Quote from: MaddmanI would care about how you play.  Start a thread, or discuss it here.

No thanks. It's boring, and it gets me looked at like I'm a weird bug or something. Even in r.f.g.a, and that was the nicest group I ever dealt with online (before GDS torn it apart anyway).

Quote from: gleichmanNo thanks. It's boring, and it gets me looked at like I'm a weird bug or something. Even in r.f.g.a, and that was the nicest group I ever dealt with online (before GDS torn it apart anyway).

You think the way you play is boring?  Then why do you play that way?

Or you think talking about how you play is boring.  Then why do you come into all the theory threads?

What are you actually looking for?  :confused:

Quote from: MaddmanYou think the way you play is boring?  Then why do you play that way?

I love the way I play. It's boring to those who don't play that way however, which is by far most people online.

But I'll take you up on it if you wish.

Check these out: http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/collists/elements.html

They will likely put you to sleep before you finish the first. If not, I'll be here for any questions. At least for a few more days.

Quote from: gleichmanThe point is that I've had the perfect site three times. First r.f.g.a, then HF, then RPGNet. Each time theory types with the same lame thoughts come along and wreck it.

I already knew that Nunkinland isn't a suitable place for me. That's why I'm only staying until the end of the 'debate', although given how that's gone it's taking an act of will to stay. There are a couple of cool people here and that helps.

I'm not trying to change anything here. I'm just venting at finding the same crap yet again.

...wreck it?

Could you come down here on the ground for a bit?  My neck hurts, trying to talk with you on that cross you've built for yourself.

There is nobody here - not one person - who's trying to keep anyone from talking about whatever damn topic they wish.  Are you such a special snowflake that you can't handle conversations about topics you don't care for coexisting with topics you do?

If that's the case, you're right - you're on the wrong board.

-O

Quote from: obrynCould you come down here on the ground for a bit?  My neck hurts, trying to talk with you on that cross you've built for yourself.

I already promised Dr A as cease fire on this subject.

Quote from: Dr_AvalancheAll true. Just like Pundit and gleichman seems to suggest that when roleplaying veers too far into storytelling/story-creation, it stops being roleplaying, I suggest that when you have so few narrative elements that it doesn't turn into a story, it's not a roleplaying game either, but a wargame. I think everybody who are actually involved in these discussions *are* playing roleplaying games where stories are created. If you call them narratives instead, it doesn't really matter, it's the same thing as far as I'm concerned.
 
If someone would claim that the typical roleplaying adventure (get a motivation, go through hardship, reach goal) doesn't form a story, then we don't have a common language to talk about these things with, which is even more reason for the theorists to continue their work creating that common language.

See, this is the type of either deliberate misrepresentation, or honest miscommunication (only you know for sure) that I'm talking about. I certainly have not, nor has either gleichman or PRGPundit (as far as I can see by their posts), denied that RPG playing results in stories (or narratives, tall-tales, bold-face lies, or whatever ya wanna call 'em). What we are saying is that RPGs (at least the best-selling/most popular) are not designed for the express purpose of creating a story, any more than any other game. The "story" structure you put forth in the quote above is contained in stories, but is not exclusive to them. Every game I've ever played, from Texas Hold-em through Chutes and Ladders to Clue and Scrabble have the exact same structure (Motivation: money/victory; Hardship: play hands, navigate rules/board; Reach Goal: win money/game). If certain elements of writing a novel can be used to make YOUR game more enjoyable for you and yours, then more power to ya. That does not mean that the whole point of RPGs is to create a story.

Whether certain individuals have certain motivations or not doesn't mean much with regards to how ridiculous this whole vocabulary and theory nonsense sounds. The need for new buzzwords and making statements like "create story" (instead of "creating a story") makes it all sound completely elitest and pathetic anyway. There's nothing wrong the language we already have, I for one have no need for any "theorists" to create any new language in order to talk about fuckin' games (or any other kinds of games for that matter).

