TheRPGSite

The Pistols at Dawn thread got me thinking about RPGs and how they relate to stories, and I think it highlights the point where I believe pundit is the most incorrect.  

It got me thinking about an article I read in Dragon Magazine once many moons ago.  It was an interview by Dave Arnusan, and he was talking about the first RPG session ever.  He still remembers the first one.  They were playing Chainmail, having fantasy armies attack castles and such.  They decided that it would be cool if a team of characters snuck in and opened the castle gates.  It just sort of happened, each player choosing one figure to be their character, and turned it into an RPG session about the team sneaking in and opening the gates.

Now what is the fundamental difference between that and every other wargaming session?  It stopped just being a game, and started being a story.  Not using some 'pretentious' definition of story, but the regular one.  There's some guys, and they do some stuff, and some stuff happens.

That is my conclusion - that without a story, you don't have an RPG.  It doesn't have to be a good story, or an interesting one, or a complex one.  I mean "We went down into the caves and killed some goblins and Eric's dude fell in a pit and I found a +3 sword" is a story.  I'm sure Pundit would say that without the game elements you don't have an RPG either, but I think I'd say that the uncertainty of outcome combined with story creation is the essential ingredient to making an RPG.  Even the most railroady GM will still have everyone roll dice, and even the most diceless, gameless system will rely heavily on player actions.

So can we have rules that create a better story?  That's what all rules are for.  It's all a matter of taste, what kind of story you want to create.  There's no such thing as an organic or artificial story, because there's no such thing as an RPG without a story.  The Forgey front loaded games aren't "better" at creating story, they're better at creating conflict and heavy drama ASAP.  The people who like them find that satisfying.  D&D creates tactical stories with heroes who start weak and uncertain and rise to the level of near gods.  The people who like that find them satisfying.  And you can certainly use a game to create other kinds of stories, if the GM and players agree to go in that direction.  But left to their own devices and with the default assumptions, every game tends to create its own kind of story.

It's all stories, and there's nothing pretentious or artsy about it.  That's what we do and what we've always done.

Quote from: MaddmanNow what is the fundamental difference between that and every other wargaming session?  It stopped just being a game, and started being a story.

That is so lame.

Even if true, it's meaningless. And it also means that I was playing RPGs years before D&D hit the shelves because all the wargames I played were stories. Somehow I don't think I'm alone in that.

Quote from: gleichmanAnd it also means that I was playing RPGs years before D&D hit the shelves because all the wargames I played were stories.

If you were really thinking yourself into the role as commander of your forces - even asking "What would Wellington do?" in a Napoleonic wargame for example, then, yes

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonIf you were really thinking yourself into the role as commander of your forces - even asking "What would Wellington do?" in a Napoleonic wargame for example, then, yes

Then it's a meaningless insight. Akin to pointing out the sky is blue and expecting people to hail your wisdom.

I know I take on personas when I play other games where it's feasible. So in Monopoly, I'm not pretending to be a boot or a sailship, but for example in "A Game of Thrones" boardgame, whatever faction I get to play, I try to play them as I imagine they would according to the books.

Quote from: MaddmanSo can we have rules that create a better story?  That's what all rules are for.  It's all a matter of taste, what kind of story you want to create.

I think that's a good point.  Maybe not rules but guidelines.  For example, not just present opponents for the gm to use, but explain why they are good and what sorts of stories they would work for.

 I think that's been the key ingredient that has caused many games to succeed or fail in the market: How much does it inspire a good story.  Not directly always but how easy is it to create and interesting character.  It's far easier to create stories around interesting characters than balanced or powerful characters.

Examples:  
It seems that most people didn't know what sort of stories they could create with Transhuman Space.

M&M inspires many people to create super heros that they player finds cool.  Its success isn't just from easy to use mechanics (though those help), it's also because it makes people want to put their cool super heroes through their paces.

Traveller was both excellent and horrible at this, which is probably why some people got into it and some didn't.  It was good at the details (I've got these skills and I know exactly how my equipment works)  and the big picture (what's going on at the empire level) but most of the modules offered only crude info at the story level: how to guid the group from one scene to the next and the pros and cons of various approaches to putting together the pieces of the adventure.

Quote from: MaddmanIt's all stories, and there's nothing pretentious or artsy about it.  That's what we do and what we've always done.

I think stories could be a byproduct of an rpg session.I think there are  some designers who believe that rpgs are about creating stories and have tried to create rules that reflect this belief. I believe that because of the interactive nature of the game, perhaps it is convenient to say we create stories - I don't believe this is necessarily the case.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: MaddmanThat is my conclusion - that without a story, you don't have an RPG.  It doesn't have to be a good story, or an interesting one, or a complex one.  I mean "We went down into the caves and killed some goblins and Eric's dude fell in a pit and I found a +3 sword" is a story.  I'm sure Pundit would say that without the game elements you don't have an RPG either, but I think I'd say that the uncertainty of outcome combined with story creation is the essential ingredient to making an RPG.  Even the most railroady GM will still have everyone roll dice, and even the most diceless, gameless system will rely heavily on player actions.

So can we have rules that create a better story?  That's what all rules are for.  It's all a matter of taste, what kind of story you want to create.  There's no such thing as an organic or artificial story, because there's no such thing as an RPG without a story.  The Forgey front loaded games aren't "better" at creating story, they're better at creating conflict and heavy drama ASAP.  The people who like them find that satisfying.  D&D creates tactical stories with heroes who start weak and uncertain and rise to the level of near gods.  The people who like that find them satisfying.  And you can certainly use a game to create other kinds of stories, if the GM and players agree to go in that direction.  But left to their own devices and with the default assumptions, every game tends to create its own kind of story.

