QuoteSemantic games to win an argument? You know damn well what people are saying when they speak about story in RPGs, and yet here you are being disingenuous.

No you don't. Because most times when story is discussed as I've seen on groups and fora untold, it's precisely within frame of this Oxford definition you bolded. That's is common for discussing both RPGs and storygames, because anything other definition would boil situation down to railroading and railroading is quite commonly condemned in all RPG world from Wokester WoD players to OSR Libertarians.
It's only you and few other guys here pushing "story as account of something that happened in past" as only true definition to condemn storytelling in games. It's disingenuous but on your part.
You pushed your definition as only true multiple times, and suddenly when another non-native English speaker gonna correct you, I'm the bad guy. Good joke.

QuoteWhat I have in my mind is seeing the fighter get slain by a lucky crit from a goblin and me saying "Okay, we just started the campaign five minutes ago and I don't want you sitting there for the next two hours not playing". So you find a way to preserve drama. He's not dead, but his teammates need to get the hell out of this Goblin cave. Or maybe just say that if his teammates can get him a healing potion in a round he'll be fine. One of my former GMs had that rule.

Then USE system supporting such actions. Like dunno Warhammer when everyone has some Fate points. Or design campaign maybe in way where there is no goblin able to kill you five minutes into the game If you want drama like Hitchcock then sorry goblins won't do Taking deadly OSR game and then having problem with it's deadliness... so maybe I should beg you to try another game.

QuoteOr you can run big sweeping epics like some old TSR module chains that have a baser plot. But the PCs can approach it from whatever angle they want.

Indeed. I mean I've read some old old modules and having some basic storylines was not that uncommon (like plot about being caravan aids, and new problems happened each day/mile of travel)

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 08, 2021, 05:26:10 AM

QuoteSemantic games to win an argument? You know damn well what people are saying when they speak about story in RPGs, and yet here you are being disingenuous.

No you don't. Because most times when story is discussed as I've seen on groups and fora untold, it's precisely within frame of this Oxford definition you bolded. That's is common for discussing both RPGs and storygames, because anything other definition would boil situation down to railroading and railroading is quite commonly condemned in all RPG world from Wokester WoD players to OSR Libertarians.
It's only you and few other guys here pushing "story as account of something that happened in past" as only true definition to condemn storytelling in games. It's disingenuous but on your part.

On the off chance that is not another storygamer crusader on the maech... Here goes.

Storygamers a few years back thoroughly ruined the definition of what a story or even what an RPG is. To the point there have been claims here and on BGG that watching paint dry and grass grow, or my meteor sitting on my desk. "Tell a Story" but not any sane definition of story. And/Or are really real role playing. Or the old "ha-ha! You were really storygaming all along!"

And so every time someone mentions "story" it tends to get a knee jerk negative reaction because 9 times out of 10 its another storygamer nut trying to co-opt gaming. Or one of Pundits Swine. Sometimes its hard to tell one from the other.

If 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.

Can you weave all that into an actual story? Hell yes! Record of Lodoss War developed from a novelization of player logs for their BX D&D sessions. Almost certainly more out there. I ran a little business that did that for 5 years.

Can 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.

Lots of ways to approach it and none are inherintly bad. Its how they are used and presented that is oft the problem. Or mis-used as is more often the problem.

QuoteOn the off chance that is not another storygamer crusader on the maech... Here goes.

Nah. I'm on simulationist/investigation side of those old clunky RPG theories.
I'm crusading for meaning of "story" not "storygame" (in fact I consider definition excluding true storygames like Fiasco from RPG's to be quite fine model of simulating gaming reality).

QuoteStorygamers a few years back thoroughly ruined the definition of what a story or even what an RPG is. To the point there have been claims here and on BGG that watching paint dry and grass grow, or my meteor sitting on my desk. "Tell a Story" but not any sane definition of story. And/Or are really real role playing. Or the old "ha-ha! You were really storygaming all along!"

And so every time someone mentions "story" it tends to get a knee jerk negative reaction because 9 times out of 10 its another storygamer nut trying to co-opt gaming. Or one of Pundits Swine. Sometimes its hard to tell one from the other.

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.

Quote from: PsyXypher on November 07, 2021, 07:49:19 PM
What I have in my mind is seeing the fighter get slain by a lucky crit from a goblin ...

I personally don't think it's enjoyable for the players or the GM to see a person put lots of work into a character and then have them killed unceremoniously in the first session.

... I'd rather not have the momentum of the campaign crunched into pieces because half the party was killed by a failed Balance check (something that happened in another campaign.

Emphasis mine!

To me the problem with these games is right there in bold -- and not with the notion of character death.

Yes, if you like all those bolded items in your game, then you might want to protect PCs from dying, much like 5e does.

There's a reason that old-school play often eschews critical hits and extensive character builds or backstories.

As for the "TPK balance check" -- that's either a broken mechanic, or it involved the players intentionally and repeatedly demanding that they put themselves in a mortally risky position leading up to that "one check".