Shit, Maddman talks about how they are all adults and don't have time and all that, but I don't see how going to all the trouble of injecting all this theory stuff (not to mention just learning all the new associated vocabulary involved) saves any time whatsoever. I'm also an adult, almost 40 in fact. I am married, I am employed, I have a 7 month old son to care for, yet I have time to play RPGs and enjoy them immensely without using fancy words and high-fallutin' theory.

Maybe it's just that these techniques work better for the games based on TV shows or something, I dunno. It just all sounds completely silly to me.

Quote from: SigmundShit, Maddman talks about how they are all adults and don't have time and all that, but I don't see how going to all the trouble of injecting all this theory stuff (not to mention just learning all the new associated vocabulary involved) saves any time whatsoever.

Go back up to where Maddman defines terms.  Read out the term, then read out the definition.

If you want to be able to sit around a table with your friends, and discuss what makes your games better for your group, which will be easier?


I know I sure as hell don't want to type about how the Generic Universal Roleplaying System operates in regards to combat as opposed to Dungeons and Dragons, version 3.5, using only the Dungeon Master's guide, Player's Handbook and Monster Manual.

You may counter with "Acronyms are different." but really, they aren't.  They're simply place holders to convey larger amounts of information with minimal words.


Maddmann could sit down with his friends, and say "I want to run a front-loaded Buffy game, focused mostly on bangers.  What do you guys think?" *.  This saves a whole lot of time, especially when they talk about the characters they want to create for the upcoming game, and how they want the game to proceed.

:2cents:


* I'll be buggered if I know whether or not I actually used those terms correctly, I just skimmed that part.

Quote from: MaddmanNo, they seem to really like it.  There's always something for everyone to do - just because it's the witch's episode that doesn't mean that the Slayer and the Werewolf won't be able to do some character development or kick some vampire ass.  And knowing upfront that everyone gets their turn in the spotlight makes them a little more patient.  I've talked to them about it and no one feels shortchanged.

I suppose then, that this isn't a problem for you. I think I'd get bored with it myself, but to each their own.

QuoteTo be honest, because I'm an adult now.  When I was a teen and gamed every week, or hell every day, then sure we could organically build up to these conflicts.  We don't have the time for these slow gradual buildups.  If I'm going to keep the attention of five people with super busy lives enough to keep the group together I need it to be awesome and I need it to be awesome NOW.  If I wait for the buildup six sessions from now the campaign would fizzle.  That happened about four times before I started this game.

I'm an adult, and it works fine for me. I can't imagine that there's much difference between a slower build-up and having to wait a month or more for my time in the spotlight, except that with slower build-ups I can usually juggle a couple different conflicts at the same time which means we have something significant happening almost every session.

QuoteYou nailed it, another way to provide conflict.  And no, it isn't anything overly remarkable.  It's appeared in movies and books as well as RPGs for ages now.  By giving it a name it gives you an easy way to talk about and implement it.

What's wrong with calling it "moral dilemma", or "judgement call", or "personality clash", etc. These are things I think everyone would understand perfectly without the need for a new, fancy, special word.

QuoteThis is another difference.  I'm not referencing reality when I judge what is acceptable in a game.  I'm referencing literary conventions.  It all depends on the genre you are playing in.  The game I'm running now is like an action movie - I don't really care how many stakes the PCs have on them, or how far it is from the high school to the graveyard.  Doesn't matter.  If its reasonable for them to have a stake on hand, they have it.  If they disagree, then I can charge them a Drama Point.  High School to the Graveyard, we cut scene from one to the other.

So the genre decides whether the game is designed to create a story, or play a game? Don't you think that NOT having a stake when it's needed might be important too? If you do, but you don't keep track of whether the PCs made a point of bringing stakes, then how will you know if they have them or not? If you don't know, then if you were to decide NOT having a stake might be interesting at a given moment, do you just decree that for some unknown reason the PCs have forgotten the stakes this time?