This is where I think you misunderstand RPGPundit, and where I think you're mistaken. RPGPundit, once you get past his verbal style, has never denied that RPGs tell stories. What he denies is that RPGs are for the purpose of "creating" stories. I agree with him.

RPG rules are meant to inject an element of uncertainty into the game, and to (hopefully) allow all the players to participate in a manner and volume that that individual finds comfortable. The story comes from the imaginations of the participants, and IMO is rarely ever "created" purposefully (meaning the goal from the git-go was to "create" a story).

All games tell stories, as has been pointed out. gleichman was spot on IMO, even the wargames Arneson and Co. were playing before the castle storming were stories, it's just the castle storming was a different kind, and I doubt very seriously if they went into that activity for the purpose of telling a story...they just wanted to have fun playing their game in a way that might be "cool".

Let me speak from my perspective and explain why I resist all the "creating story" business. It just sounds pretentious to me. You might not be coming from that place, but it sounds that way just the same. These are fucking games, and all this "theory" talk and "creating story" nonsense comes across to me the same way a buncha people talking about architectural principals when they're preparing to play with legos.

Sure, RPGs go into more detail and complexity than chess, Monopoly, or even the Game of Life. That doesn't change the fact that they are games...that's all....just games. Once again as gleichman pointed out, the fact that a game of DnD tells a story means nothing, so does a game of Life. Neither of those games are designed expressly for the purpose of telling a story beyond this story, "Holy shit that game was fun...let's do it again next week."

Quote from: SigmundAll games tell stories, as has been pointed out. gleichman was spot on IMO, even the wargames Arneson and Co. were playing before the castle storming were stories, it's just the castle storming was a different kind, and I doubt very seriously if they went into that activity for the purpose of telling a story...they just wanted to have fun playing their game in a way that might be "cool".

The original conditions for when a wargame crossed over into a rpg were:

1. The existence of individual characters with personalities that influenced their actions in the game.

2. The use of those same characters from 'battle to next battle'.

3. Advancement rules for improving such characters.

4. The existence of and depiction of characters between battles or in areas others than battles.


Items 1-3 could be found in wargames for some time previous to D&D. It was only a matter of time before someone got the bright idea of adding #4 to the mix and the traditional rpg appeared on the scene.

Quote from: SigmundThis is where I think you misunderstand RPGPundit, and where I think you're mistaken. RPGPundit, once you get past his verbal style, has never denied that RPGs tell stories. What he denies is that RPGs are for the purpose of "creating" stories. I agree with him.

Pundit's poor communications skills are not my problem.  What something does is its purpose.  If an RPG tells stories then their purpose is creating stories.  I don't see how it could be any other way.

QuoteRPG rules are meant to inject an element of uncertainty into the game, and to (hopefully) allow all the players to participate in a manner and volume that that individual finds comfortable. The story comes from the imaginations of the participants, and IMO is rarely ever "created" purposefully (meaning the goal from the git-go was to "create" a story).

I disagree.  The goal in playing an RPG is creating a story.  There are these guys, and some stuff happens to them.

QuoteAll games tell stories, as has been pointed out. gleichman was spot on IMO, even the wargames Arneson and Co. were playing before the castle storming were stories, it's just the castle storming was a different kind, and I doubt very seriously if they went into that activity for the purpose of telling a story...they just wanted to have fun playing their game in a way that might be "cool".

Why are these things different?  I don't see the disconnect from creating a story and doing something cool.  They may not have described it that way, but that's what they did.

QuoteLet me speak from my perspective and explain why I resist all the "creating story" business. It just sounds pretentious to me. You might not be coming from that place, but it sounds that way just the same. These are fucking games, and all this "theory" talk and "creating story" nonsense comes across to me the same way a buncha people talking about architectural principals when they're preparing to play with legos.

You know people do analyze games, right?  People figure out what makes games tick, what makes for a fun game, categorizing types of games, even using these games theory in other fields.  That doesn't mean that anyone is pretending they are anything other than games.

Are there dumbasses out there that talk this shit because it makes them feel smart?  I'm sure there are.  I don't however judge everything off what dumbasses do.  I could give a shit less.  The reason I'm hot for this "theory" talk is that I tried applying it, and it made for some absolutely astounding gaming.  Best I've ever had.  My "good ol days" are right now, thanks largely to the awesome players I've got but partially because of some of the ideas I've gleaned from all this theory talk.

It is not about pretention, not with me.  Nor with most of the people who seriously work at it, produce games for it, and really understand it.

QuoteSure, RPGs go into more detail and complexity than chess, Monopoly, or even the Game of Life. That doesn't change the fact that they are games...that's all....just games. Once again as gleichman pointed out, the fact that a game of DnD tells a story means nothing, so does a game of Life. Neither of those games are designed expressly for the purpose of telling a story beyond this story, "Holy shit that game was fun...let's do it again next week."

Life and Chess do not produce stories the same way an RPG session does.  But that doesn't mean I'm pretending that RPGs are something other than games - they are games that create stories.  I'm not trying to put any huge literary importance on them or anything.  I fail to see why "these are games" and "these create stories" are mutually exclusive to you.

Quote from: MaddmanPundit's poor communications skills are not my problem.  What something does is its purpose.  If an RPG tells stories then their purpose is creating stories.  I don't see how it could be any other way.

I can't agree there. What something is intended to do is its purpose, not what it actually does. I might be driving a car down the street, and hit a child that runs out in front of the car to catch its ball. That doesn't mean that the purpose of a car is "hitting children." The purpose of a car is to make it easier and faster to travel (sometimes with additional purposes, like showing off your wealth and so on). Similarly, just because stories are sometimes created while playing RPGs, that doesn't mean that the purpose of RPGs is creating stories.

