I have always had some issues with understanding the real applied differences between the two. When people try and explain it, it comes down to "traditional games are old and use outmoded methods of play" or "the design theory(which I read as the designer's assumptions) behind traditional games is out dated". From what I have observed, the distinction (often expressed as Trad vs Forgey) seems artificial. I am not talking about what the designer was thinking when he wrote it but what the rules and play are like at the table.
For instance, I have karma point which, if I understand the terminology correctly, map to Drama Points in common parlance. I think anyone who has ever read any of my games would describe them as painfully traditional. I look at the design and, honestly, I think there are traditional (derived from old school) and "indie" (new school) elements but more to the point the combination makes for some very flexible play.
So, is it that there is more focus on player empowerment? Is that the new definition of "indie" or "Forgey"? Was that always the definition and I missed it? I think that may be the issue since I do not follow much in the way of Forge theory. Even if this is the case, isn't this just a different play style. I mean, me as a GM, I run games where I encourage players to input into the game. Am I a freak(o.k, as far as play style goes)? I have been doing this for decades. I do not find it as some sort of great enlightenment except to new GMs. I find the idea of attempting to dictate play style to groups as futile. Not wrong, but telling a group to share the role of story teller, even with rules as guidelines, seems impossible if they are not interested. Alternatively, if the group is interested in sharing the story building role (players adding elements from character and GM adding elements from the concept) traditional games do not seem to limit them in any way. In fact, I have seen far more of the later than groups embracing a total separation of duties. Personally, I think this is human nature. People wish to be involved but not all people want to tell the story. They wish to say "Yeah, but Joan falls in love with the knight" and see what the knight will do. This could just be my experience though.
Summary
What are the differences between trad and indie games to you in actual play (i.e. ignore what the designer thought but what people play)? Can trad vs indie only be defined by theory involved in design? What would be the elements in the final product that would define indie or trad games?
Do you believe division of story telling duties is a defining point of indie vs trad games?
Do you believe that it is necessary (or even possible) to restrict story to the GM? Is this what occurs in a traditional game?
Thanks,
Bill
Quote from: HinterWeltWhat are the differences between trad and indie games to you in actual play (i.e. ignore what the designer thought but what people play)? Can trad vs indie only be defined by theory involved in design? What would be the elements in the final product that would define indie or trad games?
Do you believe division of story telling duties is a defining point of indie vs trad games?
Do you believe that it is necessary (or even possible) to restrict story to the GM? Is this what occurs in a traditional game?
There is no difference between indie and traditional games. Indie games can be traditional, and traditional games can be indie. i.e. Artesia, JAGS, Perfect20, Truth & Justice, A|State have all been lauded as indie games. The definition both on the Forge and the Indie RPG Awards supports this.
Now, the
typical games out of the Forge are different, and I'll mention more about them below.
Quote from: HinterWeltSo, is it that there is more focus on player empowerment? Is that the new definition of "indie" or "Forgey"? Was that always the definition and I missed it? I think that may be the issue since I do not follow much in the way of Forge theory. Even if this is the case, isn't this just a different play style. I mean, me as a GM, I run games where I encourage players to input into the game.
Well, you can certainly run your games in a way that makes them more like typical Forge games than by-the-book play. In Forge parlance this is called "drift", but that's what other people would call "variant", "loose", or "house-ruled" play.
I would tend to say that the common features of Forge games include: (1) mechanics for regular player input on the background outside his PC, (2) more-than-traditional metagame influences on resolution, and (3) lack of in-game modifiers for subjectively-determined circumstance. There are more specific trends for particular branches of Forge game design, but the main thrust of design has been in non-simulation or anti-simulation mechanics.
I believe I have finally figured this out, for myself.
I think the labels Indie and Trad are huge generalizations and have all kinds of other meanings and agendas attached to them, which leaves open all kinds of point-missing tangencies on internet discussion. However, I will use them here at the very least as placeholders to distinguish between one thing and another.
So what I describe below is purely the difference as I see it and what works and doesn't work for me. It is something I just figured out and has been very helpful to me because when I see this thing, I know what might and might not work for me.
I recently played Inspectres and read PrimeTime Adventures. These games were what helped me figure this out.
In both these games, the players, through simple contests of chance (dice and cards, respectively), get a chance to narrate what happens in play. They don't just control what their character does, but actually what happens. In effect, it is more about creating a story together, where different people get the power to say what happens at certain points.
This can be kind of fun. In a wacky game like Inspectres (you play ghostbusters), you can come up with all kinds of wacky stuff and with an imaginative group, there is a kind of dynamic that results in neat situations.
But at the end of the day, my roleplaying itch is not scratched. I want to play my character and I want my character to rub up against the world. As a GM, I want my players to interact with my world and have the dice arbite what actually ends up happening. This to me is the imaginative space that makes a roleplaying session become another reality.
Creating a story together, no matter how clever and dynamic the rules structure, does not do that for me. It can be kind of entertaining. Maybe about as entertaining for me as a board game. But it doesn't scratch that itch.
So that's what "indie vs. trad" in the theory sense means for me.
Quote from: jhkimThere is no difference between indie and traditional games. Indie games can be traditional, and traditional games can be indie. i.e. Artesia, JAGS, Perfect20, Truth & Justice, A|State have all been lauded as indie games. The definition both on the Forge and the Indie RPG Awards supports this.
Except of course that the practical definition as used in common parlance does not.
QuoteI would tend to say that the common features of Forge games include: (1) mechanics for regular player input on the background outside his PC, (2) more-than-traditional metagame influences on resolution, and (3) lack of in-game modifiers for subjectively-determined circumstance. There are more specific trends for particular branches of Forge game design, but the main thrust of design has been in non-simulation or anti-simulation mechanics.
That's a closer definition of what most people think of as Indie, and what Ron Edwards and the forge crowd tend to use as a litmus test of a "good" Indie game than the so-called official one.
Of couse, usually one can add to this that for an Indie game to really fit the definition it needs to be pretentioius, take on pseudo-academic or pseudo-artistic airs, make all kinds of absurd claims about how "serious" or "sophisticated" it is, and covertly or openly shit all over regular games and insult the intelligence of those who play them.
For most people, THAT is "Indie".
RPGPundit
"Indie" is a brand.
Quote from: jrients"Indie" is a brand.
Perhaps story games vs Trad would be a better phrase. I have been told by the only authority that matters that HinterWelt is not Indie in the sense you are using it. I am not sure where it deviates but that is fodder for a different thread.
I was shooting for how someone would know they were playing in a story/forgie/indie game vs a trad game if no one told them.
Thanks,
Bill
Quote from: jrients"Indie" is a brand.
Agreed.
Quote from: HinterWeltI was shooting for how someone would know they were playing in a story/forgie/indie game vs a trad game if no one told them.
At its most general, I think the way they know is if they as a player can influence things in the game that their character could not. That is the difference to me.
Quote from: HinterWeltI was shooting for how someone would know they were playing in a story/forgie/indie game vs a trad game if no one told them.
If a tree fell in the woods would we know how to label the RPG publication it was made into?
Indie means independently published.
...
Some people may want it to mean something else... and those are perhaps the same people who like the idea of taking all kinds of words and developing alternate meanings for them... but the truth is the rest of the world sees it just like they do music. Indie = Independent. They don't see Indie = Hippy Music.
:)
Here's another way to say it:
In traditional games, you say "My character does this."
In indie games, you say "this happens."
It does depend on how you're using the term. Yes, the Forge definition is 'creator-controlled'. Yes, in practice it gets applied to wacky games more than eg Artesia, though that rule gets broken all the time (I saw somebody at RPG.net, for example, call Zorceror of Zo indie the other day).
In the wild, among people who don't read about internet controversy, I've found that people just see them all as 'games'. This is why I think that the internet audience has been polarised in a kind of political way.
I suppose that for me, the major differences between Forge-influenced games and others (which I'll define loosely as things the Punani would play) are a more conscious direction of play, and a willingness to reexamine assumptions about how RPGs work.
Quote from: walkerpAt its most general, I think the way they know is if they as a player can influence things in the game that their character could not. That is the difference to me.
That just seems so strange to me. I am not trying to be snarky or obtuse but I have always let my players interject ideas into the campaign. I do not need rules for it. However, I think I begin to see the problem. ;)
Bill
Quote from: HinterWeltCan trad vs indie only be defined by theory involved in design?
I don't believe in "indie" games. I believe it's a division created by folks who have something to gain by it and doesn't mean much to actual gamers.
Seanchai
Quote from: SeanchaiI don't believe in "indie" games. I believe it's a division created by folks who have something to gain by it and doesn't mean much to actual gamers.
Well said.
Down our gaming emporium, Indie is any game published in A5 size and therefore easy to pinch - Elfs, Faery's Tale, Panty Explosion. Burning Wheel is slightly less indie only due to the books thickness and that both are bound together.
see, it's scientific !
Quote from: SeanchaiI don't believe in "indie" games. I believe it's a division created by folks who have something to gain by it and doesn't mean much to actual gamers.
Seanchai
I wont argue. How about Story Games vs Trad games then? Same thing?
Bill
Quote from: HinterWeltI wont argue. How about Story Games vs Trad games then? Same thing?
Well, the term is also meaningless to the average gamer. However, I think it is a better term for what you mean. For one thing, the term implies emphasis on story which at least fits better with the suggested definition thatn "independent". Second, it has some traction as the usage on Andy Kitkowski's "Story Games" forum, where it was defined to be pretty much that. In the forum description, he defines it roughly as:
QuoteA Story Game is a type of role-playing game or gaming experience with a lesser focus on My Character and a greater focus on Our Story.
I think the phrasing is messed up, but the spirit of what he's trying to convey is similar to what people here are, I think.
Quote from: HinterWeltThat just seems so strange to me. I am not trying to be snarky or obtuse but I have always let my players interject ideas into the campaign. I do not need rules for it. However, I think I begin to see the problem.
I understand what you are saying and that kind of input has always been an optional but fundamental element of traditional games. But I'm talking about actually during the action, not just in between games or in general meta discussion about the campaign.
So in a trad game, the player might say "I am going to try and make a witty retort against the prince's accusation." The GM and you both roll and you dis the prince. "The prince goes red in the face and the queen titters, holding her hand to her mouth."
In an indie game, the player would roll the dice ahead of time. If the player wins, they might say "I make a witty retort against the prince. He goes red in the face and the queen titters, holding her hand to her mouth."
That's really only in specific games, though.
Quote from: StuartIndie means independently published.
...
Well then OD&D is an indie game! Can't get much more indie than a few guys running up a handfull of prints on there own dime to make a market where none existed before. :)
QuoteSome people may want it to mean something else... and those are perhaps the same people who like the idea of taking all kinds of words and developing alternate meanings for them... but the truth is the rest of the world sees it just like they do music. Indie = Independent. They don't see Indie = Hippy Music.
:)
It's surely marketing. Indie has positive connotations of independent, creative, a place for new ideas. Traditional has connotations of boring, constricting, and limited.
Quote from: walkerpHere's another way to say it:
In traditional games, you say "My character does this."
In indie games, you say "this happens."
Wow, who knew that each and every single one of my campaigns was indie? Man, I've been playing indie since 1994 then! :rolleyes:
Personally I can't stand the movement that seems to take terms that all other media use for pretty much the same thing and make up something all new for it.
Ashcan copies, indie and all that. This is one of the reasons that I can't stand a lot of forge theory talk, well that and making up terms for things that already have a name or making up names for things that don't need them.
Ah well....
Quote from: XantherWell then OD&D is an indie game! Can't get much more indie than a few guys running up a handfull of prints on there own dime to make a market where none existed before. :)
If it came out now, it might be considered indie in the economic sense. Since it's way out of print and the IP belongs to somebody other than the original creator(s), it doesn't really count.
Quote from: droogIf it came out now, it might be considered indie in the economic sense. Since it's way out of print and the IP belongs to somebody other than the original creator(s), it doesn't really count.
It was indie at the time of it's design and printing, so I don't see how subsequent transfer of rights and going out of print change it's indie status: especially of the original 1976 copy I have sitting on my self.
It certainly counts as an indie game, where indie means independent, that is game designer = game owner = company owner. You can't get much more indie than that.
Quote from: XantherIt was indie at the time of it's design and printing, so I don't see how subsequent transfer of rights and going out of print change it's indie status: especially of the original 1976 copy I have sitting on my self.
It certainly counts as an indie game, where indie means independent, that is game designer = game owner = company owner. You can't get much more indie than that.
Well, I think it's arguable, but it's a bit irrelevant really. You can call it an indie game if you want to. It's not like you can buy it off a shelf anywhere.
Quote from: XantherWell then OD&D is an indie game! Can't get much more indie than a few guys running up a handfull of prints on there own dime to make a market where none existed before. :)
Actually... this is true. OD&D was an indie game.
It's not anymore though. To put it in music terms -- D&D got signed to a label. ;)
Quote from: StuartTo put it in music terms -- D&D got signed to a label. ;)
Yeah, and they booted out the lead singer.
Quote from: peteramthorPersonally I can't stand the movement that seems to take terms that all other media use for pretty much the same thing and make up something all new for it.
Ashcan copies, indie and all that. This is one of the reasons that I can't stand a lot of forge theory talk, well that and making up terms for things that already have a name or making up names for things that don't need them.
That's exactly how I feel. It's encouraging to see some Forge / Story Games regulars seeming to move away from all of that.
Quote from: droogYeah, and they booted out the lead singer.
So true. :(
Quote from: walkerpI understand what you are saying and that kind of input has always been an optional but fundamental element of traditional games. But I'm talking about actually during the action, not just in between games or in general meta discussion about the campaign.
So in a trad game, the player might say "I am going to try and make a witty retort against the prince's accusation." The GM and you both roll and you dis the prince. "The prince goes red in the face and the queen titters, holding her hand to her mouth."
In an indie game, the player would roll the dice ahead of time. If the player wins, they might say "I make a witty retort against the prince. He goes red in the face and the queen titters, holding her hand to her mouth."
hmm, again, not trying to be contrary but I switch between those two a lot. Basically, it depends on the players. Some want you to react to their actions so you might get
player: "I make a witty remark at the expense of the prince"
Me: "He goes red in the face and the queen twitters"
or you might get
player: "I make a witty remark at the expense of the prince"
Me:" He roars for his guards and the queen cries for your head".
Alternatively, I have had:
Player: "I make a witty response to the prince. He goes red and the queen winks at me."
Me: "O.k."
I would also add that it is not just a player to player difference but also a session to session for a player type thing. In one session you might be on your game and want to play out more of the scene than others while on other nights you might just want that random element of interacting with a GM and other players.
Again, I don't know that I would need to have rules for the play style shift.
hmm, does it mean that a Story Game attempts to dictate play style via rules set? That would not seem to be very productive or viable. I must admit, though, I am much more of "Give me a resolution system and get out of my game" type of guy.
Thanks,
Bill
Quote from: HinterWelthmm, does it mean that a Story Game attempts to dictate play style via rules set? That would not seem to be very productive or viable.
See my reply above. Story/Forgey/whatever games tend to have a strong
purpose of play built in. Personally, I don't see this as a dictate any more than I see the rules of chess as a dictate.
It's hard to know what you mean by 'productive or viable.' Again, in my personal experience you can have plenty of fun with these games if you take them for what they are.
Quote from: HinterWelthmm, again, not trying to be contrary but I switch between those two a lot. Basically, it depends on the players. Some want you to react to their actions so you might get
player: "I make a witty remark at the expense of the prince"
Me: "He goes red in the face and the queen twitters"
or you might get
player: "I make a witty remark at the expense of the prince"
Me:" He roars for his guards and the queen cries for your head".
Alternatively, I have had:
Player: "I make a witty response to the prince. He goes red and the queen winks at me."
Me: "O.k."
See now I find that last option of yours quite surprising. This is something that I would never do as a player and would be a little taken aback if a player did in my game. To me, it infringes upon the GMs knowledge of the NPC. I don't know how they are going to react and I don't want to be able to control how they react, because in effect, that takes my character out of the limitations of the world.
But I think your example also shows that the play styles that are codified in a lot of indie games (well at least the few I have read and played) are play styles that have been used forever without rules or codification. It just depends on the group.
Quote from: HinterWelthmm, does it mean that a Story Game attempts to dictate play style via rules set? That would not seem to be very productive or viable. I must admit, though, I am much more of "Give me a resolution system and get out of my game" type of guy.
Yes, I think you are getting to the heart of it. At least as I understand it. I think the Indie games really want mechanisms to guide the development of the story and to fix play style. I'm with you, as far as wanting a general resolution system and let the group style dicate how things are going to play out.
Quote from: walkerpYes, I think you are getting to the heart of it. At least as I understand it. I think the Indie games really want mechanisms to guide the development of the story and to fix play style. I'm with you, as far as wanting a general resolution system and let the group style dicate how things are going to play out.
Thanks Walker, that helped clear up a lot of the mystery for me. I really do not play many Story Games as I usually do not have a lot of interest in the subject matter or it is already covered in some other game I won (usually a trad game) so it is good to get other folks views on it.
Thanks,
Bill
Quote from: droogSee my reply above. Story/Forgey/whatever games tend to have a strong purpose of play built in. Personally, I don't see this as a dictate any more than I see the rules of chess as a dictate.
It's hard to know what you mean by 'productive or viable.' Again, in my personal experience you can have plenty of fun with these games if you take them for what they are.
Oh, I just mean that if you are going to attempt to dictate play style you will most likely end up wasting a lot of the players time trying to understand it and thus not be very productive towards your goal of dictating play style. As for viable, it just seems to me that telling someone who to play is often a wet dream that some designers cling to. Again, the way I design settings and systems tend to be "Rules, setting info and play it how ever you like". I personally have run games where it really would not have mattered what the rule set was since we all we so caught up in the story that we just belted along. No need for a resolution system of any kind. Other games, we would have great fun rolling dice for hour long combats. Thrust, parry, dodge, attempt disarm and heroic finish! To me, telling me I must play either one of those would fail horribly. I would play the game once then most likely never again. Giving advice about play styles, even suggesting a prefered one for the setting is most welcome. Codifying it in the rules? It seems neither productive or viable.
Let me stress, the above is my opinion only. I am not attempting to say this is some universal truth, just the way I play, design and what I prefer.
Bill
Quote from: HinterWeltThat just seems so strange to me. I am not trying to be snarky or obtuse but I have always let my players interject ideas into the campaign. I do not need rules for it. However, I think I begin to see the problem. ;)
Bill
To me, thats a normal bit in a traditional RPG - especially in an ongoing campaign.
Bill, I've seen a copy of
Squirrel Attack. Even tho it was done from a humorous angle it was still a pretty traditional RPGs. It just had Squirrels as the possible player characters.
- Ed C.
Quote from: HinterWeltOh, I just mean that if you are going to attempt to dictate play style you will most likely end up wasting a lot of the players time trying to understand it and thus not be very productive towards your goal of dictating play style. As for viable, it just seems to me that telling someone who to play is often a wet dream that some designers cling to.
...............................
Let me stress, the above is my opinion only. I am not attempting to say this is some universal truth, just the way I play, design and what I prefer.
Let
me stress that I understand that this is your opinion. I do have some trouble with your terminology, eg I'm uncertain exactly what you mean by 'style' and 'telling someone who to play'.
However, it's not been my experience that these sorts of games are hard to grasp. For example, a while back I played
InSpectres with a group of old RPers (lots and lots of GURPS and RQ). They had no trouble grasping what was required and we had a lot of fun.
Quote from: droogLet me stress that I understand that this is your opinion. I do have some trouble with your terminology, eg I'm uncertain exactly what you mean by 'style' and 'telling someone who to play'.
Sorry, that was a typo, it should have read "telling someone how to play". By style, I merely mean the differences as WalkerP and I have been discussing. Basically, he was stating that a trad game had emphasis on player statement, GM response. Story Gaming had more emphasis on player statements having a scope beyond the response of the GM. He stated it much clearer and I would refer you back to his post for clarity.
Quote from: droogHowever, it's not been my experience that these sorts of games are hard to grasp. For example, a while back I played InSpectres with a group of old RPers (lots and lots of GURPS and RQ). They had no trouble grasping what was required and we had a lot of fun.
I won't argue in the least. Again, my experience with Story/Forgey Games has been pretty limited. Those I have encountered generally did not hold me for more than a session. That is not meant as a broad sampling in any way.
However, was it a case that you explained to them what was expected or that they read it and understood it from the role book? It can be very different to have someone run it down for you as opposed to reading the rules and implementing from that. I have found trad games generally easier to grok. This, of course, could have everything to do with my experience in games.
Bill
Quote from: KoltarTo me, thats a normal bit in a traditional RPG - especially in an ongoing campaign.
Bill, I've seen a copy of Squirrel Attack. Even tho it was done from a humorous angle it was still a pretty traditional RPGs. It just had Squirrels as the possible player characters.
- Ed C.
Yeah, for all it has Karma Points and is not trad subject matter, I have acutally had folks say they have played it as a traditional fantasy RPG, a campaign of several sessions no less. I have to say, SA! is probably as non-trad as I would go and that is apparently not very untraditional. :o
Bill
Quote from: HinterWeltHowever, was it a case that you explained to them what was expected or that they read it and understood it from the role book? It can be very different to have someone run it down for you as opposed to reading the rules and implementing from that. I have found trad games generally easier to grok. This, of course, could have everything to do with my experience in games.
There wasn't that much to explain, I found. For myself (since I ran the game), I found
InSpectres pretty simple to understand from a quick read-through.
Now, that's not always the case, obviously. Like other RPGs, the Forge-style games vary in presentation and complexity. And it's true that they're all quite different games and therefore cannot necessarily be understood through prior experience. Playing
InSpectres doesn't equip you with any knowledge of
Dogs in the Vineyard, though it may give you a conceptual framework.
I'm not sure whether I agree with you or not about traditional games. In so far as one takes a game as a resolution mechanic and not much else, yes, it's just a matter of different dice and probabilities (and the structure of chr creation). But those can be pretty huge differences. On the other hand, I do think that eg GURPS and RQ differ from each other less than do eg
InSpectres and DitV. That's all part of the Forgey design approach, where you start by throwing out assumptions.
Have you ever played
Pendragon? It's my opinion that PD is a great deal different from many other 'traditional' games. I ran it for several years, so I had a sort of conceptual basis for approaching the Forge games. Also, I share your experience with trying different ways of informally sharing narrative control etc, but in my case I found it fairly easy to make the step to formalising that.
Quote from: HinterWeltPerhaps story games vs Trad would be a better phrase.
I was shooting for how someone would know they were playing in a story/forgie/indie game vs a trad game if no one told them.
