Oh come on you retarded bastards!
"Once play starts, a story is generated"
is such a moronic thing to say.

Along the lines of:
"Once play starts..."

- the soundwaves are moving
- words are spoken
- text is produced
- dice are rolled
- people burn energy
- people grow older
- paper gets used
- pencils get used
- social interaction happens
ad nauseam

clearly, lots of stuff happens, when playing games. When you highlight the emerging narrative, than you are

1) a wanking sophomore engaged in sophistry

or

2) someone who cares for "story"

I´m neither, so "story" is an totally irrelevant angle for interpretation and discussion of RPGs, to me.

Quote from: SettembriniI´m neither, so "story" is an totally irrelevant angle for interpretation and discussion of RPGs, to me.

Then why keep talking and starting threads about it ? Nobody else here seems to be as obsessed about the topic as you are? You're not really interested in discussing anything, because if you are perhaps you should head down over to the Forge or Storygames (give Andy K your questions) and talk about this stuff. Stop being a wanker. Everyone knows what you like and hate by now.

Regards,
David R

Because I want to understand, David.
I don´t get it.

Where do these longings for story come from?

Quote from: SettembriniFrom a story angle, mayhaps.

I give a fuck about "story", it does not even show up on the radar. Playing the world as it is because it is like it is, shalt be the whole of the law.

Bringin story into the discussion AT ALL is a sign of paradigm clash for me.

It's just a WORD!

IMO, "story"--in the sense of a linear narrative, complete with character "growth," preplotted "arc" and whatnot--doesn't exist except as a postmortem write-up, as an interpretation of actions that hadn't been a story initially. During actual play, it's nowhere.

What David J, and Rob too I think mean (but predictably not Grim Gent) is that during play you can't help but act actions that are potentially write-up-worthy.

Potentially.

You make friends and enemies, you kill and save people and land the cruiser successfully on the high-gravity world against all odds. Great story... unless you get killed when the cruiser crash-lands.

That's why I say that in RPGs "story" is something that only ever "will have happened." It's a narrative the bard will create the moment you're done playing.

Quote from: SettembriniBecause I want to understand, David.
I don´t get it.

Where do these longings for story come from?

I think because the word has no fixed definition you're attaching it to certain kinds of playstyles/games that you have no interest in which I think is understandable because folks give it meaning to define their system/playstyles.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Pierce InverarityWhat David J, and Rob too I think mean (but predictably not Grim Gent) is that during play you can't help but act actions that are potentially write-up-worthy.

Yup, I don't subscribe to the school of thought which claims that "a story is not a story while being told." Whenever I use the world, I'm referring to the narrative that constantly and inevitably unfolds during the game session rather than any sentiment like "What tales will the bards tell of your heroic adventures?"

Quote from: GrimGentYup, I don't subscribe to the school of thought which claims that "a story is not a story while being told." Whenever I use the world, I'm referring to the narrative that constantly and inevitably unfolds during the game session rather than any sentiment like "What tales will the bards tell of your heroic adventures?"

What's inevitable when there's a real chance to fail that crash landing roll, where the result is not a "setback" but a TPK?

Re. sentiment, it strikes me as more sentimental to want to be hero and bard simultaneously, and not to be willing to confront real failure.

So what?

We could talk about all RPGs from the angle of games of chance and strategic games (mathematics) et decision making.

Imagine a world where every fucking board had plenty discussions about decision making but next to no discussions about "story".

Quote from: Pierce InverarityWhat's inevitable when there's a real chance to fail that crash landing roll, where the result is not a "setback" but a TPK?

Then it's the story of a TPK, of course. And if your character is killed by a housecat right after the game has started, why, then it is the story of how he goes out one day and is killed by a housecat; and before his death, it is just the story of him going out, and right after that it's the story of him getting attacked by the ferocious feline, and finally it's the story of him dying at the claws of the murderous moggie. No one said that these had to be particularly good or fascinating stories.