Quote from: DackeI can't agree there. What something is intended to do is its purpose, not what it actually does. I might be driving a car down the street, and hit a child that runs out in front of the car to catch its ball. That doesn't mean that the purpose of a car is "hitting children." The purpose of a car is to make it easier and faster to travel (sometimes with additional purposes, like showing off your wealth and so on). Similarly, just because stories are sometimes created while playing RPGs, that doesn't mean that the purpose of RPGs is creating stories.

Do you hit a child every time you drive a car?  If so you should sober up first.

You tell a story every time you play an RPG.  At least every one I've played in, seen, or heard about.  Recall, my definition of story is "There are these guys, and they do some stuff."  If you've ever had a game where that didn't happen, please tell me about it.

Quote from: MaddmanYou tell a story every time you play an RPG.  At least every one I've played in, seen, or heard about.  Recall, my definition of story is "There are these guys, and they do some stuff."

Pure self-defining BS.

"Let's define story so widely that it applies to everything, that will justify us twisting the purpose of RPGs to our own goals- which will turn RPGs into something completely new".

There are there actual goals here.

1. Some like playing these types of games to whatever end.

2. Those attempting to sell the concept know they can't do it on its own merits. Story telling games have never been larger sellers. But if they can share shelf space and be called rpgs- they can expose their worthless product to a larger group of customers.

3. Some can't bare the idea that they are playing a game. It damages their ego to know they are spendng so much time and effort on what the world sees as a toy. This where the pretention of RPG as Art comes from.

I find it very interesting that nearly all that play Forge style games are those who also fall hook, line and sinker for RPG as Art.


I don't mind reason #1, they should play what they wish. They should however also be honest can call their new type of game by a different name.

Reasons #2 and #3 I find deplorable.

Quote from: MaddmanPundit's poor communications skills are not my problem.  What something does is its purpose.  If an RPG tells stories then their purpose is creating stories.  I don't see how it could be any other way.

Don't miss the beauty of the forest for the ugliness of a few trees.

So the purpose of my shovel is to rust. The purpose of my black car is to get hot and burn my hand when I touch it. The purpose of the grass is to turn the knees of my jeans green when I fall down. Just because a thing has an effect doesn't mean it was designed to cause that particular effect. Chess tells a story, football games tell stories, a day spent fishing on the TN river makes a great (or boring) story. Is Everquest designed to "create" a story? Is Clue?

Quote from: MaddmanI disagree.  The goal in playing an RPG is creating a story.  There are these guys, and some stuff happens to them.

I disagree, the goal in playing an rpg is to play a game. In an RPG I assume the role of a fictional person and then use imagination and a shitload of dice to move around a more or less complex and detailed board (made of maps and descriptive text). Sometimes I land on the Go square and collect my pay, sometimes I land in jail. If I wanted to create a story I'd sit at my computer and type.

Quote from: MaddmanWhy are these things different?  I don't see the disconnect from creating a story and doing something cool.  They may not have described it that way, but that's what they did.

There are plenty of things I do that I find to be cool, where the thought of "creating" a story never enters my mind. Like mountain biking, or racing my car, or meditating.

Quote from: MaddmanYou know people do analyze games, right?  People figure out what makes games tick, what makes for a fun game, categorizing types of games, even using these games theory in other fields.  That doesn't mean that anyone is pretending they are anything other than games.

Are there dumbasses out there that talk this shit because it makes them feel smart?  I'm sure there are.  I don't however judge everything off what dumbasses do.  I could give a shit less.  The reason I'm hot for this "theory" talk is that I tried applying it, and it made for some absolutely astounding gaming.  Best I've ever had.  My "good ol days" are right now, thanks largely to the awesome players I've got but partially because of some of the ideas I've gleaned from all this theory talk.

Perhaps I'd prefer if you were to talk about the specifics of what you did and what effect it had, rather than talk about "creating" "story" (not A story). Keep in mind that all this is just from my perspective, and IMO. I can't pretend to speak for anyone else and I could be an army of one here...doomed to stand alone on this issue (US Army commercial on TV ;)  ), but I thought I'd speak up and throw this out there because I think that the biggest problem with this issue here on Nutkinland ATM seems to me to be misinterpretation and misunderstanding.

Quote from: MaddmanIt is not about pretention, not with me.  Nor with most of the people who seriously work at it, produce games for it, and really understand it.

I do realize that people do all these analyzing things, and I very much do believe that you yourself have no pretensions at all, but all the theory talk sounds completely ridiculous to me just the same when I find it here on Nutkinland. Perhaps it's the venue, perhaps it's the silly (IMO) vocabulary. I'm not really trying to be judgemental (maybe I'm failing), but I am expressing how it comes across to me. I think back to when I first started RPing and how it seemed to me, and if I'd seen all this stuff on a message board like this one I'd have thought I was completely stupid or something, because I just played DnD cuz it was fun as shit and I liked it. It's not the idea of RPing games being an activity where great stories come alive (because that's what it is), it's the "creating story" by "front-loading situations" and whether there's proper levels of "G", "N", or "S" in order for the game to be cool enough.

Quote from: MaddmanLife and Chess do not produce stories the same way an RPG session does.  But that doesn't mean I'm pretending that RPGs are something other than games - they are games that create stories.  I'm not trying to put any huge literary importance on them or anything.  I fail to see why "these are games" and "these create stories" are mutually exclusive to you.

Because there's a difference between "these create stories" and "their purpose is creating stories".

Quote from: SigmundPerhaps I'd prefer if you were to talk about the specifics of what you did and what effect it had, rather than talk about "creating" "story" (not A story). Keep in mind that all this is just from my perspective, and IMO. I can't pretend to speak for anyone else and I could be an army of one here...doomed to stand alone on this issue (US Army commercial on TV ;)  ), but I thought I'd speak up and throw this out there because I think that the biggest problem with this issue here on Nutkinland ATM seems to me to be misinterpretation and misunderstanding.