Thanks,
Bill
Hmmm... Story Games vs Trad doesn't work for me. I've been playing a Traditional style game (house rules) since the wee-days of D&D, and I've always focused on Story in my World. So that's not quite it either, I don't think. In any case... The devilish thing about it all is that people latch on to RPG Theory and try to make it into an "academic" sounding discipline when it is really nothing of the sort. It all comes across as sounding so horribly pretentious and self-important with the "Stance" of this, and the "ist" of that, and all ... I suspect the reason why people do this is because they are in college, perhaps, working toward their Masters or PhDs, for whom it is natural to want to justify a continuing interest in something fun like RPGs by making it into something Academic sounding. It's all rather like a game, isn't it? And how it lends it all such an air of weighty seriousness that even an old crusty college professor would have to gaze down upon them with at least
some grudging respect. It also helps, I suppose, if they happen to have thoughts of turning RPGing into some sort of academic career; a Professor of RPG Theory, perhaps? Not a bad idea, at that! I could see tomes and volumes on the
"Anthropological Analysis of Midwestern Teenage D&D Players; An Addiction to the Tendency for Gamist Crunchiness" Why, to do so would certainly therefore require a sort of Academic Discipline involving the much discussed and pondered and blogged-about subject of RPG Theory! Why it all goes without saying, of course! After all, you see, it's so very important, people are talking about in quite a few universities... so it must be very ponderously impending, mustn't it? And so by adding more and more wood to the pile the Theorists are self-creating a Career Path for themselves, I should say. It is, admittedly but a hunch on my part, however I don't think it's a bad one as hunch's go. Unfortunately, because there is no actual academic basis for the wild conjectures and loose definitions bandied about as RPG Theory, it is in fact something much less academic than one would think at first blush, despite the gravely serious tones, heady sounding terminology, and deviously shifting jargon. Someday perhaps, some bright and hard working genius may come along and try to cast his life away in an attempt to assemble from this mass of smoldering chaos a true academic approach to RPG Theory. And I think that could be worthwhile, and might even lead to some interesting discoveries. But for now, I see little hope of it. Meanwhile the enormously overwrought monster is being pushed along the meandering pathways of the dark and gloomy moors by a murder of Gregorian-chanting evangelicals, deep in a night of howling winds, with sparks flying from the unfathomably flaming creature... thump, Thump, THUMP...
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42026000/jpg/_42026938_wickerman300.jpg)
Boooooo!
Happy Halloween!! :D
Quote from: walkerpSo in a trad game, the player might say "I am going to try and make a witty retort against the prince's accusation." The GM and you both roll and you dis the prince. "The prince goes red in the face and the queen titters, holding her hand to her mouth."
In an indie game, the player would roll the dice ahead of time. If the player wins, they might say "I make a witty retort against the prince. He goes red in the face and the queen titters, holding her hand to her mouth."
Your example isn't bad; but it is presented in a way that misses one very significant point: you make it seem that the result will be the same ("He goes red in the face and the queen titters, holding her hand to her mouth").
The big difference is that in the Regular RPG structure, its the GM that decides what happens, in Forgist games its usually the players (or some kind of collective, or a jenga block, or randomly choosing keywords from james joyce novels, or whatever other fucking gimmick they come up with, but anything BUT the GM).
So a more likely result is that in the Regular RPG game the player rolls the dice and the GM says: "He goes red in the face and the queen titters, holding her hand to her mouth"; whereas in the Forgist game the Player decides that the Prince is so astounded that he gives the player a peerage, or lets him have kinky sex with the queen, or does any other thing that the narcissistic player thinks will give him the most short-term satisfaction.
RPGPundit
Quote from: droogWell, I think it's arguable, but it's a bit irrelevant really. You can call it an indie game if you want to. It's not like you can buy it off a shelf anywhere.
What about GURPS? What about Palladium?
Let's just admit that to the Forgies "indie" only means what they want to attach "coolness" to, which is usually whatever Ron Edwards claims to be cool, even if something that he thinks is cool doesn't technically fit the mold (like Heroquest); whereas anything that is decidedly unhip to this crowd but would technically fit the definition is somehow conveniently declared "not indie" (like GURPS or RIFTS).
RPGPundit
Quote from: droogHave you ever played Pendragon? It's my opinion that PD is a great deal different from many other 'traditional' games. I ran it for several years, so I had a sort of conceptual basis for approaching the Forge games. Also, I share your experience with trying different ways of informally sharing narrative control etc, but in my case I found it fairly easy to make the step to formalising that.
I fail to see anything in Pendragon that disempowers GMs. I think this is a clear case of a game that a lot of pretentious storygamers think is cool being given the status of "storygame" when it in no way resembles it.
Not to mention that they're obviously reading it utterly wrong; in practice Pendragon is a very brutal and gritty combat-focused game with a lot of political intrigue thrown in. It has a brilliant "alignment" system, no question about that, but one that does nothing to disempower GMs or give players any "narrative control" or whateverthefuck.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditYour example isn't bad; but it is presented in a way that misses one very significant point: you make it seem that the result will be the same ("He goes red in the face and the queen titters, holding her hand to her mouth").
The big difference is that in the Regular RPG structure, its the GM that decides what happens, in Forgist games its usually the players (or some kind of collective, or a jenga block, or randomly choosing keywords from james joyce novels, or whatever other fucking gimmick they come up with, but anything BUT the GM).
Yep. I'm with you up to here.
Quote from: RPGPunditSo a more likely result is that in the Regular RPG game the player rolls the dice and the GM says: "He goes red in the face and the queen titters, holding her hand to her mouth"; whereas in the Forgist game the Player decides that the Prince is so astounded that he gives the player a peerage, or lets him have kinky sex with the queen, or does any other thing that the narcissistic player thinks will give him the most short-term satisfaction.
But you lose me here, I'm afraid.
This has not been my experience. Though it is a logical conclusion one could make by taking the concept and pushing it as far as it can go. But in my experience, there are many structural and non-structural limitations to how far players can take their "fiat". In the rules, for instance, other players can veto moves if they are seen as out of genre and there are more granular blocks as well. Personally speaking, all those kind of mechanics really don't do much for me, but I believe they are effective in allowing a group that wants to go down this route to construct a narrative development that makes sense to the set-up and isn't just sort of arbitrary successes and power fantasies.
Quote from: RPGPunditYour example isn't bad; but it is presented in a way that misses one very significant point: you make it seem that the result will be the same ("He goes red in the face and the queen titters, holding her hand to her mouth").
The big difference is that in the Regular RPG structure, its the GM that decides what happens, in Forgist games its usually the players (or some kind of collective, or a jenga block, or randomly choosing keywords from james joyce novels, or whatever other fucking gimmick they come up with, but anything BUT the GM).
So a more likely result is that in the Regular RPG game the player rolls the dice and the GM says: "He goes red in the face and the queen titters, holding her hand to her mouth"; whereas in the Forgist game the Player decides that the Prince is so astounded that he gives the player a peerage, or lets him have kinky sex with the queen, or does any other thing that the narcissistic player thinks will give him the most short-term satisfaction.
RPGPundit
The point for me is that the GM has no chance of creating a coherent world when the Players are able to throw Backstory into the game. What if the GM knows, at that point, that the queen would NEVER titter because it would give away the fact that she's secretly having an affair with the Knight of the Green Blazon, and that for her to twitter would give away everything to the court and the king? But in the Indie game the queen twitters because the Player thinks that would be fine, and kind of funny, maybe, and a little artsy, with little flourish. Meanwhile scrap the Backstory because it's just gotten blown out of the water. Again. And again. And again. I'm not in favor of this. Call it GM Fiat if you like but I think it's important to the overall structure of the game World for the GM to have ultimate control over the BackStory. I could see adding elements to the BackStory maybe offline, outside the game setting, with people who are not directly playing Characters in the Campaign, but in-game? With the Players? Um... I just don't see it.
Quote from: RPGPunditWhat about GURPS?
In the last Fnordcast from sjgames the question of wether GURPS is an indie game was put right to Kenneth Hite. His answer seemed... pained and noncommittal. The interviewer almost seemed embarrassed that he asked the question.
Yea, maybe I was reading a whole lot into the audio that just wasn't there... but I don't think so.
GURPS is a traditional RPG.
End of story.
- Ed C.
Quote from: darIn the last Fnordcast from sjgames the question of wether GURPS is an indie game was put right to Kenneth Hite. His answer seemed... pained and noncommittal. The interviewer almost seemed embarrassed that he asked the question.
Yea, maybe I was reading a whole lot into the audio that just wasn't there... but I don't think so.
As I see it, if we were back in 1985, then I think that there would be no question about GURPS being indie. The indie community is willing to support name designers who go indie on some games, like Greg Stolze. However, at this point, I'm pretty sure the percentage of words of current GURPS material actually written by Steve Jackson is miniscule.
On the other hand, I've got no issue with calling Kevin Siembieda Palladium books indie any more than I've got a problem calling Greg Porter games indie.
Quote from: RPGPunditI fail to see anything in Pendragon that disempowers GMs. I think this is a clear case of a game that a lot of pretentious storygamers think is cool being given the status of "storygame" when it in no way resembles it.
I didn't call PD a 'story game', Punani. And I don't buy into your stupid generalisation about 'disempowerment' for the GM, either (you've got some issues; I suggest therapy). I'm talking about how PD has very clear structure and purpose, and how it very cleverly channels play along the lines its author intended.
As for GURPS etc, to see whether it's indie' in the economic sense (rather than the extended aesthetic sense), one would need to find out who wrote most of it and who owns the IP. Note also that HQ no longer has an active forum at the Forge.
But go right ahead with your polemics. They're entertaining, at least.
Quote from: VBWyrdeThe point for me is that the GM has no chance of creating a coherent world when the Players are able to throw Backstory into the game. What if the GM knows, at that point, that the queen would NEVER titter because it would give away the fact that she's secretly having an affair with the Knight of the Green Blazon, and that for her to twitter would give away everything to the court and the king? But in the Indie game the queen twitters because the Player thinks that would be fine, and kind of funny, maybe, and a little artsy, with little flourish.
Could we have some specific references to rules here? There's no such thing as 'the Indie game.' There are many different games with different approaches to authority.
How about this an "Indie"/Forge/Story game as the term is actually used is one that creates new terms for things we already know by another word just to prove that"Hey, the designer went to college for awhile." They also have an artsy-fartsy, overly-pretentious feel to them and an overboard effort to be "edgy" and hip in some way. Usually an alternative to dice is attempted as a randomizer , or when dice atre used its in ungodly mechanisms involving dicepools.
A Traditional game is one that doeasn't take much time to explain to new players. You play for at least 3 or 4 hours, have fun with friends and the game and nobody needs to see a therapost or go to confessional aftwards to feel better about themselves. Dice are most often used..NORMAL handfuls of dice.
- Ed C.
Quote from: droogThere wasn't that much to explain, I found. For myself (since I ran the game), I found InSpectres pretty simple to understand from a quick read-through.
To be honest I am surprised. I am not talking about the setting but the idea of players contributing to the story to an extent that the GM duties are spread to the players. Again, I probably am not understanding the particulars of Inspectres as I have no personal knowledge of it.
Quote from: droogNow, that's not always the case, obviously. Like other RPGs, the Forge-style games vary in presentation and complexity. And it's true that they're all quite different games and therefore cannot necessarily be understood through prior experience. Playing InSpectres doesn't equip you with any knowledge of Dogs in the Vineyard, though it may give you a conceptual framework.
Hmm, another try at my point. Playing traditional games gives you an idea of the role a player has in the game system. You may change dice but you get a basic idea of what you need to do, you are an "actor" if you will. It has analogs beyond RPGs.
For Story/forgey games you seem to have a muddled role. You are part the story teller but also you have direct control of the character. It would seem a difficult concept to communicate. However, if an experienced trad gamer came into such a game and did not understand it, could they then just play in their traditional mode? That would solve a number of issues.
Quote from: droogI'm not sure whether I agree with you or not about traditional games. In so far as one takes a game as a resolution mechanic and not much else, yes, it's just a matter of different dice and probabilities (and the structure of chr creation). But those can be pretty huge differences. On the other hand, I do think that eg GURPS and RQ differ from each other less than do eg InSpectres and DitV. That's all part of the Forgey design approach, where you start by throwing out assumptions.
See, and as a business man, I would see this as a fault. You rely on the gamer who is willing to try new games. You want to make it easy to pick up your game but if the concepts have little common ground then you will most likely create barriers to entry. On the other hand, I guess there is a chance you would be building brand loyalty by not sharing common concepts but I do not think it would balance against the need to attract players.
Quote from: droogHave you ever played Pendragon? It's my opinion that PD is a great deal different from many other 'traditional' games. I ran it for several years, so I had a sort of conceptual basis for approaching the Forge games. Also, I share your experience with trying different ways of informally sharing narrative control etc, but in my case I found it fairly easy to make the step to formalising that.
I played once a long time ago. As I remember it (it was probably firs ed. I think I have a copy in the library) it was pretty trad except for bits tacked on. Like I said though, this was a while ago.
Bill
Quote from: HinterWeltTo be honest I am surprised. I am not talking about the setting but the idea of players contributing to the story to an extent that the GM duties are spread to the players. Again, I probably am not understanding the particulars of Inspectres as I have no personal knowledge of it.
Easy as pie in IS. You can find the startup rules [url="http://www.memento-mori.com/inspectres/]here[/url]. As I said, the guys jumped right in. I did an AP report here in the AP forum.
QuoteHmm, another try at my point. Playing traditional games gives you an idea of the role a player has in the game system. You may change dice but you get a basic idea of what you need to do, you are an "actor" if you will. It has analogs beyond RPGs.
For Story/forgey games you seem to have a muddled role. You are part the story teller but also you have direct control of the character. It would seem a difficult concept to communicate. However, if an experienced trad gamer came into such a game and did not understand it, could they then just play in their traditional mode? That would solve a number of issues.
That's very much a function of the particular game. But this is also, in my opinion, a case of needing to unlearn what you think you already know. I've tried these sorts of things on new players: without preconceptions as to how the game was supposed to work, they did just fine. It's not difficult at all; it's just different. Some of them aren't even so different (eg
Sorcerer or
Burning Wheel).
QuoteSee, and as a business man, I would see this as a fault. You rely on the gamer who is willing to try new games. You want to make it easy to pick up your game but if the concepts have little common ground then you will most likely create barriers to entry.
I think that is quite possible, and may be why the games haven't done so well in this market. On the other hand, nobody expects all board games to use the same rules. And again, my own experience is that quite a few people have no trouble in making the conceptual leap.
Quote from: droogI think that is quite possible, and may be why the games haven't done so well in this market. On the other hand, nobody expects all board games to use the same rules. And again, my own experience is that quite a few people have no trouble in making the conceptual leap.
Oh, not the same rules but board games that are successful tend to use the similar ideas. So, the indie/forgey market may be their own worst enemies. Still, I agree that I may be over estimated the difficulty of introducing trad players to non-trad games.
Thanks for the info,
Bill
Quote from: VBWyrdeI could see adding elements to the BackStory maybe offline, outside the game setting, with people who are not directly playing Characters in the Campaign, but in-game? With the Players? Um... I just don't see it.
If you were to ever enjoy most indie RPGs you'd have to let go of the concept of the GM as the Great Artiste. Or at least let go of the concept of GMing artistry that you now hold.
There is no sacred "BackStory" in many of these games. Typically, as GM, you have a stable of NPCs with their own desires and wants. That's where a lot of your control over the course of the game and ability to push your agenda is. I would never go into an indie RPG with an elaborate set-piece world that I was scared to have mucked about with in play (I wouldn't go into a traditional RPG with one, either, but that's beside the point).
The world/environment is very much more about broad color and the initial
situation than about simulating an imaginary universe. I believe the concept is that the world only matters where it contacts the characters...anything else is irrelevant or quite fluid.
Of course, there are about a bajillion different variations/refutations of these concepts within indie RPGs. Burning Wheel is not Dogs in the Vineyard is not Sorcerer is not Agon is not The Shadow of Yesterday, etc.
Quote from: KoltarHow about this an "Indie"/Forge/Story game as the term is actually used is one that creates new terms for things we already know by another word just to prove that"Hey, the designer went to college for awhile." They also have an artsy-fartsy, overly-pretentious feel to them and an overboard effort to be "edgy" and hip in some way. Usually an alternative to dice is attempted as a randomizer , or when dice atre used its in ungodly mechanisms involving dicepools.
Wow, Koltar. You REALLY nailed it! Great job, man. If you ever marry a vulture, you'll have great success in feeding your offspring.
QuoteA Traditional game is one that doeasn't take much time to explain tro new players.
Like GURPS character generation, you mean?
Quote from: TimLike GURPS character generation, you mean?
Can you count to 100?? (3rd edition GURPS)
Good.
Can you count to 150 ? (
4th edition GURPS)
Add and subtract your way there? To that number?
Good - I just explained
GURPS character creation in less than 6 sentences.
If you need a calculator - I'm pretty sure someone at the table can lend you one.
- Ed C.
Quote from: KoltarCan you count to 100?? (3rd edition GURPS)
Good.
Can you count to 150 ? (4th edition GURPS)
Add and subtract your way there? To that number?
Good - I just explained GURPS character creation in less than 6 sentences.
If you need a calculator - I'm pretty sure someone at the table can lend you one.
- Ed C.
Yup, I agree. GURPS character creation is boring and tedious and lends itself to minmaxers, but its hardly difficult to grasp assuming you aren't someone's Retarded Brother Bilo.
RPGPundit
Quote from: KoltarGood - I just explained GURPS character creation in less than 6 sentences.
Right. Now explain how all those advantages and disadvantages impact your character. Oh, and how not to nerf your character for combat by making poor choices in character generation. Are we over six sentences, yet?
Let's not forget that we'll be passing the book around the table for the next three to four hours (although I admit that's not technically explaining character generation) while everyone works on their character builds.
Point is there's a LOT more to GURPS character generation than adding and subtracting until you get to whatever point level the GM has set. I could just as easily make a disingenuous and grossly oversimplified summary of character generation for a number of indie RPGs in as few sentences.
Quote from: TimIf you were to ever enjoy most indie RPGs you'd have to let go of the concept of the GM as the Great Artiste. Or at least let go of the concept of GMing artistry that you now hold.
See, I am usually put off by this kind of thing. It assumes I am some sort of narrow minded mouth breather for not abandoning my preconceptions that I obviously must have if I do not enjoy story/forgey games. It is a bit insulting and really not very helpful in a much larger sense than just this thread.
Quote from: TimThere is no sacred "BackStory" in many of these games. Typically, as GM, you have a stable of NPCs with their own desires and wants. That's where a lot of your control over the course of the game and ability to push your agenda is. I would never go into an indie RPG with an elaborate set-piece world that I was scared to have mucked about with in play (I wouldn't go into a traditional RPG with one, either, but that's beside the point).
You know, I am serious here and not snarking, did you have a bad experience with trad gaming? I see this sort of base resentment in a lot of story/forgey gamers. Is it that these gamers often get poinded on in forums so you get gunshy? I can appreciate that. ;)
I have played with a lot of game groups, gone to cons (10 to 20 a year) and GMed for a lot of players and I have to say, this railroading thing is over played. I don't create monolithic masterpieces of setting expecting the players to treat them with kit gloves. I expect change. I also have found a lot of players like structure. If magic is part of the setting then they want it to work consistently. They do not want a mechanism in the game to allow a player to change some element so they can meet a cool cyber chick.
Quote from: TimThe world/environment is very much more about broad color and the initial situation than about simulating an imaginary universe. I believe the concept is that the world only matters where it contacts the characters...anything else is irrelevant or quite fluid.
This is more play style, to me, than anything. I have run games where the world was no more defined than the rooms the characters went through. It is a matter of preference and what the group desires.
Quote from: TimOf course, there are about a bajillion different variations/refutations of these concepts within indie RPGs. Burning Wheel is not Dogs in the Vineyard is not Sorcerer is not Agon is not The Shadow of Yesterday, etc.
Variety is the spice of life. I personally find no problem with the story/forgey game style. If folks have fun with it, then all the better.
Bill
Three to four hours??
Damn man ...you must have some slow thinking people that you game with.
Shit.
The first session of this campaign back in 2004 - we had 45 minutes to an hour to create characters. Maybe less than that if you subtract the bad puns part of the conversation.
Anything that needed adjusting I did in conjuction with the player 5 or 6 sessions later. (as thats when 4th edition was released. )
I really think people make it out to be more complicated than it really is.
- Ed C.
Quote from: jhkimThe indie community is willing to support name designers who go indie on some games, like Greg Stolze.
John, what the heck is the indie community? And how do they support games? I mean, I get that you're trying very hard to use a technical definition of "indie" in terms of games, but how does that translate into a community, let alone support within or in the name of the community?
Quote from: HinterWeltSee, I am usually put off by this kind of thing. It assumes I am some sort of narrow minded mouth breather for not abandoning my preconceptions that I obviously must have if I do not enjoy story/forgey games. It is a bit insulting and really not very helpful in a much larger sense than just this thread.
It was not my intention to appear snobbish. The thing is that these games ARE different. They're not going to work properly and are going to seem utterly broken if you go into them with VBWyrde's preconceptions. Trying to use most of these games to run the sort of campaign that he's talking about would be the equivalent of trying to chop down trees with a hacksaw. You can get there, but it's going to be a serious pain in the ass.
QuoteYou know, I am serious here and not snarking, did you have a bad experience with trad gaming? I see this sort of base resentment in a lot of story/forgey gamers. Is it that these gamers often get poinded on in forums so you get gunshy? I can appreciate that. ;)
Sure, I've had some bad experiences with trad gaming. I've had some bad experiences with indie gaming, too. My resentment is largely forum-specific. There's an awful lot of very strong opinions about indie games expressed here that are coming from places of misconception or plain old ignorance. I've played trad games. I still play trad games. I will continue to play trad games. Many people who are telling me everything that's wrong with indie games have never played and have no intention of playing said games. Some have never even READ a single freaking indie game (Senor Koltar, for example).
QuoteThis is more play style, to me, than anything. I have run games where the world was no more defined than the rooms the characters went through. It is a matter of preference and what the group desires.
Well, sure. That's great! Indie games are, in general, not intended to be flexible enough to support all styles of gaming. As I said earlier, if you try to make them do something they're not designed to do they're going to suck. If everyone's on board with the style of play expressed in the game (just like the players in your games have been on board with they style of those games) then they are most likely going to work quite well.
Quote from: KoltarThe first session of this campaign back in 2004 - we had 45 minutes to an hour to create characters. Maybe less than that if you subtract the bad puns part of the conversation.
Anything that needed adjusting I did in conjuction with the player 5 or 6 sessions later. (as thats when 4th edition was released. )
You fully created GURPS characters in 45 minutes with total newbie players and one or two books? My hat's off to you, then.
Sure, when I was GMing GURPS
I could create a character in 30-45 minutes, but then I was the GM and had quite a lot of practice while I was learning the system well enough to run it.
