
There was no predetermined plot, quest, or goal. "Story" was whatever the players happened to do.
I don't play RPGs to "tell stories", I play RPGs to "have adventures". I'm damned if I can put the difference into words, but on an intuitive level it's real for me.
Aya. But let me ask you something Geezer... did those Adventures make for good stories in their own right? Not because they were designed to, but because you played them out in interesting ways?
- Mark
Quote from: creabotsIs it just me, or do RPGs seem like a weak medium to tell stories?
It depends on what you mean by a story. To me, a story has a beginning, middle, and an end; rising and falling action; etc..
I don't feel that RPGs create those at all. To my mind, you can tell a story or form narrative about what happened at the table, but the act of playing the game itself doesn't create a story.
Seanchai
Quote from: flyingmiceUmm, then your personal definitions don't mesh up to commonly held definitions, which is a bear for mutual understanding.
Yeah. To my understanding, there's no "plot" and "what happened" in a story in the traditional sense. The plot and what happened are synonymus.
Seanchai
Quote from: flyingmiceUmm, then your personal definitions don't mesh up to commonly held definitions, which is a bear for mutual understanding.
Actually they do.
In literature, a plot is a static thing: "A family, trapped in a house surrounded by zombies, must overcome their own conflicts to save themselves."
A storyline is the linear progression from the beginning to the end: "A family wakes up to find the world has been taken over by zombies. They fight amongst themselves until they finally get it together to defend themselves but are ultimately swallowed up by the undead holocaust."
Quote from: walkerpActually they do.
In literature, a plot is a static thing: "A family, trapped in a house surrounded by zombies, must overcome their own conflicts to save themselves."
A storyline is the linear progression from the beginning to the end: "A family wakes up to find the world has been taken over by zombies. They fight amongst themselves until they finally get it together to defend themselves but are ultimately swallowed up by the undead holocaust."
Ummm, we - estar and I, that is - were talking about Plot and Metaplot, Walker, not Plot and Story.
-clash
Quote from: flyingmiceUmmm, we - estar and I, that is - were talking about Plot and Metaplot, Walker, not Plot and Story.
I was following that, but you quoted his entire post and did not specify what part of it you did not consider to be a common understanding of the term plot. I thought you were referring to his first sentence, where he made the distinction between story and plot, not where he lumped plot and metaplot (your distinction of which I get and agree with).
Actually let me elaborate. I think there is plot, metaplot and Metaplot. The metaplot estar is referring to is the overarching storyline that affects the campaign at a higher level and will continue on with or without player involvement. Players generally do have the ability to influence this form of metaplot. This is generally created by the GM. The Metaplot you are referring to, fm, is the sanctioned official overarching plot produced by a game company. It is problematic because generally players have no way to influence it.
Quote from: walkerpI was following that, but you quoted his entire post and did not specify what part of it you did not consider to be a common understanding of the term plot. I thought you were referring to his first sentence, where he made the distinction between story and plot, not where he lumped plot and metaplot (your distinction of which I get and agree with).
Ah! OK! I'll try to be more careful with my quoting in the future. :D
-clash
Quote from: flyingmiceWord, Geezer! :D
-clash
I'm with the two geezers.
Quote from: walkerpActually let me elaborate. I think there is plot, metaplot and Metaplot. The metaplot estar is referring to is the overarching storyline that affects the campaign at a higher level and will continue on with or without player involvement. Players generally do have the ability to influence this form of metaplot. This is generally created by the GM. The Metaplot you are referring to, fm, is the sanctioned official overarching plot produced by a game company. It is problematic because generally players have no way to influence it.
This is more directed at flyingmice. But what difference there is for GM created plot and game company created plot from the Player point of view. To me there is none. It is all metaplot and outside of the player's normal ability to influence or direct. However there is a lot of different from the GM point of view. A GM using a company created metaplot to develop plot can get screwed if the game company future installments doesn't work with the GM has developed. For example in the 80s A traveller GM who has advanced his game to 1120 all of sudden finds most of the system support being directed into an Imperium wide civil war started in 1116.