If your only form of punishment for player error is character death, consider a new hobby because you need some goddamn creativity.

You can't figure out how to screw with players aside from 'you ded, roll new character'? Seriously? What the hell?

I've got a half dozen things cooking in the campaign I'm running, based on actions the party has taken. Some of which are getting ready to bite them in the ass. It's gonna be FUN.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on November 10, 2021, 09:11:27 AM
If your only form of punishment for player error is character death, consider a new hobby because you need some goddamn creativity.

Also true, though non-fatal consequences are not mutually exclusive with fatal ones, so the logic here is tangential at best. Personally, I get the most enjoyment from games that include a variety of possible consequences, but still feel cheated if one of those consequences is not the Ultimate Consequence.

Quote from: Zalman on November 10, 2021, 09:21:27 AM

Also true, though non-fatal consequences are not mutually exclusive with fatal ones, so the logic here is tangential at best. Personally, I get the most enjoyment from games that include a variety of possible consequences, but still feel cheated if one of those consequences is not the Ultimate Consequence.

Yes.  Plus, in RPGs, "a fate worse than death" is not just a colorful phrase.  A GM can run a character into such a blender of social, mental, and physical disfigurement that the player would rather drop a dead character and start over.  Whether the GM should or not is a different question, but the GM can do anything.  Depending on the system and the cold-bloodedness of the GM, death isn't always the ultimate consequence.  For me, it's even simpler:  Your characters go around killing things, the other team wants to win too.  No death possible, we'll play a different game where it isn't.

However, the fundamental disconnect, I think, is more about what people see as fun.  For me, a TPK is its own kind of fun.  Putting hours and hours building a character supposedly doing epic adventurers full of danger at every turn that can't die because of said investment in the character ... is ... not ... fun.   It's letting the tail wag the dog.

Quote from: Omega on November 07, 2021, 11:57:42 PM
There should be at least a little structure. Otherwise it feels like you are just playing a RNG random encounter table.
eg: there are creatures out there doing... something. Better if its specific creatures in specific places. Like "There are ghouls in control of an old abandoned church." or "Goblins raid the local farms every fall." or "This merchant is paying well for people to go out to some ruins and recover a lost family treasure now in the hands of a elf and their minions." and so on.

A while ago we coined a term here (Lord Vreeg originated it) called "World in Motion." The idea is that setting has a life of its own with own comings and goings.

Quote from: Omega on November 07, 2021, 11:57:42 PM
Or you can run big sweeping epics like some old TSR module chains that have a baser plot. But the PCs can approach it from whatever angle they want.

With World in Motion some characters have the means realize grand plans and the resources to back that plan up. A would be Napoleon in a sense.

I wrote up a chapter on this and other related topics for my Majestic Fantasy RPG.

The World Outside the Dungeon
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Z5G1a-2P4Eir8cznhO-oNnOf_MQYC_mX/view?usp=sharing

I feel the need to point out that I'm not arguing for either extreme, though I'm definitely more on the side of letting them die than to protect them from death for the sake of storytelling.

One of my old GMs (and my English teacher) once said that it doesn't matter if fiction is realistic. Just internally consistent so it maintains the feel of being real. I think the reason that character revival in 3rd edition became easier was because the game took a more story focused role. A player whose character just died wasn't expected to start again at Level 1 (and due to how EXP rewards were changed, they'd probably stay that way for far longer than they would in a game where treasure gave EXP). However, as characters rose in levels, this brought up a lot of questions.

Character levels could be seen as trophic levels in a food web. For those not familiar, a trophic level denotes a branch in a food chain/web where one part of the web eats what's below it. At the bottom you have plants and other producers, going up to herbivores, predators who eat those herbivores, and then at the top of the branch you have Apex predators, those who are high up enough that they munch on lesser predators. As a rule, as you increase a trophic level, you only retain 10% of the energy from the previous. Which is why there's many, MANY rabbits but very few foxes and coyotes who eat them. At the top trophic level, you're only at 0.001% of that remaining energy.

It's basically outright stated (some examples more explicitly than others) that character levels work this way. AD&D 1e outright states that PCs are exceptional, and that only a select bit of the population can rise beyond level 0. With D&D, as you keep rising in levels, the amount of people in the world at those levels decreases dramatically.

At Levels 1 to 4-5, you have the majority of adventurers. People who make it beyond that point get increasingly rarer. Eberron outright states that by 6th level, the PCs have seen more action than a city guard will in their entire lives. The E6 system for D&D reflects this idea, and the idea itself goes back as far as the article "Gandalf was a level 5 Wizard". Some have said a 20 level D&D 3.5 campaign has four quartiles:

Levels 1-5: Gritty fantasy
Levels 6-10: Heroic fantasy
Levels 11-15: Wuxia
Levels 16-20: Superheroes

Aside with my disagreement with terminology, the idea holds up. If we look at this like a foodchain, it starts to make sense. Commoners and Level 0 people make up the first tier, and adventurers in the first quartile the second. Beyond that, characters start to grow stronger in leaps and bounds. I'd say that beyond a certain point (the end of the second quartile, or "Name" level in AD&D), the percentage of beings in the higher echelons of levels shrinks far more dramatically than by 10%. AD&D actually enforced this with the idea there could only be a limited number of high level Druids and Monks in the world. 3.5 enforced this by saying that a character could not gain Experience Points for defeating a monster with a Challenge Rating 8 levels lower than their character level.