Not "newbies" - but not gaming veterans either.
All of us were kind of rusty and hadn't been in any kind of campaign or serious game in over 2 to 3 years. (*)
They were all familiar with basioc concepts of RPGs ...except for 1 guy who was a co-worker at the game store at the time. He was the only true "Newbie" there. He had read through the basic GURPS book at work and declared it : "Pretty easy to figure out". (His words)
- Ed C.
* = Working in a game store got me back into running RPGs.
Quote from: HinterWeltSee, I am usually put off by this kind of thing. It assumes I am some sort of narrow minded mouth breather for not abandoning my preconceptions that I obviously must have if I do not enjoy story/forgey games. It is a bit insulting and really not very helpful in a much larger sense than just this thread.
You know, I am serious here and not snarking, did you have a bad experience with trad gaming? I see this sort of base resentment in a lot of story/forgey gamers. Is it that these gamers often get poinded on in forums so you get gunshy? I can appreciate that. ;)
I really don't see where you make this leap. Now I have gone and tasted the kool-aid and I found it isn't really to my liking. I was motivated by my own wide range of interest and curiousity. I listen to a lot of gaming podcasts and heard a lot of indie talk and enthusiasm. Nowhere in there did I ever feel that someone was looking down on me or arguing that traditional play is wrong.
There are some pretentious people and there are some overly critical people, but no more than there are in any sub-sub-genre (I mean look around you! :)).
I really think most of the people in the indie community (and I mean forgie pretentious types here, not all independent game designers, of which I count you) are just looking for other avenues and techniques of gaming. Some of them might not be satisfied with tradtional gaming, some of them might just have voracious gaming appetites and a range of tastes.
I really don't see anywhere in the suggestion that in order to appreciate another style of play, you may have to let go of some other ways of playing is a condemnation of those other ways of playing. It's like saying to someone who really doesn't like bitter things, but has never had a really good chinese bitter melon, you know you may have to let go of the idea that bitter is gross. They try it and it's still gross, that's fine. But maybe they'll like it. That doesn't mean that their desire for sweet things is lame or unsophisticated.
Quote from: KoltarThey were all familiar with basioc concepts of RPGs ...except for 1 guy who was a co-worker at the game store at the time. He was the only true "Newbie" there. He had read through the basic GURPS book at work and declared it : "Pretty easy to figure out". (His words)
So...you were explaining GURPS character generation to people who had played it before or had at least read the book? Color me confused on how that supports your case.
Look, GURPS is totally logical. The basic concept is easy to understand. I'm not even turned off by long character generations sessions (I play Burning Wheel, for God's sake), but I really don't think your assertion that traditional RPG character generation is easy-peasy bears up. Especially modern traditional RPGs.
If we were talking about creating an AD&D fighter, or something, I'd be right there with you, but there are a tremendous number of exceptions to that level of simplicity in the realm of traditional RPGs.
Koltar, for god's sake, are you really trying to argue here that GURPS chargen is simple? Everyone, even Dr. Kromm himself will tell you that the work is all front-loaded, so that you don't have to do any calculations during combat. And it is a crunchy system. I love GURPS, but chargen is not quick. It's not even worth arguing about.
Why don't you actually pick up and read an indie game from cover to cover before you just jump in with totally baseless opinions (by your definition, Savage Worlds is indie). Better yet, play one. What's to lose besides a few hours of your time? You'll still be gaming.
I'm not trying to convert you, just anything to give you some actual evidence for your ridiculous positions.
Nope...In My opinion, SAVAGE WORLDS is a Traditional.
Its based originally on a set of miniatures combat rules. Definately NOT an "Indie"/Forge/Story-type of game.
- Ed C.
Quote from: KoltarNope...In My opinion, SAVAGE WORLDS is a Traditional.
Quote from: KoltarUsually an alternative to dice is attempted as a randomizer
So the playing cards for initiative (and combat in Deadlands: Reloaded) doesn't make it indie?
Koltar, read and play, then talk.
Quote from: walkerpSo the playing cards for initiative (and combat in Deadlands: Reloaded) doesn't make it indie?
Koltar, read and play, then talk.
The primary mechanic is dice.
SAVAGE WORLDS is a traditional.
I own TWO copies of it. The big hardback from 2 years ago and the recent Explorer's edition.
Its a traditional.
- Ed C.
I am seriously bored by systematic using of the world "indie" in the newspeak sense. Remove all shades of meaning and left just simple dichotomies - indie vs. traditional. Innovative vs. conservative. Improving vs. degenerating. Hell yeah... George Orwell in RPGs today...
Quote from: AlnagI am seriously bored by systematic using of the world "indie" in the newspeak sense. Remove all shades of meaning and left just simple dichotomies - indie vs. traditional. Innovative vs. conservative. Improving vs. degenerating. Hell yeah... George Orwell in RPGs today...
Agreed. But HinterWelt asked a question based on a certain understanding of those words. As I said at the beginning, it leaves out a thousand shades of grey, but at least for this thread, I'll follow a simplistic naming convention rather than re-explain what I mean each time.
Quote from: TimIf you were to ever enjoy most indie RPGs you'd have to let go of the concept of the GM as the Great Artiste. Or at least let go of the concept of GMing artistry that you now hold.
There is no sacred "BackStory" in many of these games. Typically, as GM, you have a stable of NPCs with their own desires and wants. That's where a lot of your control over the course of the game and ability to push your agenda is. I would never go into an indie RPG with an elaborate set-piece world that I was scared to have mucked about with in play (I wouldn't go into a traditional RPG with one, either, but that's beside the point).
The world/environment is very much more about broad color and the initial situation than about simulating an imaginary universe. I believe the concept is that the world only matters where it contacts the characters...anything else is irrelevant or quite fluid.
Of course, there are about a bajillion different variations/refutations of these concepts within indie RPGs. Burning Wheel is not Dogs in the Vineyard is not Sorcerer is not Agon is not The Shadow of Yesterday, etc.
Well, I don't know why this sounds so very unappealing to me, but it does. I read it and think, "Yuck". As GM, quite a lot of the fun of the game for me is creating a World and filling it in with BackStory that creates something fascinating and worth exploring. The other half of the fun is having Players play Characters in that World exploring, battling, and creating the FrontStory (if I might use that term for "the Plot as driven by the Players"). I've had so much fun doing that in the past, I really just don't see any draw towards what you're describing. It sounds like a romp through mishmoshing chaos, and not a very fun one for someone who is actually interested in story. What strikes me as completely ironic is that these are then called Story-Games... but how in God's name can you actually ever get a coherent STORY out of them, if there's no BackStory in the game and the World only matters the moment the Characters touch it, and then (presumably) can be forgotten or transmuted according to whatever whim comes along? Wow. Compared with what I think of as Story, my feeling now is that Traditional games have a *much* better chance of producing actual Story than what you just described! But someone called it "Story-Games" and so now there's another point of confusion. These don't sound like Story-Games at all, since I can't see any real Story coming out of them. I think someone said it right earlier: This sounds like it might have some entertainment value, but most assuredly does not scratch the itch. Doesn't even scratch the surface of scratching the itch for me.
So no, I do not think I would ever truly enjoy the kind of game you describe because it removes the elements I actually enjoy from the game and makes it the opposite. In fact, I think, from your description, I'd I'd really not enjoy tis at all because its not merely
different - it's utterly antithetical. It seems a doppleganger of what I truly do enjoy.
The other side of the coin is to consider this as a Player, rather than GM. Again, I come to ... Yuck. It sounds like it drains out all of what I really like about Playing RPGs... the exploration of someone elses Amazing World and BackStory with the ability to create new history and effect the World in the FrontStory. So again this really just has no discernable appeal to me either as a Player or Gamesmaster. I like the Traditional RPG style because of the BackStory. I don't think that the concept of BackStory is "out moded" or "old fashioned", or double plus bad in anyway, sorry. To me it's awesome and energizing and fabulous. I like that aspect of RPG the way it is.
Tim, you're confusing the issue. VB, I'd like to clarify some stuff, but before I start typing, are you interested? I'm not in a mood to type reams to no purpose.
Quote from: droogTim, you're confusing the issue. VB, I'd like to clarify some stuff, but before I start typing, are you interested? I'm not in a mood to type reams to no purpose.
Please go ahead. Of course I'm interested. You'll note, I think, that I have not drawn any hard conclusions but I am going on my impressions based on what has been said. I'm pretty open minded. But from what has been said by Tim I think if those statements are true then I would tend to feel disinclined to play such games. I am not saying that those games are bad, or wrong or not fun for those who like them. But for me I don't think they would do for me what I'm looking for. I'm always open to listenning, however. So please go ahead. Thanks.
I'm actually worried about what a supposed traditional-indie dichotomy does to our understanding of traditional RPGs.
I think the dominant model of a 'traditional' game, now, comes out of the Runequest 2/Champions line that led to GURPS, Vampire, and D&D 3.
Some 'traditional' games that do not fit this model in very important ways: Classic Traveller, Tunnels & Trolls, and many implementations of Original Dungeons and Dragons, James Bond 007, older versions of Paranoia and Call of Cthulhu, and Pendragon.
Partisans of the 'traditional' in the 'war' need to be careful not to destroy the variety on their own side of the fence in their zeal to slay their enemies, IMO.
Quote from: CalithenaPartisans of the 'traditional' in the 'war' need to be careful not to destroy the variety on their own side of the fence in their zeal to slay their enemies, IMO.
I can certainly see that happening.
Quote from: walkerpI really don't see where you make this leap. Now I have gone and tasted the kool-aid and I found it isn't really to my liking. I was motivated by my own wide range of interest and curiousity. I listen to a lot of gaming podcasts and heard a lot of indie talk and enthusiasm. Nowhere in there did I ever feel that someone was looking down on me or arguing that traditional play is wrong.
There are some pretentious people and there are some overly critical people, but no more than there are in any sub-sub-genre (I mean look around you! :)).
WalkerP, let me be clear I was responding to Tim's comments here. To the broader statement I made, do not read it as "all". I just have seen a lot of "If only you let go of your preconceptions" or "Indie gamign is a better paradigm than trad gaming". Heck, inherent in the concept of "indie" is that it is superior to trad gaming.
Now, that said, I have met a lot of "indie" designers who are extremely cool and reasonable. I am, however, truly abominable with names. Riddle of Steel designer came up to me at GenCon a couple of years ago and thanked me for some production advice. We chatted, he was cool. I talk to a lot of local designers. That said, the rhetoric is alarmingly uniform when you here it.
As to what I call elitism in gaming. I am 100% opposed. If you have not seen me take trad gamers to task over it here and elsewhere you have not been paying attention. I rail against Pundit and his brand of elitism all the time. It sometimes makes this site a bit hard to read. So, yes, both sides are guilty but just because we are on RPGSite does not mean I will favor one side or another.
Quote from: walkerpI really think most of the people in the indie community (and I mean forgie pretentious types here, not all independent game designers, of which I count you) are just looking for other avenues and techniques of gaming. Some of them might not be satisfied with tradtional gaming, some of them might just have voracious gaming appetites and a range of tastes.
I really don't see anywhere in the suggestion that in order to appreciate another style of play, you may have to let go of some other ways of playing is a condemnation of those other ways of playing. It's like saying to someone who really doesn't like bitter things, but has never had a really good chinese bitter melon, you know you may have to let go of the idea that bitter is gross. They try it and it's still gross, that's fine. But maybe they'll like it. That doesn't mean that their desire for sweet things is lame or unsophisticated.
And I have no problems if it is phrased like that. However, it is couched in the term "indie" which as mentioned before, implies better. And let's face it, many designers (indie or otherwise) think their game design is superior. I am not talking about the indie fan who is reasonable, excited and eager to explain his concepts. I am talking about the guy who wants to define his hobby by negative and denigrating someone else's...sound like anyone around here? ;)
Bill
Quote from: TimIf you were to ever enjoy most indie RPGs you'd have to let go of the concept of the GM as the Great Artiste. Or at least let go of the concept of GMing artistry that you now hold.
There is no sacred "BackStory" in many of these games. Typically, as GM, you have a stable of NPCs with their own desires and wants. That's where a lot of your control over the course of the game and ability to push your agenda is. I would never go into an indie RPG with an elaborate set-piece world that I was scared to have mucked about with in play (I wouldn't go into a traditional RPG with one, either, but that's beside the point).
The world/environment is very much more about broad color and the initial situation than about simulating an imaginary universe. I believe the concept is that the world only matters where it contacts the characters...anything else is irrelevant or quite fluid.
Of course, there are about a bajillion different variations/refutations of these concepts within indie RPGs. Burning Wheel is not Dogs in the Vineyard is not Sorcerer is not Agon is not The Shadow of Yesterday, etc.
No, nothing perjorative at all in this depiction of traditional games. Just different styles of play: one style which features a GM who considers himself a great artiste, who has a sacred backstory and an agenda to push, and who is scared to have his world mucked with; and another style which doesn't. Different strokes for different folks.
Quote from: walkerpAgreed. But HinterWelt asked a question based on a certain understanding of those words. As I said at the beginning, it leaves out a thousand shades of grey, but at least for this thread, I'll follow a simplistic naming convention rather than re-explain what I mean each time.
If there are better terms for what I am asking, I am more than happy to here them. I just do not want this thread to devolve into another "What does indie really mean?!?!"
For the record, I think maybe "how do I know I am playing a story game" might have been a been a better title.
As the definition comes out, I may have played more "story" games than I first realized. If mechanics to manipulate the meta-game is any indication.
Bill
Quote from: HinterWeltIf there are better terms for what I am asking, I am more than happy to here them. I just do not want this thread to devolve into another "What does indie really mean?!?!"
Oh absolutely. I thought your OP was very clearly stated. I am just recognizing that the terms are very flexible at the get-go so that people don't start arguing about whether or not "indie" in this context means a single designer working for him or herself (which they did anyway; I found that annoying, but we've moved on).
Quote from: HaffrungNo, nothing perjorative at all in this depiction of traditional games. Just different styles of play: one style which features a GM who considers himself a great artiste, who has a sacred backstory and an agenda to push, and who is scared to have his world mucked with; and another style which doesn't. Different strokes for different folks.
My fucking god. I was responding to VBWyrde's post and addressing VBWyrde's specific issues that he had brought up. Do my adjectives not match what he described in the post I quoted from? Do they not match what he has described as his style of gaming? I mean....BackStory? Come on.
Edit: By the way, pushing (and for that matter having) an agenda is something I see as critical to GMing in whatever style of game. It's essential to setting up conflicts and operating NPCs, I think. It certainly wasn't a pejorative term in the context of my post.
Bill,
After reading a lot of What Dancey was saying in other threads here, and his - whatever it is he's going through - I've gone to using "Story Building Games" and "Role Playing Games" as opposite ends of a spectrum. In the former, the fun is in creational, in the latter it's experiential.
As with any continuum, there's plenty of room for people to create, play, and enjoy games any where along the extent. I think there are some things that are identifiable as concepts available for diametric categorization. For example, for me there's Required Shared Narrative Control versus Voluntary Shared Narrative Control. In the former, there are rules instantiating requirements for passing narrative control to other players (most notably out of the GM's hands). The latter refers to games that do not provide rules for this purpose, but allow it to be handled by individual groups' preferred style.
It's why it becomes very difficult to classify games as they are rarely so clear-cut that they fall at one end of the spectrum or the other. I think the Indie "Brand," as some astute person here called it, leans in the direction of the Story Building Games - but is, by no means, monolithic. The problem is that Indie is supposed to be a business practice term - from what I understand - but gets used to describe the aesthetic, as droog rightly notes. The conflation of the two has been the source of much confusion.
I'm interested in the reason why you were told you weren't Indie - are you hiring out work these days? ;)
FWIW, YMMV, IMHO and all that jazz that just means "this is my theory...ahem..."
Thanks,
Jim
Quote from: TimMy fucking god. I was responding to VBWyrde's post and addressing VBWyrde's specific issues that he had brought up. Do my adjectives not match what he described in the post I quoted from? Do they not match what he has described as his style of gaming? I mean....BackStory? Come on.
In defense of Tim, and VB for that matter, this confusion has previously arisen due to VB's use of the term BackStory - which leads many to think (including me until we hashed it out) he's referring to a level of predetermination he does not really mean.
So Tim, please be aware that VB uses that term to mean "a sandbox full of interesting possibilities," not "my precious story that my players will have to play out."
VB - please find another term...please please please.... ;)
Quote from: VBWyrdeWhat strikes me as completely ironic is that these are then called Story-Games... but how in God's name can you actually ever get a coherent STORY out of them, if there's no BackStory in the game and the World only matters the moment the Characters touch it, and then (presumably) can be forgotten or transmuted according to whatever whim comes along?
VB, I'm trying to describe a style of play that's largely (if not almost entirely) driven by characters (on both sides of the 'screen'). A story can certainly be created by the interactions of people, can it not? It's not necessarily as soap opera as it sounds, either. If your characters are a dwarven prince, the King's Champion of the Land of Gerfuffle, Mad Ahab the Sorcerer, and The Great Unknown Evil Necromancer of the North, you can have your Tolkienesque stories with great epic sweep.
It's a different approach for a lot of people, but hardly antithetical to story.
I suppose that the sort of imaginary-space wrecking tinkering that you describe in the last sentence of the quote is possible, but I haven't seen it in play. People have been very good about sticking to the tone and themes of the campaigns we've set up.
Quote from: HinterWeltI wont argue. How about Story Games vs Trad games then? Same thing?
I believe so. There's no denying that game design has changed in the last few decades, but I don't believe that said changes, in whole or in part, are confined to "story games."
It seems to me that literally the most noticeable difference between an indie/story game and a traditional game would be the size of the product.
Seanchai
Quote from: StuartActually... this is true. OD&D was an indie game.
It's not anymore though. To put it in music terms -- D&D got signed to a label. ;)
True, but to the extent the game designer = owner might help produce a "better" or more "true" game than one owned by another, designed by corporate committee etc. then OD&D (and other games from the 70s) are truly indie as the product was made under indie conditions. The above is the same argument one sees for indie film, music etc., where the creatos=sole owners a better more innovative product may result. A really good indie product, however, will have to fend off being acquired by a traditional company once it becomes sucessful.
The idea that it is no longer on the shelves or OOP is a red herring. PDFs of OD&D can be bought on-line so it is still offered for sale. In fact it is probably easier to get a copy of OD&D via e-bay or pdf than it is to get a hold of most indie=forge games.
It's not the brand that is indie or not, it is the actual condition under which the product is produced. If the rights to burning Burning Wheel were acquired by Hasbro tomorrow would the game suddenly not be indie anymore?. Sure maybe the designer could be said to have "sold out" and maybe 5th edition BW would be traditional, but the original was still made independently.
I mention OD&D as just an example that an objective, typical definition of an indie product, when applied to RPGs, includes a game that seems to be reviled by some who use the "indie" label. It shows that the term "indie" is used to mean something else than the common meaning a non-RPG insider might ascribe to it. That is it is more a marketing term than a term that is to convey information on its face.
There are people designing games who want to imagine themselves anything BUT game designers. Rock stars. Poets. Artists. Whatever.
The "Indie" identifier as used by the Forge / Story Games seems like a part of that school of thought.
:raise:
Quote from: TimMy fucking god. I was responding to VBWyrde's post and addressing VBWyrde's specific issues that he had brought up. Do my adjectives not match what he described in the post I quoted from? Do they not match what he has described as his style of gaming? I mean....BackStory? Come on.
No, they don't match. Your adjectives come across as derogatory, not "accurate". Just because you don't like a style of play doesn't make it Bad, nor does it make your insulting language justified. So what you don't like the traditional style? Big deal. Then don't play it. But why come out and be insulting to those who do? All I did was articulate what that style is. It's not an unusual style. It is, in fact, the standard Traditional RPG style. But I guess the fact that millions of people enjoy this style is a bit to much for you to bear. I feel for ya.
EDIT: Ok I read some of the further responses after jumping on this. Now I wish I'd finished reading the thread. But oh well. We all have our lapses now and then. I'll log this one down as reciprocal dumbassery and move on.
Quote from: James J SkachIn defense of Tim, and VB for that matter, this confusion has previously arisen due to VB's use of the term BackStory - which leads many to think (including me until we hashed it out) he's referring to a level of predetermination he does not really mean.
So Tim, please be aware that VB uses that term to mean "a sandbox full of interesting possibilities," not "my precious story that my players will have to play out."
VB - please find another term...please please please.... ;)
I am open to suggestions.
Quote from: VBWyrdeNo, they don't match. Your adjectives come across as derogatory, not "accurate". Just because you don't like a style of play doesn't make it Bad, nor does it make your insulting language justified. So what you don't like the traditional style? Big deal. Then don't play it. But why come out and be insulting to those who do? All I did was articulate what that style is. It's not an unusual style. It is, in fact, the standard Traditional RPG style. But I guess the fact that millions of people enjoy this style is a bit to much for you to bear. I feel for ya.
VB, I meant exactly the words that I used. They weren't meant to be insulting, though. If I understand you correctly, you consider the world (and by the world I mean everything beyond what's within the skin of a PC and his or her immediate equipment) to be strictly the GM's responsibility. You are ill at ease with the concept of player authorship powers like calling NPCs into being or players determining facts about the world
in play* that aren't in the GM's notebook, source book, or mind. If that's an inaccurate characterization, then I apologize for misreading you.
I suppose I could have used a word like "inviolate" or "integrity" or something else, but, given the climate of this fractious mud-slinging baggage-carrying website, would they have been read as any less insulting or emotionally-charged?
In any case, the point I was making is that those sorts of player-authorship powers and the GMing style that works in conjunction with them are quite different from most (if not all) traditional games. It's a real, definable, difference that I think would cause a huge disconnect for you if you went into a demo or one-shot of an indie game expecting your normal style of play.
Tim
*I'm not talking about changing the world through direct PC actions, I'm talking about..um...meta-mechanics. I'm totally down with sandbox worlds and a GM that doesn't railroad his players.
Quote from: TimVB, I meant exactly the words that I used. They weren't meant to be insulting, though. If I understand you correctly, you consider the world (and by the world I mean everything beyond what's within the skin of a PC and his or her immediate equipment) to be strictly the GM's responsibility. You are ill at ease with the concept of player authorship powers like calling NPCs into being or players determining facts about the world in play* that aren't in the GM's notebook, source book, or mind. If that's an inaccurate characterization, then I apologize for misreading you.
Nope. That's a reasonably accurate description.
QuoteI suppose I could have used a word like "inviolate" or "integrity" or something else, but, given the climate of this fractious mud-slinging baggage-carrying website, would they have been read as any less insulting or emotionally-charged?