As for time compression, we all do that.....we don't need theory or specialized vocabulary for it either.

QuoteAs for what the GM is doing?  The work in running this kind of game is just as much if not more than running a pastiche game.  The difference is where the work is.  There's not a whole lot of prep work.  Figure out the conflicts you want to toss at the players, write up a couple of guesses as to what they'll do, and write up some stats.  The main work is in-game.  Because I can't tell what direction the players will go I have to be willing ready and able to toss all my preconcieved notions out the window and roll in a totally different direction.  While that's always true, this is a much greater challenge than going through an area I built up earlier.  This style I find far more challenging and interesting, but perhaps that's because I've done it, well, your way for many years.  

It doesn't sound like the work you do for your game is any more or less than what I do. I don't have much prep work, as I prefer to improvise much of the game. That is, after the setting is in place...the setting-building takes work, which is what I was getting at really. I'm not going to build my own setting if players can change it at will to suit them. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what the limits of the players authority is in the game you describe. If so, then please correct me.

QuoteWell Buffy pretty much has script immunity.  And many games can be ran in that style.  If you're going to say through mechanics or not that PCs will only die when it's important, you should let them know "Hey, this is important."

That's why I prefer games that don't say through mechanics that the PCs will only die if it's important. If that choice is to be made, then I want to be the one to make it without my players feeling cheated. I want my players (and apparently they do too) to believe that every fight could be their character's last.

QuoteBut even with a long term open ended game, one can easily put plot arcs into it.  And to be clear, when I talk about the story structure of introduction->rising action->climax->ending I mean that I do this within one game session.  If the game needs to be cut short, I'll change things around to get some kind of satisfying climax.  If they're going too fast I'll throw in some things to slow them down.  In general, time to talk and analyze slows the plot while conflict speeds it up.  Using these as my 'pedals', most of the time the game follows this pattern.

We don't do this at all. We end when we're too tired or we reach a point where we can stop without having to remember where we were and what was happening in detail. Seems to work for us. Anything else seems like more work than it's worth to me.

QuoteAnd I'm saying two things - your conscious effort is irrelevent.  Playing an RPG creates a story.  Playing D&D, any flavor, creates a story.  Fuck, playing FATAL creates a story.  Not one I want to hear, but it'll create it.    

And I'm saying playing ANYTHING creates a story, but that doesn't mean that creating a story is the point. That doesn't mean the referencing literary structure or writing technique is going to make RPGs better. I can reference reality and make fantastic and highly memorable games. Hell, even TV shows are being made "more real" these days, and TV has never been better IMO. When I'm gaming I like accounting for myy wizard's possessions. I even used to detail all his spell components, because my goal was to bring the character to life. I decided what his goals, faults, and quirks were...without the rules forcing me to. In the game I assumed the role of my character to explore and interact with a world created and brought to life in great detail by a very talented GM. When I used up all of a spell component, the GM knew it and when I forgot to replentish he knew that too. That I suddenly needed the spell and couldn't use it added more than it took away in our game...it was memorable I assure you.

Quote from: there_is_no_bobGo back up to where Maddman defines terms.  Read out the term, then read out the definition.

If you want to be able to sit around a table with your friends, and discuss what makes your games better for your group, which will be easier?


I know I sure as hell don't want to type about how the Generic Universal Roleplaying System operates in regards to combat as opposed to Dungeons and Dragons, version 3.5, using only the Dungeon Master's guide, Player's Handbook and Monster Manual.

You may counter with "Acronyms are different." but really, they aren't.  They're simply place holders to convey larger amounts of information with minimal words.


Maddmann could sit down with his friends, and say "I want to run a front-loaded Buffy game, focused mostly on bangers.  What do you guys think?" *.  This saves a whole lot of time, especially when they talk about the characters they want to create for the upcoming game, and how they want the game to proceed.

