Quote from: StuartRascal.

ow.  you did it again.  damnit.

must ... wear ... eye ... sheilds

Quote from: VBWyrdeOnly in 1 the first definition is a sequence of events required.   It does not apply to the others.   There are many stories that are told non-sequentially.  That fact does not make them not stories.

I would point out, though, that all of the definitions given include a sequence of events somewhere - the events which comprise the legend, or the anecdote, or the short story, or whatever - even if the word "story" is sometimes used for things beyond said sequence of events. No sequence of events, no story.

Whether you tell the story sequentially or not is irrelevant: even in stories told non-sequentially, there is a sequence of events you can work out from the account. By watching Memento you can piece together the whole series events which leads up to the first scene of the film, even though the sequence is shown to you backwards.

Max wins the thread. Well said, dude.

Sett:

Do you actually like stories? Some of us do, very much, and story quality frequently becomes an important, even primary, basis of our enjoyment of a thing that contains story. You've at least admitted that Star Wars at least has a story, no matter which species' testicles it may suck, so I trust there's no controversy so far.

Now then, my original experience of Star Wars: I saw Empire Strikes Back in the theater when I was 7. My imagination happily drank in all the "Pchoo, Pchoo!"and "Vmmm, Vmmm!" of spaceships and lightsabers, yes. . .but the thing that really sunk in was: "I am your father." My poor little brain was screaming along with Luke: "Nooooo, that can't be true, it can't, he's the big, scary, evil--nooo, he can't be his father, he's Satan with a lightsaber, it's all lies--nooooooo!"

A few years later I saw Jedi, and similarly, the real payoff for me was Anakin's sacrifice, and dying in the arms of his son.

So don't you tell ME what my thoughts and feelings were about the movie. It was all about the story, and its emotional impact lay in those story elements. Otherwise the lightsabers and laser-blasts are all mere excitement, like candy. And to be sure, I have a handful of friends who dig on those elements more than the fall-and-redemption or truth-ahd-lies elements. We also have a disconnect when we watch, say, Lord of the Rings and I'm like "Oooh, Frodo and Sam,that's so touching!" and they're all "The Balrog on the bridge is so bad-ASS! Oh and shut up,Frodo wouldn't last five minutes in my D&D campaign."

What? Gasp! Not everyone's the same, or appreciates the same things equally! Egads!

Also,Opera: I sang in opera chorus for a year. While yes,the music and spectacle have a beauty outside of lyrical comprehension, for me it was all about the text and what the story was. It deepened the experience far more than if I just heard the music without knowing what it meant,though that too,would be beautiful,as I said. And the production used projected subtitles so that when my family attended, they could appreciate the opera on a story level too, which they did. This was especially important to my Dad, whose music appreciation level was always low, and wouldn't have enjoyed it much otherwise.

Quote from: SettembriniImagine the first scene. Where´s your story there?
Exactly, nowwhere. It´s all mood, ambience, experience, music, visuals, "being there".
Nothing being told there in the sense of a story.

So, that's your standard? "If you can't tell what the story's about in the first scene, then story's not important?" Jeez,and I thought it was we Storygamers who were supposed to be all impatient and pacing-destroying with our instant-gratification demands.

Honestly, if you could only see the hilarious absurdity that your contrarian desires drive you to.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: WarthurYes, because you engaged in the act of telling the story in the first place by writing it down. The tale is in the telling, not in who it's told to.

If I tell a child a story I make up for the occasion, and never tell that same story again, does the story exist?

Quote from: WarthurI would point out, though, that all of the definitions given include a sequence of events somewhere - the events which comprise the legend, or the anecdote, or the short story, or whatever - even if the word "story" is sometimes used for things beyond said sequence of events. No sequence of events, no story.

Whether you tell the story sequentially or not is irrelevant: even in stories told non-sequentially, there is a sequence of events you can work out from the account. By watching Memento you can piece together the whole series events which leads up to the first scene of the film, even though the sequence is shown to you backwards.

Yes, ok.  This is compatable with my views.  I was not saying otherwise.  My impression is, however, that some here would argue that if it isn't sequentially delivered then it is not a story.  With that I would disagree.

Quote from: droogIf I tell a child a story I make up for the occasion, and never tell that same story again, does the story exist?

Where oh where are you going with this?   Ok, yes, it exists.   Now what?

