https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/04/video-games-stories/524148/

Quote from: Larsdangly;959382https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/04/video-games-stories/524148/

I can at least answer the subheadline: because too many game designers fancy themselves authors rather than game designers. So they inflict their stories on us.

Quote from: Dumarest;959383I can at least answer the subheadline: because too many game designers fancy themselves authors rather than game designers. So they inflict their stories on us.

Can this be added as a warning label to every 'adventure path' style module published for every game system for the last 30 years?

What a bunch of tripe

I don't necessarily see anything wrong with a strongly plotted adventure.   Worst case scenario, I can just run it without the plot, and ignore any stuff like "the Bad Guy MUST get away, the players cannot catch him here" stuff.  What I have no use for is a strongly plotted story arc, that expects me to follow the story outline and fill in all the NPCS, Maps, etc...  Sorry dude, your plot-pointed outline isn't THAT spectacular that you can away with not giving me other shit I can use.

I've never had a plotted adventure run exactly the way it was supposed to, either.

Pretentious wankery.

" If the ultimate bar for meaning in games is set at teen fare"

The ultimate bar for meaning in games is the game.  What is the "meaning" of chess?  Of poker? Of Go?

Games are not stories.

Fuckin' pseudoartsy poser with a deadline.

You are missing the point. Yes, the essay is filled with sophomoric wankery, but the central point is that computer roleplaying games can't deliver as games when you trying to use them as a story telling vehicle, because the player of the game ends up being a passive audience rather than a player. This is exactly the point made by nearly everyone who argues for the style of table-top roleplaying games that are most associated with the OSR genre.

Quote from: Larsdangly;959419You are missing the point. Yes, the essay is filled with sophomoric wankery, but the central point is that computer roleplaying games can't deliver as games when you trying to use them as a story telling vehicle, because the player of the game ends up being a passive audience rather than a player. This is exactly the point made by nearly everyone who argues for the style of table-top roleplaying games that are most associated with the OSR genre.

True, that, but that's not the whole story.
Let's look at the beginning:).

QuoteA longstanding dream: Video games will evolve into interactive stories, like the ones that play out fictionally on the Star Trek Holodeck. In this hypothetical future, players could interact with computerized characters as round as those in novels or films, making choices that would influence an ever-evolving plot. It would be like living in a novel, where the player's actions would have as much of an influence on the story as they might in the real world.

It's an almost impossible bar to reach, for cultural reasons as much as technical ones.

However, that part is accessible to us already.
You just need a good Referee, and maybe dice;).
It is kinda possible with a videogame, too.
The common objection is, it wouldn't be a good story (as if all good books are good stories:D).

The player of a computer RPG is already a passive audience to some degree simply because they can't do anything that the programmers hadn't planned on in advance, whereas the true strength of TTRPG is that the players CAN.

So, as clumsy as it was, we get someone outside of our hobby hitting on a new (not really, but new to the medium) idea to improve his craft and the first thing we do is shit on it.

Stay classy, people.

Eh, no doubt prose have distinct advantages in the pursuit of storytelling, but my wife is a gamer because of Dragon Age -- specifically because of the story aspect of the game she loves so much. Being able to make choices within a virtual story -- even chosen from sets of limited predefined options which cannot fundamentally change the overall story trajectory -- is tremendously engaging for some people.

So different strokes, and all that.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;959428The player of a computer RPG is already a passive audience to some degree simply because they can't do anything that the programmers hadn't planned on in advance, whereas the true strength of TTRPG is that the players CAN.

And that is why I have zero interest in video games and enjoy paper 'n' pencil RPGs.

Computer games not being good vehicles for interactive storytelling is hardly a new idea.  The reaction against narrative in video games has been argued in game design circles for years.  Yet, money doesn't lie, even if it doesn't always tell the whole truth. People didn't make Bioware a household name because they don't like narratives in video games, even if they are basically a more complicated Choose Your Own Adventure instead of actual storytelling.  But, they must fire the imagination in some way, they certainly have a large enough audience.

I forgot, why do we care again what they do with video games? I mean, this forum is about RPGs of the original type. This is kind of like someone watching ESPN and complaining there aren't enough soap operas.

Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;959434Eh, no doubt prose have distinct advantages in the pursuit of storytelling, but my wife is a gamer because of Dragon Age -- specifically because of the story aspect of the game she loves so much. Being able to make choices within a virtual story -- even chosen from sets of limited predefined options which cannot fundamentally change the overall story trajectory -- is tremendously engaging for some people.

So different strokes, and all that.

I looooved the original Dragon Age, one of my favourite games of all time. Also Wasteland original. Deus Ex 2 (I never got to play 1, but that was very open from what I've read). And so on. Of course computer games arent as open as a tabletop sandbox, but they have other advantages: graphics, sound, you can play by yourself, at any time, etc.

I personally think tabletop has only two advantages vs computer games (i) you play with real friends beside you/social interaction and (ii) you can try anything with a sufficiently flexible/prepared GM. This is also why I think GM material should focus on tools to adapt to player choices/sandbox aids, as opposed to Adventure Paths, which imo computer games are better at (and will only get increasingly better at over time).