Quote from: SettembriniSo what?
We could talk about all RPGs from the angle of games of chance and strategic games (mathematics) et decision making.

So talk about it. Nobody is stopping you. You are the one who wants to know about the "longing".

QuoteImagine a world where every fucking board had plenty discussions about decision making but next to no discussions about "story".

Isn't this what this board is? You keep bringing up this shit, nobody else. Fuck, if you don't like the games Luke designs, don't ask him questions about his design philosophy (although I like the discussion going on so far)

Talk about the stuff you like, don't talk about the stuff you have no interest in. "Story" is such a loaded term. Don't use it. If you are interested in the playstyle of someone - ask in a way that shows your interest.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RTalk about the stuff you like, don't talk about the stuff you have no interest in. "Story" is such a loaded term. Don't use it. If you are interested in the playstyle of someone - ask in a way that shows your interest.
David R

David makes a good point.  It seems like this thread is mostly all about asking over and over again, "Why are some of you people incredibly stupid? I ask because I'm a little interested, but mostly because I want to talk about how stupid I think you are."

GG, a succession of events is not a story, which is the projection of narrative continuity onto that succession. It's not quite but almost like real life, where boring routines are interrupted by weird randomness. Real life makes for bad narratives, and only ever after the fact. Its story arc is all out of whack. A good thing!

OK.
Let´s summarize:

There are certain traditions, that give fuck about dramatically structured narratives and the accompanying longings.

These are some of the oldest and most robust and copied games.

Starting pretty early, we have an influx from people, who want the "Story Now!".

They grow unhappy, can´t communicate with most parts of the hobby.

The hobby remains mostly oblivious to "Story", small caches of "story-gamers" gather and drift their games heavily, develop some ideas of facilitating that, develop even some games. One of them will be Vampire.

On a parallel line of development, the huge profits the D&D novels bring in, let´s TSR cash in on Dragonlance and strives despeartely to score with a second Franchise just like DL for the better part of the 90ies.

Vampire comes along, and brings with it a substantial
influx of new gamers. who also want some sort of "story".

Dragonlance fans, second generation goths and bandwagon goths gather around the first proto-storynistas.

A blossoming of railroady "Storytelling" adventures and bad sourcebooks follow, giving modules a bad name, and turning Splatbook into an insult.

BUT: GDW and some other game designers and lots of gamers keep firmly gaming in the experiential way, even incorporating elements from the "style" era of the nineties, without being bothered by the outsider´s story longings. Gary Gygax comes to GDW and brings along the AD&D2nd that he would have liked to see.


Some collectible card game comes along, the rest is known history.

- 3rd Edition brings back pre-Dragonlance D&D and drifts the game firmly into the reactive-tactical limelight, while still allowing for other playstyles

- As a late reaction to Vampires faults, the Forge comes along, to actually get "Story Now!" right.

What remains is a huge population of Dragonlanced and Vampired Gamers, who can´t or don´t want to follow into the Forgerspace, and who don´t get the old school style. Most likely they don´t even know the GDW-school.

Although, taking the "Fear the Boot" guys as anectodal evidence, enough of 1st Editions cores of relevance and open-ended-challenge-based- anticlimactic-cheat-abhoring nature survived in 2nd Ed. AD&D to immunify most people from the worst exesses of railroading and illusionism. They "get" 3rd edition, look with a tear in the eye at the lost plethora of settings and novels, shrug, and game on, all the while not valueing the pre-Dragonlance era highly.

The GDW-school is insularized into small ghettos like the TML or CoTI. The re-emergance of pre-DL gamers into the online scene revives many old games void of DL or Vampire influences.
These people are puzzled by the Forger solutions to the problems they never had.

Because that´s what it is: a problem that not everybody has.

Insight:

From the perspective of "Story Now!" there IS a development.
There is objective progress being made.

Now, I would like to go all around the internet and tatoo it on every confused gamers forehead: "There are other perspectives."

Minor observation--

GDW was kinda spent by the early 90s.

Serious Query--

Adventure Path: Dragonlance for gamists?