Quote from: VBWyrdeWhere oh where are you going with this?   Ok, yes, it exists.   Now what?

If a group of people tell themselves a story, riffing off each other and various creative constraints, and it is not recorded, does that story exist?

Quote from: droogIf a group of people tell themselves a story, riffing off each other and various creative constraints, and it is not recorded, does that story exist?

Yes.  I'm not sure I'm getting your drift.  Pray tell... where are you heading with this line of questions?

EDIT:  Please don't say "ha ha ... Alice will be here soon with the white rabbit and then we'll all have a grand time!"

I'm not too interested in the white rabbit, but I am interested in the responses from some other posters to this line of thought.

Quote from: droogIf I tell a child a story I make up for the occasion, and never tell that same story again, does the story exist?

Yes. But I fail to see how the question is relevant.

Quote from: droogIf a group of people tell themselves a story, riffing off each other and various creative constraints, and it is not recorded, does that story exist?

Yes. "Once Upon a Time" produces stories.

However, sometimes a story is the point, and sometimes a story is a by-product that's only seen after the fact. If a bunch of people get together and some of them narrate actions taken by their characters, and one of them narrates the results of those actions, eventually a sequence of events will have been narrated. But that will happen whether or not any of the participants especially care about story.

I would argue that the sort of techniques you need to get everyone focused on the story as a whole tend to work against a game remaining as an RPG - it will tend to push the game towards something like Once Upon a Time. Shared authorial control, no exclusive control of particular characters or setting elements, that sort of thing.

The focus in traditional RPGs is experiencing the sequence of events first-hand, and narration is required as a necessary abstraction. The focus in storytelling is narrating a sequence of events.

Quote from: droogIf a group of people tell themselves a story, riffing off each other and various creative constraints, and it is not recorded, does that story exist?

Yes - the story exists....ar least in their memories.
 If one of them has something close to a "photographic memory" and 30 years later writes down the gist of the story for publication (along with some tweaking to get it into a publishable form)  - then the story very much exists.


- Ed C.

Quote from: WarthurI would argue that the sort of techniques you need to get everyone focused on the story as a whole tend to work against a game remaining as an RPG - it will tend to push the game towards something like Once Upon a Time. Shared authorial control, no exclusive control of particular characters or setting elements, that sort of thing.

The focus in traditional RPGs is experiencing the sequence of events first-hand, and narration is required as a necessary abstraction. The focus in storytelling is narrating a sequence of events.

This post sums up one strain of the discussion very well.

Balbinus, I would compare your example of the orc/room/pie with watching or even playing in a sporting event. Not because winning is the purpose or goal (though it may be present) but because we do not watch or play sports for "the story" (even though people like Bob Costas are always trying to impose story on sports). If we did do sports for "story", it would be a very inefficient approach since so many games are bad stories in the end.

Most Newspapers, Magazines, Media Relations departments, etc. standardize on a particular dictionary that they'll all use.

After seeing how this thread went... I think that would be a good idea.  We wouldn't have to guess what Sett (or whoever) thought "Story" meant, or waste time trying to re-invent the wheel by defining it here.  If we were using a standard dictionary, then we'd all know what "incoherent" meant as well.

Quote from: WarthurYes. "Once Upon a Time" produces stories.

However, sometimes a story is the point, and sometimes a story is a by-product that's only seen after the fact. If a bunch of people get together and some of them narrate actions taken by their characters, and one of them narrates the results of those actions, eventually a sequence of events will have been narrated. But that will happen whether or not any of the participants especially care about story.

But it has a higher chance of happening if the participants are focused on creating a 'story'. Their narrations will be bent towards that goal.

Do you agree that, in principle, an RPG can therefore be used as a storytelling medium? Even if the story is ephemeral and exists only for the participants?

QuoteI would argue that the sort of techniques you need to get everyone focused on the story as a whole tend to work against a game remaining as an RPG - it will tend to push the game towards something like Once Upon a Time. Shared authorial control, no exclusive control of particular characters or setting elements, that sort of thing.

The focus in traditional RPGs is experiencing the sequence of events first-hand, and narration is required as a necessary abstraction. The focus in storytelling is narrating a sequence of events.

I think that your view of what happens in 'traditional' RPGs is limited. In any case, I'd argue that none of those special techniques are actually required. It's certainly possible to argue about whether certain techiques are or are not more effective, but you can do 'story' without formally-shared authorial control etc.