I think that might be more productive.

Here's some of the things that I've done in-game and had it come out a better experience.  Most of these are concepts that I've picked up from various places in theory discussion.

- Addressing a theme.  In my current game, all the characters are sort of unlikely heroes.  Each episode sort of focuses on a different character - this is Buffy, so it's very in keeping with the genre.  Each epsiode was designed to put the spotlight on the characters to see if they could indeed be the hero when it really mattered.  Three of them overcame and rose to the challenge.  One of them started the slide to darkness, and the fifth failed.  This has made the game very personal.

- 'Front loading' conflict.  The system helps with this, I take the various Qualities and Drawbacks from the characters to instantly get them into conflict.  Overall this is the strategy of pushing conflict at the characters and seeing how they resolve it.  I also call it the "Throw hand grenades at them and see what way they jump" technique.

- Bangers.  This is where you present the PCs with a choice, the kind of choice that will tell them what kind of person they are, and it needs to be immeditely resolved.  This was the first one I tried.  It was an All Flesh game, with the PCs members of the military trying to hold off the zombie onslaught.  They were in a hotel full of civilians.  The doors had been breached and the commander recieved orders to pull out.  The PCs were given orders to blow the hotel with the civilians inside, to keep the infection from spreading.  Now, do they follow orders or protect the innocent?  Since one PC was playing a by-the-book type while another was an in-it-to-protect-my-country type there was instant conflict.  Easily the most memorable session of the game.

- "Yes" gaming.  Put most succinctly in Dogs in the Vineyard, Say Yes or Roll Dice.  Generally, let the PCs do and create what they think would be cool.  If the PCs should be able to do something, then let them do it.  Only roll when there's a reasonable chance they'll fail, or you'd like to see them fail.

- Stakes.  Also an idea from Dogs.  While I'm not doing it mechanically like they do, I've still used the idea.  Essentially it means letting the PCs know what they are putting on the line.  Clearly let them know 'You can try to do this, but if you fail you could lose your life' or what have you.  This creates a LOT of drama.  Even if they fail, they went in with both eyes open and doubtless were very invested in the result.

And my own theory, which is the simple idea that if games are stories, then trying to frame a game in the form of a story will make for a good game.  This doesn't mean railroading, but winging it with an eye toward the story structure.  What I try to do each game is put conflicts in front of the PCs, let them deal with it however they like, come up with the consequences of those choices, then wrap it up with a satisfying climax.  I've yet to correctly guess what they'll do, but that just makes it more fun.

QuoteBecause there's a difference between "these create stories" and "their purpose is creating stories".

I think this might just be my Buddhist showing.  I don't think things have 'purposes' inherant of themselves.  They are what they are and do what they do.  If you get a story when you play an RPG, then that's close enough for me.

Quote from: MaddmanI think that might be more productive.

Here's some of the things that I've done in-game and had it come out a better experience.  Most of these are concepts that I've picked up from various places in theory discussion.

- Addressing a theme.  In my current game, all the characters are sort of unlikely heroes.  Each episode sort of focuses on a different character - this is Buffy, so it's very in keeping with the genre.  Each epsiode was designed to put the spotlight on the characters to see if they could indeed be the hero when it really mattered.  Three of them overcame and rose to the challenge.  One of them started the slide to darkness, and the fifth failed.  This has made the game very personal.

The players who aren't the focus this week don't get bored waiting the 3-4 weeks (depending on the # of players) for their spotlight time to roll around? Do ya'all meet more often than once a week? Do you find allowing the whole group at once to be the focus of the game doesn't work for you? Not being a fan of either the show or the game, I'm at a disadvantage in discussing the Buffy genre.

Quote- 'Front loading' conflict.  The system helps with this, I take the various Qualities and Drawbacks from the characters to instantly get them into conflict.  Overall this is the strategy of pushing conflict at the characters and seeing how they resolve it.  I also call it the "Throw hand grenades at them and see what way they jump" technique.

Does your group not like building up to a conflict? Why is there a rush to "instantly get them into conflict"? Honestly, it seems to me that every session of every RPG I've ever played involved some conflict of some sort, why is "front loading" a better way to go about providing it than just allowing it to develop seemingly naturally during regular gaming?

Quote- Bangers.  This is where you present the PCs with a choice, the kind of choice that will tell them what kind of person they are, and it needs to be immeditely resolved.  This was the first one I tried.  It was an All Flesh game, with the PCs members of the military trying to hold off the zombie onslaught.  They were in a hotel full of civilians.  The doors had been breached and the commander recieved orders to pull out.  The PCs were given orders to blow the hotel with the civilians inside, to keep the infection from spreading.  Now, do they follow orders or protect the innocent?  Since one PC was playing a by-the-book type while another was an in-it-to-protect-my-country type there was instant conflict.  Easily the most memorable session of the game.

Sounds fun, hasn't this device been used for many years? It sounds like just another way to provide conflict, why the fancy name? Is it that theorists and story gamers derive more enjoyment from pitting the players against each other than against npcs and monsters?

Quote- "Yes" gaming.  Put most succinctly in Dogs in the Vineyard, Say Yes or Roll Dice.  Generally, let the PCs do and create what they think would be cool.  If the PCs should be able to do something, then let them do it.  Only roll when there's a reasonable chance they'll fail, or you'd like to see them fail.