Inviolate would have been a better choice for me. I'd have registered that as "accurate" rather than "insulting" only because people often use "sacred" whatever when they mean to imply a certain religous hypocracy. I associated your use of the phrase with the general usage because it is common. Now that you've clarified I accept your usage. In a sense it could be considered "sacred" to the World in that usually the GM is creating on a Mythoepoetic level, taking the role of the Deities in many cases. For example, "And then the Deity of the Sun founded the Kingdom of Helios on the Mountains of Aureas", or what have you. So a good deal of (my definitions of) BackStory could indeed be "sacred" - in context of the Deities of the World in question.
QuoteIn any case, the point I was making is that those sorts of player-authorship powers and the GMing style that works in conjunction with them are quite different from most (if not all) traditional games. It's a real, definable, difference that I think would cause a huge disconnect for you if you went into a demo or one-shot of an indie game expecting your normal style of play.
Duly noted. I was saying that I'd not find that very compelling style of Gaming for myself. I apprecate that other people like it, and I'm not going to say that they're wrong in any sense. It simply has no great appeal for me, as I like the Traditional style of GMing, both as a GM and as a Player.
QuoteTim
*I'm not talking about changing the world through direct PC actions, I'm talking about..um...meta-mechanics. I'm totally down with sandbox worlds and a GM that doesn't railroad his players.
I'm not sure what you mean by meta-mechanics. Could you give an example?
As for GM Railroading... I'm not a fan of Railroading either, except in one special case which I call "Fate" or "The Judgement of the Gods", in which case I accept a limited, and rare, amount of Railroading. After all, if the World has Gods, and they do decide to act, then they're going to do some Railroading, as we find in many a classic myth. So I accept that case as the only justification for Railroading. And as I said, my own inclination as a GM is to play that card very very rarely, and only when very clearly justified by Player actions.
Thanks for the clarifications!
- Mark
Quote from: VBWyrdePlease go ahead.
Okay--first I want to stress that there is no one way that Forge games handle this issue. Tim pointed to it, but his point got lost because of the way he put it.
I was going to write a full explanation in this one post, but after a night's sleep, I'm going to take it a bit slower and try and build up the conceptual framework step by step.
I want to reference a couple of posts by Ron Edwards at the Forge; because I think he laid it out with great clarity here.
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20791.msg216069#msg216069
QuoteYou can consider the idea that narrational authority works best when its parameters are set in stone. Compare these three narrations (not real games, just made-up mechanics, but the points are extracted from my own play-experiences).
1. GM says, "Roll!" Player says, "I got a 20! Double damage" [rattle rattle, count + multiply] "82 points! I cut his fuckin' head off!" GM says, "Yeah!"
Sounds pretty standard, right? Well, hold on. You'll notice that the GM didn't narrate. The player did. The player totally narrated and the GM totally accepted it. So the first thing I need to get across to you is that this happens often. It's normal; people do it and don't even think about it, or notice that they cede narrational rights to one another all the time without any awful repercussions.
........................................................................................................
2. GM says, "Roll!" Player says, "I got a 20! I get to narrate!" (launches into long and involved monologue about how this opponent is really his long-lost mother, to the consternation of the GM who'd been playing the NPC all along as someone totally different, say, Barnabas the stablehand) The GM is now forced to junk 80% of his prep and re-write the whole scenario in the next microsecond as the player looks at him expectantly.
That's the fear, right? It's a common one.
........................................................................................................
I'm saying, this isn't what most people are talking about, when we talk about non-railroady Narrativist play. This is kind of a consensual-storytelling, make-it-up-as-we-go, round-robin type thing. Frankly, it's pretty boring in most circumstances and tends to create wandering, meaningless pseudo-narratives.
........................................................................................................
3. GM says, "Roll!" [rattle rattle] GM says, "I got a 4!" Player says, "I got a 20! I win, and that lets me narrate! Ummm ... OK, he knocks the sword out of my hand, but I get inside and grab him and flip him! His mask comes off!" GM says, "And guess what ... it's Barnabas, the stablekeeper!" Player: "No kidding? Holy shit!"
This one is the one I want you to pay attention to.
a) In this case, the player knows that he has no authority over back-story or prep (i.e. who that is, wearing the mask), but has decided it's time to find out. He could just as well have decided to kill the guy and say he tumbled into the chasm, still wearing his mask, and his PC would thus never find out who it was. But the player also knows he cannot invent who is wearing the mask - his authority extends to finding out the GM's prep, not inventing it retroactively.
b) The GM knows that the player has this limited/circumscribed power, and he also knows that he (the GM) must cede narrational authority for this significant outcome (the guy rolled a 20, after all) without knowing which way that would go. But he also knows that Barnabas is the guy in the mask, and that he will be called upon, as GM, to play accordingly no matter what is narrated. For example, if the player states the guy is dead, then hey - Barnabas is dead, identity known or not.
Does that help at all? I'm pretty sure you are used to putting narrational authority (how it happens, what happens), plot authority (now is the time for a revelation!), and situational authority (who's there, what's going on) together into one basket. I'm trying to help you tease them apart a little.
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20791.msg216100#msg216100
QuotePART ONE: FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT
As it turns out, it's easiest to respond by taking your last point first. I'll expand those authorities I talked about into a list, with a key addition and with the order changed for greater clarity:
Content authority - over what we're calling back-story, e.g. whether Sam is a KGB mole, or which NPC is boinking whom
Plot authority - over crux-points in the knowledge base at the table - now is the time for a revelation! - typically, revealing content, although notice it can apply to player-characters' material as well as GM material - and look out, because within this authority lies the remarkable pitfall of wanting (for instances) revelations and reactions to apply precisely to players as they do to characters
Situational authority - over who's there, what's going on - scene framing would be the most relevant and obvious technique-example, or phrases like "That's when I show up!" from a player
Narrational authority - how it happens, what happens - I'm suggesting here that this is best understood as a feature of resolution...and not to mistake it for describing what the castle looks like, for instance; I also suggest it's far more shared in application than most role-players realize.
........................................................................................................
The real point, not the side-point, is that any one of these authorities can be shared across the individuals playing without violating the other authorities.
Does that make any sense to you?
Doesn't make much sense to me. Either you only let the players determine meaningless window dressing, in which case you're guilty of "illusionism" just as much as the old White Wolf Story-based games were; or you give your players authorial control, in which case you end up with a ridiculous mess.
Face it, Storygaming doesn't work.
RPGPundit
Quote from: VBWyrdeI'm not sure what you mean by meta-mechanics. Could you give an example?
Player characters affect the world all the time through direct action: whacking orcs over the skull, sneaking, bribing, strategic choices, tactical choices, and the like.
An example of a "meta-mechanic" (and I have no idea if that's any sort of real term or not) would be something like Circles in Burning Wheel. Say your buddy is direly wounded and you have no way to heal him. You need a doctor! You use your Circles ability to, essentially, summon an appropriate NPC. If you succeed at the roll, you get your exact intent (a competent doctor to heal your friend). If you fail, the GM may say there is no doctor or he may invoke the Enmity Clause (actual name of the rule) and say the doctor is, perhaps, incompetent, or has some hidden agenda that's at cross-purposes to the PC, or any number of other complications. In EITHER case, the GM has control over the NPC once he's brought into play. Thing is, the NPC did not exist until the player attempted to bring him into being.
As a side note, the GM could have said "Yes, of course there's a handy doctor in this city of 15,000 souls!" and totally foregone the Circles roll.
Quote from: TimPlayer characters affect the world all the time through direct action: whacking orcs over the skull, sneaking, bribing, strategic choices, tactical choices, and the like.
An example of a "meta-mechanic" (and I have no idea if that's any sort of real term or not) would be something like Circles in Burning Wheel. Say your buddy is direly wounded and you have no way to heal him. You need a doctor! You use your Circles ability to, essentially, summon an appropriate NPC. If you succeed at the roll, you get your exact intent (a competent doctor to heal your friend). If you fail, the GM may say there is no doctor or he may invoke the Enmity Clause (actual name of the rule) and say the doctor is, perhaps, incompetent, or has some hidden agenda that's at cross-purposes to the PC, or any number of other complications. In EITHER case, the GM has control over the NPC once he's brought into play. Thing is, the NPC did not exist until the player attempted to bring him into being.
As a side note, the GM could have said "Yes, of course there's a handy doctor in this city of 15,000 souls!" and totally foregone the Circles roll.
Sure, but I've gone over this before somewhere else. We do this anyway in Traditional RPGs, don't we? I mean there's the Character on the ground wounded. He says "I need a Doctor!". In your game he Rolls based on his Circles ability to gen a Doctor with the possibility of "missing" or "complications". In my case, the GM rolls and determines via a calculation based on the circumstances (yeah, no great need to roll in a City of 15,000). The GM says, "A peasant has gone to get the Doctor up the street, and he comes waddling over to you in a few minutes." If necessary the GM may roll up the Doctor to assess his skill level, and if he rolls badly - ie the Doctor is 1st Level or gets an unlucky roll somewhere or the GM just rolls for "complications" to see if any exist - then there may be complications. Same thing in your Circles case, I imagine. Either way the only difference is who does the rolling, it seems. Or did I miss something?
Quote from: VBWyrdeEither way the only difference is who does the rolling, it seems. Or did I miss something?
1) Mostly, sort of.
2) Nope. :)
Quote from: RPGPunditDoesn't make much sense to me. Either you only let the players determine meaningless window dressing, in which case you're guilty of "illusionism" just as much as the old White Wolf Story-based games were; or you give your players authorial control, in which case you end up with a ridiculous mess.
Face it, Storygaming doesn't work.
RPGPundit
When theory (such as your deduction here) meets actual play (such as actual play I've had and much actual play I've seen reported) theory has to give way.
It's the pushing of theory over reported fact that made GNS so useless. You're making the same mistake here. Storygaming does work, we know it works because people play storygames and have fun. The only remaining question of any interest is why does it work and the only really useful reason for asking that is to see if it would work for us.
If we are comfortable that it wouldn't work for us, then other than idle curiousity (which I in no way knock) there's not much reason for investigating it further.
But saying storygaming doesn't work is the equivalent of saying most gamers aren't having fun or saying that Vampire is not a successful rpg, it's the arguing of ideology over evident fact.
Quote from: TimVB, I'm trying to describe a style of play that's largely (if not almost entirely) driven by characters (on both sides of the 'screen'). A story can certainly be created by the interactions of people, can it not? It's not necessarily as soap opera as it sounds, either. If your characters are a dwarven prince, the King's Champion of the Land of Gerfuffle, Mad Ahab the Sorcerer, and The Great Unknown Evil Necromancer of the North, you can have your Tolkienesque stories with great epic sweep.
It's a different approach for a lot of people, but hardly antithetical to story.
I suppose that the sort of imaginary-space wrecking tinkering that you describe in the last sentence of the quote is possible, but I haven't seen it in play. People have been very good about sticking to the tone and themes of the campaigns we've set up.
Tim, apologies if I'm missing part of the argument, but what you describe above is how most posters here run their trad games like Gurps and Traveller. I'm not seeing any distinction there at all.
Quote from: BalbinusTim, apologies if I'm missing part of the argument, but what you describe above is how most posters here run their trad games like Gurps and Traveller. I'm not seeing any distinction there at all.
Hmm. The tools and the degree and directness of focus on character driven-play in indie games is a pretty significant difference, I think.
Techniques like bangs and kickers would be examples of this focus. The Belief/Artha cycle in Burning Wheel would be another. A lot of that stuff is, perhaps, common sense RPG technique, but having that sort of thing codified and integrated into the rules system has been a tremendous help to me, at least.
I also think that the increased ability of players to affect the game world is a Big Deal, and in the indie games that I like this is accomplished by player character generation and mechanical development.
The main difference I keep seeing is the codification in mechanics of what has been done for decades without mechanics.
That and who does the rolling, if rolling is involved.
That's a big part of why I find most "indie" games heavy. There's a lot of (to my mind) unnecessary rolling, yet other stuff is like *shrug* "Whatever, dude..."
-clash
Quote from: TimTechniques like bangs and kickers would be examples of this focus.
Tim, We've been using "bangs" and "kickers" since Gygax was a pup. We just didn't call them that.
-clash
Quote from: flyingmiceTim, We've been using "bangs" and "kickers" since Gygax was a pup. We just didn't call them that.
I realize that's true for some people. That's why I said this:
"A lot of that stuff is, perhaps, common sense RPG technique, but having that sort of thing codified and integrated into the rules system has been a tremendous help to me, at least."
;)
Quote from: Tim1) Mostly, sort of.
2) Nope. :)
Wow. Does this mean we just landed on the same page? Damn. I didn't think *that* would happen! :)
- Mark
Quote from: VBWyrdeWow. Does this mean we just landed on the same page? Damn. I didn't think *that* would happen! :)
- Mark
Hah! Perhaps.
That little difference of who makes the roll can have a profound impact on how a game plays out, though. I've had campaigns go WAY off of any path I thought they would follow due to Circles rolls.
I can give examples, if you like. I actually typed one out, but erased it in hopes of not totally taking this thread off-topic.
Quote from: James J SkachBill,
After reading a lot of What Dancey was saying in other threads here, and his - whatever it is he's going through - I've gone to using "Story Building Games" and "Role Playing Games" as opposite ends of a spectrum. In the former, the fun is in creational, in the latter it's experiential.
As with any continuum, there's plenty of room for people to create, play, and enjoy games any where along the extent. I think there are some things that are identifiable as concepts available for diametric categorization. For example, for me there's Required Shared Narrative Control versus Voluntary Shared Narrative Control. In the former, there are rules instantiating requirements for passing narrative control to other players (most notably out of the GM's hands). The latter refers to games that do not provide rules for this purpose, but allow it to be handled by individual groups' preferred style.
The further we get into this thread the more I realize I would not enjoy these story building games and I could never hope to write one. This is mostly due to how I cannot see that much timing and awareness of who should be speaking now as being fun in the least. Let me note, I am not saying it is imerically not fun, just not fun to me.
Quote from: James J SkachIt's why it becomes very difficult to classify games as they are rarely so clear-cut that they fall at one end of the spectrum or the other. I think the Indie "Brand," as some astute person here called it, leans in the direction of the Story Building Games - but is, by no means, monolithic. The problem is that Indie is supposed to be a business practice term - from what I understand - but gets used to describe the aesthetic, as droog rightly notes. The conflation of the two has been the source of much confusion.
I'm interested in the reason why you were told you weren't Indie - are you hiring out work these days? ;)
Oh, a bit of history. I was at GTS maybe six or seven years ago. I was shopping around for fulfillment and came across Ron. I think this was like the only GTS he ever went to. He talks to me about the forge and I say "The what". I then tell him of HinterWelt and the plans for distribution, how we are incorporated and our business plan. A standard spiel Have give to about 5 distributors and maybe six fulfillment houses. At that point he tells me I am not indie. I say "What is indie and why should I care?" He gives me a sour look and and says I would not be welcome at the forge since I was corporate and favored the three tier distro system. Non-plussed, I took his picture (which he uses to this day) and left.
I have attempted to participate in the forge and true to his words, I was called everything from a corporate shill to "someone just there to disrupt the site". I stopped going there.
All that said, I am pretty happy with the moniker of small press. It puts me in company with folks like Clash and Brett who I respect a great deal.
Does that clear it up?
Bill
I dunno. I don't tend to categorize these games. I look at them and divide them into my own categories: uninteresting, interesting but unlikely to play, would like to play but not run, ...run but not play, ...run or play, OMG I have to buy this now!.
But from this thread, what I would find very interesting would be a breakdown of the games now or recently on the market, with the labels that each poster finds appropriate.
That way we know exactly which games someone is referring to when they call it "forgie", "indie", "traditional", etc.
Quote from: TimQuote from: VBWyrdeEither way the only difference is who does the rolling, it seems. Or did I miss something?
1) Mostly, sort of.
2) Nope.
You see, my answer to these questions would be a bit different. The significant difference is not who does the rolling at all, but that the roll is systematised. Rather than the GM making up the system for finding an NPC on the spur of the moment, the system exists as part of the character's attributes.
And again, for the love of Bog, can we please stop generalising a single game's features to 'Forgey games in general'? Only
Burning Wheel has the Circles attribute that I know of.
Quote from: TimHah! Perhaps.
That little difference of who makes the roll can have a profound impact on how a game plays out, though. I've had campaigns go WAY off of any path I thought they would follow due to Circles rolls.
I can give examples, if you like. I actually typed one out, but erased it in hopes of not totally taking this thread off-topic.
Hey, but really - I don't think I have too much of a problem letting the Player roll that. I let them roll key stuff when it comes up anyway. It's so similar, I'm almost thinking it's really just the same thing. I think we're on the same page. The issue here is who gets to make the roll. But that roll is basically for the same thing, and done basically the same way. Not seeing a problem with it either way, myself. Common admit it - we've come to resolution on this one. :)
- Mark
Quote from: droogYou see, my answer to these questions would be a bit different. The significant difference is not who does the rolling at all, but that the roll is systematised. Rather than the GM making up the system for finding an NPC on the spur of the moment, the system exists as part of the character's attributes.
And again, for the love of Bog, can we please stop generalising a single game's features to 'Forgey games in general'? Only Burning Wheel has the Circles attribute that I know of.
Oh darn. Ok ok. Well, I was kinda thinking we'd ironed that one down. Drat.
Quote from: VBWyrdeOh darn. Ok ok. Well, I was kinda thinking we'd ironed that one down. Drat.
A short story: when I first ran D&D, we had the edition with the chits, which I cut out and put in matchboxes. We handed them round the table when it was people's turn to 'roll to hit'. That got annoying pretty quickly.
The next day, I went to the game shop for the first time ever and bought a set of dice. I went home, gathered the crew, and we played again. But I rolled all the dice, because they were mine, damnit!
In neither case did it actually change the resolution system. Would you agree?
I've found that while it makes no difference statistically who rolls the dice, many players believe luck is a factor -- which makes who rolls the dice very important to them.
Well, sure, subjectively it makes a big difference. I stopped rolling dice for the players quite soon, in fact (we got more dice); because nobody much liked it, including me. But objectively, looking at the mechanics, the same thing happens: roll d20; if you get over a certain number your character hits.
I'm not trying to dismiss subjective factors, but they're a different topic and they're a lot harder to analyse.
Quote from: BalbinusWhen theory (such as your deduction here) meets actual play (such as actual play I've had and much actual play I've seen reported) theory has to give way.
It's the pushing of theory over reported fact that made GNS so useless. You're making the same mistake here. Storygaming does work, we know it works because people play storygames and have fun. The only remaining question of any interest is why does it work and the only really useful reason for asking that is to see if it would work for us.
If we are comfortable that it wouldn't work for us, then other than idle curiousity (which I in no way knock) there's not much reason for investigating it further.
But saying storygaming doesn't work is the equivalent of saying most gamers aren't having fun or saying that Vampire is not a successful rpg, it's the arguing of ideology over evident fact.
I have no doubt that there's a (tiny) group of people who have fun
by virtue of the fact that they're playing, reading, and talking about these "sophisticated" games. I think their fun has more to do with that idea, and less to do with the workability of the games themselves. I think the reason that most "storygames" tend to be played only in one-shots or very short two-or-three-adventure microgames, aside from the need to keep creating new "fashion" in order to be "fashionable" is because these games all inevitably break down and fall to pieces if you try to play them any longer than that.
So you can say that a game doesn't work, and yet people have fun with them. In the case of storygames, though, not only doesn't it work, but only a tiny group of people seem to have any fun with it, and how much of that fun is due to getting to feel like you're all intellectual and/or artistic by playing is really a question. I mean, its no surprise that so many of the forge/storygames crowd aren't even actual players of their own games, and just collectors, readers, and commentarists.
RPGPundit
Quote from: droogAnd again, for the love of Bog, can we please stop generalising a single game's features to 'Forgey games in general'? Only Burning Wheel has the Circles attribute that I know of.
Ok, then quit doing that, Droog. I was responding to a very specific request for an example of what I meant by a meta-mechanic.
Quote from: RPGPunditI have no doubt that there's a (tiny) group of people who have fun by virtue of the fact that they're playing, reading, and talking about these "sophisticated" games. I think their fun has more to do with that idea, and less to do with the workability of the games themselves.
I disagree with that assertion.
Speaking purely from a personal persepective, I've played several "forgie" games and enjoyed the experience of playing them without endulging in some form of pseudo-intellectual selfcongratulatory wankery as you seem to suppose.
While I'd agree that these games are not as popular as "traditional" RPGs, I would hesitate to put a numerical value on the number of people playing them. And really, once you remove D&D from the equation, the numbers of people playing any game are pretty small.
The recurring problem that you seem to have is with the notion that players can be granted any form of narrative control without turning the game into a nonsensical power trip. If you overcome that prejudice and assume that players will respect the genre and themes of the game, why would a game which grants them limited control of the narrative necessarily be flawed? And why would players not enjoy the game for itself rather than as an intellectual exercise?
Quote from: TrevelyanThe recurring problem that you seem to have is with the notion that players can be granted any form of narrative control without turning the game into a nonsensical power trip. If you overcome that prejudice and assume that players will respect the genre and themes of the game, why would a game which grants them limited control of the narrative necessarily be flawed? And why would players not enjoy the game for itself rather than as an intellectual exercise?
This argument seems to come from the improv side of gaming. This is what I call the play style where most players are interested in a rules set that reinforces improv acting. To make a broad and gross generalization, Improv (maybe what folks call story) players are liberal arts majors and trad players are techies. Techies look at rules all their professional careers as things to either circumvent or as hard rules that cannot be broken (most compiler languages, many newtonian physics, etc.). When techies look at an RPG system they see the same thing. What can I circumvent? How can I use these rules to my advantage? What rules must I obey?
Liberal Arts guys on the other hand, deal with rules in their professional life as guidelines. This is the way we phrase something or this is the way we perform. Most rules are not absolute but, in a broad sense manners of behavior. You can use poor English. Nothing stops you from doing so. Try and make a ball fall sideways on Earth...
Now, let me stress that these are generalizations. There are folks who view the world in varying shades between the to extremes and those who are contrary to my personal observations.
How does it apply here? The techie will look at rules to moderate narration and either find a way to use it to their advantage, destroying the experience and thus excluding them from the pool of experiences or see the rules as too in imprecise to be of use, better served by a guideline as they have most likely been doing all along. The liberal arts guy would see it as making perfect sense as they would view it as a guideline for sharing the narrative and have no problem with it. Thus a natural division would develop. This does not mean that trad gamers would destroy any story game they are in or the liberal arts guy would not be able to enjoy a trad game, just they would most likely enjoy the elements presented by their representative games more.
And again, this is just my theory and I am entirely open to having my mind changed. I just am always interested in what elements draw which gamers to which games.
Bill
Quote from: HinterWeltTo make a broad and gross generalization, Improv (maybe what folks call story) players are liberal arts majors and trad players are techies.
