Quote from: Elliot WilenIn fact it's one of the dictionary definitions of story.

But not necessarily a definition that serves any real purpose in a discussion like that: once someone limits the concept of "story" in roleplaying games to "re-enactment according to a strictly enforced script", he's no doubt going to have a hard time finding examples of anyone actually playing like that, at least in the context of RPGs as gamers generally understand them. In fact, it again sounds much more like "simming" rather than something that would enjoy wide-spread appeal in tabletop play.

(I'll have to agree that Settembrini would hate Donjon, though.)

for me, "story" is what happens after the adventure or story arc is done.  i start off with a situation, or rough sense of plot.  for sake of argument, let's do it like this:

"bad guy" starts luring people into his house.  the pc's witness such an act.

from there, i'll figure roughly what may happen.

1.  players intervene.  how?  with subtlety?  violently?
2.  players do nothing.

from there, it's a matter of "if a, then b" kind of stuff.  maybe the "bad guy" is a cannibal?  how about a pedophile?  how about a cultist with a mind flayer in the basement?  what would happen if they do nothing?  

i usually give my players free reign to explore what they want, sort of a roleplaying sandbox sort of thing.  

i have an adventure that i'm working on for CoC that could be considered more "story-like" but the players are crew on a ship, so they don't have as much freedom as usual.  

maybe i have an aversion to railroady adventures of old, where a story was told, but you're really just along for the ride.  

at least that's my take on it.

let me add, if someone want to tell me what a good "story" game would be, i'm all ears.  or they could just PM me if they think it may get too incendiary (here?  :haw: )

QuoteSounds good to me, although one might as well call it the GDW paradigm. I know the early modules, JTAS and MT Journal better than Challenge, and they kinda sorta fit the bill already.

That said, you may want to avoid putting too much weight on a paradigm that for some reason (which?) is limited only to one subgenre (hardish sci-fi).

Mmm. It was introspective that led me to propose that paradigm. I´m only starting to realize it´s small following.

Still, 140 000 T2K basic books, Traveller, DC etc. ad nauseam do form a significant mass of players and games.

Again, realizing that ones own experiences come from a minor school of thought would be an advancement.

I´d also say the GDW-approach was shared by others. SPI, Dream Pod Nine and R.Talsorian, and to some lengths the early FASA. The details of which would have to be debated.

Quote from: SettembriniHave you read a Challenge Magazine?

Again, I´m not talking about a resulting narrative, bucky. Do your homework and then Go, Play, before you threadcrap.

 Just so we're clear here , Sett, Do you mean the Challenge magazine that used to be published by GDW?? It was what the old Journal Of The TRAVBELLE's Aid Society mutated into.

 IF you're talking about THAT magazine....then yeah I know what you're referring to.

- Ed C.

Quote from: SettembriniEDIT: jdrakeh has shown everybody his mission. Disrupting this site with lies and distortions, with threadcrapping and propaganda. I urge every sane person to put him on ignore, too. ......

What the fuck?

 As far as I know , Jdrakeh has never started a thread with the title "GURPS is a Joke".  He's not any more annoying than anyone else on the site, YOU included Sett.
So you like the old GDW-style of laying out a scenario or adventure idea.
Thats nice.

So, run your games that way.


- Ed C.

Folks, arguing over the definition of "story" is only apropos if the term is truly an obstacle to understanding Sett's meaning.

Sett is contrasting written adventures that consist of starting situations, leaving the development and resolution of the situations to the players, with "railroady adventures" (as beeber calls them) which are typically written as a series of scenes through which the players will be shepherded. (Sometimes a trail of breadcrumb-clues is used, but the difference is slight.)

Sett, I'm not sure DP9 belongs in your list; the intro adventure of Jovian Chronicles is written in the style of "after the PCs defeat the enemy attack, X will happen". SPI, though, as I said: of the adventures they produced for DQ and Universe, I don't believe any had written-out scenes once the "meat" of the adventure was reached.

Up above you talk about the RQ-paradigm, which I wonder about since even though I'm a fan of the system, I haven't read/played any published adventures. From what I know of them, though, most sound very "location-crawl-y"--even though other Chaosium games might have quite scripted scenarios (e.g., the first scenario from Sorcerers of Pan-Tang that I brought up in another thread, as being very railroady & illusionistic).

Quote from: KoltarJust so we're clear here , Sett, Do you mean the Challenge magazine that used to be published by GDW?? It was what the old Journal Of The TRAVBELLE's Aid Society mutated into.

 IF you're talking about THAT magazine....then yeah I know what you're referring to.

I was a subscriber, and I think what that magazine WAS mutated significantly over time.

At first, it was just JTAS recut to net in Twilight 2000. This did mean very simulationist (in JKim speak, not forgespeak, where simulationist is largely a meaningless term) take on gaming.