This doesn't appeal to me all that much. I much prefer the randomness of dice rolling most of the time. There's always a chance to fail...chaos science and all. I will very occasionally fudge in the PC's favor if they come up with something outstanding in some way, but 95% of the time I prefer the unexpectedness of dice rolling to stay in the game. Also, if my players are doing huge chunks of my job (as I see it) for me, what am I as GM doing? If players can whatever they want why am I there? Why should I go to the effort to build as fun and interesting world/setting as I can if the players can alter it to suit themselves at will?

Quote- Stakes.  Also an idea from Dogs.  While I'm not doing it mechanically like they do, I've still used the idea.  Essentially it means letting the PCs know what they are putting on the line.  Clearly let them know 'You can try to do this, but if you fail you could lose your life' or what have you.  This creates a LOT of drama.  Even if they fail, they went in with both eyes open and doubtless were very invested in the result.

I don't understand the point of labelling and even going so far as to create mechanics around this. Isn't this part of every game? What's the point of separating this from the game conceptually? I don't get it....every time my character goes into combat there's stakes...every time my rogue gambles, etc... I couldn't possibly see how either I or my character would forget wha the stakes might be in any given conflict, I really don't feel I'd need to be reminded or need to have it pointed out.

QuoteAnd my own theory, which is the simple idea that if games are stories, then trying to frame a game in the form of a story will make for a good game.  This doesn't mean railroading, but winging it with an eye toward the story structure.  What I try to do each game is put conflicts in front of the PCs, let them deal with it however they like, come up with the consequences of those choices, then wrap it up with a satisfying climax.  I've yet to correctly guess what they'll do, but that just makes it more fun.

The problem I see with this is that in the best campaigns I've played, there are many different conflicts occuring simultaneously, and we rarely had good beginning/middle/end points as the game was constantly free-flowing and open-ended. I couldn't even begin to see how to apply a story type structure to it.

QuoteI think this might just be my Buddhist showing.  I don't think things have 'purposes' inherant of themselves.  They are what they are and do what they do.  If you get a story when you play an RPG, then that's close enough for me.

I understand, being a practicing Zen Buddhist myself. If things have no inherent purpose, then you would still be inaccurate in saying that their purpose is to create stories.

When I play an rpg, I'm not consciously attempting to create a story. When I GM a RPG, I'm not consciously attempting to create a story. I don't believe that to attempt to create a story using a rpg is a superior or more correct way to use a RPG. I've seen no evidence that most RPGs are designed for the purpose of creating a story, especially the most successful ones.

Quote from: SigmundThe players who aren't the focus this week don't get bored waiting the 3-4 weeks (depending on the # of players) for their spotlight time to roll around? Do ya'all meet more often than once a week? Do you find allowing the whole group at once to be the focus of the game doesn't work for you? Not being a fan of either the show or the game, I'm at a disadvantage in discussing the Buffy genre.

No, 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.

QuoteDoes your group not like building up to a conflict? Why is there a rush to "instantly get them into conflict"? Honestly, it seems to me that every session of every RPG I've ever played involved some conflict of some sort, why is "front loading" a better way to go about providing it than just allowing it to develop seemingly naturally during regular gaming?

To 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.

QuoteSounds fun, hasn't this device been used for many years? It sounds like just another way to provide conflict, why the fancy name? Is it that theorists and story gamers derive more enjoyment from pitting the players against each other than against npcs and monsters?

You 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.

QuoteThis doesn't appeal to me all that much. I much prefer the randomness of dice rolling most of the time. There's always a chance to fail...chaos science and all. I will very occasionally fudge in the PC's favor if they come up with something outstanding in some way, but 95% of the time I prefer the unexpectedness of dice rolling to stay in the game. Also, if my players are doing huge chunks of my job (as I see it) for me, what am I as GM doing? If players can whatever they want why am I there? Why should I go to the effort to build as fun and interesting world/setting as I can if the players can alter it to suit themselves at will?

This 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.

As 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.  

I'm really not trying to piss on anyone's game style - all I'm talking about is what has made my game more fun.

QuoteI don't understand the point of labelling and even going so far as to create mechanics around this. Isn't this part of every game? What's the point of separating this from the game conceptually? I don't get it....every time my character goes into combat there's stakes...every time my rogue gambles, etc... I couldn't possibly see how either I or my character would forget wha the stakes might be in any given conflict, I really don't feel I'd need to be reminded or need to have it pointed out.

Well 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."

QuoteThe problem I see with this is that in the best campaigns I've played, there are many different conflicts occuring simultaneously, and we rarely had good beginning/middle/end points as the game was constantly free-flowing and open-ended. I couldn't even begin to see how to apply a story type structure to it.

Yeah, like I said I ran many games like that in the past.  But I found them fizzling now that we're all older, and I'm not playing with the old group anymore.  With this game we'd put a new group together and rather than try and get everyone to commit to a game for life, I proposed a short Buffy season.  6-8 Episodes, then we can talk about what we want to do next - another Buffy season or something else.  Since I know in advance how long the game will last it helps me plot out the season long arc.

But 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.

QuoteI understand, being a practicing Zen Buddhist myself. If things have no inherent purpose, then you would still be inaccurate in saying that their purpose is to create stories.

When I play an rpg, I'm not consciously attempting to create a story. When I GM a RPG, I'm not consciously attempting to create a story. I don't believe that to attempt to create a story using a rpg is a superior or more correct way to use a RPG. I've seen no evidence that most RPGs are designed for the purpose of creating a story, especially the most successful ones.

And 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.  :)  

Second, it's my theory that trying to emulate the structure of a story will make for a really good game.  Or at least a good type of game.  I'm not claiming superiority about anything, except that I'm having more fun.  Someone else may find it all dull or annoying, but I'd suggest they try it before they dismiss it.