Rob Conley
P.S. A infinitely detailed frozen in time setting has its own issues as well. Search the Harnforum (http://www.harnforum.com) for some interesting commentary on the issue.
Aside from the usual "I am in 1000 TR so a 720 TR product won't help anymore" the other comments are about wanting to use some of the conflicts in Harn that they didn't use in the first run of their campaign. One goes that Harn has so many plot hooks that if they were all used at once the island would blow up and leave a hole in the planet. The solution most GMs seem to take is just reset back to 720 TR and run the new campaign.
Quote from: VBWyrdeAya. But let me ask you something Geezer... did those Adventures make for good stories in their own right? Not because they were designed to, but because you played them out in interesting ways?
- Mark
A ... few.
A lot were "Damn, that was fun", but hard to explain. And often the "story" that came up afterwards was "We fought the bad guy and he fought back really hard and we won."
As I said, I'm having a damn hard time putting this in words. But I KNOW it's there.
Quote from: Old GeezerAs I said, I'm having a damn hard time putting this in words. But I KNOW it's there.
Which is really the best damn explanation I've seen so far. Sterilizing something and viewing it clinically only gives a small amount of credence to an individuals experience, which is relative and easily discounted. Which is sad because so much of learning comes from experience right or wrong.
Quote from: estarThis is more directed at flyingmice. But what difference there is for GM created plot and game company created plot from the Player point of view. To me there is none. It is all metaplot and outside of the player's normal ability to influence or direct.
That is only true if the GM does not adapt his "plot" to the player's deeds, which is railroading.
GM: "... And standing next to the Prince is Lord Farqhuahar."
Players: "Hey, wait a minute! We killed him last session!"
GM: "Well, I couldn't let that happen. He is important to my plot! He obviously survived."
That's not a GM, that's a scriptwriter.
-clash
Okay, I've had some sleep and a chance to think.
In 36 years of RPGing, I've accumulated a lot of humorous anecdotes. I've had some moments where, afterwards, we said "That was a cool scene", like it was a scene in a movie.* And I've come up with a few tall tales, like when Robilar decided he wanted to visit Barsoom and his sage** was convinced a large catapult was the answer.
But I've never had anything result that I would call a "story". Other than that implied by the genre -- Star Wars, "We infiltrated and destroyed a Dark Jedi academy". D&D, "We killed some things and took their stuff". Et cetera.
But nothing we looked at afterwards and said "That was a great story."
*I cannot rigidly define "scene" but I know one when I see one. Let's not drift into pointless digressions over dramaturgical theory.
** who was named "Herb".
Quote from: Old GeezerI don't play RPGs to "tell stories", I play RPGs to "have adventures". I'm damned if I can put the difference into words, but on an intuitive level it's real for me.
A story is what someone sees looking in from the outside. And adventure is what one experiences from the inside.
Quote from: John MorrowA story is what someone sees looking in from the outside. And adventure is what one experiences from the inside.
I can work with that.
I'd say looking on the outside, there's always story. It might not be the most coherently-structured or narratively smooth, but shit happens, characters do stuff, stuff happens to them.
I think the big definition of story that is pushed on us by screenwriters and college creative writing is the character arc and that probably tends to happen less in gaming. Characters gain in power, for sure. But there are a lot of stagnant characters out there whose main point of definition is their method of fighting or their class. And they tend not to change. But there's still a story going on that they are part of.
And in many campaigns, I'm sure the characters do change and develop.
Quote from: walkerpI'd say looking on the outside, there's always story. It might not be the most coherently-structured or narratively smooth, but shit happens, characters do stuff, stuff happens to them.
Well, that's why I think that talking about "story" without talking about story quality is a bit silly.
Quote from: walkerpI think the big definition of story that is pushed on us by screenwriters and college creative writing is the character arc and that probably tends to happen less in gaming. Characters gain in power, for sure. But there are a lot of stagnant characters out there whose main point of definition is their method of fighting or their class. And they tend not to change. But there's still a story going on that they are part of.