While an interesting premise... I think this just isn't accurate. I've noticed a lot of Forge / Story Games designers work in the Sciences or IT. A lot of proponents of classic RPG design are from a humanities / arts background.
Quote from: HinterWeltThis argument seems to come from the improv side of gaming. This is what I call the play style where most players are interested in a rules set that reinforces improv acting. To make a broad and gross generalization, Improv (maybe what folks call story) players are liberal arts majors and trad players are techies. Bill
I think that distinction between the techie and liberal arts players is interesting. Common sense says you may be onto something. Boy would I love to have some actual stats on that one!
I don't believe that. In my experience, no doubt for reasons to do with the internet medium, the vast majority of people talking about RPGs online have a science/IT background.
In my experience, the techie/humanities split does have some truth to it. Most of the guys I grew up playing with (including myself) were into reading, music, art, and history. The sciences - especially math - were deathly boring subjects in school that had to be endured. My guys never got into rules mastery, or enjoyed crunch for its own sake. Some of them have never, to this day, bothered to learn anything more than a superficial patina of the rules to D&D. AC modifiers? What drudgery. D&D was all about exploring and immersing ourselves in the setting (but not improv theatre).
The one or two guys were were into math/sciences take an entirely different aproach to RPGs. They want to learn the system. They base their game decisions on optimizing the mechanics. They couldn't care less about their PC beyond the stats on the sheet.
So I can see the two broad categories of gamers. I'm just not sure how they map to the traditional/Storyteller RPG camps.
Edit: I'm the only one in my group who follows RPGs on the internet.
Where does that put me? I'm a technical writer/illustrator. I even wrote a humerous physics web column for a few years. :D
-clash
Quote from: flyingmiceWhere does that put me? I'm a technical writer/illustrator. I even wrote a humerous physics web column for a few years. :D
-clash
I'm a technical writer also. However, I still hate rules crunch.
Turning technical information into human language is something I do for a living, and as the only guy in my group who reads rules books, it's something I have to do out of necessity when we play RPGs. But I don't particularly enjoy it as a recreational activity.
I don't know about your hypothesis, Bill. Most of the guys I played RQ or GURPS with for years were not any sort of tech or arts people. Most of them, with a few exceptions, had no qualifications beyond high school. The guuy who ran GURPS with all options ended up doing psych. I was a rules nazi with RQ, and I ended up doing politics and linguistics.
I like rules. I never liked hand-waving stuff, and I like the strict, play-by-the-book nature of rules in games like Trollbabe or DitV. I do also like theatre, and I've done a fair bit of it, including some professional work, but I was always able to indulge that side in games like RQ. In any case, I disagree that it's about improv theatre--you can play DitV without doing first-person quite well. Improv writing, maybe.
Quote from: TimOk, then quit doing that, Droog. I was responding to a very specific request for an example of what I meant by a meta-mechanic.
I'm not picking on you, Tim. I'm just trying to hammer the point home.
Let's do a quick survey of our table.
CWM: Professor of Classics and Religious Studies. Preferred game: Classic Traveller.
TED: IT, Security Specialist. Preferred game: Spirit of the Century.
BK: Masters in Drama (Unemployed). Preferred game: Reign.
BJM (me!): Automation R&D, Safety & Security Specialist. Preferred game: practically any game at all, but a distinct preference for hippy indie games.
I'm not sure the arts/IT dichotomy holds water.
Quote from: HalfjackCWM: Professor of Classics and Religious Studies. Preferred game: Classic Traveller.
TED: IT, Security Specialist. Preferred game: Spirit of the Century.
BK: Masters in Drama (Unemployed). Preferred game: Reign.
BJM (me!): Automation R&D, Safety & Security Specialist. Preferred game: practically any game at all, but a distinct preference for hippy indie games.
:teehee:
I've been reading through this thread and there seem to be different definitions of "traditional" and "indie" getting intermixed.
One the most basic level, the difference would seem to be commercial/economic:
- A traditional game is one produced by a recognised company which puts out material on a regular schedule and is a part of the established three-tier distribution system;
- An indie game is one produced by a new or little-known company (perhaps it's even self-published) and is distributed by means other than the established system, perhaps through the internet or only by mail-order or something.
The problem here is that "indie" would cover both start-ups who want to become part of the traditional system, they just haven't gotten there yet, and companies that reject the traditional distribution model and who are advocating something different. And, of course, those that reject the traditional model until they get to be a part of it, at which point you recognise the earlier advocacy as being a form of sour grapes.
Then there seems to be an artistic distinction:
- A traditional game is one produced by committee, with a line developer and written by various freelancers hiring out their services;
- An indie game is one produced by an individual designer and writer (or a small, close-knit group of designers and writers) expressing their personal vision, uncontaminated by commercial or corporate concerns.
Again, this means that "indie" covers both small start-ups where one person does it all because they can't afford to pay someone else to do it for them (or they rely on friends helping out to get things done) as well as those who believe that personal vision is inherently superior to any work-made-for-hire product. There are also a couple of subgroups within this "indie" camp: those who see "indie" publishing as a way of building a portfolio so they can get hired by a traditional company (for whom being "indie" is simply a matter of necessity); and those who decry the corporate system until they get an offer of employment and can make some money working for a traditional publisher, who then either change their tune or continue talking the talk, but no longer walking the walk. Terms such as "sell-out" and "hypocrite" tend to get thrown around when discussing this last group.
Finally, there seems to be an ideological distincition:
- An indie game is one which
- focuses on "story";
- empowers the players;
- features "new" and "innovative" mechanics;
- incorporates the latest developments in RPG theory;
- allows for shared narrative responsibility;
- etc.
- A traditional game is one which, apparently, does none of the above.
This last one has a couple of problems.
First, it cuts across the other two definitions of "indie". There's nothing in the list of features above which precludes an established company from producing such games. There's also nothing that prevents those playing traditional games from incorporating such features into their play -- and, in fact, many people report that they have been using various such features in their games for many years, sometimes for decades.
Second, the ideology is primarily defined by those advocating "indie" games. This means that "traditional" gets defined not by what types of games are produced by traditional companies, or by games that have been a successful part of the history of the hobby -- which would seem to be the common sense definition of "traditional" -- but by what games don't support the features of "indie" games.
Quote from: CalithenaPartisans of the 'traditional' in the 'war' need to be careful not to destroy the variety on their own side of the fence in their zeal to slay their enemies, IMO.
Exactly.
A lot of the things I see described as features of "indie" games are things that groups I've been involved in have been doing since 1981. I mean, if we were doing it a quarter-of-a-century ago, it can't be all that new and innovative. And if we were doing it in various traditonal games, it has to be a feature (perhaps optional, or subject to the particular dynamics of a given group) of traditional games.
Quote from: Christmas Ape:teehee:
You naughty monkey! :D
-clash
Quote from: HinterWeltAnd again, this is just my theory and I am entirely open to having my mind changed. I just am always interested in what elements draw which gamers to which games.
I don't quite agree with the analogy, but I certainly agree with the underlying point about differing attitudes towards rules. I just don't understand why Pundit can't see it.
Quote from: TrevelyanI just don't understand why Pundit can't see it.
He probably does. He can't be as stupid as he makes out.
Well, like I said guys, merely a hypothesis. I still think there might be something to it in a broad sense. Perhaps not from liberal arts/techie dichotomy but if we take the source away and just observe that there are two types (and their may be more) of gamers that view rules as guidelines or immutable/circumvent. With the former, they would be drawn to and be able to work with games that have quantified "rules" for what traditional games would assume. For instance, the regulation of story sharing. A group made of this type of player would be very flexible in the game they played but easily disrupted by someone who does not "buy-in" to the guidelines concept. One person who, and not a rules lawyer, read the rules and attempted to apply them precisely as written could disrupt such a group.
The latter would be drawn to and have successful play experiences from games that are rules lite. I would qualify this statement with a possible "rules heavy" but although I think they might be drawn to such games, I believe it would not be a successful game session in what most would consider as such. For instance, the game could easily devolved into a heated argument over the rules and interpretations of such.
In the end, it is not an earth shattering concept. Just idle curiosity on a side point. Still, how people view rules is of particular interest to me. It helps me write better understood rule books.
Bill
Quote from: flyingmiceWhere does that put me? I'm a technical writer/illustrator. I even wrote a humerous physics web column for a few years. :D
-clash
My response would be "I do not know, only you can say". I mean, I am not out to tell people how they game, or force them into groups. By "techie" I did not mean you can only be one if you have a tech degree, it just is the easiest example to say IT or Engineer. As I said in my post above, maybe different names will fit better. In general, call it "Those who take rules as rules" and "Those that take rules as guidelines". With the former, you have set combat, methods of task resolution and view rules as there to be used, modified or discarded as needed but used none the less. This does not mean you use the rules as written but those you (you group) agree on are used. The latter use rules as suggestions. You would wing it, switiching between pure narration and loose interpretations of the rules as the group sees fit. You would look to the rules to guide you in play but not tell you what to roll or when to roll it. Again, all this is a hypothesis at this point so feel free to throw in your observations. ;)
I would say I am one of the first to a strong degree. I modify the rules of a game to a brutal extent (even my own) but once agreed upon witht he group, we tend to abide by the rules. Doesn't mean they never change, but we don't do a lot of mid game improv with the rules.
So, which are you?
Bill
Could I get a clarification here, Bill? Are you saying that (as a generalisation) so-called 'story gamers' like games with rules that are only guidelines, ie so-called 'rules-lite' games?
[EDIT: I think you are, from your reply to clash.]
Yes, I think its nonsense to suggest that "techie" people are more into regular RPGs and the "artsy" people are into Forge games.
Consider that Ron Edwards is a biologist, and I'm a religious historian.
If anything, it would appear that the people into the Forgist stuff are people who are in professions that do not allow them to be able to demonstrate any "artistic expressiveness"; meaning they're frustrated artistès that want to feel better about themselves.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditIf anything, it would appear that the people into the Forgist stuff are people who are in professions that do not allow them to be able to demonstrate any "artistic expressiveness"; meaning they're frustrated artistès that want to feel better about themselves.
Riiiight. So clearly, you want to be a superhero. Or possibly, to write books about ancient Rome and China, but can't actually get one published because your peers think your research is too shoddy.
Hey, this is quite a fun game!
Quote from: droogCould I get a clarification here, Bill? Are you saying that (as a generalisation) so-called 'story gamers' like games with rules that are only guidelines, ie so-called 'rules-lite' games?
Not sure I could say that. I think I have moved beyond those terms or perhaps that they do not fit. Let's try this.
Gamers
Type A: Those who use rules in the tradition definition of a rule. So, you would look at it as a condition to break, obey or modify to suit your own needs. If a rule says for every 20 feet fallen, you take 20hp of damage, they would look at the character sheet and calculate the maximum number of feet they can fall and survive. If being chased by a group of creatures without as many HP, the Type A will cheerfully charge off a cliff knowing he will survive.
Type B: Those who look on rules as guidelines for behavior. Flexible in application and interpretation. If the rule says, for every 20 feet fallen you take 20 hp of damage. They would see falling is bad and if I fall off a 10 story building I die.
Now, given a game that has rules for shared story, a Type A will use those rules to their advantage. A Type B may also but will look at the rules as a guideline (charging off a cliff is bad).
My issue would be that some game designers feel the need to approach the creation of setting in the following methods:
1. Implicit rules design: Falling does x damage. Narration is shared through Drama Points.
2. Advised rules design: Falling is bad. You should involve players in world generation.
3. Absent rules design: There are no falling or narration rules.
Now, I think most designers use a combination of the above. It is my opinion (and this is not a right/wrong thing but a "I like vanilla" thing) that narration rules belong firmly in the advise area.
Oh, and just to show the big hypocrite I am I incorporated Karma Points (a meta rule for plot manipulation by players) into Iridium Lite. ;)
Bill
While coarsely phrased (heh) I think the Pundit is on the edge of a good point. A lot of the Forge / Storygames theory reads like "arts/humanities" as done by "science/techies"... because it *IS* exactly that. Biologists, Physicists, Computer Programmers, et al -- writing theory about how stories work.
I'm curious... are there any prominent RPG theory types from the Forge / Storygames crowd are from a NON tech/science background?
Quote from: HinterWeltNow, I think most designers use a combination of the above. It is my opinion (and this is not a right/wrong thing but a "I like vanilla" thing) that narration rules belong firmly in the advise area.
Oh, and just to show the big hypocrite I am I incorporated Karma Points (a meta rule for plot manipulation by players) into Iridium Lite. ;)
I don't think that makes you a hypocrite, but it does seem to make hash of what you're saying.
I would defy a powergamer type (your Type A) to break eg
Trollbabe. I think it more likely that the player will give up in frustration and play something else. I've seen that happen, in fact. What I'm getting at is that rules for how narration is conducted can be extremely tight.
Quote from: droogI don't think that makes you a hypocrite, but it does seem to make hash of what you're saying.
I would defy a powergamer type (your Type A) to break eg Trollbabe. I think it more likely that the player will give up in frustration and play something else. I've seen that happen, in fact. What I'm getting at is that rules for how narration is conducted can be extremely tight.
I would agree. I should have added that as a possible outcome for a Type A. In fact, part of my response to Clash mentions it. Basically, I would see a Type A stop playing such a game or disrupting the group. A lot would depend on the preferences of the group.
Bill
Quote from: HinterWeltI would agree. I should have added that as a possible outcome for a Type A. In fact, part of my response to Clash mentions it. Basically, I would see a Type A stop playing such a game or disrupting the group. A lot would depend on the preferences of the group.
Okay, but--Type B doesn't quite fit either. You cannot bend the rules of narration in
Trollbabe. The game is very clear on how scenes may be started, how conflicts may be initiated, who has the right to narrate outcomes and so on. The rules are not guidelines for behaviour, they are set in stone.
Quote from: RPGPunditartistès
:confused:
Quote from: StuartWhile coarsely phrased (heh) I think the Pundit is on the edge of a good point. A lot of the Forge / Storygames theory reads like "arts/humanities" as done by "science/techies"... because it *IS* exactly that. Biologists, Physicists, Computer Programmers, et al -- writing theory about how stories work.
Oh, that part I'm aware of, and we've gone over its implications many times in the past. It's the reverse that eludes me. I don't recall noticing too many Comp Lit majors rewriting GURPS task resolution.
Quote from: walkerp:confused:
Like an artist, but more pretentious.
RPGPundit
Quote from: droogRiiiight. So clearly, you want to be a superhero. Or possibly, to write books about ancient Rome and China, but can't actually get one published because your peers think your research is too shoddy.
Hey, this is quite a fun game!
Nooo, the actual comparison would be if I were to want to make a game that was ultra-technical and obsessed with "realism" or something like that, to be able to imagine myself as a real technical genius or something.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Pierce InverarityOh, that part I'm aware of, and we've gone over its implications many times in the past. It's the reverse that eludes me. I don't recall noticing too many Comp Lit majors rewriting GURPS task resolution.
Though it goes a long way towards explaining why 1st ed WoD games were so miserable system-wise, and why it took so long for them to get a decent system.
:D
-clash
The big distinction I see between story games and trad games is the lack of reliance on an all powerful arbiter in the GM. Most games I like have no Rule Zero, instead they make rules that support outcomes they like, not rules that have a chance of having an unacceptable outcome. I wouldn't say people interested in story games are interested in rules as guidelines. More like the opposite. Storygames have rules as concrete rules almost by definition, because if you spread GM power to everyone and have a Rule Zero you do end up with chaos. You need a strong structure into which to pour that creative output, a mold, if you will, or even better a frame to build on.
Edit: And I'm a Math and Physics major planning on going to physics grad school. Scientist through and through.
Quote from: StuartWhile coarsely phrased (heh) I think the Pundit is on the edge of a good point. A lot of the Forge / Storygames theory reads like "arts/humanities" as done by "science/techies"... because it *IS* exactly that. Biologists, Physicists, Computer Programmers, et al -- writing theory about how stories work.
Alas, that wouldn´t be bad.
But they are "techies" that don´t read a newspaper.
And they don´t know stories, or read literature.
Only American Television Drama.
At least one gets the impression.
Quote from: SettembriniAlas, that wouldn´t be bad.
But they are "techies" that don´t read a newspaper.
And they don´t know stories, or read literature.
Only American Television Drama.
At least one gets the impression.
Where does one get this impression?
Quote from: droogOkay, but--Type B doesn't quite fit either. You cannot bend the rules of narration in Trollbabe. The game is very clear on how scenes may be started, how conflicts may be initiated, who has the right to narrate outcomes and so on. The rules are not guidelines for behaviour, they are set in stone.
I think this is where I am not communicating my idea well. I will try rephrasing. I am looking at how someone interprets rules, not what the rules are necessarily. Although, I have mentioned that side of the issue as well. So, a Type B (and I have no idea the actual phrasing of Trollbabe rules) would look at a hard an fast rule and say "Oh, you want us to share the narration in this manner. O.k." A Type A would say "The narration must be shared in this way for the rule as written. We can either not play, discard the rule or play by the rule. Heck, we can even modify the rule but then we should play by it".
It is a minor, and in the end it could well be irrelevant, difference that I am just knocking about. How people interpret rules can be pretty interesting stuff.
Bill
Quote from: SethwickThe big distinction I see between story games and trad games is the lack of reliance on an all powerful arbiter in the GM. Most games I like have no Rule Zero, instead they make rules that support outcomes they like, not rules that have a chance of having an unacceptable outcome. I wouldn't say people interested in story games are interested in rules as guidelines. More like the opposite. Storygames have rules as concrete rules almost by definition, because if you spread GM power to everyone and have a Rule Zero you do end up with chaos. You need a strong structure into which to pour that creative output, a mold, if you will, or even better a frame to build on.
Edit: And I'm a Math and Physics major planning on going to physics grad school. Scientist through and through.
hmm, I wonder if I have them backwards. It would seem a strong argument for liberal arts guys desiring concrete rules is arising and to the opposite, techies favoring softer rules sets.
As to the trad vs story game, it would seem a definitive statement would be that story games have rules frameworks for shared narration. I would now this while playing by the effect my character can have on the plot/story but not the world (right?). In a trad game, the story is not explicitly dictated to any one via the rules system. It is assumed a GM will run the game ranging in authrity from a simple referee to absolute arbiter. This would, one assumes, be determined by the group and their preference. Trad games can resemble story games in play by informal sharing of story. I would not be able to always tell if I was playing a trad game but one indicator would be high levels of GM authority.
Would that be close?
Bill
So given the stereotypical view on rules, Germans prefer Rolemaster and the French adore The Pool.
Quote from: SethwickThe big distinction I see between story games and trad games is the lack of reliance on an all powerful arbiter in the GM. Most games I like have no Rule Zero, instead they make rules that support outcomes they like, not rules that have a chance of having an unacceptable outcome. I wouldn't say people interested in story games are interested in rules as guidelines. More like the opposite. Storygames have rules as concrete rules almost by definition, because if you spread GM power to everyone and have a Rule Zero you do end up with chaos. You need a strong structure into which to pour that creative output, a mold, if you will, or even better a frame to build on.
There's still a lot of vague hand-waving in Storygames. I like games with concrete rules, and I find the classic RPG model works better for that. Even without any "Rule Zero".
Quote from: StuartThere's still a lot of vague hand-waving in Storygames. I like games with concrete rules, and I find the classic RPG model works better for that. Even without any "Rule Zero".
I think it's actually a bit more complicated than that. I think that many of the story games do have amazingly concrete rules and they seem to accomplish this by making the rules guide and govern the descriptions of what's going on rather than the other way around. For example, you define the challenge and how you roll dice and allocate the dice you roll might determine how the characters behave, what they say, and so on during the resolution. And as a result, it often looks to me as if the details don't matter all that much because they are simply a facade built over the die rolls and don't really seem to impact the outcome all that much. They often look like after-the-fact explanations. In a traditional game, on the other hand, the weapons you choose, the cover you duck behind, the insults you call your opponent, the type of attack you try to carry out, etc. might all produce modifiers and have a large impact on how things turn out.
Quote from: HinterWelthmm, I wonder if I have them backwards. It would seem a strong argument for liberal arts guys desiring concrete rules is arising and to the opposite, techies favoring softer rules sets.
Apart from the question whether or not light rules are "soft," which may be implied here, there's the other issue:
How does one conceive of the relation between one's work and one's RPG leisure? Is the latter an extension of or a contrast to the former?
Both answers occur in RPGs. Traveller and T2K leap to mind as examples of option 1 (Military-Industrial Complex dudes indulge in ultrasim hightech minigames). Sorcerer, whose designer is a scientist, is an example for option two (bat dissector indulging in teh demonic).
But of course, many games are open enough to accommodate the full range between these extremes. Both gearheads and Clinton Nixon have played and enjoyed T2K.
The wide-openness of many traditional games may be an intuitive designer response to this issue. Traveller (also works for D&D etc etc) has been played by tech nerds indulging in tech nerdiness; tech nerds taking a break from tech nerdiness; and non-tech nerds who find tech nerdiness unfamiliar and fascinating in a scifi game if not in real life (= me).
From this perspective, the diff between trad and story games is the diff between games written for a large constituency and those written for a much smaller one. Whether the reduction in size also cuts down the variety of backgrounds is hard to say. But one has hunches.
The hunch is that the whole story thing will sound as offensive to people with advanced humanities degrees as handwavium in scifi games sounds to people with advanced science degrees. So, those of us humanities nerds for whom work & leisure, while not a unity, should at least not be gratingly opposed, will tend to get off the story boat.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityThe hunch is that the whole story thing will sound as offensive to people with advanced humanities degrees as handwavium in scifi games sounds to people with advanced science degrees. So, those of us humanities nerds for whom work & leisure, while not a unity, should at least not be gratingly opposed, will tend to get off the story boat.
This sounds very true. :)
Quote from: Zoran Bekric...
Commercial/economic:
- A traditional game is one produced by a recognised company which puts out material on a regular schedule and is a part of the established three-tier distribution system;
- An indie game is one produced by a new or little-known company (perhaps it's even self-published) and is distributed by means other than the established system, perhaps through the internet or only by mail-order or something.
Artistic distinction:
- A traditional game is one produced by committee, with a line developer and written by various freelancers hiring out their services;
- An indie game is one produced by an individual designer and writer (or a small, close-knit group of designers and writers) expressing their personal vision, uncontaminated by commercial or corporate concerns.
Ideological distincition:
- An indie game is one which
- focuses on "story";
- empowers the players;
- features "new" and "innovative" mechanics;
- incorporates the latest developments in RPG theory;
- allows for shared narrative responsibility;
- etc.
- A traditional game is one which, apparently, does none of the above.
Pretty good analysis, that. I also think that the discussion is hobbled by the fact that there's a certain inconvenient blending of terms. This does help to show where the blending is happening. Thanks.
