Quote from: Omega on November 12, 2021, 06:03:19 AM

Quote from: PsyXypher on November 11, 2021, 11:04:53 AM
As for the idea that presenting a situation is telling a story, I think it is. It's just a different method than rigid storytelling. You can make a story out an after action report from a Warhammer game, and you could probably make one from a D&D game where you set a scene and then let your PCs do whatever.

This isn't meant to be a "Gotcha" but rather an analysis. Maybe you'll disagree.

1: It isnt. Presenting a situation is not telling a story. Its describing a situation. "You are attacked by 4 orcs from the bushes" is not telling a story unless ones definition of story is starting to approach "everything on earth".

Possibly what you are thinking of is the more verbose descriptions some DMs give. Its still not telling a story despite what Pundit and some others here would like to claim.

2: Too early to tell. We'll hang ya later ya varmint! 

1: You'll find that many here do think that "Telling a story = everything on earth".

Quote from: Omega on November 12, 2021, 06:03:19 AM

1: It isnt. Presenting a situation is not telling a story. Its describing a situation. "You are attacked by 4 orcs from the bushes" is not telling a story unless ones definition of story is starting to approach "everything on earth".

Possibly what you are thinking of is the more verbose descriptions some DMs give. Its still not telling a story despite what Pundit and some others here would like to claim.

2: Too early to tell. We'll hang ya later ya varmint! 

You're right. Presenting the situation isn't a story. It's a summary. When all is said and done, and you've beaten the orcs, the events between that and the conclusion are your "story". Granted if your entire campaign is a single encounter it's a really boring story.

I disagree with the idea that "Everything on Earth" is a story. Because by definition, a story is supposed to have a conclusion, whilst in real life, there's no ending; just when the storytellers stop telling the story.

My main point is that the method you told the story in is different (a group effort and mainly up to chance) but you've still told a story in some fashion.

Actually, in hindsight, it's not really storytelling but similar to improvised comedy.

Hmmmm. We're getting all philosophical at this point. 

Quote from: PsyXypher on November 12, 2021, 12:29:28 PM

Quote from: Omega on November 12, 2021, 06:03:19 AM

1: It isnt. Presenting a situation is not telling a story. Its describing a situation. "You are attacked by 4 orcs from the bushes" is not telling a story unless ones definition of story is starting to approach "everything on earth".

Possibly what you are thinking of is the more verbose descriptions some DMs give. Its still not telling a story despite what Pundit and some others here would like to claim.

2: Too early to tell. We'll hang ya later ya varmint! 

You're right. Presenting the situation isn't a story. It's a summary. When all is said and done, and you've beaten the orcs, the events between that and the conclusion are your "story". Granted if your entire campaign is a single encounter it's a really boring story.

I disagree with the idea that "Everything on Earth" is a story. Because by definition, a story is supposed to have a conclusion, whilst in real life, there's no ending; just when the storytellers stop telling the story.

My main point is that the method you told the story in is different (a group effort and mainly up to chance) but you've still told a story in some fashion.

Actually, in hindsight, it's not really storytelling but similar to improvised comedy.

Hmmmm. We're getting all philosophical at this point. 

In reality you, thru your PCs are making history in the game world, YOU might afterwards tell a story about what happened, doesn't mean you were telling one while things were transpiring.

In the same way that you might tell a story about what happened in your vacations but you don't go in a vacation to tell a story and are not telling a story by vacationing.

It's also true that the GM might have NPCs telling and re-telling stories about the PCs adventures in the game world, we call this getting in world famous (or infamous). So the PCs get to a town they haven't visited before but their fame precedes them making things either easier or harder for them depending on what side the town sees itself as a part of.

And still neither the GM nor the players were telling a story while playing the current session/adventure.

I've taken advantage of our party's fame several times so far in our AD&D2e campaign. So far it has been advantageous, but I figure someday it could be dissadvantageous.

So, in the background, NPCs have been telling stories about our exploits. But we weren't telling a story during said exploits.

Quote from: PsyXypher on November 12, 2021, 12:29:28 PM

Quote from: Omega on November 12, 2021, 06:03:19 AM

1: It isnt. Presenting a situation is not telling a story. Its describing a situation. "You are attacked by 4 orcs from the bushes" is not telling a story unless ones definition of story is starting to approach "everything on earth".