The question is whether it's a good story or not. Would you pay to buy a transcript of someone else's role-playing game written up as a story without any editing? In most cases, I doubt it. There is a reason why so many people roll their eyes when someone says that they want to tell them about their character or campaign. Often, it's like listening to someone talk about their vacation and how they saw this and that, maybe with some pictures.
By the way, Japanese RPG fans do sell what they call "replays", which are write-ups of people's games either in text or as an amateur manga. Lodoss Wars started out as a replay of sorts.
Quote from: John MorrowThe question is whether it's a good story or not. Would you pay to buy a transcript of someone else's role-playing game written up as a story without any editing?
No. I probably wouldn't want to read a write-up of any role-playing session for the story. I already have books and movies.
But a lame story to read could still be super fun to play in.
Quote from: walkerpI can work with that.
I'd say looking on the outside, there's always story. It might not be the most coherently-structured or narratively smooth, but shit happens, characters do stuff, stuff happens to them.
I think the big definition of story that is pushed on us by screenwriters and college creative writing is the character arc and that probably tends to happen less in gaming. Characters gain in power, for sure. But there are a lot of stagnant characters out there whose main point of definition is their method of fighting or their class. And they tend not to change. But there's still a story going on that they are part of.
And in many campaigns, I'm sure the characters do change and develop.
Agreed, Walker - and a nice way of putting it, John!
-clash
Quote from: walkerpBut a lame story to read could still be super fun to play in.
Correct. But that suggests that the fun is based on something other than the story value of what's going on, right?
Quote from: walkerpBut a lame story to read could still be super fun to play in.
Ding! Winner!
Quote from: John MorrowCorrect. But that suggests that the fun is based on something other than the story value of what's going on, right?
Right. That's the thing (whatever the hell it is) that makes roleplaying games awesome. It's the doing (or pretending to be doing). My life probably isn't a great story, but I'm totally into it and having fun a lot of the time. Roleplaying games do something like that, I think, though at a few steps removed, obviously.
Quote from: John MorrowCorrect. But that suggests that the fun is based on something other than the story value of what's going on, right?
Ding Ding Ding! Daily Double! Great Googily Moogily, the man's GOT it! :win:
Quote from: walkerpRight. That's the thing (whatever the hell it is)
Well I would quantify some by saying that one element of "Whatever the hell it is" is about doing things, being able to make choices in a fantastic situations (regardless of genre) and seeing the results of those choice play out over time.
Enjoy
Rob Conley
Pulled from the Landmarks thread and thought maybe best continued here…
Quote from: Haffrung….
The more I read RPGnet and this site, the more relieved I am that my group was totally cut off from the mainstream RPG scene in the 90s. It seems the excesses of storytelling, railroad-style play left many RPGers scarred for life, and either incapable of understanding how story can be generated without pre-conceived plots, or acting as though it's some kind of recent revelation that you can even play that way.
Maybe my group is unusual, but the basics of how and why we play are:
• We're good friends. D&D is one of the ways we socialize with one another. Playing is a night with the boys away from the wife and kids. We drink beer.
• Story is generated organically by player decisions. The DM does not set out a plot.
• We're not really interested in crunch. The fewer rules to accomplish what we want to do, the better.
• High level of DM authority is preferred. Players don't want to work anything other than their PCs. Their sense of immersion is spoiled if they take a hand in shaping the wider world. They also don't go in for backstory or thematic premise. They make up a PC, and explore a totally new world.
• We all agree that the scenes we create in our imaginations while we play are way, way cooler than any movie or videogame. Those immersive experiences, where our interraction generates a vivid scene in each of our imaginations, is the number one reason we play. It's the dragon we chase.
So neither improv shared storytelling, nor MMORPGs came come anywhere close to satisfying our gaming wants. But maybe we're atypical.
Well add another group onto the list. We share many of the traits above, except we are a more recent group of friends. But every group I’ve been with since 1977 has shared these traits.