- Mark
Quote from: VBWyrdePretty good analysis, that. I also think that the discussion is hobbled by the fact that there's a certain inconvenient blending of terms. This does help to show where the blending is happening. Thanks.
- Mark
hrmm, HinterWelt doe not fit any of those definitions. We get to be a strange hybrid beast. Woohoo!!!! ;)
Bill
Here's the breakdown for my game:
- focuses on "story"; -- No, focuses on being a GAME. Novel idea, I know...
- empowers the players; -- Yes, including the "GM"
- features "new" and "innovative" mechanics; -- Yes
- incorporates the latest developments in RPG theory; -- Yes, we're in the post Forge / GNS / Storygames era now.
- allows for shared narrative responsibility; -- Yes, but not in the way Forge / Storygames approach it
It's "Indie" but it's not a "Storygame".
Quote from: RPGPunditI have no doubt that there's a (tiny) group of people who have fun by virtue of the fact that they're playing, reading, and talking about these "sophisticated" games. I think their fun has more to do with that idea, and less to do with the workability of the games themselves. I think the reason that most "storygames" tend to be played only in one-shots or very short two-or-three-adventure microgames, aside from the need to keep creating new "fashion" in order to be "fashionable" is because these games all inevitably break down and fall to pieces if you try to play them any longer than that.
So you can say that a game doesn't work, and yet people have fun with them. In the case of storygames, though, not only doesn't it work, but only a tiny group of people seem to have any fun with it, and how much of that fun is due to getting to feel like you're all intellectual and/or artistic by playing is really a question. I mean, its no surprise that so many of the forge/storygames crowd aren't even actual players of their own games, and just collectors, readers, and commentarists.
RPGPundit
Eh, I've met and gamed with people who enjoy playing them because they find them fun games, and some of those folk thought the Forge a bunch of intellectual wankery that some good games had come out of despite the theory.
I mean, is your position really so different to saying people who play Vampire may think they're having fun but really they're not?
Also, I think the storygames crowd mostly do play their games, the theorists who don't play phenomenon for me was strongly linked to the Forge theory fora which seemed to draw them like flies to shit. With those fora gone I don't see those guys posting much anymore.
Certainly the major folk on story games all play as best I can tell.
I struggle with any argument which boils down to saying someone isn't having the fun they think they are. I think you have better arguments than this one.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityThe hunch is that the whole story thing will sound as offensive to people with advanced humanities degrees as handwavium in scifi games sounds to people with advanced science degrees. So, those of us humanities nerds for whom work & leisure, while not a unity, should at least not be gratingly opposed, will tend to get off the story boat.
Brand Robins?
Quote from: RPGPunditNooo, the actual comparison would be if I were to want to make a game that was ultra-technical and obsessed with "realism" or something like that, to be able to imagine myself as a real technical genius or something.
Obsessed with historical detail, for example. It must be hard for you to not have the acceptance of the scholarly world.
Quote from: RPGPunditLike an artist, but more pretentious.
From the Hutchinson Encyclopaedia, as quoted here (http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/dictionaries/english/data/d0081586.html):
Artist or ArtisteAn
artist is anyone engaged in the fine or performing arts, such as a painter, sculptor, actor, or entertainer:
Les Dawson was a popular pantomine artist.An
artiste is usually a singer or dancer, or else a person skilled in a special craft:
The hotel chef has trained professionally and is a real artiste.Simple rule:
- Artist = creator
- Artiste = performer
Quote from: HinterWelthrmm, HinterWelt doe not fit any of those definitions. We get to be a strange hybrid beast. Woohoo!!!! ;)
Well, I was trying to dissect how the terms are being used in discussion and why there are some odd cross-currents with people seeming to talk past each other. That is, what do people mean when they say "traditional" or "indie" in the context of RPGs.
Whether or not any of the distinctions is an accurate description of reality is a different question.
I think they represent the extreme ends of a spectrum and most real-world examples will be found somewhere between the two. In the commercial/economic distinction, many companies will start as "indie" and some of them will develop into "traditional" and, during the transition, will obviously not really fit into either category or combine aspects of both.
Quote from: Zoran BekricFrom the Hutchinson Encyclopaedia, as quoted here (http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/dictionaries/english/data/d0081586.html):
Artist or Artiste
An artist is anyone engaged in the fine or performing arts, such as a painter, sculptor, actor, or entertainer: Les Dawson was a popular pantomine artist.
An artiste is usually a singer or dancer, or else a person skilled in a special craft: The hotel chef has trained professionally and is a real artiste.
Simple rule:- Artist = creator
- Artiste = performer
yes but with an accent grave? That makes no sense in any romance or germanic language I'm familiar with.
Quote from: droogObsessed with historical detail, for example. It must be hard for you to not have the acceptance of the scholarly world.
If I was very concerned about that, I wouldn't have immortals in my roman game and Ki-rin in my Chinese one.
But yeah, clearly you got me real good, and my running historical campaigns is exactly like Ron Edwards trying to pretend he's an expert on making "story". :rolleyes:
RPGPundit
Quote from: walkerpyes but with an accent grave? That makes no sense in any romance or germanic language I'm familiar with.
Don't you know? Misspelling or misprounouncing something is
extra pretentious. Its superior to adding needless apostophes, and second only to making up fake latin-sounding words.
RPGPundit
The difference is - I think i might have fun in Pundit's game, where in Ronnie's I likely wouldn't.
- Ed C.
Quote from: RPGPunditBut yeah, clearly you got me real good, and my running historical campaigns is exactly like Ron Edwards trying to pretend he's an expert on making "story". :rolleyes:
It's about as relevant as this tangent in general. Basically, it's about ad hominem arguments. What do
you know about 'story', Prof. Religious History?
We're talking about the games, but the usual people come in with the old, tired, irrelevant stuff.
Quote from: SethwickWhere does one get this impression?
I'm increasingly convinced you have to be Sett to understand 90% of his points. Near as I can tell, the model for what people must do around the playing table of a roleplaying game achieved perfection (in Sett's theory) with the release of AD&D and Classic Traveller. Not recognizing these games are perfect is a sign of poor education, insufficient culture, shitty taste in entertainment, and general personal failure or weakness.
In short, and in the parlance here, Swinery. Which really is par for the course on the fields of The War.
The problem being (and I am in
no way attempting a slam at fluency here) these ideas are generally communicated in a language which, confusingly, shares the shapes of its ideograms with English but has few to no actual -words- in common. What is written in my own native tongue appears to usually be 1/2 to 1/5th of a thought that explains his point perfectly...if only it were complete.
Quote from: droogIt's about as relevant as this tangent in general. Basically, it's about ad hominem arguments. What do you know about 'story', Prof. Religious History?
Except yours is an ad hominem, mine is not.
Mine is a clear statement: Ron Edwards tries to imply that his academic credentials give him a greater expertise over things like RPGs and "story" when in fact his credentials are entirely unrelated. Its like those books on Creationism by "Dr. Blogg" only later you learn "Blogg" is a doctor of engineering or something, an area entirely unrelated to the issue of evolution. So the "Dr." part there was mainly to give a false authority.
For my part, since I don't claim that my academic background is in any way something that makes me a bigger expert on RPGs, your attack really is ad hominem.
It does of course make me a bigger expert on History; and you'll notice that you can't spell "history" without "story". So yeah, I'm probably more qualified to talk about stories than Edwards is, in the sense that to teach history (or even to learn it), you have to be able to know how to tell a story out of a bunch of events; whearas measuring the relative size of Bat Penises truly has fuck all to do with anything.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditMine is a clear statement: Ron Edwards tries to imply that his academic credentials give him a greater expertise over things like RPGs and "story" when in fact his credentials are entirely unrelated. For my part, since I don't claim that my academic background is in any way something that makes me a bigger expert on RPGs, your attack really is ad hominem.
That's my little joke on you, Pindick. And your claim is bullshit.
QuoteIt does of course make me a bigger expert on History; and you'll notice that you can't spell "history" without "story". So yeah, I'm probably more qualified to talk about stories than Edwards is, in the sense that to teach history (or even to learn it), you have to be able to know how to tell a story out of a bunch of events; whearas measuring the relative size of Bat Penises truly has fuck all to do with anything.
Oh, right. I'm laughing at you here.
Anyway, a good try at derailing this thread yet again with your petty hates. I even got sucked in for a bit. Now fuck off.
Ah, so you're accepting defeat. Ok.
RPGPundit
Whatever. Take it to another thread. I'd actually like to talk about the games, and you can't do that, so you've tried to divert into the usual stuff.
Quote from: droogWhat do you know about 'story', Prof. Religious History?
I'd put Religious History a lot closer to the mark than Biology.
I'd put Media Studies even closer still. ;)
Quote from: StuartI'd put Religious History a lot closer to the mark than Biology.
I'd put Media Studies even closer still. ;)
Irrelevant.
Quote from: droogIrrelevant.
Nonsense.
Quote from: StuartNonsense.
Look, Stuart, we were talking about games and the perceived differences between 'trad' and 'indie'. Not who can swing the biggest literary penis.
But there you go, still talking about it. I guess that conversation is done.
Right. I suggested Indie = independent at the start of the thread. It was later suggested Indie = "Story" focused. Of course that's "Story" as perceived by folk with a background in Tech/Science. You suggested a background in Religious History was no more relevant than one in Biology when looking at "Story". I called BS on that, and if we want to compare degrees, I'd say Media Studies / Screenwriting / English would be at the top.
The best answer I've seen in this thread so far is Zoran's, both for recognizing multiple definitions in operation and for making his third, aesthetic definition about the focus on "story".
Because that's getting to the heart of it from a cultural standpoint--a fourth perspective: indie games are those games that self-identified indie gamers consider indie. And the aesthetic judgment which Zoran alludes to is an important portion of that, especially the part about quote "story" unquote. Those quotes are key, and they're what connect this back to the points that both Pundit and Pierce Inverarity made upthread. "Story" in the indie culture is tied to a biologist's dabblings and intellectual musinigs over Vampire and a popular screenwriting manual.
Quote from: StuartRight. I suggested Indie = independent at the start of the thread. It was later suggested Indie = "Story" focused. Of course that's "Story" as perceived by folk with a background in Tech/Science. You suggested a background in Religious History was no more relevant than one in Biology when looking at "Story". I called BS on that, and if we want to compare degrees, I'd say Media Studies / Screenwriting / English would be at the top.
Okay, since we're fully on the tangent:
No, I do not see that religious history, nor any sort of history, relates to 'story' in any literary sense. If you want to use the broad sense of 'narrative logic', then scientists are as susceptible to it as anybody. What is the theory of evolution but a narrative of the world and its life? Biology once fell under the study of 'natural history'. All that is pointless meandering. Ad hominem attacks to avoid talking about the actual games.
I also do not see that screenwriting (your field, Stuart?) is necessarily an aide to understanding roleplaying, which is a new form. If you want to demonstrate that it does, I suggest getting to work instead of making assertions.
The most important point neither you nor Elliot seem to see (or wilfully elide) is that 'story' is not much more than a placeholder word for 'this way of doing things'. Thus the confusion around 'story', 'narrative', 'narrativism', 'story now', 'story games' and so on and so on.
The underlying question is how to produce a certain kind of experience in a roleplaying game.
To summarise my own position:
- 'Indie' supposedly refers to the economic model. Like most words in popular use, this meaning has been stretched out of all recognition. Cf. 'alternative' (or indeed, 'indie') in popular music. At this stage it's probably best to avoid the word altogether.
- The Forge has promoted the reexamination of all assumptions and preconceptions regarding roleplaying games.
- It would be best to examine each and every game on its own merits.
- Many people appear to have a very limited conception of what constitutes a 'traditional' game.
Quote from: DroogNo, I do not see that religious history, nor any sort of history, relates to 'story' in any literary sense. If you want to use the broad sense of 'narrative logic', then scientists are as susceptible to it as anybody. What is the theory of evolution but a narrative of the world and its life? Biology once fell under the study of 'natural history'. All that is pointless meandering. Ad hominem attacks to avoid talking about the actual games.
I also do not see that screenwriting (your field, Stuart?) is necessarily an aide to understanding roleplaying, which is a new form. If you want to demonstrate that it does, I suggest getting to work instead of making assertions.
Have you taken courses in Religious History, Biology, and Screenwriting so that you can compare them? I have. :)
I started in my first year at University studying Biology, before applying to Film School. So I've studied Screenwriting but also Film Theory, English Literature, Theatre Studies, Acting, Directing, Psychology, Anthropology, and even Religious Studies as an elective. They were all much more relevant to "Story" and roleplaying than Biology, Chemistry, Calculus, or Computer Science. Although the Finite Math I did in Highschool remains surprisingly relevant because it was all about probabilities, which helps with dice mechanics. :haw:
The religious history course was "Aspects of Greek and Biblical Traditions" and looked at how the structure of stories from the Bible was similar to the structure of stories from Greek mythology.
The closest I've seen to studying roleplaying games in academia is Interactive Cinema. Janet Murray's book "Hamlet on the Holodeck" while a bit dated now, still has some good ideas in it. (interactive fiction, immersive trances, immersive worlds, multiform plots, intersecting stories, procedural authorship, etc). Otherwise I'd have to go with anything involving writing, acting/directing, or the study of literature or performance.
It's a pointless argument to say the Sciences are as relevant to the study of storytelling or roleplaying as the Humanities. It's simply not true. :)
Quote from: Elliot WilenBecause that's getting to the heart of it from a cultural standpoint--a fourth perspective: indie games are those games that self-identified indie gamers consider indie.
This is a good point. And, you're right: I did miss that one.
So, let's add it.
A cultural/social distinction:
- An indie game is one which
- self-identifies as "indie"; and
- is accepted by others who self-identify as "indie" as being "indie".
(Both parts are important, otherwise you don't have a social group.)
.
- A traditional game is one which is outside this group; in this usage it's like "gentile" (in the sense of anyone who is outside your own faith) or "alien" (in the sense of anyone who is not of your nationality).
I suspect this last one is probably the most problematic, since it doesn't tell us anything useful about the games or the people who produce them, but does serve to fuel conflict.
This thread about An Interview with Ron Edwards (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6214) (which I missed during my summer hiatus) has a lot of comments about the meaning of "Indie" games.
EDIT: aaaand a lot of comments backing up what I've been saying about theories of story created by tech/science guys.
Quote from: droog- The Forge has promoted the reexamination of all assumptions and preconceptions regarding roleplaying games.
Okay, how about this assumption and/or preconception: that RPGs are about creating stories?
Allow me to suggest that the relationship between roleplaying games and stories is the same as the relationship between war games and actual battles.
Obviously, there are connections. A war game sets out to be a simulation (at whatever level) of actual armed conflict, the rules are designed to produce results similar to what would occur when groups of armed men fight each other, much research and ingenuity is devoted to modelling the quirks of specific weapons systems and troop types, and the events of a game (the sequence of moves) can be described in ways which read just like reports of real battles.
However, as far as I'm aware, players of
Axis & Allies or even
Squad Leader have never succumbed to the delusion that what they do around a gaming table is in anyway interchangeable with the Second World War. Even the most dedicated groganard seems to retain an awareness that what they are playing is a game and a simulation, not the real thing.
However, some roleplayers seem to think that just because the games they play are based on stories, the results of those games must also be stories. Not just experiences which reproduce certain selected features of stories, but works of fiction functionally interchangeable with novels and films and television shows and comic books and so on.
Now, I'm not a dedicated reader of the Forge; I've only read various threads there occasionally. However, I've never encountered anything there (or elsewhere) which suggests that particular assumption/preconception has ever been questioned or challenged.
Has it ever been questioned? And, if so, what conclusions did they reach?
Quote from: Zoran BekricAllow me to suggest that the relationship between roleplaying games and stories is the same as the relationship between war games and actual battles.
This may be one of the most insightful things I've seen said about role-playing games in a very long time, and I'm not just saying that because I probably agree with it. Thanks for giving me something to chew on.
Quote from: Zoran BekricHas it ever been questioned? And, if so, what conclusions did they reach?
I think there needs to be more than raising the question. There also needs to be someone willing to challenge assumptions because they believe they are wrong and have an alternate viewpoint to express, promote, and defend.
One of the oddest things I see on forums like (formerly) The Forge or (currently) Story-Games is that someone will ask about what some style of playing is like and they'll get plenty of answers, but none of the answers come from anyone who actually enjoys or favors that style of play. Instead, you get a bunch of people who don't understand or can't do that style guessing what it's all about or people who don't enjoy that style of play guessing why people might like it. It's like reading a Atheist describe the merits of religion or a right-wing capitalist describe the merits of socialism. And that's because there are few, if any, people there to represent those other styles of play because they've all been insulted, driven off, or simply ignore the place because it has nothing to offer them.
Quote from: droogThe most important point neither you nor Elliot seem to see (or wilfully elide) is that 'story' is not much more than a placeholder word for 'this way of doing things'. Thus the confusion around 'story', 'narrative', 'narrativism', 'story now', 'story games' and so on and so on.
Au contraire, I see exactly that "story" is a placeholder, the point is that it's a placeholder for a specific concept of creative production and reception that follows an ideology constructed largely by one man, with assistance and/or interpretation by perhaps a few others. In "the community", this concept is set up in opposition to "traditional" or often "incoherent" or "simulationist" games, in a manner that indicates a belief in the objective logic of the distinction, rather than its constructed nature. And this last fact is intimately tied to having a science nerd preside over the creation of Forge theory and Narrativism.
(For what it's worth I think my take on this is consistent with both this (http://games.spaceanddeath.com/yudhishthirasdice/67) and this (http://clehrich.livejournal.com/6070.html), one of which comes from a fairly sympathetic commentator on the indie phenomenon, the other from a somewhat more critical perspective.)
Quote from: Zoran BekricNow, I'm not a dedicated reader of the Forge; I've only read various threads there occasionally. However, I've never encountered anything there (or elsewhere) which suggests that particular assumption/preconception has ever been questioned or challenged.
Has it ever been questioned? And, if so, what conclusions did they reach?
No, I don't think it has, though I think it's strongly implied in Ron Edwards' narrativism essay. These are some of my own thoughts on the matter:
Quotehttp://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=6152640&postcount=13
The basic problem for people who want 'story' in their games is that roleplaying is a collaborative exercise. How does one create a story while allowing for player-character action?
Solutions to this problem have been limited. One school gives up and accepts that what happens in an RPG may bear no resemblance to literary stories. The PCs have freedom, but play has a 'real-life/day-to-day' texture.
Another solution has been for the GM to create a story and nudge the PCs through it, by hook or by crook. I think I first saw this some time in the early 80s with some RQ material. So one gets story structure, but at the cost of PC freedom. This method, in my opinion, has been enormously influential.
So, the problem for the GM has always been: how does one write a story while leaving the actions of the protagonists out? (If one is not concerned with 'story', of course, all that's irrelevant.)
'Narrativism' is an attempt to meet that challenge. Essentially it's a method, a set of approaches. The logic goes like this:
1. A story is marked by the decisions of characters. Jim leaps overboard when his ship is in danger. He moves from place to place trying to escape the shame. Eventually he makes another error, and gives his life to rectify it.
2. Any situation that causes the character to be further defined is ipso facto the stuff of story. Does Emma Bovary do it or not? What then? We want to know.
3. The actions of characters define theme. Henry Chinaski chooses, over and over, a life of poverty and alcoholism over security. Art is the driving force in life.
4. Thus, the way to make 'story' during play is to present situations that engage the character's issues and allow the player to develop theme by choosing the characters actions. The formal techniques for this range from Sorcerer's kickers and bangs, to DitV's town creation. More techniques will no doubt be developed in the future.
Now, I do think that you have the germ of a point, although there is a limit to how far you can push that analogy. Nobody believes they are actually fighting the Second World War when playing A&A; because they are playing a simulation at several removes (and it is pretty obvious to anybody). But I suggest that creating a group story is not at all far from the activity that goes on around a roleplaying table.
The interesting thing here is how hotly contested 'story' is. People are constantly getting offended at the suggestion that they do
not produce 'stories' around their table. It's one of the biggest obstacles to dialogue, in my experience.
Quote from: StuartHave you taken courses in Religious History, Biology, and Screenwriting so that you can compare them? I have. :)
So? Let's see your thinking on the matter. Show, don't tell.
If you want to know, I've taken courses in visual arts (both fine art and graphic design) and communication/cultural studies (including theatre and creative writing). I left university for several years, during which I worked professionally in children's theatre as an actor and stagehand (among other things). I returned to university to do a politics degree, and studied units in political theory, political ideology, anthropology, history, economics, linguistics and sociology.
Quote from: Elliot WilenAnd this last fact is intimately tied to having a science nerd preside over the creation of Forge theory and Narrativism.
It doesn't matter whether someone is a biologist or a carpenter. Roleplaying is a new field. The one thing that can give somebody a claim to authority is to have played a lot, and a lot of different games.
It does, because this science nerd has a lot of people thinking they can dissect an aesthetic phenomenon and classify it objectively like a bone in a museum. It's use of scientism to create group identity.
The issue here is that as a cultural phenomenon--that means, how people talk about it, react to it--"indie" is based on taking a certain set of practices, and judgments about those practices, and defining them as something distinct. Sure, you can politically-correctly insist on critiquing each game as a unique object, but in so doing you completely ignore the fact that people mutually identify as part of an "indie community", and "indie games" supported by that community, based on multiple criteria, economic, aesthetic, and social. Can that change? Well, the economic criterion is reasonably objective so it's easy to enforce without excessive controversy. The other criteria are more malleable but still subject to enforcement and reinforcement (e.g. not only by marginalizing unpopular modes of play along with the games that service them, but also by boosting games that service popular modes); at present, the echoed authority of a few key players still holds a great deal of sway.
In the technical, economic sense, "indie" games have been around since forever, but they were never viewed as a distinct class until a political ideology formed around them--and largely about design and practice, not economics.
Quote from: droogNow, I do think that you have the germ of a point, although there is a limit to how far you can push that analogy. Nobody believes they are actually fighting the Second World War when playing A&A; because they are playing a simulation at several removes (and it is pretty obvious to anybody). But I suggest that creating a group story is not at all far from the activity that goes on around a roleplaying table.
Okay, give me an example of "creating a group story".
As far as I can tell, the vast majority of stories in our culture -- and those are the stories that RPGs are seeking to emulate and create -- are the product of a single author. Those that aren't, are usually the product of a pair of authors. Beyond that, examples of works with three or more authors represent a minute fraction of one percent of all stories.
The main place you get material with four or more writers credited is film, and it's generally taken as a sign that what follows isn't going to be all that good. It may have lots of action and big explosions, but it ain't going to be much of a story.
Even in television, where you have writing teams, any given episode of a series is either the product of an individual writer or of a pair of writers.