Possibly what you are thinking of is the more verbose descriptions some DMs give. Its still not telling a story despite what Pundit and some others here would like to claim.

2: Too early to tell. We'll hang ya later ya varmint! 

You're right. Presenting the situation isn't a story. It's a summary. When all is said and done, and you've beaten the orcs, the events between that and the conclusion are your "story". Granted if your entire campaign is a single encounter it's a really boring story.

I disagree with the idea that "Everything on Earth" is a story. Because by definition, a story is supposed to have a conclusion, whilst in real life, there's no ending; just when the storytellers stop telling the story.

My main point is that the method you told the story in is different (a group effort and mainly up to chance) but you've still told a story in some fashion.

Actually, in hindsight, it's not really storytelling but similar to improvised comedy.

Hmmmm. We're getting all philosophical at this point. 

Greetings!

Indeed, I don't think that storytelling or stories are equal to "everything on earth" at all.

It certainly does seem like many here though hold to a very narrow definition of what a story is. Stories, and storytelling, however, is broader than that. I learned that in college, from English professors. Beyond that, since we are discussing gaming, there are many, many prominent gamer channels that all talk about stories, storytelling, about how D&D is all about stories, storytelling, and the stories you engage in at your table and in your campaign, and so on. They also are not just talking about a start, middle, and ending, or just explicitly what goes on during the "adventure"--but that stories and storytelling encompasses a broader scope than just that. Obviously, PsyXypher, there are many people that understand what you are getting at very well. It is a well-established understanding of stories and storytelling, though it isn't very popular here on this website, apparently.

I suppose that looking at stories and storytelling having broader scope and definition is something you either get, or don't. Rlationships are stries, in progress, as it were. Nations have stries. Some, like the Roman Empire, have definite structure, whle others, like America's story, is ongoing. Individual peoplehave stories. YOU have a story. Your relationships with each of your friends and family members--those too, are different "stories". Stories don't all follow one scope or one defition, but have a broader application. Some stories are onging, and haven't reached, or don't have, a definite conclusion. *shrugs* Like I said, it is either something that someone gets or doesn't.

Personally, I should also note that these discussions have zero to do with "storygaming" as far as the weird philosophy of forcing players into some kind of codified narrative, giving players control over the game, and other such nonsense. The Forge, storygamers, and the "Swine"--that all is a very different argument and discussion about indie game deveopers creating games that were structurally very different from a traditional TTRPG like D&D.

This is just discussion on how gaming works out in play and development at the table between the DM and the Player characters. As many gamers insist, D&D is all about storytelling. It seems like such an obvious thing, but again, apparently some people have this deep seated hatred and loathing of any mention of "stories" or "storytelling". It seems weird to me, for sure. D&D is all about storytelling, and always has been. There is also definitely a game going on, but it is wrapped up and interwoven with storytelling elements, and a storytelling process.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote
Nope, the GM invents shit to give the players stuff to resonate with. But not all of the time, also the players can go on their own and the GM simply follows and rolls for random encounters.

What you insist in not grasping is that there's no "writer" in RPGs (Unless you're playing a module raw and railroading the players so they follow the script).

So maybe don't try tu use terms that don't apply and people won't tell you you're wrong.

I imagine something about that fact hurts your butt mightily.

I have no idea, why should I accept your opinion about what's wrong my Mayan friend.
It's your word against mine, or more specificaly against Oxford dictionary

The point it - it does not matter whether GM invent shit out of his ass, or roll for table of random encounters.
Like I can write novel rolling on random events instead inventing everything from depths of my soul - that's still gonna be a novel.

So it's irrelevant - any sentence by GM describing events, places, people, history of fictional world is STORY.
Any sentence by players describing fictional actions of their characters is a story as quick as they leave their very throats.
When spoken it's a story. (Unless your GM gonna retcon this shit, or player if you're on DungeonCon).

Any described situation is part of story, state of things in fictional universe. And all that happens in ficitonal universe is a story.