And computer games don’t provide all we want, in fact most of us play them as well (one of our group even once worked for a large CRPG game company, shocking!). Any back-story evolves slowly and is spun off of ideas we get from interacting with the setting.
The part about “It seems the excesses of storytelling, railroad-style play left many RPGers scarred for life…” I find interesting as most examples of the “lameness” of traditional RPGs read as the most uncreative, story telling, railroad-style game I can imagine.
Quote from: XantherThe part about "It seems the excesses of storytelling, railroad-style play left many RPGers scarred for life..." I find interesting
But isn't this the "brain damage" whose mention we are all supposed to rail against.
Quote from: walkerpBut isn't this the "brain damage" whose mention we are all supposed to rail against.
Well, Ron clarified that the "Brain Damage" comment was an observation specifically about groups of White Wolf RPG players who thought they were creating "Story Now" games, when in fact they were not. He noted that they seemed unable to grasp things like "theme" and "sub-text" in stories, instead focusing on the minutiae of setting and plot.
He said that if you weren't interested in "Story Now" then you could play WW (or any other) RPG without problem.
Personally, I disagree that RPGs can cause
literal brain damage, and think there are other factors responsible for the problems with people's comprehension of story that Ron is commenting on.
I generally agree with Haffrung and Xanther though -- an over-emphasis on "Storytelling" has been very bad for RPGs and players.
I suppose gaming shouldn't be considered a "Storytelling medium", however, because that is apparently not it's strong point. The fun part of video games isn't it's storytelling, but something else. I'm playing Everquest right now, and there's virtually no story to that. Oddly enough, though, I don't get any pleasure from acquiring stronger weapons are seeing higher integers show up on the screen. Maybe lately I've been playing games that just aren't geared towards me. Video Games and RPGs no longer seem like an artistic medium to me, but rather something just to mess around with.
Heh. I was actualyl just singing the praises of Half Life to someone, and it actualyl touches on one of the things you talk about in post #1.
HL1 has no cutscenes. The entire game (except I think a few brief monets), you are in the shoes of Gordon Freeman, looking through his eyes. HL2 is pretty much the same exact way. Even during what would, in most games, be a "cut scene", like a dialogue bit or whatever, you're still in his shoes, and if you feel like, most times you can just walk off in the middle of the conversation.
This seems like a trivial thing to some people, but it's HUGE, and it's part of the reason why the game is such a big fucking deal. Because it never takes you away. you're always in the moment, as opposed to being constantly reminded that you're really just being led by the nose, and it isn't even really "your guy" that you're playing, but some wannabe novelist's guy who he's kind enough to let you control occasionally.
Games are supposed to be interactive.
Quote from: walkerpBut isn't this the "brain damage" whose mention we are all supposed to rail against.
I'm completely at a lost as to the "brain damage" reference.
Quote from: creabotsI suppose gaming shouldn't be considered a "Storytelling medium", however, because that is apparently not it's strong point. The fun part of video games isn't it's storytelling, but something else. I'm playing Everquest right now, and there's virtually no story to that. Oddly enough, though, I don't get any pleasure from acquiring stronger weapons are seeing higher integers show up on the screen. Maybe lately I've been playing games that just aren't geared towards me. Video Games and RPGs no longer seem like an artistic medium to me, but rather something just to mess around with.
I never considered games to be much about art. You have fun, you make decisions, but rarely create. I guess you could take them as a chance to act, that is as theater, and then here would be some art in that. The most artistic aspect I've found is in setting creation, adventure design, and game design itself.
This may sound odd, but have you tried Guitar Hero? Or other games outside the FPS genre. Even the MMORPGs seem to me to be FPS with more fiddy bits and team play.
QuoteOriginally Posted by Haffrung
….
The more I read RPGnet and this site, the more relieved I am that my group was totally cut off from the mainstream RPG scene in the 90s. It seems the excesses of storytelling, railroad-style play left many RPGers scarred for life, and either incapable of understanding how story can be generated without pre-conceived plots, or acting as though it's some kind of recent revelation that you can even play that way.