The amount of those in the higher levels shrinks more and more. As you approach level 20, you get the best of the best. Masters of a particular school of magic, Archmages, High Priests, Master Thieves and Assassins, Great Druids, fighters who are essentially one man armies of destruction (or leading armies themselves). They might have cleared out huge areas and created communities. Those of magical or psychic profession have probably isolated themselves so they can focus on increasing their own powers or decided to go conquer/found their own state to rule. They might become liches or leave the Prime Material Plane to go explore the inner and outer planes. Those within the highest rungs of power (those who can cast spells like Wish, Miracle, True Resurrection and other top level magic) are exceedingly rare. Even more if you consider stat restrictions for performing those actions.

Depending on your setting, those over 20th Level probably number between a dozen or maybe a few hundred (Dark Sun comes to mind, mainly as an outlier, not the rule). Order of the Stick is a good example of a world where this phenomenon takes place. The amount of characters at Epic level shown so far in the comic has numbered less than 10.

Why this "Food Chain" rule happens depends on setting and system. In AD&D, you were probably going to hit level limits (if Demihuman) or simply not find enough treasure to reach those levels. There might not even be enough treasure in the world for more than a few of these superpowerful characters. More adventuring means more room for death, retirement or just aging so old you can't fight like you used too. Forces might seek to annihilate those who become threats to their power. Getting stronger is a good way to attract attention, wanted or unwanted. One of the GM's jobs in a setting is explaining this phenomenon.

Now, as to why I gave this long-ass inspired post. The reason 3rd Edition changed how resurrections worked is, in my opinion, an attempt to spare the GM and player the hard questions of "why is this super powerful character suddenly interested in joining the party?" as well as where they came from and what they've been doing. At high levels, the PCs have more resources and are less likely to die. If they're smart. Though when they do, chances are a player will want to keep playing. Everyone wins here; the GM doesn't need to bullshit up something, the player gets to keep playing their character, and worst case scenario they need to go on a solo adventure to regain that level they lost.

This is less of an endorsement of any of these ideas but more of an analysis. I was really inspired by this post, as you can see. 

Re PsyXypher

Quote

CLIP

Or the GM could just allow the player to make up a new character with lets say 2-3 levels lower than the one who died. And BS the why, when, where they join the party.

It's not like I would need to write a novellete about it. Just wait and insert the character into an encounter:

(Whatever location) you encounter a group of (Insert here the enemies) in battle with (insert here the new character) there appear to be some corpses lying around of what looks like (new character)'s party. What do you do?

There, I just gave the world one formula to insert a new character in any and all campaigns.

FFS, we've done this countles times when a new player joins the group. What's the difference when it's the same player with a new character?

Another formula is to have the new character captive of the baddies.

QuoteIt's not like I would need to write a novellete about it. Just wait and insert the character into an encounter:

(Whatever location) you encounter a group of (Insert here the enemies) in battle with (insert here the new character) there appear to be some corpses lying around of what looks like (new character)'s party. What do you do?

There, I just gave the world one formula to insert a new character in any and all campaigns.

The only problem with this model is, it's narratively BIG MEH.

QuoteFFS, we've done this countles times when a new player joins the group. What's the difference when it's the same player with a new character?

No difference. MEH in both cases.

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 10, 2021, 05:09:54 PM

QuoteIt's not like I would need to write a novellete about it. Just wait and insert the character into an encounter:

(Whatever location) you encounter a group of (Insert here the enemies) in battle with (insert here the new character) there appear to be some corpses lying around of what looks like (new character)'s party. What do you do?

There, I just gave the world one formula to insert a new character in any and all campaigns.

The only problem with this model is, it's narratively BIG MEH.

QuoteFFS, we've done this countles times when a new player joins the group. What's the difference when it's the same player with a new character?

No difference. MEH in both cases.

Good thing then IDGAF about being narratively BIG YEAH then.

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

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.

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.

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.

I don't see how that's relevant, unless you're playing D&D solely as a game where players go on adventures. I generally expect a level of consistency in whatever story I watch/read/listen to.

Which is why I put so much emphasis on the changing viewpoints. Another changing aspect that I suspect is involved is that AD&D (both first and second) assumed players would stop playing around a certain level, as opposed to having a full on 20 level campaign.

One of the most common responses to demihuman level limits I've seen is "They never come up because we don't play that long".

Anyway, that's just my view on the matter. Not saying you're wrong or anything. We just have different expectations.