Quote from: MaddmanAnd 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.  :)  

Second, it's my theory that trying to emulate the structure of a story will make for a really good game.  Or at least a good type of game.  I'm not claiming superiority about anything, except that I'm having more fun.  Someone else may find it all dull or annoying, but I'd suggest they try it before they dismiss it.

How humorous it is to see such effort put into to two such insignificant statements.

The first point is defines nothing.

The second is nothing but a statement of taste with two horrid side effects. First we've heard it hammer time and time until we're so sick of it that the only thing we can associate it to is the preening prattle of Forge elitism. Second, an attempt to change the rpg world in something that is altogether different- but with a monkey like fist that refused to call by a new name.

Past humor actually, it became pitiful a long time ago.

Quote from: gleichmanHow humorous it is to see such effort put into to two such insignificant statements.

The first point is defines nothing.

The second is nothing but a statement of taste with two horrid side effects. First we've heard it hammer time and time until we're so sick of it that the only thing we can associate it to is the preening prattle of Forge elitism. Second, an attempt to change the rpg world in something that is altogether different- but with a monkey like fist that refused to call by a new name.

Past humor actually, it became pitiful a long time ago.

I'm not trying to change the RPG world.  I'm exploring ways to make my game better, and talking to other gamers about it.  The only one I see trying to speak for all gamers or influence the RPG world is Pundit and his fans.  That's what I find so humorous.

Quote from: gleichmanHow humorous it is to see such effort put into to two such insignificant statements.

They are only insignificant to someone who doesn't want to understand them.
 

QuoteThe first point is defines nothing.

Yes it does. It says that *every* roleplaying game tells stories. The difference between different games and different groups of players is in how much they focus on those stories.
 

QuoteThe second is nothing but a statement of taste with two horrid side effects. First we've heard it hammer time and time until we're so sick of it that the only thing we can associate it to is the preening prattle of Forge elitism. Second, an attempt to change the rpg world in something that is altogether different- but with a monkey like fist that refused to call by a new name.

So what if Maddman plays and promotes a way of playing that doesn't mesh with how you like to play? You make it sound like he's trying to take away your dice or something. If the techniques he use when gaming works for him, how does that affect you? This is a roleplaying site. Sharing experiences so that others can learn from them is what this place is all about. If you don't want to play the way Maddman does, go read another thread instead of crapping in this one.
 
I'm sorry, but until you post about what you do to create a good gaming experience the way you prefer to play, your bitching comes off as pretty hollow.
 

QuotePast humor actually, it became pitiful a long time ago.

The only pitiful I see are your attempts to contribute to the conversation. Sniping from the sidelines adds absolutely nothing.

A narrative and a story are not always the same thing. Everything has a narrative, in that it has a possible sequential description as well as a broader description you would use to tie it together and give it some sort of overall meaning. This is basic to life experience.

"Story," can mean a whole bunch of things, but I suspect that in many cases this is specifically referring to a fictional narrative revolving around a group of characters who are described in more detail that whatever is necessary to describe the external results of their actions.

If a dude sticks another dude with a sword, that's not really this kind of story. If a dude sticks another dude with a sword because he's angry or good at sticking folks with a sword because his his individual training? That's getting more into a story (as defined here, anyway). Wargaming straddles this border based on whatever systems get used. Some of them make individuals important; others don't. RPG characters are all about integral abilitiea and traits that go beyond what would be displaye to a third party, though, and that interior perspective is a pretty decisive difference.

Quote from: shooting_diceA narrative and a story are not always the same thing. Everything has a narrative, in that it has a possible sequential description as well as a broader description you would use to tie it together and give it some sort of overall meaning. This is basic to life experience.
 
"Story," can mean a whole bunch of things, but I suspect that in many cases this is specifically referring to a fictional narrative revolving around a group of characters who are described in more detail that whatever is necessary to describe the external results of their actions.
 
If a dude sticks another dude with a sword, that's not really this kind of story. If a dude sticks another dude with a sword because he's angry or good at sticking folks with a sword because his his individual training? That's getting more into a story (as defined here, anyway). Wargaming straddles this border based on whatever systems get used. Some of them make individuals important; others don't. RPG characters are all about integral abilitiea and traits that go beyond what would be displaye to a third party, though, and that interior perspective is a pretty decisive difference.

 
All 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.

Quote from: Dr_AvalancheThey are only insignificant to someone who doesn't want to understand them..

I laugh at you.

 

Quote from: Dr_AvalancheYes it does. It says that *every* roleplaying game tells stories. The difference between different games and different groups of players is in how much they focus on those stories.

This is why I laugh at you. You don't even know what I've already said about story in an rpg in this very thread. Or if you did, *you* are the one not understanding.

Quote from: Dr_AvalancheSo what if Maddman plays and promotes a way of playing that doesn't mesh with how you like to play? You make it sound like he's trying to take away your dice or something.

He may play whatever he likes to play. But when he misrepresents those games as rpgs, when he constantly claims that they are better games*, when he throws Forge speak around like it's a great revelation (and the Forge is *All* about their games being better than those games)- the result is that he publicly devalues traditional design and its players. And that makes one feel unwelcomed and looked down upon.

*his rare statements backing away from such is no counter. It's like someone claiming that they aren't racists while making people set at the back of the bus.

And the 'story crowd" have taken things away from me. First the Forge, and then RPGNet.

Quote from: Dr_AvalancheI'm sorry, but until you post about what you do to create a good gaming experience the way you prefer to play, your bitching comes off as pretty hollow.

Like anyone here would care about how I play.