TBH I love lots and lots of random rolls because I believe they usually generate better story elements than people's own ideas

QuoteTechnically, anything with conflict is a story.  There's a guy in the woods.  No story. There a bear in the same woods.  Almost a story, or at least foreshadowing.  Guy meets bear.  Now we have conflict; ergo we have a story.

Thing is, it's not much of a story, even of its particular type.

In RPGs, role playing isn't a story.  It's an activity of imagination, but no story.  One can role play with no conflict whatsoever.  There is also the game element to consider.  The thing that really makes the thing sing is the mixture of the RP and the G.  A good mixture of that with an otherwise boring story can be great fun.  Of course, a good mixture that happens to follow a narrative structure that resonates with the players and conflicts that they find interesting is even better.  To sacrifice the RP or the G for the sake of the "story" points is to turn the thing into something else.  That something else may be fun for some people, but not for me.  Waxing poetic about the possibilities of story doesn't change the basic tension between role playing, game, and real story.

No, Steven, technically - ergo according to dictionary universe - description of fictional flying castle is a story. No conflict, no events. Description of place. Story.
You try to mix some rail-roady GM's plan for established narrative with a story at wide. It's just not correct. While I agree game element generally exist as not-story though connected - after all game/dice generates lot of story, to free it from bias of DM and players - the roleplaying is story. Like any action of character described, announced by player is story from the moment player says it. No contradiction. It does not need to follow dramatic rules, screenwriting promise and delivery to be a story. I can describe my uneventful walk through forest and it's story.
Difference between this and RPG is - RPG is all fictional ergo situation is always a story while in relations of real life those are ontologically distinct. Because you know RPG is not real life.

QuoteBackgrounds are a separate can of worms.  Either the background has conflict in it or it doesn't.  If it doesn't, it's not story, in the same way me "telling the story" about going to town, buying a bag of flour, and then going home isn't a story either.  It's, at best, a narrative description or a vignette. Even done well, they are often not very interesting--usually about as interesting as someone telling you about a dream.  If the background has resolved conflict, it' is a story.  Not very useful in the game most likely, but perhaps useful in a summarized form as a kind of character foreshadowing.  Thing is, the summary is almost as useful as the whole thing, and takes a short paragraph from anyone, and two sentences if done well.

That leaves backgrounds with unresolved conflicts (presumably, because the player wants to resolve them in play).  That's effectively starting a least some of the characters in media res, which has its place in skilled hands.  It is, however, incompatible with, "and your character dies to random goblin in his first fight."  Or at least a lot of wasted effort should that happen.  Which brings us back to what kind of activity we are doing and which part get the emphasis.

Mainly, "story" has widely different meanings in many of the posts just in this topic, never mind the broader, never ending discussion of stories in RPGs.  What a lot of folks are saying is their conclusions on the paths they take and the choices they made.  For me, I'm not interested in certain types of stories--because they mean that a character can't die, and that's not a very fun game--whatever fun it may be other than "game".

Finally, there is difference between story and pretense of a story.  Confused because so many things that people call stories (even in literature) are pretense of a story.  Or at least pretense of a form.  Characters dressed up in trench coats, talking to "dames", and roughing up goons while looking for the murderer may or may not be a mystery story.  Many of them aren't.  They are an account of people dressed up playing the parts.  If they find clues and solve things with their brains, it's a mystery story.  If they get captured by the goons but fight their way out, it might be an adventure story.  If they dress up and go around being in scenes and get handed the answer without the author bothering to show us the deduction or the fights, then it's not really a story anymore.

Despite an RPG adventure having multiple "authors" and random outcomes and role play and gaming and all the rest, it can still run afoul of the pretense.  A good RPG session usually looks a lot different from a good book.  A bad RPG pretense looks an awful lot like a bad novel pretense.

This last is a major fault line among "gamers":  Those that like to play pretend as an elf versus those that like to pretend to play as an elf versus those that like to play at making decisions as an elf.  They sound like the same thing, but they aren't.  The shape of the "story" goes into radically different directions depending on which ones the players do.

As I said - this demand of conflict is totally without any linguistic base, sorry.
In fact I'd say RPG demands conflict more than written word stories. I mean you can make written stories based mostly on descriptions and feelings, but it won't work for RPG in a long run.
Like sure roleplaying shopping is conflict-less usually but it works as part of conflict-full overall story. It would not work on it's own.

