Quote from: Kyle Aaron on November 10, 2021, 06:05:04 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 10, 2021, 05:51:18 PMI'm playing a game, not writting a novel.

An important distinction lost on many GMs. Which is unfortunate, since they would generally make poor novelists, and adding members to the committee doing the writing doesn't improve things.

This guy gets it, someone buy him a beverage of his liking in my name please.

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 10, 2021, 06:06:24 PM

QuoteGood thing then IDGAF about being narratively BIG YEAH then.

I'm playing a game, not writting a novel.

Game which still is narration though improvised and may be MEH or BIG YEAH.

QuoteAn important distinction lost on many GMs. Which is unfortunate, since they would generally make poor novelists, and adding members to the committee doing the writing doesn't improve things.

I do not think that adding characters in way that does not seems utterly shoehorned just so player can keep playing quickly, is in any way equivalent of writing a novel.

Wrongo bongo, I'm not "narrating" I'm describing a situation. Important distinction there dude.

No there is not any distinction. As soon as description leaves your mouth, it's estabilished narration

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 10, 2021, 06:58:09 PM
No there is not any distinction. As soon as description leaves your mouth, it's estabilished narration

More semantic games, no it's not the same and you know what people mean, but choose to use semantic "arguments".

Narration: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/narration
Narrate: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/narrating
Describe: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/describe

Not even the examples used agree with you.

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/narrate

Ergo - to tell a story. And as we discussed despite your sperg attempts to claim otherwise - playing RPG containt telling a story - as any in-verse event, any attempt by player, everything happening in character, any description of NPC is a story

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 10, 2021, 07:57:19 PM
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/narrate

Ergo - to tell a story. And as we discussed despite your sperg attempts to claim otherwise - playing RPG containt telling a story - as any in-verse event, any attempt by player, everything happening in character, any description of NPC is a story

Narrate IS to tell a story, I'm not doing that.

Nope they aren't.

For instance you're a huge cunt while yes I'm an aspie. It's not a story it's just me stating two facts.

But if it was fictional situation it would be a story.
Telling any fictional event or situation is narrating a story.

As Oxford dictionary clearly shows. So maybe do Anglos a favour - don't try to redefine their words, against their dictionaries, and they won't try to explain you difference between tsikbal and báaxal.

And Oxford says that among other things story is:

"description of events and people that the writer or speaker has invented in order to entertain people" (in fact it's first of given definitions).

Which is exactly what GM do when he describes like anything in their world. And exactly what any player do describing his character actions and dialogues (because quite obviously characters and NPC talking also contitutes event).

Greetings!

Well, when I was in college--taking English classes, about reading, writing, storytelling--it became quite clear that our whole lives are "stories". I'm not sure where some of you get this strict, narrow concept of what a "story" is--are the events, dialogue, and actions of player characters a story, after the adventure? Well, yes, of course.

But that is not the only definition, or even parameter and scope, of stories, and storytelling. Everything that a player's character did--before they met up with the rest of the group--is a story.

Each of the different player characters--their characters each have a *different* story in their backgrounds, before they met up with the rest of the group.

Once the player characters have all met up--the relationships that they establish amongst themselves, as well as various NPC's--is a STORY.

All of that, including the DM telling the players how their characters fit into the world, different NPC's and so on--yeah, that, too, is a STORY.

All of these different stories going on, and being developed, BEFORE the group ever sets foot in the fucking dungeon.

All of the stuff that the players do during the game adventure, yeah, as I mentioned, that is a story as well. But it is just ONE story, amongst several, all going on at the same time, flowing like a river.

After the adventure, there is the story from the adventure, but that isn't the only story. There are stories ongoing amongst each of the player characters, interacting with different NPC's, different relationships--those are all individual stories. All of those stories are ongoing, and interconnect with each other--or may potentially do so--while also being separate and different from each other.

Romances between different characters, friendships developed, allies made, family members, different NPC's, relationships between the player characters, different rivals and enemies made by the sorceress, or the rogue and so on--all of those different relationships are different, ongoing stories.