This site is currently like an early RPGNet, about to be taken over by Forge like wankers. There's enough D20 players making up the membership to hold the line for a while longer, but I don't expect it to last.

http://www.nutkinland.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11776&postcount=33

I posted this on another thread. It sums up my take on the whole discussion at hand. Very interesting so far.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: gleichmanHe may play whatever he likes to play. But when he misrepresents those games as rpgs

You know what I hate? It's when traditionalists try to take our hobby hostage by claiming that whatever it is we do, it's not playing roleplaying games. We play roles, using the rules of a game. It's a roleplaying game. They might not look like D&D (though on the other hand, they might).
 

Quote, when he constantly claims that they are better games*, when he throws Forge speak around like it's a great revelation (and the Forge is *All* about their games being better than those games)- the result is that he publicly devalues traditional design and its players. And that makes one feel unwelcomed and looked down upon.
 
*his rare statements backing away from such is no counter. It's like someone claiming that they aren't racists while making people set at the back of the bus.

I think it's only natural that those who are satisfied with the games that already exists are less interested in developing games that work differently. Those of us who feel limited by how current games work are more interested in looking at how the games work, and how we can make games that promote the kind of play we are interested in.
 

QuoteAnd the 'story crowd" have taken things away from me. First the Forge, and then RPGNet.

Oh really? Let's see if you can tell me what they have taken away from you, without me laughing at you.
 
 

QuoteLike anyone here would care about how I play.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm interested in how Maddman plays, because I know we share views on how to enjoy a roleplaying game. It's not inconceivable that there are those who share your views that could learn/draw inspiration from how you play.
 

QuoteThis site is currently like an early RPGNet, about to be taken over by Forge like wankers. There's enough D20 players making up the membership to hold the line for a while longer, but I don't expect it to last.

Apparently, Paranoia isn't just a roleplaying game. :rolleyes:
 
If you look around, you'll notice that there are no boundaries here. Even if Maddman were to post a hundred threads about dusty Forge theories, there is no stopping you from posting about D&D, or whatever your preference is. One does not exclude the other. You'll notice that I have one thread going in the general rpg-forum. It's about D&D, not about Dogs in the Vineyard or some other Forge game. The fact that some of us are interested in "theory" shouldn't detract one whit from your enjoyment of the site, but on the other hand, it would be nice if we were spared your bile too, at least in designated threads...

Quote from: Dr_AvalancheWe play roles, using the rules of a game. It's a roleplaying game. They might not look like D&D (though on the other hand, they might).

This is the classic post-modernist clash. The assumed right by self-defined high-brows that they can redefine whatever they wish. Thus they get to justify anything they wish and feel all warm and fuzzy about it.

 

Quote from: Dr_AvalancheI think it's only natural that those who are satisfied with the games that already exists are less interested in developing games that work differently.

You already have a website completely devoted to such 'high' and mighty goals. I'd like to see on general rpg site that wasn't flooded with such crap.

Quote from: Dr_AvalancheOh really? Let's see if you can tell me what they have taken away from you, without me laughing at you.

The simple obvious facts.

The original mission statement of Hephaestus' Forge is gone and replaced.

An unmoderated RPGNet that was free of GNS crap because it was slapped down hard whenever it raised it ugly head for the pretension that it was.

Quote from: Dr_AvalancheMaybe, maybe not. I'm interested in how Maddman plays, because I know we share views on how to enjoy a roleplaying game. It's not inconceivable that there are those who share your views that could learn/draw inspiration from how you play.

I see no significant sign of any such interest here at all.
 

Quote from: Dr_AvalancheApparently, Paranoia isn't just a roleplaying game. :rolleyes:

Paranoia, played as intended- is a parody of an rpg.

Quote from: Dr_AvalancheIf you look around, you'll notice that there are no boundaries here.

A simple and total lie. There are very significant boundaries here.

Quote from: gleichmanThis is the classic post-modernist clash. The assumed right by self-defined high-brows that they can redefine whatever they wish. Thus they get to justify anything they wish and feel all warm and fuzzy about it.

QuoteYou already have a website completely devoted to such 'high' and mighty goals. I'd like to see on general rpg site that wasn't flooded with such crap.

And I'd like an edition of D&D that came with my own personal Playboy bunny DM who'd run personal monty hauls for me whenever I wanted. There are lots of things I want that I don't get. I don't really see a point here. If you want a site devoted only to the things you are interested in, you better start it yourself. Shockingly, I don't think Pooka is interested in catering to you and you only.

QuoteAn unmoderated RPGNet that was free of GNS crap because it was slapped down hard whenever it raised it ugly head for the pretension that it was.

Cry me a river. If you want to talk about D&D and only D&D (or whatever your game of preference is), there are plenty of sites. This is a site about roleplaying games, and if you like it or not, it includes many different games that work in many different ways. GNS might have its flaws, that's really not important. What is important is that it's just as valid a topic for discussion as anything else relating to roleplaying games.

QuoteA simple and total lie. There are very significant boundaries here.

Limiting your ability to discuss traditional roleplaying games? Where? I don't see them.

Quote from: Dr_AvalancheI don't really see a point here. If you want a site devoted only to the things you are interested in, you better start it yourself. Shockingly, I don't think Pooka is interested in catering to you and you only.

The 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.

Quote from: Dr_AvalancheCry me a river. If you want to talk about D&D and only D&D (or whatever your game of preference is), there are plenty of sites.

I have no interest in talking about D&D. I'd be at ENworld if I did.

Quote from: Dr_AvalancheLimiting your ability to discuss traditional roleplaying games? Where? I don't see them.

You wouldn't.

Ok. Well, I'm just confounded by the idea that one type of topics discussed is going to prevent your enjoyment of the rest of the site, but since that's how you feel, I don't see any reason to continue arguing about it.

Quote from: gleichmanLike anyone here would care about how I play.

I would care about how you play.  Start a thread, or discuss it here.  Maybe you do something that I hadn't considered before.  I'm always looking for new tricks and methods to put into my GM's bag.