Quote1a: It happens all the time. Definitions have been increasingly twisted out of shape or recognition by those wanting to cash in on the term or whos idea of any goven term approaches, or is "everything on earth". And alot of storygamers push the terms like RPG or Story straight to the "everything on earth" point.

But that's not even a twist. Like backstory was "what happened before" start of game/start of novel from the very beginning. It's like... standard. Trying to mark is as some woke-twist to push own definition forged artificially without any regard for living languages... well that's someone either wokester or dunno authist would do.

Quote1b: Pundits Swine are storygamers who have gone from just being occasionally annoying, to some sort of cult. A few years back the Forge cult and to a lesser degree the GNS were particularly bothersome. They would edit sites like Wikipedia and push hard on various fora I saw. And occasionally still see. BGG seems to have become a haven for the last holdouts. And more than a few drive by "ha ha! You were storygaming all along!" which endears no one.

But why are they named after our dear Head Amin?

Quote2: Backstory is whats gone before. And that can be the stuff that happened before the adventures start. Or it can be the adventures tale told after. Alot of folk are ever adding to their backstory as their character goes along. Sometimes its just a sentence or two like "After training we traveled out to a keep and fought some cultists in a valley full of monsters." and later that could be expanded to " And then we set sail to an island to the south that was full of dinosaurs and helped some flying raccoons." Or could be more embellished and detailed.

Backstory for a game will always be event from BEFORE game timeline started.
Of course events of game can be turned into backstory in-verse were for instance PC's shall meet new allies and friends and recollect earlier events. For those new NPC's it's gonna be backstory (as their mutual story with PC's happened only later). But from overall game perspective... no not really. Like no one uses it like that, sorry.

Quote3: I think thats also part of the oft intense hatred directed at storygamers. The push to either chain and restrict the DM, or outright remove them and make everyone a mini-DM. Also the push away from actual role playing and into, well, storytelling.

Push to restrain and limit DM is result of decades of shitty DM's abusing "rulings not rules" paradigms.
But as I said I consider roleplaying a form of storytelling. Telling story of one guy - his decisions, his actions on a background of wider GM spun campaign. As long as player is directly linked to specific avatar of PC, and not limited to metagaming only, it's for me roleplaying.

QuoteIt isnt. Presenting a situation is not telling a story. Its describing a situation. "You are attacked by 4 orcs from the bushes" is not telling a story unless ones definition of story is starting to approach "everything on earth".

Any description of fictional events resolved or not is a story. Orcs attack when announced becomes part of narration, become estabilished story. Story not finished, but damn if story had to be finished, then bloody Song of Ice and Fire is just one big situation as clearly GRRM had no idea what should happen next to close thing - so he presented himself into situation. He wrote those 4 orcs, and just start procrastinating.
Eternal Situation of the Novel.

QuotePossibly what you are thinking of is the more verbose descriptions some DMs give. Its still not telling a story despite what Pundit and some others here would like to claim.

I literally quote twice definition for Oxford freaking Dictionary that any description of fictional events or places or people, spoken or written constitutes a story. Not more verbose. Any.
Once you told as GM "You are attacked by 4 orcs" this attack become part of story. One would say unfinished, but then novel half into writing is not finished either. So situation does not have to be solved to become story. It just have to be narrated fictional event.

QuoteThis is why gaming isn't a damn story.

Gaming is what IS happening. It's the situation. What happens afterwards is the retelling of that situation with narrative.

The "story" is what emerges after the adventurers DO things.

And whatever they announce they are doing in-verse is a story.
Now sure gaming is not story - but story is happening simultaneously, not after gaming, and I'd say it's mostly primarily objective, otherwise we would play chess, and wargames, and go, and not RPG. In RPG gaming is well some mathematical engine that release story from being biased purely on people whims. To deliver us from pure form of collaborative storytelling which I guess is how Tekumel was forged before D&D happened. Because you know - dice, or cards, or any other mathematical system is fair. Which makes for better story because... unexpected story. That's a thrill. And people likes thrill, likes unexpected.

Unless they are unfunfilled novelist GM's. Then we all shall suffer.