It isn't ONLY about what goes on during the adventure scenario alone, out in the haunted marsh, or in the dungeon below the border fortress. There are all kinds of different stories going on throughout the adventure, throughout the campaign, constantly.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Shark,

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.

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.

Backgrounds 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.

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 10, 2021, 08:29:56 PM
But if it was fictional situation it would be a story.
Telling any fictional event or situation is narrating a story.

As Oxford dictionary clearly shows. So maybe do Anglos a favour - don't try to redefine their words, against their dictionaries, and they won't try to explain you difference between tsikbal and báaxal.

And Oxford says that among other things story is:

"description of events and people that the writer or speaker has invented in order to entertain people" (in fact it's first of given definitions).

Which is exactly what GM do when he describes like anything in their world. And exactly what any player do describing his character actions and dialogues (because quite obviously characters and NPC talking also contitutes event).

Bolding mine

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.

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 10, 2021, 08:23:57 AM
I'm not sure you can really ruin definition, but more importantly - what are Pundit Swines?

QuoteIf you read through some older posts you'll find quite a few here tend to see story as a byproduct of playing.

Personally I think a better term would be that it creates a backstory. Tales and legends of deeds past

I think quite clear definition of backstory used by like 99% of RPG players - is events that happened to PCs/world before game started. I see little reason to change so commonly accepted definitions for sake of faux etymological correctness.

Now as I said one of Oxford definitions yes indeed generally can be fit to this "byproduct of playing" (or maybe even "product of playing") box.

QuoteCan you have a RPG session that has a defined plot? Hell Yes! Theres some pretty good ones too out there. But theres also more that completely miss the point and fail miserably. And no. Having timed events and whatnod does not mean its a storygame or even a story. That can be world-in-motion sorts of dynamics. Especially if the PCs can avoid or derail a timed event.

That I generally agree. For my storygames start when you takes players from actors chair into director/screenwriters chair, so they control no more their characters but plot itself.
As long as it's not the fing, then even new wave games IMHO count as RPGs.

1a: 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.

1b: 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.

2: 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.

Another term might be the characters history. Or both?

3: 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.

On the subject of character death and replacement.

Personally I liked O and BX and to a lesser degree AD&D's system where you could draw on new characters from the retinue of hencemen, retainers, mercs or whatever other NPCs the PCs had on tow.

With those being phased out by 2e, or it not being a viable option prior for situational reasons, the second advice I liked was just wait till the party gets back to town, or rescue some hostages and the new PC is introduced that way. Or even a survivor of another adventuring group they come across soon after some character falls.

Lots of ways to smoothly introduce a replacement without needing to jump through narrative hoops to poof them into existence. (Well unless the new PC was just rescued from a Mirror of Trapping, in shich case the DID just poof into existence. heh.)

And a bemusing one from the Eye of the Beholder D&D PC games. Along the way you could find bones of fallen adventurers. If you found enough you could have them raised to join the party or replace someone lost.

Quote from: Omega on November 11, 2021, 09:00:59 AM
On the subject of character death and replacement.

Personally I liked O and BX and to a lesser degree AD&D's system where you could draw on new characters from the retinue of hencemen, retainers, mercs or whatever other NPCs the PCs had on tow.

With those being phased out by 2e, or it not being a viable option prior for situational reasons, the second advice I liked was just wait till the party gets back to town, or rescue some hostages and the new PC is introduced that way. Or even a survivor of another adventuring group they come across soon after some character falls.

Lots of ways to smoothly introduce a replacement without needing to jump through narrative hoops to poof them into existence. (Well unless the new PC was just rescued from a Mirror of Trapping, in shich case the DID just poof into existence. heh.)

And a bemusing one from the Eye of the Beholder D&D PC games. Along the way you could find bones of fallen adventurers. If you found enough you could have them raised to join the party or replace someone lost.

Rescuing some ancient hero from imprisonment actually sounds like a good idea, I won't lie. Maybe that necromancer you just beat has your replacement character trapped in that gem your party just smashed.

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.

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! 

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.

I 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.

TTRPG'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".

There 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.