Just curious, what do you make of this?

Mmphg! Nothing. I don't care about story. For me, story is just what happens, a by-product, a side-effect. Like all attempts to define roleplaying, this one falls on its face.

-clash

Quote from: alexandroJust curious, what do you make of this?

I don't role-play for story.  I role-play for the experience of doing it.  The assumption that everyone role-plays for the story is like assuming that the only reason to used a wheeled vehicle is to travel and then trying to explain why people enjoy roller coasters in terms of the distance travelled and the speed at which is it travelled.

Things that people do for the experience don't necessariliy have any take-away value.  I find it boring to listen to people talk about their characters and what they did for the same reason why I find it boring to listen to someone talk about their vacation.  For the most part, the magic is in the experience of doing it, not in the telling afterward.

I think it covers some of the reasons for some people but it's not a universal way to look at why people play rpgs.  I know I haven't come up with a reason that would satisfy everybody.  I would boil it down the essay into RPGs are a hybrid between active and passive entertainment.  In other words, you act out while you watch others do so as well.  You have some control over the environment but you have to adapt to it as well.  I would say you not story creating but playing and responding to the play of others.  

Tangent:  I do have to say that when I write a story, I write a story.  When I play an RPG, I play an RPG.  I do use stories as inspirations for writing RPGs but I never use an RPG to write a story.

QuoteI don't role-play for story. I role-play for the experience of doing it.

This is what the article assumes.

It presents the following ideas:
- many people enjoy "becoming part of a fictional world" (simplified with the moniker "story" in the article)
- the "becoming part" can be achieved by creating it or consuming it
- neither way is completely satisfying to most roleplayers
- RPGs use a combination of the two, plus "the unknown elements" to make them interesting, which can be:

a) distribution of responsibilities for different parts of the fiction to different participants (i.e.: the GM controls the setting, the players each control a character), which creates a bit of uncertainty (leading to excitement) as to what the other participants will be doing. If you choose a collaborative approach and share your thoughts how play should progress with the other participants beforehand or if one person controls everything the participants can do or how they can affect the game, than it pretty much destroys the appeal of this aspect.

b) creation of parts of the play, where no one determines the outcome (randomizers), for much the same reasons mentioned above. Here it is important, to be clear on what triggers a randomizer (is climbing a tree something you just do in this system or do you have to roll some dice to see if you make it) and what kinds of outcomes (chance of success/failure; damage for failed attempt?) are possible, otherwise you could as well distribute this part to another participant and be done with it.

c) Information. It should be clear which part of the play you are dealing with and how it affects the other parts. If you don't know this and say, like "Well I walk down the street and..." and are interrupted with "Wait a moment, you have to make your Walking roll, before you can go further.", it interrupts the play. The best play instances happen, when the participants know exactly how far they can describe and where they have to "wait for the light to turn green" (so to speak). It makes play more fluid.
If you have to ask every time "Can I do this?" it makes play crawl to a standstill.

Thats my understanding of the article so far.

Oh, and "story" is really a useless term (just like "adventure" or "experience"), which could mean anything (and often does, considering how they are used in most RPG products).

Quote from: alexandroThis is what the article assumes.

No, I don't think it does, because I don't agree with your assertion, below, that it is using the word "story" to mean "becoming part of a fictional world", since the article defines its two ways of enjoying a story as "Create one. Be an author, a filmmaker, even a campfire storyteller (or barstool bard)." and "Listen to one. Read a book, watch a movie, lend an ear."  If the author had said, "Walk in the forest.", "Go skiing.", or "Ride a roller coaster." then I think they'd mean what I mean by "experience".  

It's like over here on Vincent Baker's message board, where they are talking about "Sim" games but I get the distinct impression that they are all just guessing what a "Sim" game is.

Quote from: alexandroIt presents the following ideas:
- many people enjoy "becoming part of a fictional world" (simplified with the moniker "story" in the article)
- the "becoming part" can be achieved by creating it or consuming it

Experiencing a story is neither creating it nor consuming it in any meaningful sense.  If I visit Hawaii, am I "consuming Hawaii"?  Am I "creating a vacation"?  When I used to walk around Tokyo to see what was out there, was I "consuming Tokyo"?  Was I "creating" something?  Sure, you could describe things that way, but it's really stretching the meaning of the words "create" and "consume" beyond all usefulness and almost certainly misses the point.

Quote from: alexandro- neither way is completely satisfying to most roleplayers
- RPGs use a combination of the two, plus "the unknown elements" to make them interesting, which can be:

Again, I think this article makes a lot of assumptions that simply aren't always true.  I don't role-play to create a story or enjoy a story.  I role-play to experience being a different person doing things I'll never get to do.  Sure, you can force that square peg into the round story hole if you want, but you'll wind up missing the point.  Yes, I can describe a roller-coaster ride as a journey or as travel, but that really misses the point and won't help you understand why people are willing to wait 2 hours for a 3 minute trip that starts and ends at the same place.

Quote from: alexandroOh, and "story" is really a useless term (just like "adventure" or "experience"), which could mean anything (and often does, considering how they are used in most RPG products).