QuoteI live with a novel editor and book-writing coach... this conversation is one I have to help beat into the heads of writers that don't understand a "situation" isn't a story. It's a situation. When writing a novel you have to establish the narrative of those "situations" that occur in the book in a structure that has a beginning, middle, and end and it has an established structure.

TBH... you don't have to. There are structureless novels. Usually shitty ones, but there are various examples, some quite famous. I'd say RPG game is even more dependent of some basic structures than novels. I mean you cannot RPG non-linear chaotic mess of emotions and inner thought rivers like James Joyce, and there's plenty novels with simple antidramatic RPG-like formula. Like most D&D novels are like that I think.

QuoteTTRPG's are *not* that in play. Situations happen, the PC's react to them, they create them but there is no definitive ending to it until the actual resolution occurs and there is a moment to look back at it. Can it be planned? Sure. But until it's over - it's not over and therefore there is no "story".

But what is OVER? Like that's terribly nebulous term. Like is novel only story when I finished reading it - and before that those were just situations presented to me?
I think thing is OVER when it's estabilished. For novel it's basically when it's printed. For RPG is... like just after it left your mouth - there's no other place. Once you told it, it's estabilished and retconns are rather rare, right. And once it's accepted its story. Unfinished sure. But what happened happened.

If I stop session at orcs attack - players gonna call it cliffhanger, like in TV-show or other narrative, and orcish attack will be considered a fact within world. Part of story.

QuoteThere are situations that chain themselves to other situations logically, but the ACT of engaging in those situations isn't a story until the resolution occurs. Just like your life isn't a story until you parse it between a set of events that have some meaning which isn't established until after the fact.

Meaning is necessary for drama yes, but there's plenty undramatic stories in the end. Not only in RPG, like even in actual dramas I think.

Quote1: You'll find that many here do think that "Telling a story = everything on earth".

Let's add EVERYTHING ON FICTIONAL EARTH and I can agree with that statement. Anything fictional exist just in story. Unlike real world where real shit happening and verbal description are ontologically divided as nominalism teaches us, in fiction there is only shit imagined.

QuoteBecause by definition, a story is supposed to have a conclusion

Novel should have a conclusion, short story, drama, film. But story... no. Soap operas are stories, and they are design to run basically till the end of world without any conclusion.

QuoteActually, in hindsight, it's not really storytelling but similar to improvised comedy.

Difference is in improvised comedy you improvise jokes. In RPG you improvise facts about fictional reality.

QuotePersonally, I should also note that these discussions have zero to do with "storygaming" as far as the weird philosophy of forcing players into some kind of codified narrative, giving players control over the game, and other such nonsense. The Forge, storygamers, and the "Swine"--that all is a very different argument and discussion about indie game deveopers creating games that were structurally very different from a traditional TTRPG like D&D.

Agree wholeheartedly.
Though in defence of storygamers (or... TBH there may be no need to defence, Fiasco is perfectly fine cool game) - they came sort of from simmilar boiling pot as OSR sandbox philosophy.
Both storygame and traditional sandbox are done to give most of control over string of events to player.
And both condemn strongly DM's railroading players to fullfil their masterplans, as was common in 90's when Vampire was reigning as new hot shit.

That was forcing players. Players engaging in Fiasco are to play forced in some narrative - Coen brothers/Tarrantino movies narrative, but well... game supports that, meanwhile Vampire was promoting GM as storyteller while giving us very Sim like mechanics of being a Vampire that allowed you to do whatever you like as Vampire.
Those are cool designs, even if Ron Edwards was big bafoon trying to psychoanalize people without any expertise to do it.

QuoteThis is just discussion on how gaming works out in play and development at the table between the DM and the Player characters. As many gamers insist, D&D is all about storytelling. It seems like such an obvious thing, but again, apparently some people have this deep seated hatred and loathing of any mention of "stories" or "storytelling". It seems weird to me, for sure. D&D is all about storytelling, and always has been. There is also definitely a game going on, but it is wrapped up and interwoven with storytelling elements, and a storytelling process.