Maybe my group is unusual, but the basics of how and why we play are:
• We're good friends. D&D is one of the ways we socialize with one another. Playing is a night with the boys away from the wife and kids. We drink beer.
• Story is generated organically by player decisions. The DM does not set out a plot.
• We're not really interested in crunch. The fewer rules to accomplish what we want to do, the better.
• High level of DM authority is preferred. Players don't want to work anything other than their PCs. Their sense of immersion is spoiled if they take a hand in shaping the wider world. They also don't go in for backstory or thematic premise. They make up a PC, and explore a totally new world.
• We all agree that the scenes we create in our imaginations while we play are way, way cooler than any movie or videogame. Those immersive experiences, where our interraction generates a vivid scene in each of our imaginations, is the number one reason we play. It's the dragon we chase.
So neither improv shared storytelling, nor MMORPGs came come anywhere close to satisfying our gaming wants. But maybe we're atypical.
Add me to the list. I've been playing and GMing since 1978. The only thing is that in the past few years I've considered my world's backstory in light of my studies of medieval and classical literature. So I think I'm beginning to get the hang of the backstory concept for my world in terms of what *I* think is interesting. Last time I checked my Players were saying stuff about my World that made me think I'm on the right track. So I do think that there is something to Story, and it makes a difference in the overall quality. I guess the way I'd put it to Old Geezer is this: Lets say you have two games that are exactly the same rules, the same group of players, and the same style of playing, only in the first case the GM doesn't have much in the way of backstory and the Adventures don't really amount to much in that area, but they are fun, exciting and action packed. In the second case you have the same fun, exciting and action packed adventures, but there's also, in addition to that, this really cool backstory. For me, I'd prefer the second game. Not because the first one isn't fun, but only because the second one has an additional aspect that's also cool and interesting. So that's where I'm coming from on the Story aspect. So yeah, I'm all for the above list, and have been playing that way for years and years quite happily. :)
- Mark
Quote from: VBWyrdeSo I do think that there is something to Story, and it makes a difference in the overall quality. I guess the way I'd put it to Old Geezer is this: Lets say you have two games that are exactly the same rules, the same group of players, and the same style of playing, only in the first case the GM doesn't have much in the way of backstory and the Adventures don't really amount to much in that area, but they are fun, exciting and action packed. In the second case you have the same fun, exciting and action packed adventures, but there's also, in addition to that, this really cool backstory. For me, I'd prefer the second game. Not because the first one isn't fun, but only because the second one has an additional aspect that's also cool and interesting. So that's where I'm coming from on the Story aspect. So yeah, I'm all for the above list, and have been playing that way for years and years quite happily. :)
- Mark
Well, that looks like a good list to me too.
It is also not incompatible with the "Story is what the players do" mindset.
In all my years of fantasy gaming, I only played in one non-"sandbox" game; that is, a game where the GM had a "story" in mind before play (How ye Playerrse Saived ye Worlde).
I hated it. So that's made me flinch ever since when somebody mentions "Story-driven" games.
The lack of precise definitions for most of the terms being casually bandied about doesn't help.
Quote from: Old GeezerWell, that looks like a good list to me too.
It is also not incompatible with the "Story is what the players do" mindset.
In all my years of fantasy gaming, I only played in one non-"sandbox" game; that is, a game where the GM had a "story" in mind before play (How ye Playerrse Saived ye Worlde).
I hated it. So that's made me flinch ever since when somebody mentions "Story-driven" games.
The lack of precise definitions for most of the terms being casually bandied about doesn't help.