Towards the end, it was a diffuse mass with little identifiable central premise of style other than trying to be everything to everybody in the modern military or SF vein.

QuoteTowards the end, it was a diffuse mass with little identifiable central premise of style other than trying to be everything to everybody in the modern military or SF vein.

I would argue that there was an implied style of refereeing for all the scenarios in the mag. The genres were mutliple, the implied style of reffing wasn´t.

Quote from: SettembriniI would argue that there was an implied style of refereeing for all the scenarios in the mag. The genres were mutliple, the implied style of reffing wasn´t.

I'll have to pull out one of my later magazines when I get home to check that. I won't call you wrong; after all, I was only in it for the MegaTraveller articles; I paid little attention to the likes of Shadowrun or Space 1889.

But I suspect, given that the magazine seemed to be pulled from freelancers as well as designers working for the topic games, that there was no such unified approach unless the editor was very heavy handed. And somehow, I doubt they had enough submissions to be picky.

Quote from: SettembriniStacks of Challenge Magazines, and the games that are covered by that publication.

You are talking about the GDW house magazine.

Quote from: SettembriniThere is no "story", but there is genre.
Challenge Magazine culture does totally not care about "story". It´s a non-entity.
More importantly, however is situation. Adventurous situations, which are expected to be taken as starting point for the extrapolations of the Referee.

You need to define what you are calling story. Because frankly, in my experience with Traveller and other games that are rules heavy trend to produce detailed backgrounds to the generated stats or list of advantages some coherent meaning. Once you are dealing with a detailed background you will have plot because well when you are trying to simulate a world it will produce plot.

For example Traveler explaining who inhabit the two dozen or so planets in the subsector. Or in Twilight 2000 tooling around central Poland trying to deal with the locals to survive. Or 2300AD traveling up the French Arm to see what the big deal about the Kafers. Or a Federated Suns Mechwarrior dealing with a Combine on his homeworld.

In the process of dealing with the plot laid out by the referee and background you generate the story of your PCs in the world.

So again exactly what the hell are you are calling story.

Quote from: SettembriniHave you read a Challenge Magazine?

Note I have every issues stacked and bagged in a nice archive box two room down from my computer office.

Quote from: GrimGentBut not necessarily a definition that serves any real purpose in a discussion like that: once someone limits the concept of "story" in roleplaying games to "re-enactment according to a strictly enforced script", he's no doubt going to have a hard time finding examples of anyone actually playing like that, at least in the context of RPGs as gamers generally understand them.

(I'll have to agree that Settembrini would hate Donjon, though.)

The part I have difficulty with Sett's statements is that it doesn't fit any example of actual play I seen. I think I understand his play style however what he is describing isn't what I found players, like him, have a problem with.

To use a simplistic example from a decade and a half ago. There were Traveller, Mechwarrior, Twilight 2000, etc players that just couldn't stand how a lot of people played Vampire filled with intrigue and angst ridden plots. The same players a decade further back than that couldn't stand dealing with all the Glorantha stuff in Runequest.

I have always known players who have played an RPGs as little more than a wargame with continuity. The more they care about the rules the more game oriented the RPG they played would be. I.e. Mechwarrior, Traveller to some extent.

However it more complex than this. Because you got a realism scale going as well. On one hand you have guys playing Chivalry and Sorcery, Harnmaster, and perhap Rolemaster could be thrown in there as well. On the other you got your BFG (Big F**king Gun) crowd that go gonzo over games like RIFTS.

The thing that I see setting them all from the mainstream D&D crowd that they had fun with rules that are more complex than the D&D (well D&D of the 80's at least).

Quote from: Caesar SlaadI'll have to pull out one of my later magazines when I get home to check that. I won't call you wrong; after all, I was only in it for the MegaTraveller articles; I paid little attention to the likes of Shadowrun or Space 1889.

I think you will find that they can be be described as terse.

estar,

if everbody thought like you, we wouldn´t need to discuss this.

Clearly, when reviewing RPG history, there are enough people that weren´t satisfied with emerging narrative.
They either:

1) railroaded & illusionized
or
2) made new games
to satisfy their need for dramatic structure.

Now, there´s nothing wrong with scratching an itch. But scratching the itch for production of structured drama that mirrors TV-type tropes with RPGs is alien to me.

See, there´s the Vampire/Dragonlance school of thought, which the forge is a backlash against. Surely, Forger games deliver in that regard: Valueing player input, collaborative outset, clarified conflict rules for who gets to tell which part of the "story" etc.

But what I do not understand is the itch itself. -> my problem; which I´m reflecting upon; and upon it´s sources, in this very thread.

And I do not understand why those who have that "soap-emulation" itch think that RPGs are REALLY ABOUT "TV-emulation". Which they are totally not. Anyone who thinks and says so, is unveiling his lack of understanding of RPGs.