For game to be RPG I think you need 3 elements, sort of corresponding with those terrible Forge theories - you have game as mechanics to solve whatever conflicts arise while taking burden off players and GM (that's why GM fudging dice are generally condemned aside precisely of those railroading types - without game it's collaborative storytelling but not RPG, you have simulation of character given to player without which it's storygame like Fiasco where players are Screenwriters not Actors, and you have overall story, setting, events estabilished usually by GM, or in some rare GM-less characters by random tables of events , without which game would turn into tactical Commandos like wargame - without any narrative background.
First one estabilishes G in RPG, other two I think together RP.

Quote from: tenbones on November 12, 2021, 11:15:14 AM
This is why gaming isn't a damn story.

Gaming is what IS happening. It's the situation. What happens afterwards is the retelling of that situation with narrative.

The "story" is what emerges after the adventurers DO things.

Why after? This is why this topic always devolves into semantic arguments.

If I turn on the evening news and the anchor says, "We have a developing story tonight..." what does that mean? The story isn't over. This isn't the past tense. The story is happening now. It's playing out in real time. Not all dogs are beagles. Not all stories are recounts after the fact. There is no such requirement in the common usage of the word. Insisting that stories only happen "after" is the Jesus smuggling moment and where the semantic twist occurs.

Quote from: SHARK on November 12, 2021, 01:19:22 PM
This is just discussion on how gaming works out in play and development at the table between the DM and the Player characters. As many gamers insist, D&D is all about storytelling. It seems like such an obvious thing, but again, apparently some people have this deep seated hatred and loathing of any mention of "stories" or "storytelling". It seems weird to me, for sure. D&D is all about storytelling, and always has been. There is also definitely a game going on, but it is wrapped up and interwoven with storytelling elements, and a storytelling process.

I think it goes something like this.

You have a great D&D game. Players say, "That was an awesome story, man!"

DM says to himself. Hmmm. All the work I put into the campaign, and it's the story that really counts to them. Well, just wait. This next story is going to be even better. I'll make sure of it. And the DM begins by crafting the story then trying to shoehorn everything into it. Players are left feeling like there's no choice. The game sucks. The story doesn't pop. Players walk away, "Stories have no place in an RPG."

The irony is what went wrong is the DM heard the players say "story" and thought that meant he had to plan, in advance, a great beginning, middle, and end. Like all good and proper stories. The DM failed to grasp that stories can develop in realtime. And that they could be more like a choose-your-own adventure rather than strictly linear. It's the same mistaken assumptions the would-be guardians of the definition of "story" are making here. I get the hate. I hate that shit, too. I don't think it plays well in an RPG, and probably should be kept separate from RPGs. That does not preclude, however, the possibility that some GMs actually know what they're doing.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on November 10, 2021, 10:50:21 PM
Technically, anything with conflict is a story.  There's a guy in the woods.  No story. There a bear in the same woods.  Almost a story, or at least foreshadowing.  Guy meets bear.  Now we have conflict; ergo we have a story.

I would say technically any conscious act is a story because the elements that must be present for there to be conscious action are the same ones that make a hero's journey style story. That's not to say unconscious action or reaction can't be a story--I'm making no claim about that either way. Likewise, I'm not saying every story has to be a hero's journey--again I'm making no claim about that either way. As Shark says, it's not "everything on earth" but it is incredibly broad, and it's normal for there to be stories within stories.

This might just be splitting hairs. One thing that struck me about the novel Atlas Shrugged is the central theme of that story is contrasting the philosophy of conflict with the philosophy of non-conflict. The heroes cooperate while the villains manipulate. And the heroes just turn their backs and ignore the manipulators and just build their own dreams by partnering with other heroes. They don't actually engage in any conflict. And what's interesting, what "works" about this for me is the heroes are building great things. The fact that they're doing it against the backdrop of a world that's falling apart makes it all the more impressive and inspiring.

The building of great things without a central conflict fits the model of conscious action and the hero's journey. Now it's not impossible to salvage the thesis that stories require conflict in the face of this. You could say this is a story of a man vs nature conflict. The building of great things is a struggle against the fact that in nature we're born naked, and that these great things have to be maintained against the natural forces of entropy. You could say that. We may just be using words differently. And that's fine. We don't need to argue the semantics. I just don't think that these sorts of conflicts actually are what's central to the story of Atlas Shrugged, so I just don't think "conflict" is the best way to describe what's essential.