The closest thing I can think of to creating a group story would be the practice in comics where the writer and editor hash out an outline, the writer produces a "plot", the penciler breaks down the plot into individual incidents and then the writer goes through and puts in dialog and captions over the art. However, I would note that in this process, each individual either works alone, or in close collaboration with only one other individual who has veto power (if the editor says "no", it doesn't happen).
So, where are these examples of creating a group story outside of what happens around a gaming table?
Quote from: Zoran BekricOkay, give me an example of "creating a group story".
Improv theatre, group writing and roleplaying. Possibly the creation of myth.
Whether or not we have precedents doesn't matter, however. It reinforces what I'm saying: that RPGs are something new under the sun.
QuoteThe main place you get material with four or more writers credited is film, and it's generally taken as a sign that what follows isn't going to be all that good.
Whether it's 'good' isn't the point, though. If it engages the people playing, that's enough.
Quote from: Elliot WilenIt does, because this science nerd has a lot of people thinking they can dissect an aesthetic phenomenon and classify it objectively like a bone in a museum. It's use of scientism to create group identity.
Elliot, your post is an absolute farrago of ad hominems and emotional rhetoric ('science nerd', 'politically-correct', 'political ideology', 'bone in a museum'). It's also beside the point. Bill asked: "What's the difference between 'indie' and 'traditional'?" (or "How can I tell I'm playing a 'story game'?") Pages ago it was decided that the terms themselves are problematic. You might note that I try to avoid either. You're only revisiting them because you've got nothing much to say about the games themselves.
my brain hurts ! :confused:
Quote from: droogImprov theatre, group writing and roleplaying. Possibly the creation of myth.
I've done improv theatre (part of the whole getting a degree in drama thing). It's not about creating a story. Any story that happens along the way is pretty much incidental.
I have no idea of what group writing is, unless you mean some from of round-robin.
And, if what roleplaying games are seeking to emulate is roleplaying, then how can they fail? It would seem to be automatic that they succeed. So, what's all the brouhaha about?
QuoteWhether or not we have precedents doesn't matter, however. It reinforces what I'm saying: that RPGs are something new under the sun.
So, define whatever happens in a RPG as being a new type of story, declare success, and move on.
As far as I can tell, the entire argument coming out of the Forge is that the Storytelling games from White Wolf back in the 1990s weren't really producing stories. Or not proper stories. Or were only producing stories that were crafted by the GM before the game and then imposed on play. Or were only creating stories in retrospect, when people were retelling what happened in a game and turning it into a story -- or, at least, a series of amusing anecdotes.
If there are no precedents, then how can what happened in those games be judged a failure? Compared to what?
Is it that those games weren't fun? Well, maybe, just maybe, that's because if you want to produce stories just like those found in novels and/or plays and/or comics and/or films and/or television shows, then a roleplaying game may not be the best tool for the job.
And if those aren't the types of stories they're trying to produce, then please point me to a source of the type of stories roleplaying games are aiming at.
You're getting yourself tied in knots over the definition of 'story'. I'll point you to the RPG.net post of mine that I quoted earlier.
(You might also have a look at Ron Edwards' essay on 'narrativism'.)
Quote from: droogYou're getting yourself tied in knots over the definition of 'story'. I'll point you to the RPG.net post of mine that I quoted earlier.
No, I'm asking for examples of what type of stories RPGs are supposed to be producing. Examples, not a definition or description.
Because, if you don't know what the target is, how can you know if you hit it? Or got close? Or missed it by a mile?
Just point me to some examples.
Quote(You might also have a look at Ron Edwards' essay on 'narrativism'.)
I just listened to the interview with Ron Edwards from the thread Stuart linked to earlier. In that he defines "story" as: "Story is a fictional situation that engages an audience and...
resolves." Does the essay define it any differently?
If not, then how does any RPG session not produce a story? They all present:
- A fictional situation;
- Which engages an audience -- if the participants aren't engaged, they would presumably find something else to do;
- And which resolves -- the session being about killing the monster, finding the treasure, negotiating the treaty, solving the puzzle, thwarting the villain, seducing the barmaid, whatever. Either the PCs succeed or they fail; either way the initial situation is resolved.
I'm trying to understand what this whole story-in-RPGs thing is about. I admit that I'm dubious about the notion, but I'm willing to be shown that my skepticism is misplaced. Currently, though, I just feel that i'm being given a run-around.
If there are examples of the type of story RPGs are aiming at, point me at them. If not, just say so.
Quote from: Zoran BekricI just listened to the interview with Ron Edwards from the thread Stuart linked to earlier. In that he defines "story" as: "Story is a fictional situation that engages an audience and... resolves." Does the essay define it any differently?
Again: you should forget 'story' and look at what's happening in a game. I explained it very cogently in my post and provided some examples.
And the essay: Ron explains
what he means by 'story' and how it might be produced in an RPG.
I think I know what your next query will be, but I'll wait till you get to it.
Quote from: droogSo? Let's see your thinking on the matter. Show, don't tell.
I gave you an example of a Religious History course that was very story focused. I gave you an example of a Film Theory course that was VERY close to RPG Theory.
Do you want examples of how Biology, Chemistry, Comp Sci etc are NOT very story focused?
It should be pretty self-evident that fields that study "Stories" and "Performances" will be closer to the mark than those that study "Scientific Phenomenon".
If you can't see that, I'm not sure what I can do to help you. :confused:
Quote from: droogI think I know what your next query will be, but I'll wait till you get to it.
Oh, goody, mind-reading. I just love it when people do that.
QuoteAgain: you should forget 'story' and look at what's happening in a game. I explained it very cogently in my post and provided some examples.
I do look at what happens in play. That's why I'm asking questions, because, as far as I can tell, it has very little to do with story.
I play in roleplaying games. I also write scripts. The process I engage in when working out a story for a script or actually writing the script is very different to the process I engage in when playing a RPG -- either as a player or a GM. The only thing the two have in common is they both draw on the module in my head used to generate dialogue. When I'm writing what a character says in a script I do it in the same way as when I'm extemporising what a character (PC or NPC) says in a RPG session. Other than that, very different processes.
Same thing when I'm reading a book or comic or watching a film or television show. Very different process to what I experience when participating in a RPG.
Like I said, in my experience, a roleplaying game is to story as a war game is to real battle. While there is a relationship between the two, they are still quite different things.
QuoteAnd the essay: Ron explains what he means by 'story' and how it might be produced in an RPG.
When Edwards got a copy of
The Art of Dramatic Writing by Lajos Egri did he sit down and use it to actually write a play? That is, does he know what it feels like to construct a story and write a script? Not in theory, but in practice? Because there's nothing in that essay to suggest that he did or does. Of course, it might be hidden amongst all the jargon.
If he didn't, I'm not sure if
"what he means by 'story'" has any validity at all. It certainly wouldn't get him very far in a pitch session or genuine story conference.
So, do you have any examples to point me to?
Or should I just assume that this whole notion of "story" in games is RPG Theory's version of N Rays (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N_ray)?
Quote from: StuartIf you can't see that, I'm not sure what I can do to help you. :confused:
No, I want to see your thinking on RPGs. I find that when you actually do write about RPGs, we agree on fundamentals or at least I can see your points. This other stuff is speculative at best, and fallacious at worst.
Quote from: Zoran BekricSo, do you have any examples to point me to?
I already did. I can speak to them further, but first I'll need to know if you've read them.
Quote from: Zoran BekricEven in television, where you have writing teams, any given episode of a series is either the product of an individual writer or of a pair of writers.
True for episodes, but the team works together to map out the whole season, crafting story arcs, finding development points for key characters, etc. If you look at game like PrimeTime Adventures, you'll see that they are trying to achieve a similar type of story as you find in a succesful television show. The structure of the game reflects the nature of television writing, where a given character gets a spotlight episode, where that player gets greater control over influencing how things turn out.
I think your question about what is the target story is a valid one, but it is only a part of indie games that are so specific about story games. I think the actual emphasis on story and crafting a story ranges quite a lot from game to game, though there is a shared idea of the players having some form of narrative control and structural elements that build a framework for a story. But the amount and influence of these things change a lot.
So I believe there is a subset of story-gamers who really have a fun time when they find their story is structured in a way that would be satisfying to someone reading it from the outside (i.e. story that is good like a book or a tv show). But I think there are also a lot who get pleasure more from the way the characters develop or reveal things about themselves. I think this is more akin to good story as defined by college short story writing classes, where the New Yorker is held up as the ultimate achievement (stories where nothing happens, but something profound is revealed about the character).
I don't think these targets are well defined in the story community, but I think they are working towards it.
Quote from: droogI already did. I can speak to them further, but first I'll need to know if you've read them.
You mean your post on the "[Theory] Challenge: Narrativism in Plain English" thread at RPG.net and Ron Edwards essay on Narrativism? Yeah, I've read them.
Are those the ones you mean? If so, they seem to be discussions of story -- or of "narrativism" -- rather than examples of story, though.
Or have I missed something along the way (always possible).
I was expecting a collection of, you know, actual stories. Of the type RPGs are supposed to producing.
Quote from: Zoran BekricI was expecting a collection of, you know, actual stories. Of the type RPGs are supposed to be producing.
First, you need to demonstrate that you've grasped what I'm talking about and acknowledge the actual examples I did provide. Sorry, but I'm not dancing to your tune.
Quote from: walkerpTrue for episodes, but the team works together to map out the whole season, crafting story arcs, finding development points for key characters, etc.
Indeed. But there is a head writer or story editor that rides herd over the process and has final say. And a producer who can over-rule him or her. And network standards who can demand changes. And a director and actors who give notes.
But, in the end, it's a single writer (or a pair of writers) facing a blank page on their copy of
Final Draft, translating all those story arcs, development points, notes, etc. into a story and a script.
When you get to the coal face and the script is due Monday, it's not a group activity. All the group stuff occurs before and after, not during.
QuoteIf you look at game like PrimeTime Adventures, you'll see that they are trying to achieve a similar type of story as you find in a succesful television show.
Primetime Adventures? Great, another game to add to my must-get list.
I'll get to it one of these days.
Quote from: droogFirst, you need to demonstrate that you've grasped what I'm talking about and acknowledge the actual examples I did provide.
Excuse me?!
What examples? Seriously. The only things that I've seen are references to your post on the RPG.net thread and Ron Edwards' essay on Narrativism. That's it. If you've provided other examples, I ain't seen them. Please repost them.
QuoteSorry, but I'm not dancing to your tune.
Umm... yeah. Okay. Sure. Whatever you say.
Post #192 in the quoted section; my bolded points are followed by examples.
Quote from: StuartI gave you an example of a Religious History course that was very story focused. I gave you an example of a Film Theory course that was VERY close to RPG Theory.
Do you want examples of how Biology, Chemistry, Comp Sci etc are NOT very story focused?
It should be pretty self-evident that fields that study "Stories" and "Performances" will be closer to the mark than those that study "Scientific Phenomenon".
If you can't see that, I'm not sure what I can do to help you. :confused:
I would interject that technically trained folks are a lot more RPG oriented than is being portrayed here. Not story focused, but definitely well disposed towards RPGs. The are, generally across any discipline, process oriented, have focused attention to detail, are used to reading rules and internalizing them and are quite capable of maintaining long involved processes. If you think about that, it makes them quite suited to both playing RPGs and designing them.
Oh, and yes, my point is only slightly related to yours but I did think it worth mentioning.
Bill
Quote from: Zoran BekricOkay, how about this assumption and/or preconception: that RPGs are about creating stories?
Allow me to suggest that the relationship between roleplaying games and stories is the same as the relationship between war games and actual battles.
Obviously, there are connections. A war game sets out to be a simulation (at whatever level) of actual armed conflict, the rules are designed to produce results similar to what would occur when groups of armed men fight each other, much research and ingenuity is devoted to modelling the quirks of specific weapons systems and troop types, and the events of a game (the sequence of moves) can be described in ways which read just like reports of real battles.
However, as far as I'm aware, players of Axis & Allies or even Squad Leader have never succumbed to the delusion that what they do around a gaming table is in anyway interchangeable with the Second World War. Even the most dedicated groganard seems to retain an awareness that what they are playing is a game and a simulation, not the real thing.
However, some roleplayers seem to think that just because the games they play are based on stories, the results of those games must also be stories. Not just experiences which reproduce certain selected features of stories, but works of fiction functionally interchangeable with novels and films and television shows and comic books and so on.
Now, I'm not a dedicated reader of the Forge; I've only read various threads there occasionally. However, I've never encountered anything there (or elsewhere) which suggests that particular assumption/preconception has ever been questioned or challenged.
Has it ever been questioned? And, if so, what conclusions did they reach?
It's been definitely questioned. In fact that was one of the original idea around GNS and the previous version GDS. Only one of them really has anything to do with story. I don't think the idea behind the Forge was ever "ALL RPGS SHOULD BE HARDCORE NAR GAMES!" it's just that the kind of game the creator, Ron Edwards, wanted really hadn't been made yet. You have the soft, "Just ignore the rules for story!" White Wolf attitude and sort of a harder, grognard old school D&D attitude and spectra between them, but Ron came in and wanted games with both themes/stories AND a strong basis in system. The Forge kind of followed his lead, but I don't think the point ever was, "ALL rpgs should be about addressing premise" but rather that, "The RPGs I like and write attempt to be about addressing premise." As flawed as GNS is (and I admit it is flawed), it never says the goal of an RPG is story. About any style. That's far too general a statement and really has nothing to do with gamism or simulationism and it's really an oversimplification of what was written about narrativism.
So yeah, basically Ron is (from his own statements) really no interested in games that aren't about addressing issues/premise. He never says that is the purpose of all RPGs, just that it is the purpose for games which interest him. His primary anger and bitterness don't seem to stem from people who play really competitive "gamist" games, but moreso things like White Wolf which get close to a "System matters, address the premise" style game but then go all wishy washy and pile on extra un-needed stuff.
Quote from: SethwickIt's been definitely questioned. In fact that was one of the original idea around GNS and the previous version GDS. Only one of them really has anything to do with story.
I think Zoran is questioning whether RPGs have anything whatsoever to do with 'story', independent of GNS or GDS. To which the only short answer is "depends what you mean by 'story'".
We recently saw Ryan Dancey claiming that people want 'a great story' out of their games. A large number of gamers on the net say that their games 'create stories'. It seems to me, as I've been saying, that the word is ill-defined. Best to avoid it unless you're going to define exactly what you mean by it (and probably best even then).
Quote from: droogI think Zoran is questioning whether RPGs have anything whatsoever to do with 'story', independent of GNS or GDS. To which the only short answer is "depends what you mean by 'story'".
We recently saw Ryan Dancey claiming that people want 'a great story' out of their games. A large number of gamers on the net say that their games 'create stories'. It seems to me, as I've been saying, that the word is ill-defined. Best to avoid it unless you're going to define exactly what you mean by it (and probably best even then).
Well, that is true, but I read his question as "Have the people at the Forge ever considered that RPGs might not, for some people, have the goal of creating stories?" And I was pointing out that yes, indeed they did consider that, it's just that most of the big names at the Forge are not interested in those types of games and players so they aren't talked about that much. I think, no matter your definition of story, there are some gamers who just want to kill some orcs, collect from XP, and get some loot and do without it entirely.
Quote from: SethwickWell, that is true, but I read his question as "Have the people at the Forge ever considered that RPGs might not, for some people, have the goal of creating stories?" And I was pointing out that yes, indeed they did consider that
That much is true.
Expecting a role-playing game to create a great story is akin to expecting a tennis match to generate a ballet.
Quote from: DroogNo, I want to see your thinking on RPGs. I find that when you actually do write about RPGs, we agree on fundamentals or at least I can see your points. This other stuff is speculative at best, and fallacious at worst.
Probably better to discuss in another thread -- but briefly: if it's actually a game, as opposed to just roleplaying, more thought needs to be given to the actual challenges of the game, what the meaningful decisions are that the players make and/or their skills that are being challenged. What does success look like? What does failure look like? What is the actual game being played? :)
Quote from: HinterWeltI would interject that technically trained folks are a lot more RPG oriented than is being portrayed here. Not story focused, but definitely well disposed towards RPGs. The are, generally across any discipline, process oriented, have focused attention to detail, are used to reading rules and internalizing them and are quite capable of maintaining long involved processes. If you think about that, it makes them quite suited to both playing RPGs and designing them.
Some academic approaches are better suited than others to the study / theory of stories and performance -- but you don't need to be an academic to be a storyteller or performer. :)
I think people who are good at thinking about or working with
systems are well suited to creating rule systems in games of all sorts. A background in science / tech is an excellent foundation for creating game systems in RPGs that simulate things in the game world.
Being able to see abstract patterns, and how systems can be extended is particularly helpful. Of all things, I've found the work I do with CSS strangely helpful while working on my game.
Quote from: StuartProbably better to discuss in another thread -- but briefly: if it's actually a game, as opposed to just roleplaying, more thought needs to be given to the actual challenges of the game, what the meaningful decisions are that the players make and/or their skills that are being challenged. What does success look like? What does failure look like? What is the actual game being played? :)
I didn't mean to lay it all out right here and now. I meant it's more productive to talk concretely about games than to speculate about whether a biologist or a historian can speak with more authority about games.
Quote from: droogI didn't mean to lay it all out right here and now. I meant it's more productive to talk concretely about games than to speculate about whether a biologist or a historian can speak with more authority about games.
The topic of the thread was the differences between "Traditional" and "Indie" RPGs. "Indie" RPGs are by and large based on some (strange) theories about story written by a biologist, but given the veneer of being highly academic. It's relevant that some of the people critiquing the merits of these theories have academic backgrounds that actually involve the study of story. It's also relevant that so many "Indie" designers do NOT come from that background. They're the "Science of Story" games, rather than the "Art of Story" games.
I do agree though -- less talk about the old theories, and more talk about new theories, directions, and games is doubtlessly a good idea. :)
It doesn't matter that one is a biologist and one is a historian.
What matters is - which one is approaching it all from the standpoint of actually trying to have fun and knowing that these things are games.
- Ed C.
Quote from: KoltarWhat matters is - which one is approaching it all from the standpoint of actually trying to have fun and knowing that these things are games.
Honestly? Both of them.
I think our Historian friend has a better grasp on the role of "story" in a game though.
Quote from: droogPost #192 in the quoted section; my bolded points are followed by examples.
That's what you were being so snotty about?
Sorry, I thought you would point to examples of the type of stories that come out of roleplaying games, not novels. As far as I know, no-one has ever disputed the idea that novels can feature stories.
All your examples are about character. What about the other elements of story? Plot? Diction and language? Spectacle? Peripety? Anagnorisis? World creation? Mimesis? How do your examples address those?
Allow me to expand on my notion that roleplaying games are to stories as wargames are to actual battles.
One of the differences between a wargame and an actual battle is that the wargame can only represent certain aspects of the battle. It can focus on command and grand strategy. Or it can deal with the tactical decisions made by specific units on the battlefield. Or it can model the logistical problems involved in getting supplies and ammunition to the units that need them when they need in the midst of chaos. Or they can deal with the impact of politics and factions on the decision-making process. Or any other aspect of conflict.
However, a wargame cannot represent them all. A few games have tried to include too many elements and basically become unplayable messes -- without even coming close to incorporating all the features of a real battle.
A well-designed wargame will treat the area it focus on in detail, and abstract out the other elements. This allows the players of the game to understand and experience the dynamic of that element without being overwhelmed by extraneous detail.
Following this analogy, a roleplaying game can only represent certain aspects of story. It can focus on plot, or peripety or anagnorsis or spectacle or language. Or, as you point out, character.
To treat any one element well, a roleplaying game needs to abstract out the other elements. A game like
Capes, for example, represents inter-character conflict and peripety quite well, but its mimetic aspects are minimal, plots are arbitrary and anagnorsis is pretty much impossible.
So, I'll grant you that roleplaying games can incorporate certain elements of stories very well. With different games incorporating and emphasising different elements. However, I doubt that any roleplaying game can incorporate all the elements that go into making a story a story.
Quote4. Thus, the way to make 'story' during play is to present situations that engage the character's issues and allow the player to develop theme by choosing the characters actions.
Okay, some games can focus on character. As far as I'm aware, no-one's ever denied that. However, there's more to story than character.
Do you have any examples that address all the other elements that go into making a story? I don't mean separate roleplaying games that address each element -- I'll freely grant that such games exist and more will be created in the future. I mean an example of a roleplaying game that addresses all the elements and which produces full-fledged stories.
Because telling me that some games can focus on the character aspect of stories isn't really telling me anything I didn't already know.
QuoteI think Zoran is questioning whether RPGs have anything whatsoever to do with 'story', independent of GNS or GDS.
Just as a matter of curiosity, what did your mind-reading tell you my next query was going to be? You know, back in post 203. Because the above statement suggests it's malfunctioning something chronic. Perhaps you should have it checked out.
Or, perhaps, you should accept that if Zoran says a roleplaying game is to story as a wargame is to actual battle, he is, indeed, suggesting that roleplaying games and stories do have something to do with each other -- and he says that because it is what he thinks.
Quote from: Zoran BekricAll your examples are about character. What about the other elements of story? Plot? Diction and language? Spectacle? Peripety? Anagnorisis? World creation? Mimesis? How do your examples address those?
This is why a knowledge of 'story' as it applies to prior forms doesn't have a lot to do with roleplaying games as they currently exist. How about you tell us? Better yet, how about you make a game that addresses these other elements. If you think that's important.
Because, and I'll say it again slowly, we're dealing with something different here. I keep on putting 'story' in quotes and you keep on missing the point.
That said, I think your terms can be briefly addressed:
Plot - generally, an emergent quality (though there is a school that plots before play--see Settembrini's current complaint about Paizo).
Diction and language - generally, a function of the group. Note that a poorly written story is still a story.
Spectacle - generally, emergent. Traditionally, often planned by the GM.
Peripatiea - generally the result of chance or GM manipulation, though in some games may be built-in (I would like to see your explanation of how
Capes handles this) or introduced by a player.
Anagnorsis - traditionally handled by the GM. In some Forge games may be introduced by player authority.
World creation - traditonally the job of the GM (or his representative). In some games, eg
Burning Empires, a group creation.
Mimesis - see diction and language. Often a function of character creation.
It's my understanding that most of these ideal elements are optional and debatable at this late stage of history, in any case. Aristotle was writing a long time ago.
Quote from: droogThis is why a knowledge of 'story' as it applies to prior forms doesn't have a lot to do with roleplaying games as they currently exist. How about you tell us? Better yet, how about you make a game that addresses these other elements. If you think that's important.
Because, and I'll say it again slowly, we're dealing with something different here. I keep on putting 'story' in quotes and you keep on missing the point.
Whether or not you keep it in quotes doesn't matter, if in this thread entitled "Traditional vs. Indie Games" you are claiming to speak for the "indie gaming" side of things.
