two_fishes:

Just out of curiosity, I was wondering if you could tell me how old you are, when you started playing RPGs, what got you into gaming, etc?  I get the idea that you and I are coming from quite different starting points as far as gaming is concerned, I'd just like to understand your viewpoint better.  Not looking for flamebait, just want to have an interesting conversation.

I'm 34. I got into Mentzer and Cyclopedia era D&D in junior high and then AD&D when 2nd ed came out--late 80's or so. I lived in a small town in Alberta and finding players was difficult. I collected & read supplements more than I played. When I did get to play it was always unsatisfying--often typified by long stretches of boredom punctuated with brief spurts of fun. But I remained fascinated. Magic and CCG were born just as I was moving to a city for college and that ate up my gaming. Role-playing was sporadic. I got back into rpgs around 2003 or 2004 in Toronto and I've been playing regularly since then. I had stumbled across the Forge online and found a group of people in the city trying out a lot of games that came out of there. We played a lot of different games--one-shots and short runs, but also some lengthy runs of Burning Wheel/Empires and Heroquest. Its been great. I also played in a regular D&D 3rd campaign for a couple years--fun overall, but less satisfying and often frustrating. When D&D 4th came out, I got in a regular game of that, too, for a little over a year till I moved again. The GM for that game documented it over here.

Quote from: David R;363275See, this is where I think you (because you seem like a smart guy) are being a tad disingenuous. Rolling dice is not "influencing the fiction", it's "participating" in the action. Influencing the fiction, to me, is a matter on intent. Furthermore, there is no struggle because both the GM and the player are bound by the resuts of the dice. None of them have control over the "fiction".

I'm not sure what you mean by a matter of intent. I think this may just be semantics. What's the difference between "influencing the fiction" and "participating in the action." If I say, "My guy tries to hit that orc with his axe," I'm stating a change to the imaginary world (my guy is doing something in it) and trying to affect it in a way that bumps against a place where the rules place a limit on what I'm allowed to say. I roll the dice to see if I am allowed to influence the fiction in the way that I want. If that's not a struggle it's... what? a tension? a risk?

Quote from: two_fishes;363447I'm not sure what you mean by a matter of intent. I think this may just be semantics. What's the difference between "influencing the fiction" and "participating in the action." If I say, "My guy tries to hit that orc with his axe," I'm stating a change to the imaginary world (my guy is doing something in it) and trying to affect it in a way that bumps against a place where the rules place a limit on what I'm allowed to say. I roll the dice to see if I am allowed to influence the fiction in the way that I want. If that's not a struggle it's... what? a tension? a risk?

two_fishes, do you see the difference between "my guy tries to hit that orc with an axe" and "my guy uses this turn to narrate the outcome of this scene". Now, if you can't see, the difference, then there's really no point in carryng on this conversation. When I say "intent", I mean that a player wants to contribute to the the development of the "story" not as a character but as a player. Players who roll dice during the course of the game do so as part of the "game" and not as influencing the fiction. There's no intent on the part of the player to influence the story beyond seeing where the dice takes the action.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: two_fishes;363447If I say, "My guy tries to hit that orc with his axe," I'm stating a change to the imaginary world (my guy is doing something in it) and trying to affect it in a way that bumps against a place where the rules place a limit on what I'm allowed to say. I roll the dice to see if I am allowed to influence the fiction in the way that I want. If that's not a struggle it's... what? a tension? a risk?

Part of the disconnect, at least for me is that in 30+ years of gaming, I don't think I've ever had a player who thought of our games as "fiction." I tend to run sandbox campaigns. I don't have a story to tell nor do the players. Instead they just do things in the world.

Sure, in hindsight, their actions in the world may create a story they can later tell, but no one is concerned with controlling that story -- or even whether what they do will make a good story -- while the characters are doing it.  It's something like the way real people act in real life. They just do what they are doing and aren't concerned whether what they are doing would be a good story.

Quote from: RandallS;363455It's something like the way real people act in real life. They just do what they are doing and aren't concerned whether what they are doing would be a good story.

Unless they're pretentious, arty-farty twats.

Quote from: David R;363454two_fishes, do you see the difference between "my guy tries to hit that orc with an axe" and "my guy uses this turn to narrate the outcome of this scene". Now, if you can't see, the difference, then there's really no point in carryng on this conversation.

I find the second half of that comparison nonsensical. A fictional character doesn't narrate anything. But I do see "my guy uses his axe to gut the orc" as shorthand for and fundamentally identical to I narrate an outcome for this scene by describing the actions of my guy.

QuoteWhen I say "intent", I mean that a player wants to contribute to the the development of the "story" not as a character but as a player. Players who roll dice during the course of the game do so as part of the "game" and not as influencing the fiction. There's no intent on the part of the player to influence the story beyond seeing where the dice takes the action.