And this is relevant here. Because it's not just Atlas Shrugged. A huge part of the enjoyment of RPGs is watching your character develop over time. Specifically, improving over time. Often times, you start with a zero out of it build great things--a hero. Zero to hero is certainly a story. Of course, along the way there are conflicts. You're fighting monsters and such. And of course tastes vary. Not everyone is into this zero-to-hero stuff. And not every RPG even includes this as a feature. But we can't ignore that there are players for whom the zero to hero stuff is the game and is the story and don't want games where their PCs could die or lose a limb or suffer any severe or permanent setback. I'm not saying this is a good thing or bad. It's not really my cup of tea. Just pointing out that central non-conflict in a zero to hero story isn't an oddity at all in the RPG world.

Quote from: Lunamancer on November 15, 2021, 07:45:58 AM

Quote from: tenbones on November 12, 2021, 11:15:14 AM
This is why gaming isn't a damn story.

Gaming is what IS happening. It's the situation. What happens afterwards is the retelling of that situation with narrative.

The "story" is what emerges after the adventurers DO things.

Why after? This is why this topic always devolves into semantic arguments.

If I turn on the evening news and the anchor says, "We have a developing story tonight..." what does that mean? The story isn't over. This isn't the past tense. The story is happening now. It's playing out in real time. Not all dogs are beagles. Not all stories are recounts after the fact. There is no such requirement in the common usage of the word. Insisting that stories only happen "after" is the Jesus smuggling moment and where the semantic twist occurs.

To me "after" doesn't mean "after it's done," it means "after it's started". As in "follows from, consequentially."

I think others reading this thread feel the same, and I haven't noticed anyone else getting confused about that.

If you don't like discussions like this breaking down into purely semantic arguments, then don't start those arguments!

Quote from: Lunamancer on November 15, 2021, 07:45:58 AM

Quote from: tenbones on November 12, 2021, 11:15:14 AM
This is why gaming isn't a damn story.

Gaming is what IS happening. It's the situation. What happens afterwards is the retelling of that situation with narrative.

The "story" is what emerges after the adventurers DO things.

Why after? This is why this topic always devolves into semantic arguments.

If I turn on the evening news and the anchor says, "We have a developing story tonight..." what does that mean? The story isn't over. This isn't the past tense. The story is happening now. It's playing out in real time. Not all dogs are beagles. Not all stories are recounts after the fact. There is no such requirement in the common usage of the word. Insisting that stories only happen "after" is the Jesus smuggling moment and where the semantic twist occurs.

Bolding mine:

It means that it would be a story you'd read in the next day newspaper, but thanks to cameras, helicopters, drones, cellphones, etc. we get to witness it while it's still happening.

A more apt comparison would be me going fishing, is there a story developing? Maybe, but I went to fish not to tell a story.

The PCs are making history in the game world, and they or some NPCs may or may not tell stories in the game world about their exploits. And I as the GM/Player might tell a story about the exploits of the session, or I might not, it depends if the session was an especially fun one, or interesting because someone did something clever/unexpected.

Do you tell stories of ALL the game sessions? I don't, because only some are interesting enough others might enjoy hearing/reading what transpired.

Just like in a war, we get the stories of some of the soldiers, generals, etc. but not about every minute they were there, only the important/funny/horrific/interesting parts are told as stories. The rest is part of the grey mush background of history.

Which is why "Reality TV" has to be either scripted (almost always) or the directors/producers talk with some participant to create drama/conflict... To have something interesting happening. And the people participating want to be in the spotlight, so they might start drama by themselves.

It seems to me that Narrative is created pretty easily in a game and then it is not much effort to start linking that Narrative together to form a story.

QuoteA more apt comparison would be me going fishing, is there a story developing? Maybe, but I went to fish not to tell a story.

Difference is fishing happens in real world, while action of RPG happens inherently inside fiction, ergo per Oxfrod, inside story.
And yes you play to tell a story, ergo to tell about some fictional events happening - whether by GM's railroadin, PC inventions or random tables - otherwise you'd play chess, go, Unreal Tournament or anything else void of this aspect.

QuoteDo you tell stories of ALL the game sessions? I don't, because only some are interesting enough others might enjoy hearing/reading what transpired.

