It has been pretty self-evident to me for a long time that D&D is in a strange way an epigone to the old (but still current) practice of telling stories by the fireside (or its equivalent in modern houses).

I mean : the practice of D&D is mainly orally based and a group thing ; it has to do with heroes confronted to quasi-mythological monsters weaving their own epic tales day after day.

Okay, this may be misleading to some according to the recent discussion about storytelling/not storytelling rpgs, but one thing to consider is that, when people gather around the fireside (or around the kitchen table) to hear about a fairytale, they are not primarily concerned with the "final product" of the tale per se, but more with the effect that the telling of the tale has on them.

I think that the "playing in character" part of D&D may be the continuation of the identification to the eternal hero in fairy tales adapted to the individualistic sensibility of our egotistic* times.

* not a pejorative term in my view

I've seen a D&D session compared to a Shamanic vision quest - the GM is the Shamanic Guide for the players, not a "Storyteller" to passive recipients.  Certainly made me think! I'm sure the likes of Greg Stafford had this in mind, and it fits very well the Campbellian Hero's Journey narrative of a typical dungeon adventure.

As he walked away from the place of blood and toil his soul changed.

Quote from: Lychee of the Exchequer;1083067they are not primarily concerned with the "final product" of the tale per se, but more with the effect that the telling of the tale has on them.

Yes, the way is the goal. Reading the recap of a football match the morning after is not the same as being in the stadium and witnessing it first hand.

Quote from: Lychee of the Exchequer;1083067It has been pretty self-evident to me for a long time that D&D is in a strange way an epigone to the old (but still current) practice of telling stories by the fireside (or its equivalent in modern houses).

Fantasy Role-playing, in general, is the gamification of this age-old tradition. That is the relationship, as far as I can see.

Quote from: S'mon;1083070I've seen a D&D session compared to a Shamanic vision quest - the GM is the Shamanic Guide for the players, not a "Storyteller" to passive recipients[...][/I]

I find this take quite interesting. One of my most intense and meaningful moment in RPGs was this time where I played Ogier the Dane, with another player playing the part of Arnaud de Montauban, in the (revisited) legend of Carolus Magnus.

After a full week-end (2 x 12 hours) of emotionally involved roleplay during tribulations modeled on XIIth century French folktales, my character - a scandinavian king opposed to Carolus Magnus, after having been a previous member of this very Emperor's court - was killed in battle against the forces of the Emperor. Upon his death, regal fairy women  (with Ogier's own wife among them) appeared on the battlefield, who took Ogier's body and then put it on a drakkar which then navigated to the Isle of Avalon.

I still have goosebumps feeling the energy of the "Sleeping King under the Hill" evoked in those folktales, and re-invoked during this RPG session. It was not so much an intellectual revelation than a profound knowing in my bones of what it was that this particular archetype meant.

Shamanic, indeed :-) !

Quote from: Lychee of the Exchequer;1083089I find this take quite interesting. One of my most intense and meaningful moment in RPGs was this time where I played Ogier the Dane, with another player playing the part of Arnaud de Montauban, in the (revisited) legend of Carolus Magnus.

After a full week-end (2 x 12 hours) of emotionally involved roleplay during tribulations modeled on XIIth century French folktales, my character - a scandinavian king opposed to Carolus Magnus, after having been a previous member of this very Emperor's court - was killed in battle against the forces of the Emperor. Upon his death, regal fairy women  (with Ogier's own wife among them) appeared on the battlefield, who took Ogier's body and then put it on a drakkar which then navigated to the Isle of Avalon.

I still have goosebumps feeling the energy of the "Sleeping King under the Hill" evoked in those folktales, and re-invoked during this RPG session. It was not so much an intellectual revelation than a profound knowing in my bones of what it was that this particular archetype meant.

Shamanic, indeed :-) !

I look forward to your quick awakening. Your people have need of you, Holger Dansk! :cool:

Quote from: Lychee of the Exchequer;1083067It has been pretty self-evident to me for a long time that D&D is in a strange way an epigone to the old (but still current) practice of telling stories by the fireside (or its equivalent in modern houses).

I mean : the practice of D&D is mainly orally based and a group thing ; it has to do with heroes confronted to quasi-mythological monsters weaving their own epic tales day after day.

Okay, this may be misleading to some according to the recent discussion about storytelling/not storytelling rpgs, but one thing to consider is that, when people gather around the fireside (or around the kitchen table) to hear about a fairytale, they are not primarily concerned with the "final product" of the tale per se, but more with the effect that the telling of the tale has on them.

I think that the "playing in character" part of D&D may be the continuation of the identification to the eternal hero in fairy tales adapted to the individualistic sensibility of our egotistic* times.

* not a pejorative term in my view

Well, that whole bit about "story" being a triggering word in RPG culture is a whole shit-show, and I lay the blame squarely on "both sides" foolishly conceding the definition of "story" to those drunken old fart no-talent hacks known as literature professors. There are other academic disciplines that also analyze stories. Psychology, for instance. And they understand stories a little bit differently. Carl Jung of course had a lot to say about mythic archetypes. And certainly masses of RPG enthusiasts who say they love the story aspect of the RPG form aren't necessarily using the word "story" in the elitist sense. So there's a bit of bait-and-switch going on in these on-line theory discussions. Near as I can tell, story really just is "whatever happens." And I think traditional RPGs are quite good at that. I haven't seen any evidence that moving away from that actually produces better stories.

That said, I have observed a few things that are different.

Like you have to be careful about introducing an element into a story only when it becomes relevant. It comes off as contrived. A good example might be the "shoot the glass" scene from Die Hard. You can't find out just then and there John McClane has no shoes. This has to be established all the way back when his footware, or lack there of, has no stakes to the plot. Introduced in an otherwise throw-away/filler dialog with someone he met on the plane.

In RPGs, having rules and stats and character sheets and equipment lists actually takes care of a lot of that. We don't need to have an early on scene to show off how bad-ass your PC is. When it comes up at a crucial point in the story, we know it's just the rules and stats doing their thing. We, the audience-participants don't question the credibility. So it turns out you don't have to think ahead so much in RPGs that you do in book or film. The traditional RPG actually seems like a better story-telling medium than the latter two in many ways.

Quote from: S'mon;1083070I've seen a D&D session compared to a Shamanic vision quest - the GM is the Shamanic Guide for the players, not a "Storyteller" to passive recipients.  

I'm good with that description.

It's why I am always deeply focused on immersion during game sessions. Can't vision quest when flipping through books for rules.

Quote from: Lychee of the Exchequer;1083067Okay, this may be misleading to some according to the recent discussion about storytelling/not storytelling rpgs, but one thing to consider is that, when people gather around the fireside (or around the kitchen table) to hear about a fairytale, they are not primarily concerned with the "final product" of the tale per se, but more with the effect that the telling of the tale has on them.

There is an element of that.  It was certainly true in the Appalachian version of the storyteller using the "Jack" tales and other such stories.  My understanding it was something the original Appalachian settlers brought with them from various parts of the British Isles.  Our version was often on a front porch on a rainy day.

Moreover, by the time I was around to experience it, it had sometimes evolved into something halfway between the usual storyteller mode and a D&D session.  Specifically, the storyteller mode is a particular storyteller doing a rehearsed version of tales--often beloved tells.   Whereas, what we had more often than not was several people telling tales, getting responses from the audience, and then making up parts of the story and incorporating that feedback as they went.  That process may sound a tad familiar to folks here.  

So when D&D came to my attention, I was already primed for it.

One could get too deep into this, but I think that undoubtedly there's something in the experience of RPG play that connects to some of the same stuff that old-time vision quests connected to.