:2cents:


* I'll be buggered if I know whether or not I actually used those terms correctly, I just skimmed that part.

If "front-loaded" and "bangers" were the only terms then I might agree, but they are only the tip of a verbal iceberg apparently. Never checked out the Forge myself, but just the theory terms thrown about here could make a decent glossary. BTW, I read the terms/definitions once already. Once was enough.

I've never had trouble sitting around a table talking with my friends about games using words already in our vocabulary, we've never had any need to make new ones.

Oh, and acronyms are different. They take less time to type, yet convey the same info. That is a difference.

Quote from: SigmundSee, this is the type of either deliberate misrepresentation, or honest miscommunication (only you know for sure) that I'm talking about. I certainly have not, nor has either gleichman or PRGPundit (as far as I can see by their posts), denied that RPG playing results in stories (or narratives, tall-tales, bold-face lies, or whatever ya wanna call 'em).

Call it miscommunication then, because that's what I kept hearing (though not necessarily from you).

QuoteWhat we are saying is that RPGs (at least the best-selling/most popular) are not designed for the express purpose of creating a story, any more than any other game. The "story" structure you put forth in the quote above is contained in stories, but is not exclusive to them. Every game I've ever played, from Texas Hold-em through Chutes and Ladders to Clue and Scrabble have the exact same structure (Motivation: money/victory; Hardship: play hands, navigate rules/board; Reach Goal: win money/game).

There's an element of narrative lacking in all of those games. Strictly speaking though, you could absolutely create a story based on those games.

QuoteIf certain elements of writing a novel can be used to make YOUR game more enjoyable for you and yours, then more power to ya. That does not mean that the whole point of RPGs is to create a story.

No, it isn't. We're not in disagreement about that.

QuoteWhether certain individuals have certain motivations or not doesn't mean much with regards to how ridiculous this whole vocabulary and theory nonsense sounds. The need for new buzzwords and making statements like "create story" (instead of "creating a story") makes it all sound completely elitest and pathetic anyway. There's nothing wrong the language we already have, I for one have no need for any "theorists" to create any new language in order to talk about fuckin' games (or any other kinds of games for that matter).

Agreed, for most part. There is no reason to reinvent the language. But at the same time when we frequently talk about concepts that really only exist in roleplaying, assigning words to those concepts become useful.

QuoteShit, Maddman talks about how they are all adults and don't have time and all that, but I don't see how going to all the trouble of injecting all this theory stuff (not to mention just learning all the new associated vocabulary involved) saves any time whatsoever. I'm also an adult, almost 40 in fact. I am married, I am employed, I have a 7 month old son to care for, yet I have time to play RPGs and enjoy them immensely without using fancy words and high-fallutin' theory.

I think there's a misconception here. We don't inject rpg theory in our games. We learn from the theories how to create a game better suited to our desires, and create techniques based on that. Those techniques doesn't take any more time to use than traditional prep for an rpg game, probably less.

QuoteMaybe it's just that these techniques work better for the games based on TV shows or something, I dunno. It just all sounds completely silly to me.

I think maybe you can make a parallell to tv shows (like Buffy, or Alias, or 24), but there's definitely no need to base the game on a tv show for these methods to work well.
There's no hokus pokus about it. It's just simple GM techniques that put focus on who the characters are, or might become when you put them under a bit of pressure. It doesn't sound silly to me.

Quote from: SigmundIf "front-loaded" and "bangers" were the only terms then I might agree, but they are only the tip of a verbal iceberg apparently. Never checked out the Forge myself, but just the theory terms thrown about here could make a decent glossary. BTW, I read the terms/definitions once already. Once was enough.

The Forge has their own glossary.

Thing is, there's nothing new in it. All these things are just new words attached to old advice published here and there, I think I can find most of it in my HERO Systems books (all the stuff Maddman talks about for example).