Maybe it's the word fiction that's causing a misunderstanding, with its connotations of story. I'm trying to use it to say players try to control pieces of what happens in the made-up stuff that all members of the group are collaboratively creating. Rules and dice limit what they are allowed to say. Any time a player describes anything in the made-up stuff, there's intent to change the made-up stuff. Participating in the game is influencing the fiction.

I mean, I think I get what you're trying to point out to me--that there's a difference between someone describing the actions of a character with the intent of shaping an unfolding story, and someone who describes the actions of a character with the intent of having an experience by proxy. We seem to have gotten hung up on a misunderstanding caused poor word choice on my part.

Quote from: two_fishes;363458I find the second half of that comparison nonsensical. A fictional character doesn't narrate anything. But I do see "my guy uses his axe to gut the orc" as shorthand for and fundamentally identical to I narrate an outcome for this scene by describing the actions of my guy.

My bad. I meant to say, "I narrate the outcome of this scene". I suspected that you would see them as fundamentaly the same. They are not. I believe the reason why you see them as the same, is because, Forge games/theory has a way of deconstructing/conflating various game experiences and concepts until they are essentially the same, thereby making it easier to fit into the desired slots.

QuoteMaybe it's the word fiction that's causing a misunderstanding, with its connotations of story. I'm trying to use it to say players try to control pieces of what happens in the made-up stuff that all members of the group are collaboratively creating. Rules and dice limit what they are allowed to say. Any time a player describes anything in the made-up stuff, there's intent to change the made-up stuff. Participating in the game is influencing the fiction.

Right. But there's a difference (which apparently you don't see) between creating and participating. I'm not arguing that players don't influence the "story". What I'm saying is that there's a very real difference between players wanting to create stories (and rules supporting this kind of play) and players wanting to participate in a fictional setting. In the latter, players don't have a "story" they want to tell. Any influence they have on the fiction is a byproduct of their particpation in a game.

QuoteI mean, I think I get what you're trying to point out to me--that there's a difference between someone describing the actions of a character with the intent of shaping an unfolding story, and someone who describes the actions of a character with the intent of having an experience by proxy. We seem to have gotten hung up on a misunderstanding caused poor word choice on my part.

There is no misunderstanding. It's just two extremely different approaches to gaming. Much as you would like them to be the same, they aren't, two_fishes. I'm not saying that if your goal is to create a "story", you are not playing an rpg. I'm saying that if you think, that the goal of an rpg is to create a story, you're wrong. Or maybe I'm wrong. Who knows.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: RandallS;363455Part of the disconnect, at least for me is that in 30+ years of gaming, I don't think I've ever had a player who thought of our games as "fiction." I tend to run sandbox campaigns. I don't have a story to tell nor do the players. Instead they just do things in the world.

And in my 8+ years of gaming (really, we're counting years now?), I've seen plenty of new entrants in the hobby who do believe story is a part of it, people who've never encountered the Forge, or theory, and some who even don't know who White-Wolf is, because they associate RPGs with the fantasy fiction that they love.  It's a cultural disconnect that goes way back to Dragonlance (playing specific scenarios again and again to achieve the desired dramatic effects for a "story", and "making sense" -- attaching real dramatic meaning -- to the in-game events) and Forgotten Realms (Greenwood has said his sessions often looked more like improv theater sessions than a "real" AD&D game), between the people who created RPGs ("What if we play individual soldiers on the battlefield...we could have them eventually gain their own empires and expand their realms in a sandbox world!") to people who came into the hobby en masse during its peak ("I love Lord of the Rings, this game looks awesome! This should be like the books!").

Hell, you could say some aspects of it even go back to Arneson, who seemed to care more about the thespy aspects than the rules or simulating a world.  He also apparently had quite a few mechanics that would be considered "weird" by OSR types (not being able to get the full benefit of your XP unless you acted upon your obsessions, etc.).

It's not a wonder that you'd have a split between those who care about story and those who care about the game and/or world simulation aspects when you've got two different groups of people (or more) playing the same kind of games.  FWIW, though, most "story-games" focus on creating stories through play, not playing out pre-designed plots like White-Wolf games tended to focus on.

Quote from: two_fishes;362890Why take it for granted? Why not question and discuss these things? Why not question our assumptions?

Because they tell you. People have been trying to push various types of "shared narrative control" for a long time. It's not like the ideas are unfamiliar, especially on this forum. If someone tells you they don't care for that stuff, it's not because of some unthinking traditionalism purely with regard to form. They actually have a reason, which 99% of the time is exactly as I say, because they want to pretend to be an elf, not tell a story about an elf.

QuoteIsn't that what forums are for?

No, frankly, they're to have interesting discussions, and I've never had an interesting discussion with a Jehovah's Witness knocking on my door or any other type of evangelist.

Quote from: RandallS;363455Part of the disconnect, at least for me is that in 30+ years of gaming, I don't think I've ever had a player who thought of our games as "fiction."