Yes of course, while playing them.
Most of course I agree are not fun enough to recolect them

QuoteIt seems to me that Narrative is created pretty easily in a game and then it is not much effort to start linking that Narrative together to form a story.

I'd say Narrative (unlike narration) demands higher level of coherence compared to story, which as shown can be any description of fictional events. (Like players shopping for 3 sessions, despite GM's teeth gnashing). But of course coursing campaign in more narrative/dramatic direction is not something hard. In fact sometimes it's harder to avoid it when necessary

I could swear I've read this same discussion somewhere before.

Quote from: Bren on November 16, 2021, 12:01:36 PM
I could swear I've read this same discussion somewhere before.

Yes you have, right here several times, but this time the "Everything in the universe is a story" brigade came out in force. I for one I'm done arguing with ppl that think like that.

QuoteI could swear I've read this same discussion somewhere before.

Quote from: Lunamancer on November 15, 2021, 07:45:58 AM

Quote from: tenbones on November 12, 2021, 11:15:14 AM
This is why gaming isn't a damn story.

Gaming is what IS happening. It's the situation. What happens afterwards is the retelling of that situation with narrative.

The "story" is what emerges after the adventurers DO things.

Why after? This is why this topic always devolves into semantic arguments.

If I turn on the evening news and the anchor says, "We have a developing story tonight..." what does that mean? The story isn't over. This isn't the past tense. The story is happening now. It's playing out in real time. Not all dogs are beagles. Not all stories are recounts after the fact. There is no such requirement in the common usage of the word. Insisting that stories only happen "after" is the Jesus smuggling moment and where the semantic twist occurs.

Well a "story" is a semantics element. Gaming is the action of doing a "thing". Story is the literal retelling of a thing, often edited for structure to produce a narrative. A "developing story" in the case of relating news is literally that - a story that hasn't developed because it's not complete - what is relayed to you is *still* after the fact. By direct analogy the "situation" isn't resolved, so there is no story until the situation has been resolved. That is where "the game" is happening.

It's no more me telling you the story about how my band of heroes killed the Orcs in the Orc camp. But if I'm in the beginning or middle of that situation - there is no story to tell because I haven't *actually* killed the Orcs yet. And the situation is resolving. Even if you and I are part of that situation, the "story" is whatever we tell ourselves (and others) *after* the fact, often emphasizing the important or dramatic parts - you're not going emphasize the non-important stuff unless it's for narrative retelling - like I'm not going to likely include how you missed that second attack, but I might if you missed three-attacks in a row? Or whatever.

The Story(tm) becomes the tale of the deed(s) after we kill the Orcs of Splitrot Tribe. The game is how we entered the situation(s) that allowed us to eventually do it.

The relation of a fact is not a story without an Ending. If I tell you I had breakfast this morning - not a story. It's a relation of a fact. If I told you the story of how I got up late for work, and for breakfast I ate cold pizza out of the fridge and on the way to work I got the shits and crashed my car. It's a bad story, but it relates a series of facts that concludes with an ending. The meaning of the facts (which is where semantics matters) transcends the facts themselves. This is what story ultimately is for.

In gaming - the development of your character is *LITERALLY* not known until it actually happens. The narrative of that development arc happens in play, but the story of that arc is only known after the game itself is engaged and is played out. You can't tell me the story of your badass warrior until you've actually played it all out.

Now that larger narrative arc can be broken up into many individual stories - which ideally is broken up as "levels" (I personally don't allow characters to "level up" in the middle of an adventure without downtime). But the whole arc of that character is not known until it is done. He may have a story you can relate to me based on his past adventures - but it ends when you get to the point where you're playing the game because now you're actually doing the things that continue the story.

As I pointed before no story (at least according to dict) does not need to be finished. It does not need to follow any dramatic rules. No beginning nor ending. It merely needs to be fictional.
If GRRM gonna croak tomorrow in inexplicable accident while running in his gigantic hamster-ball, the Jon Snow dying in the snow will be never resolved situation, but it won't be any less story because of it, even though it's gonna be without ending. The RPG is fundamentally within fiction, so any situation is already a story, because well unlike real world it has no any other essence of its existence than description of fictional events by players and GM. And as quick as those descriptions leaves their mouth - they are story.