Here's the glossary by the way.
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/glossary.html

I think you should start threads on topics that interest you, gleichman. I am among those who are confused why you'd get irritated at a site for threads you're reading anyway.

Quote from: Name LipsI think you should start threads on topics that interest you, gleichman. I am among those who are confused why you'd get irritated at a site for threads you're reading anyway.

I'm not irritated at the site as such. I'm irritated that every general rpg site I go to is ruled by the silly theorists. And I like to chime in on thread where they are being whacked on.

Don't worry, I'm about to leave anyway so I won't be in anyone's hair for much longer.

Quote from: SigmundIf "front-loaded" and "bangers" were the only terms then I might agree, but they are only the tip of a verbal iceberg apparently. Never checked out the Forge myself, but just the theory terms thrown about here could make a decent glossary. BTW, I read the terms/definitions once already. Once was enough.

And what difference does any of that make?  They want to talk about esoteric concepts and crap that really doesn't matter to you, why should you care?  It happens in any area where people gather together and try and talk about something.  They'll start talking about the same things, over and over again, and then they'll invent a word for it (at least in English).  That's pretty much how this language works.

Quote from: SigmundI've never had trouble sitting around a table talking with my friends about games using words already in our vocabulary, we've never had any need to make new ones.

Yep, there's no need.  There's also no need to ever say DeeEmGee, ans opposed to Dungeon Master's Guide.  If I'm going to be talking about the DMG much, though, I certainly know which one I'm going to use.

Quote from: SigmundOh, and acronyms are different. They take less time to type, yet convey the same info. That is a difference.

And to someone who understands the word as it is defined in that context, these things do the same.

If you go up to someone who isn't aquainted with an acronym and start using it, you'll have to explain it.  The same holds with any piece of new vocabulary.

Really, you could say "giant ball of matter that has become so dense that anything going past the event horizon, including light, gets absorbed into it" or you could say "black hole".  One is easier to type, but they both convey pretty much the same information.

Story in games can be arrived at in a number of different ways and yes, D&D or GURPS or whatever can create a story.  No system creates story better than any other but how you get there is preference and everyone will take their systemic tea in a different way.

Quoting my "swine" source:

QuoteStory
Long ago, I concluded that "story" as a role-playing term was standing in for several different processes and goals, some of which were incompatible. Here's the terms-breakdown I'll be using from now on.

All role-playing necessarily produces a sequence of imaginary events. Go ahead and role-play, and write down what happened to the characters, where they went, and what they did. I'll call that event-summary the "transcript." But some transcripts have, as Pooh might put it, a "little something," specifically a theme: a judgmental point, perceivable as a certain charge they generate for the listener or reader. If a transcript has one (or rather, if it does that), I'll call it a story.

Let's say that the following transcript, which also happens to be a story, arose from one or more sessions of role-playing.

Lord Gyrax rules over a realm in which a big dragon has begun to ravage the countryside. The lord prepares himself to deal with it, perhaps trying to settle some internal strife among his followers or allies. He also meets this beautiful, mysterious woman named Javenne who aids him at times, and they develop a romance. Then he learns that she and the dragon are one and the same, as she's been cursed to become a dragon periodically in a kind of Ladyhawke situation, and he must decide whether to kill her. Meanwhile, she struggles to control the curse, using her dragon-powers to quell an uprising in the realm led by a traitorous ally. Eventually he goes to the Underworld instead and confronts the god who cursed her, and trades his youth to the god to lift the curse. He returns, and the curse is detached from her, but still rampaging around as a dragon. So they slay the dragon together, and return as a couple, still united although he's now all old, to his home.

The real question: after reading the transcript and recognizing it as a story, what can be said about the Creative Agenda that was involved during the role-playing? The answer is, absolutely nothing. We don't know whether people played it Gamist, Simulationist, or Narrativist, or any combination of the three. A story can be produced through any Creative Agenda. The mere presence of story as the product of role-playing is not a GNS-based issue.

the quote's source