You do not understand this community or what it is about.  You utterly do not get it.  This is not a new community, it is one with a long history.  It's a new site under new management, but it's largely the same old crowd.  There's some new blood around here, and the Nutkins seem amused by all this, so it goes on.  For all we know tomorrow they'll decide that anyone posting any 'theory' crap or complaining about 'swine' will get a jackass avatar or something.  Hell, I was ready to let it all go then they gave us each a forum.

One of the things about this site is that it doesn't take gaming, or itself, too seriously.  That's why it's so amusing to poke at pundit and yourself and the other 'crabs' - you all take yourselves so deadly seriously.  We're just talking about our games here.  No one's trying to redefine gaming or take over anything.

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 (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/narr_essay.html)

Quote from: PakaQuoting my "swine" source:

Snort

Quote from: gleichmanSnort

Your snort is sweet-sweet music to my ears.

:ACFC08:

Quote from: there_is_no_bobAnd 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.

I already answered the only question posed here. To save you from having to go back and read my previous posts, I'll repeat it. It sounds stupid to me. By saying this I am expressing my opinion about the usefulness...the value of the subject being discussed. I have repeatedly stated that it is my opinion, and that I could very well be the only one with this particular opinion. Until the Nutkins tell me I'm no longer allowed to express my opinion, I will continue to do so. You seem to be making your opinion of my opinion quite clear as well, so I won't direct your question back to you.

Maddman, in response to my stating my opinion, has been stating his opinion. This way we can perhaps each gain a greater understanding of the other and maybe even arrive at some kind of accord...learning something, hopefully, in the process.

QuoteYep, 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.

So why create yet another term, when there is already an easy way to refer to the subject that anyone who might be interested already understands? See below for one possible answer.

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

If that were my point, this statement might mean something.

QuoteIf 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.

True, for someone who isn't familiar with the acronym, it would have to be explained. So what? Does that mean I need to go and make another word to refer to the same thing, and then have to explain that too? Why would I do this? There's already language in place, within the society of people who would care at all, that would serve to convey the information I'm trying to communicate. What would be the reason to create an even more obscure vocabulary on top of it? Why would I create and start to use the word "Zippy" to label what can already be called "black hole" and "singularity"?

The only reason that comes to mind is if I wanted to, for some reason, separate myself from the rest of the society in question. By using a new vocabulary I can refer to common things in a way that sounds new or innovative. By needlessly coopting terms meant for a different purpose I can seem more insightful, and at the very least distinguish myself from the rest of my peers.

I'm not as extreme as RPGPundit seems to be in that I have no problem with there being a subgroup of RPers who prefer the story style of RPing. What bothers me is how elitist it sounds when it's been discussed in the manner that it has been discussed here at Nutkinland. Lest you say something obvious and non-productive like "Then don't read those threads", I'll respond pre-emptively and say that the type of discussion I find distasteful appears even in threads not directly relating to the topics of story making or theory, even threads I find otherwise interesting. So, I am expressing my opinion about them.

Quote from: PakaYour snort is sweet-sweet music to my ears.

:ACFC08:

See....first the "snort", then this quote. Why the fucking hostility? This is a fucking game people. Lighten up. Look, now ya have me all worked up too. Damn it, now I look like a hypocrite and have to follow my own advice, and I hate when that happens. Damn it all. :yell:

Quote from: SigmundSee....first the "snort", then this quote. Why the fucking hostility? This is a fucking game people. Lighten up. Look, now ya have me all worked up too. Damn it, now I look like a hypocrite and have to follow my own advice, and I hate when that happens. Damn it all. :yell:

Haha.

;)

Quote from: SigmundSee....first the "snort", then this quote. Why the fucking hostility? This is a fucking game people. Lighten up. Look, now ya have me all worked up too. Damn it, now I look like a hypocrite and have to follow my own advice, and I hate when that happens. Damn it all. :yell:

I thought the snort was an abrupt laugh.

That is what I meant.

Jeez.

No offense to anyone meant.

Quote from: PakaNo offense to anyone meant.

Oh yes there was!

And you kick puppies, too!

Quick!  Everybody hate Paka!  :deviousgrin:

Quote from: CyberzombieOh yes there was!

And he kicks puppies, too!

Quick!  Everybody hate him!  :deviousgrin:

I only kick brain damaged gamist puppies that play d20 and everyone knows those puppies had it fuckin' coming.

Quote from: PakaI only kick brain damaged gamist puppies that play d20 and everyone knows those puppies had it fuckin' coming.

Damn right.

Quote from: CyberzombieOh yes there was!

And you kick puppies, too!

Quick!  Everybody hate Paka!  :deviousgrin:

Is that what all the cool gamers are doing?  Okay, I'll hate Paka too.  You know I can't resist a bandwagon.


:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

How's that?

Quote from: PakaI only kick brain damaged gamist puppies that play d20 and everyone knows those puppies had it fuckin' coming.

Yeah, but what you don't know is that us gamist puppies that play d20 like being kicked....thank you sir, may I have another?

Mwah haha.

:evillaugh:


p.s. How do you think we make it through d20 combats...pure masochism.

Quote from: PakaI only kick brain damaged gamist puppies that play d20 and everyone knows those puppies had it fuckin' coming.

No, no, see, they're not even gamist because they play d20 which is obviously a misguided attempt to achieve a gamist game and which fails miserably because they're all poo-poo heads.

And hell, not even puppies because as everyone knows a puppy is a younger gamer who likes the original Star Wars trilogy, wears a red flannel shirt, and eats rice every second Wednesday (not to be confused with the puppie, who wears blue flannel and eats pasta every second Wednesday because their gaming preferences are radically different).