I think that "story" has become a useless term because people prefer to fold, bend, spindle, and mutilate it to mean things it doesn't mean to most people, so that they can make their theories fit even when they really don't.  When an article talks about "story" and says, "Create one. Be an author, a filmmaker, even a campfire storyteller (or barstool bard)." and "Listen to one. Read a book, watch a movie, lend an ear.", I think it's pretty clear what they mean by story -- the sort of thing you'll find in a book or movie.  I'm not sure how you read that as "becoming part of a fictional world".

Excallent, John! Thank you!

And that Lumply thread is the Blind Men and the Elephant all over!

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceAnd that Lumply thread is the Blind Men and the Elephant all over!

The problem is that they are describing the elephant's feathers, claws, and fangs.

Isn't that thread simply amazing, in a train-wreck sort of way?  I don't think I could write up a better parody if I tried.

Quote from: John MorrowThe problem is that they are describing the elephant's feathers, claws, and fangs.

Isn't that thread simply amazing, in a train-wreck sort of way?  I don't think I could write up a better parody if I tried.

I was laughing my butt off here! It was astounding!

-clash

I'm not sure what the original link is getting at: you can write a story, read a story or rpg one? Not sure that follows, that is, he hasn't supported the premise that the RPG necessarily has elements of a traditional story with beginnig, middle and end, or the five act approach of theater.  Certainly you can impose one, there will be a beginning a middle and a definite conslusion end, but the link doesn't seem to be talking about such play necessarily.  

That you can construct a story out of the actions you undertake in an RPG doesn't support the premise either as far as I can see.  I can construct a story out of my day at work, (and beleive I'm sure some dice are being thrown somewhere to determine my fate:)) but I'm not telling a story in the sense of a traditional book or movie.

The only sense in which "story" matters to me in what I think of as a "proper RPG" is that I enjoy the web of meaning and signification, the relationships between characters, setting, and the history of the game that give depth to the present action.

However I strongly suspect that the introduction of the language of "story" into "what is an RPG?" texts led to a very different emphasis on the part of many readers--often regardless of what the text said otherwise. What they seem to have received was that RPGs are a way of telling stories, with implications of entitlement either to consume certain kinds of stories or to create/control them.

As I've done before, I'll compare an RPG to a game of baseball. Does a baseball game "tell a story"? In a sense, yes it does, often a very powerful one, tied up as it is in the observer's knowledge of the players, team rivalries, past victories and defeats, current standings, events of the game up to this point, etc. It can do so as much for players as for fans. Is the game a failure if it doesn't produce a certain result? No, people talk about a good game or a boring one, but nobody wants to be guaranteed a game that will turn out a certain way, or even one that will necessarily contain anything that isn't a natural function of the rules. Similarly, do players or fans want a game that they can control by any means other than, well, playing the game? No.

So, sure, there's story in an RPG, it's even produced and enjoyed in real time, but for me the enjoyment of the "story" is enhanced by the fact that it comes out of playing the game and engaging in "storytelling" as little as possible.

You failed your spot check.

It is not about creating a story for the sake of the story.
Its about the experience associated with it.

And sorry:

QuoteIf the author had said, "Walk in the forest.", "Go skiing.", or "Ride a roller coaster." then I think they'd mean what I mean by "experience".

is a delusion (or do you think you really do this stuff, when you role-play? Do you think you can get to this experience without, in some way, interacting and influencing the fictional content?).

Quote from: Elliot WilenSo, sure, there's story in an RPG, it's even produced and enjoyed in real time, but for me the enjoyment of the "story" is enhanced by the fact that it comes out of playing the game and engaging in "storytelling" as little as possible.

This is what I mean by "Story is a byproduct" of play. Well put, Eliot!

-clash

Quote from: alexandroYou failed your spot check.

It is not about creating a story for the sake of the story.
Its about the experience associated with it.

And sorry:

is a delusion (or do you think you really do this stuff, when you role-play? Do you think you can get to this experience without, in some way, interacting and influencing the fictional content?).

Mwa?

-clash

Quote from: alexandroYou failed your spot check.

I don't think so.

Quote from: alexandroIt is not about creating a story for the sake of the story.
Its about the experience associated with it.

As both Elliot and clash pointed out, it's not about the experience associated with creating a story any more than real life is about creating a story or about the experience of creating a story.  It's a byproduct.  A side effect.

Quote from: alexandroAnd sorry:

is a delusion (or do you think you really do this stuff, when you role-play? Do you think you can get to this experience without, in some way, interacting and influencing the fictional content?).

And, once again, I think that shows you are missing the point.  Of course I interact with and influence the fictional content when I play, but that's not the reason why I play.  It's a means to an end, not an end.  And one of the reason why so many of the Indie games leave me going "Huh?" is that they seem to assume that I want to spend more of my playing time fiddling with rules, interpreting dice, and controlling the "fictional content" when all I want to do is just pretend I'm my character experiencing the things my character experiences.  I don't want more control over the "fictional content" than a traditional game offers.  I don't want may games to be better stories.  That's not what I'm playing for.