This. For most people I know, including myself, role-playing depicts actual events as they occur, not "fiction". Or in other words "[T]hey want to pretend to be an elf, not tell a story about an elf," to quote Elliot.

Quote from: Benoist;363477This. For most people I know, including myself, role-playing depicts actual events as they occur, not "fiction". Or in other words "[T]hey want to pretend to be an elf, not tell a story about an elf," to quote Elliot.

I really wouldn't consider filling in minor details to be telling a story about an elf.  Nor do I know many indie games that allow you the level of control to "tell a story."  As I said, the story is usually created through play, just like a "story" could be created through play with a trad game.  The difference is the focus of the mechanics in "story-games" is pushing the events toward more interesting conflicts rather than just arbitrarily moving about in the world.  It's a matter of style, not a matter of stance, and you can do the same sort of thing with a trad game, the difference is that one system supports it mechanically and the other doesn't.  Nor is it any more about "telling" story than a sandbox D&D campaign.  It's about the creation, not the exposition.

I'm far from a Forgite, and I love me some trad games, especially sandboxxy things, but I think some of the things people here consider negative aspects of these "weird" play-styles are a bit overstated.

Quote from: David R;363461My bad. I meant to say, "I narrate the outcome of this scene". I suspected that you would see them as fundamentaly the same. They are not. I believe the reason why you see them as the same, is because, Forge games/theory has a way of deconstructing/conflating various game experiences and concepts until they are essentially the same, thereby making it easier to fit into the desired slots.

Right. But there's a difference (which apparently you don't see) between creating and participating. I'm not arguing that players don't influence the "story". What I'm saying is that there's a very real difference between players wanting to create stories (and rules supporting this kind of play) and players wanting to participate in a fictional setting. In the latter, players don't have a "story" they want to tell. Any influence they have on the fiction is a byproduct of their particpation in a game.

There is no misunderstanding. It's just two extremely different approaches to gaming. Much as you would like them to be the same, they aren't, two_fishes. I'm not saying that if your goal is to create a "story", you are not playing an rpg. I'm saying that if you think, that the goal of an rpg is to create a story, you're wrong. Or maybe I'm wrong. Who knows.

I do get that. I do understand that... well what I said

Quote from: two_fishes;363458there's a difference between someone describing the actions of a character with the intent of shaping an unfolding story, and someone who describes the actions of a character with the intent of having an experience by proxy.

But regardless of the intent of the player--and it feels dumb to say this but--stuff is being made up! When Benoist says players roleplaying depicts actual events as they occur, well... it doesn't! That's wrong! Role-playing depicts imagined events as they're imagined to occur. If you're describing what is actually going on at a roleplaying table, it's a group of players making stuff up. Who gets to make up what is adjudicated by the rules and by the custom of the group.

And I get that depending on your reason for playing you're going to deal with who gets describe what and when in different ways.

When I asked a poster why they felt their ownership of the fiction was so important (which I think is what sparked this tangent), I meant just that they seemed to jealously cling to a certain way of deciding who gets to say what and when without giving a good reason for it. Most of the people I responded to have since given pretty good reasons for why they're invested in the way they play, and for the most part I haven't pursued it any further because I get it. Or at least I think I get it. Or, in any case, I don't have any follow-up questions to ask.

But I don't know. Maybe I am missing something.

QuoteWhy take it for granted? Why not question and discuss these things? Why not question our assumptions? Isn't that what forums are for?

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;363476No, frankly, they're to have interesting discussions

Am I speaking moon speak or something? figuring out what you take for granted, what your assumptions are, why you hold them, what other people think, what their assumptions are, why they think the way they think--that's exactly what interesting discussion is to me. Otherwise what are we doing? Just rearranging our prejudices, I guess.

Quote from: two_fishes;363481But regardless of the intent of the player--and it feels dumb to say this but--stuff is being made up! When Benoist says players roleplaying depicts actual events as they occur, well... it doesn't! That's wrong! Role-playing depicts imagined events as they're imagined to occur. If you're describing what is actually going on at a roleplaying table, it's a group of players making stuff up.

Intent is important. It's why I assume you like certain play experiences over others. Reducing what goes on around the game table to "people just making stuff up" is the kind of dodgy thinking that get's ForgeFolk into trouble. We are not just talking about Role Playing, we are discussing Role Playing Games.

QuoteWho gets to make up what is adjudicated by the rules and by the custom of the group.

Agreed.

QuoteWhen I asked a poster why they felt their ownership of the fiction was so important (which I think is what sparked this tangent), I meant just that they seemed to jealously cling to a certain way of deciding who gets to say what and when without giving a good reason for it.

Above you said that "who gets to make up what is adjudicated by the rules and by the custom of the group". So, you understand this, what the hell more is there to discuss? And why add the mischievous "jealously cling" in your reply ?

QuoteBut I don't know. Maybe I am missing something.

Must...not..take..easy...counterattack....

Regards,
David R