Ok, I see. Well, I'm almost thinking that when you say "Story-Driven" you mean that the GM has a plot already in mind, as seems indicated by the title of the game you're referring to. As a GM I don't prefabricate a plot for the Player-Characters. What I do is establish a lot of BackStory in terms of what NPCs are up to, histories, political movements, etc. Since the PCs are the Protagonists in my world, what they actually wind up doing is the main focus of the plot of any story that occurs in-game. I use a Player-Driven-Story methodology, and I do not try to get the Players to "fit into" my prefabricated idea of what I think the Plot should be. It's just that dancing around, behind, above and below the PCs is a World that is moving and changing in accordance with the motives and activities of NPCs whom I track via dice periodically. So when the party goes to adventure at the haunted Castle Blackrock, and they have adventures there and discover the treasure, and find that the lord of that manner was long ago chained to a wall in a room in the dungeon and left to rot by his illegitimate step-son, Thraklar the Grim, and that there is a mystery surrounding that heir and his own heirs who have laid claim to the castle in recent memory... there is a backstory that ties to events that are in the world. The world backstory simply inter-relates the 'sand-boxes' so that if you step back you'll see a larger political/historical/spiritual picture of the world that would make sense if you wrote it into a book, rather than simply being a series of unrelated 'sand-box' adventures. To the Players the game play is the same either way. They still romp and have a great time. The difference is that after 20 games they can look at their adventures as something of a unified whole within the context of the world and say, "Oh yeah, when we killed Rayork's Guardian in the fifth adventure at Castle Blackrock, we unleashed the forces that resulted in the flooding of lower Brosliand forest with the goblin horde that invaded there in adventure nine. Hmmm... so why would Rayork's Guardian have been preventing the goblins in the first place?" And the answer to that question could lead logically, to adventure fourteen wherein the Players discover that Rayort's father was the Knight of the Black Tower, and things make sense to them, and also lead to their deciding to do this or that on the next adventure. IF they so choose. I'm not at all into GM-Driven Plot. I do leave it to the Players to decide what they want to do. I just provide enough backstory to make it possible for them to make sense of the World at large. I think this works to the advantage of the game overall, at least for those Players who've enjoyed that aspect of my world to date.
- Mark
Quote from: VBWyrdeOk, I see. Well, I'm almost thinking that when you say "Story-Driven" you mean that the GM has a plot already in mind, as seems indicated by the title of the game you're referring to. As a GM I don't prefabricate a plot for the Player-Characters. What I do is establish a lot of BackStory in terms of what NPCs are up to, histories, political movements, etc. Since the PCs are the Protagonists in my world, what they actually wind up doing is the main focus of the plot of any story that occurs in-game. I use a Player-Driven-Story methodology, and I do not try to get the Players to "fit into" my prefabricated idea of what I think the Plot should be. It's just that dancing around, behind, above and below the PCs is a World that is moving and changing in accordance with the motives and activities of NPCs whom I track via dice periodically.
Right; we are, in essence, saying the same thing.
That's part of what makes Lord of the Rings so cool; you get to Weathertop, and then the Argonath, and it becomes apparent that there is a HELL of a lot more to Middle Earth than just the current story.
Agree, completely. That's what made playing on Tekumel with its creator so compelling; he had thirty thousand years of backstory.
Quote from: Old GeezerRight; we are, in essence, saying the same thing.
That's part of what makes Lord of the Rings so cool; you get to Weathertop, and then the Argonath, and it becomes apparent that there is a HELL of a lot more to Middle Earth than just the current story.
Agree, completely. That's what made playing on Tekumel with its creator so compelling; he had thirty thousand years of backstory.
Oh cool. I'm glad to hear that. The LRPGSW (http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/LRPGSW) is focused on how to create and Gamesmaster literary quality BackStory.
Based on this thread my latest post there includes this question:
Quote"The question remains... How do we create BackStory of sufficient
Quality to merit the phrase "Literary Quality" for our RPGs? While
Old Geezer and I are in agreement that the goal is laudable, the
fact remains that the task itself can be daunting. 30,000 years of
BackStory is not only hard to create, it must be a bit of a bear to
remember all that amazing information in-Game - when counts. Hehe.
The point being that the more BackStory you have, the more you have
to remember. It's a blessing and a curse. What happens when you
Forgot some key historical point in-Game, tell the Players the WRONG
history, and then are like... OMG, wtf did I do?!?!
How do you handle that?"
... just in case you may find this kind of topic of interest you're welcome to join us there. We'd be glad to have like minded fellow GMs to shoot ideas around with.
:)
- Mark