Because you know as well as I do that you fuckers as a whole certainly are NOT putting any quotes anywhere. You are claiming that your way is the way that creates Story!, "story now", "story uber alles" whatever the fuck you want to call it, but people like Ron Edwards clearly claim that their way is the only right way to create a story, that those who disagree with his definition of story must have been Brain Damaged (had their "capacity to tell story hindered" by bad RPGs), and they somehow expect people to believe that this absurd "addressing of themes" is what most normal human beings think of when you say the word "story" and not, say, a novel.
All this because, as Zoran has pointed out, the movement of the Pretentious has UTTERLY FAILED at being able to create real story with RPGs, because
RPGs were never meant to be a method of "creating" good story.
QuotePlot - generally, an emergent quality (though there is a school that plots before play--see Settembrini's current complaint about Paizo).
Dude, what the fuck are you on? The average normal real story that human beings over here on planet earth like to listen to or read or watch on TV is pretty well all about plot. Unless you're talking Seinfeld, plot is THE central issue, even above character, and certainly in combination with the latter to form the general commonly accepted non-pretentious-shithead definition of "story".
And that's your problem. RPGs can't do "plot". Because plot requires that you not be random, you don't determine plot by dice-rolling. You determine it by having a carefully crafted series of events that affects the characters where random things do not happen to them (or if they do, they are random only to the characters, not to the actual storyteller, who included that random event for some purpose). You don't have major characters dying off for no reason, for example, or the whole thing being sidetracked because the PCs want to go to Waterdeep instead.
So the only ways to create "plot" in RPGs is by railroading (open or hidden in the "illusionism" sense), or by not playing an RPG anymore and creating some other kind of acting game that doesn't have any real resemblance to an RPG at all (to start with, it stops really being a "game" in the traditional sense, and more of a "story creation exercise").
Of course, now having recognized this impasse and admitted defeat, Ron Edwards and the rest of you so-called "storygamers" have gone on to try to claim that STORY somehow "isn't about plot". Plot is somehow not the fundamental element of story since the time of fucking Gilgamesh, oh no; the really important thing is "addressing premise", as if that's something that anyone outside of a mealy-mouth pretentious shitsucker with dangerous delusions of grandeur would immediately think of as "story".
I mean let's try it, you fucking cunt: let's go and ask random joes on the street what a "story" is, and see how many of them say "its addressing a premise, and clearly has NOTHING to do with plot".
Care to place a fucking bet?
RPGPundit
Zoran and Pundit are correct.
A roleplaying game (or any game) is an inferior format for telling a story to... telling a story. :)
Books, Plays, TV Shows, Movies, Radio Dramas, or stories around the campfire will always be superior ways to tell stories. Games and improv are NOT primarily about the story they create. Nobody watches "Who's Line is it Anyway?" for the story.
Now, there are things that a roleplaying game offers that are superior to others forms of media, and THAT is where people should be focusing their efforts. That and making sure that they remain / develop as functional games and don't drift into lo fi storytelling performance art.
Quote from: Zoran BekricAll your examples are about character. What about the other elements of story? Plot? Diction and language? Spectacle? Peripety? Anagnorisis? World creation? Mimesis? How do your examples address those?
What about the other practical matters that can differentiate a good story from a bad story? Reading over this discussion has helped me crystalize, in story terms, what seems to be missing from the whole "Story Now!" concept and ideas such as bangs and kickers and so on. Pacing.
Quote from: RPGPunditI mean let's try it, you fucking cunt: let's go and ask random joes on the street what a "story" is, and see how many of them say "its addressing a premise, and clearly has NOTHING to do with plot".
Care to place a fucking bet?
Well, you bigger fucking cunt, do I care what Random Joe has to say about anything much? No, not really. I have a hunch you don't either, except for rhetorical purposes.
Secondly, you syphilitic sisterfucker, I think you'll find that there is debate as to whether character or plot is primary. If I remember correctly, Aristotle himself noted that plot should arise out of character, and not be something imposed upon the story.
I think the rest may be but sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Quote from: StuartZoran and Pundit are correct.
A roleplaying game (or any game) is an inferior format for telling a story to... telling a story. :)
Mere assertion, professor. In any case, none of the formats you mention happen to have the crucial element that distinguishes RPGs: that the author and audience are one and the same. Makes a big difference.
Quote from: droogI think you'll find that there is debate as to whether character or plot is primary. If I remember correctly, Aristotle himself noted that plot should arise out of character, and not be something imposed upon the story.
I don't think that's true.
From all the screenwriting, film theory, english lit, and theatre studies classes I've taken and books I've read...
You need to have a plot to have a story.
Interesting characters can be a PART of an interesting story... but they don't make a story on their own. However, you CAN have an interesting story without interesting characters.
You can have a TV Show, Movie, Play, or Book that is mostly about an interesting character with very little plot... but then it's not really a STORY. It's a character study.
Quote from: droogMere assertion, professor. In any case, none of the formats you mention happen to have the crucial element that distinguishes RPGs: that the author and audience are one and the same. Makes a big difference.
The assertion is on your part. :)
A story is a story. It doesn't matter who the author is or who the audience is. Those can factor into how you analyze the story... but they don't make it a story or a non-story.
Quote from: StuartA story is a story. It doesn't matter who the author is or who the audience is. Those can factor into how you analyze the story... but they don't make it a story or a non-story.
It matters as to whether the story is judged as 'good' or not, and by who. Roleplaying is not a spectator event; it is inherently participatory.
However, this is all quite interesting but beside the point. Return once more to my post on narrativism: the issue is how best to create (or intensify) an experience that we might term 'story'.
Review also Ron Edwards' essay: all roleplaying sessions can (and often do) produce a 'story'. What exactly do we mean by this term and what are its implications for design and play?
Quote from: droogIt matters as to whether the story is judged as 'good' or not, and by who. Roleplaying is not a spectator event; it is inherently participatory.
Not really. The story is good or not on it's own merits. You may LIKE a story you wrote very much, but whether it's actually any good is independent of your opinion. :) I also think you can't overlook that people may enjoy the EXPERIENCE of creating the "story", even though the actual product isn't very good. The experience of play is what sets roleplaying apart from passively watching or movie or listening to a story.
That's all for now...
Quote from: StuartNot really. The story is good or not on it's own merits. You may LIKE a story you wrote very much, but whether it's actually any good is independent of your opinion. :)
Interesting...you have obviously solved all literary disputes past and future.
QuoteI also think you can't overlook that people may enjoy the EXPERIENCE of creating the "story", even though the actual product isn't very good. The experience of play is what sets roleplaying apart from passively watching or movie or listening to a story.
I don't think it's me who's overlooking it.
Quote from: droogIt matters as to whether the story is judged as 'good' or not, and by who. Roleplaying is not a spectator event; it is inherently participatory.
Yes, and people are participating in a GAME; not in a "story creation exercise".
RPGPundit
Quote from: StuartNot really. The story is good or not on it's own merits. You may LIKE a story you wrote very much, but whether it's actually any good is independent of your opinion. :) I also think you can't overlook that people may enjoy the EXPERIENCE of creating the "story", even though the actual product isn't very good. The experience of play is what sets roleplaying apart from passively watching or movie or listening to a story.
That's all for now...
So, you are saying you can objectively determine whether a story is good or not?
Wow. . . How? This could solve a lot of arguments.
And I think that if you are ignoring that RPGs involve both acting as author and audience you are missing a crucial part. I may enjoy setting up my character in interesting situations, but I also enjoy other people setting up their character in interesting situations and seeing how they respond.
Quote from: RPGPunditYes, and people are participating in a GAME; not in a "story creation exercise".
RPGPundit
Why can't it be both? That's the thing, I've not seen any proof that "game" and "story creation exercise" can't be one in the same. I mean, an RPG has several people all in control of different aspects of the in game world, and the system imposes boundaries and structure. What about that situation is going to screw up story creating? They say the greatest enemy of creativity is a lack of boundaries and RPGs provide a great setup of boundaries IMO.
Quote from: RPGPunditYes, and people are participating in a GAME; not in a "story creation exercise".
Sophistry, Pindick. You are most certainly begging the question.
Quote from: droogReview also Ron Edwards' essay: all roleplaying sessions can (and often do) produce a 'story'.
So does every hockey game.
Quote from: HaffrungSo does every hockey game.
Bingo, Haffrung!
-clash
Quote from: flyingmiceBingo, Haffrung!
-clash
She's been playing for thirty years and never won the Big Prize. She's full of self doubt and loathing for all of the time she's wasted here in the parlor.
But now, with a single call, she has at least ten ways to win across her seven cards. One hundred thousand dollars is life changing money. The rattle of the balls in the cage grate her nerves; she hates the sound but knows it's the only path to salvation.
The announcer's voice rings hollow in the cheap sound system as he pulls the ball from the cage. "The next one is..." Her eyes begin their frantic search before the announcer even finishes speaking. She knows this is the end, one way or another.
Yeah, Bingo works too... ;)
Quote from: James J SkachShe's been playing for thirty years and never won the Big Prize. She's full of self doubt and loathing for all of the time she's wasted here in the parlor.
But now, with a single call, she has at least ten ways to win across her seven cards. One hundred thousand dollars is life changing money. The rattle of the balls in the cage grate her nerves; she hates the sound but knows it's the only path to salvation.
The announcer's voice rings hollow in the cheap sound system as he pulls the ball from the cage. "The next one is..." Her eyes begin their frantic search before the announcer even finishes speaking. She knows this is the end, one way or another.
Yeah, Bingo works too... ;)
Wahoo! James brought "teh awesome!" :D
-clash
Quote from: StuartFrom all the screenwriting, film theory, english lit, and theatre studies classes I've taken and books I've read...
You need to have a plot to have a story.
There are a lot of other things you need to have in order to have a
good story. Scene. Description. Pacing. And I think that points to at least part of what's going on here.
A lot of story games focus on embedding plot hooks into characters so that they can be dragged, apparently kicking and screaming, into an interesting story. I've never had a problem creating characters who will get engaged in the action in a meaningful way and I don't do it by handing the GM a bunch of plot hooks, like a fist full of puppet strings, so that they can jerk my character around to create something that looks like a story.
The assumption seems that players don't know how to create characters who are interesting and will engage what's going on in the game in any signficant manner. And the assumption seems to be that the GM doesn't know how to create an interesting situation so the game provides one (and often only one) that, in theory, can't fail to produce an interesting situation.
But what about the other stuff? A lot of these games also seem to assume that players and GMs don't need help with pacing, description, and so on.
Quote from: SethwickSo, you are saying you can objectively determine whether a story is good or not?
Wow. . . How? This could solve a lot of arguments.
That's what I'm saying. That's different from whether you LIKE the story or not. There's an entire branch of academia based around this exact subject.
Take an English Literature course if you want someone to explain it to you in detail.
Quote from: SethwickWhy can't it be both? That's the thing, I've not seen any proof that "game" and "story creation exercise" can't be one in the same. I mean, an RPG has several people all in control of different aspects of the in game world, and the system imposes boundaries and structure. What about that situation is going to screw up story creating? They say the greatest enemy of creativity is a lack of boundaries and RPGs provide a great setup of boundaries IMO.
RPGs and Improv are not the same as a group of people sitting down to write a novel.
If I sat down with Steven King to make a story it *could* be better than what either of us would produce on our own. Perhaps his best ideas (90%), plus any of my best ideas which were better than his
worst ideas (10%) would go into the final story. The story would go through a few rounds of revisions, and we'd be able to discuss things that work and things that
DON'T work -- which won't go into the final story. We'd also be able to employ all sorts of literary techniques that are unavailable in improv / gameplay.
Contrast that with the game, where there is no revision, limited literary techniques, and *quality* of storytelling has almost no bearing on the amount of contribution a player makes to the story. Ideas put forward immediately become part of gameplay. There's no rough draft.
I guarantee that if you and I sat down to write a story together it would be *much* better than the story we would create in an improv theatre session or RPG game.
Quote from: StuartContrast that with the game, where there is no revision, limited literary techniques, and *quality* of storytelling has almost no bearing on the amount of contribution a player makes to the story. Ideas put forward immediately become part of gameplay. There's no rough draft.
I guarantee that if you and I sat down to write a story together it would be *much* better than the story we would create in an improv theatre session or RPG game.
An interesting extension of this is that it could be argued that a player has a contribution equal to:
1. How forceful a personality they have at the table
2. How powerful/influential within the game structure that character has (i.e. the leader of the character group will have more say that the servant).
Bill
Quote from: StuartTake an English Literature course if you want someone to explain it to you in detail.
Or read some books on writing fiction writing for sale and publication. Or talk to an editor at a science fiction convention.
I also this article by author Holly Lisle (http://hollylisle.com/fm/Workshops/suckitudinous.html) is an excellent place to start.
Quote from: StuartIf I sat down with Steven King to make a story it *could* be better than what either of us would produce on our own.
In one of his short story collections, there is an essay by Larry Niven about collabortions that starts with the claim that they are unnatural.
Quote from: StuartContrast that with the game, where there is no revision, limited literary techniques, and *quality* of storytelling has almost no bearing on the amount of contribution a player makes to the story. Ideas put forward immediately become part of gameplay. There's no rough draft.
Revision is one of those pieces of advice that appears constantly in writing books. But it's even more than that. A lot of writing books suggest outlining or plotting out a story from the beginning, or at least having some idea where it's going. There is a reason why publishers sometimes ask for the first three chapters
and the final chapter. They want to know where the story is going. Sure, there are some authors who don't need to plan out their stories and don't need revision but, more often than not, writing that way produces a meandering mess, and that's with only one author doing the meandering.
Quote from: John MorrowThere are a lot of other things you need to have in order to have a good story. Scene. Description. Pacing. And I think that points to at least part of what's going on here.
A lot of story games focus on embedding plot hooks into characters so that they can be dragged, apparently kicking and screaming, into an interesting story. I've never had a problem creating characters who will get engaged in the action in a meaningful way and I don't do it by handing the GM a bunch of plot hooks, like a fist full of puppet strings, so that they can jerk my character around to create something that looks like a story.
The assumption seems that players don't know how to create characters who are interesting and will engage what's going on in the game in any signficant manner. And the assumption seems to be that the GM doesn't know how to create an interesting situation so the game provides one (and often only one) that, in theory, can't fail to produce an interesting situation.
But what about the other stuff? A lot of these games also seem to assume that players and GMs don't need help with pacing, description, and so on.
So a game assumes that the players and GM are perhaps not long time roleplayers who know how to click together and collaborate to have an interesting game. That, I think, is a good thing, and it would have made my intro to roleplaying a LOT easier than D&D with it's "Do what you want!" mindset. In my experience, most people do not create interesting characters full of plot hooks. In fact people often go out of their way to avoid hooks and even avoid adventure. Why? I dunno, I never understood it, but people do it. A lot. Games which force people to do otherwise are great because it opens them up to a new experience they might not have on their own.
As for pacing and description, I think plenty of games seek to help with pacing. The complexity of the mechanics themselves can have a great effect on pacing. As for description, well, that's pretty darn hard to help mechanically. You can carrot-stick it but I can't think of a way to directly improve description via game mechanics.
And I've had English Literature classes. I never was told, outright or inferred, that there are objective categories of good story. Ever. I was told certain stories were very influential and worth reading because they play a significant role in the history of literature, but not that these stories were considered objectively good, just that they inspired others and had somewhat stood the test of time. Some have told me that certain books were terrible but essentially had to be read in that area of literature (Big one in this case was Le Morte D'Arthur, which the teacher thought was awful but needed to be read when doing romantic literature to lead up to Monty Python's Holy Grail and Don Quixote).
Edit: This is getting off track, I don't think that anyone suggested RPGs are going to replace single author writing as a method of creating literature, merely that RPGs are an entertaining way and that some people find it more entertaining to try to produce a high quality story. Personally I've found some of the Forge actual play reports highly entertaining and great stories, Ron Edwards and Vincent Lumply being the two big examples.
Quote from: John MorrowOr read some books on writing fiction writing for sale and publication. Or talk to an editor at a science fiction convention.
I also this article by author Holly Lisle (http://hollylisle.com/fm/Workshops/suckitudinous.html) is an excellent place to start.
Despair by Nobokov and indeed a lot of works of Russian literature (Eugene Onegin and A Hero of Our Time are two immediate examples) follow a lot of those commandments and are stupendously brilliant and well appreciated works. So. . .
Quote from: SethwickEdit: This is getting off track, I don't think that anyone suggested RPGs are going to replace single author writing as a method of creating literature, merely that RPGs are an entertaining way and that some people find it more entertaining to try to produce a high quality story. Personally I've found some of the Forge actual play reports highly entertaining and great stories, Ron Edwards and Vincent Lumply being the two big examples.
That may possibly have more to do with Mr. Edwards' GMing techniques than the game rules. I don't know about Mr. Lumply.
-clahs
Quote from: flyingmiceThat may possibly have more to do with Mr. Edwards' GMing techniques than the game rules. I don't know about Mr. Lumply.
-clahs
Well, Vincent has a pretty similar sense of humor to mine and seems to think along similar lines a lot (His posts in the Giant Poison'd Shitstorm on RPG.net often had me in awe because I had thought those things but never found a good way to state them), so it might just be that that makes me like him. As for Ron Edwards GMing technique, well, I think part of the point of the whole "system matters" idea is that you need to embed some technique and style into the game.
Quote from: SethwickDespair by Nobokov and indeed a lot of works of Russian literature (Eugene Onegin and A Hero of Our Time are two immediate examples) follow a lot of those commandments and are stupendously brilliant and well appreciated works. So. . .
Appreciate by who and why? What makes them brilliant?
Quote from: SethwickEdit: This is getting off track, I don't think that anyone suggested RPGs are going to replace single author writing as a method of creating literature, merely that RPGs are an entertaining way and that some people find it more entertaining to try to produce a high quality story. Personally I've found some of the Forge actual play reports highly entertaining and great stories, Ron Edwards and Vincent Lumply being the two big examples.
Hmmm... Well, while I don't suggest that RPGs are going to REPLACE single author writing as a method of creating literature, I do suggest that it will form a new mode of doing so. I am one of those who find it more entertaining when the RPG does produce high quality literature, and the means by which we might go about achieving this is the principal subject discussed by the LRPGSW. I for one aspire toward that goal, and think it is worth the effort. So far I've had enough successes to make me believe that it is achievable.
- Mark
Quote from: John MorrowAppreciate by who and why? What makes them brilliant?
Nobody reads them, so no-one can disprove your assertions. If someone attempts to object, subject him to withering scorn and imply he has no clue about the subject, then liberaly use amusing insults. Works like a charm.
-clash
Quote from: SethwickWell, Vincent has a pretty similar sense of humor to mine and seems to think along similar lines a lot (His posts in the Giant Poison'd Shitstorm on RPG.net often had me in awe because I had thought those things but never found a good way to state them), so it might just be that that makes me like him. As for Ron Edwards GMing technique, well, I think part of the point of the whole "system matters" idea is that you need to embed some technique and style into the game.
And there Mr. Edwards and I part company.
-clash
Quote from: SethwickIn my experience, most people do not create interesting characters full of plot hooks. In fact people often go out of their way to avoid hooks and even avoid adventure. Why? I dunno, I never understood it, but people do it. A lot. Games which force people to do otherwise are great because it opens them up to a new experience they might not have on their own.
OK, I've been content to lurk on this thread, but I had to jump in here, 'cause sorry dude, but that's a
terrible defense of "story"/indie/Forge-inspired game design. There's a lot of rhetoric to that effect on this site, coming from folks like the Pundit, including in this thread. It's easy to get sucked into defending the games on those grounds, but that's just letting the opposition control the dialogue. The point of a Story Game is NOT to drag players, "kicking and screaming," into creating a story. Nobody's forcing anyone to do anything, either within a given game or holding a gun to their head to make them play it. The purpose of this game design, which may not be everyone's thing, is to provide
tools for players who
want their games to produce stories with certain elements or qualities, to be able to do so in a reliable and fun way. One can critique this approach on a number of levels, but to claim that the design goal is anything more or less than this is pure slander.
You are right that a lot of players avoid hooks like the plague, for a variety of reasons. The rules techniques prevalent in Story games are geared toward helping the players choose the direction for their characters to hare off in, rather than being drug along by a "hook."
Peace,
-Joel
Quote from: SethwickSo a game assumes that the players and GM are perhaps not long time roleplayers who know how to click together and collaborate to have an interesting game. That, I think, is a good thing, and it would have made my intro to roleplaying a LOT easier than D&D with it's "Do what you want!" mindset.
Well, it does and it doesn't, which is my point. They also assume that they players can do a great deal that's not necessarily a given. For example, if a game contains a "Tell me why your character failed" mechanic, it assumes that I want to do so, that I know how to do so, and that I'll do a decent job of it, none of which are a given.
Quote from: SethwickIn my experience, most people do not create interesting characters full of plot hooks. In fact people often go out of their way to avoid hooks and even avoid adventure. Why? I dunno, I never understood it, but people do it. A lot.
So you are endorsing trying to fix a problem that you don't understand?
Quote from: SethwickGames which force people to do otherwise are great because it opens them up to a new experience they might not have on their own.
Eat your broccoli. Eat your spinach. Eat your calves liver. Drink your soy milk. It's good for you. Don't like it? Just think of it as opening you up to a new experience. Oh, and it's good for you. And if you keep doing it, you might learn to like it... or not.
Do people really engage in recreational activities in order to be forced to do things that they don't want to do? What is this? A game or EST?
Quote from: SethwickAs for pacing and description, I think plenty of games seek to help with pacing. The complexity of the mechanics themselves can have a great effect on pacing.
For example?
Quote from: SethwickAs for description, well, that's pretty darn hard to help mechanically. You can carrot-stick it but I can't think of a way to directly improve description via game mechanics.
It's pretty darned hard to produce a good story mechanically, but that hasn't stopped a lot of people from trying.
Quote from: SethwickAnd I've had English Literature classes.
I have a BA in English (with a writing concentration). I've worked in publishing (for a trade paperback publisher that published Nabokov's Despair and even read slush pile once). I've read dozens of books on writing stories. I've talked to plenty of authors and editors at cons.
Quote from: SethwickI never was told, outright or inferred, that there are objective categories of good story. Ever.
Of course you weren't. Try talking to editors, publishers, and looking at books about writing for publication and high sales. Try looking at books about writing good stories or read some accounts of the Clarion workship (where Damon Knight would write "Who cares?" on stories where none of the characters changes because of the events in the story).
Sure, most people will avoid talking about it in objective terms because, well, being objective and judgmental are the great sins of the modern day. But there is certainly a pretty clear pattern to what sells, what most people think is good, and what most editors and writing books advise against. And having worked at a publisher that published books like Nabokov's Despair and knowing what the print runs were like, I think it's likely that the majority of sales of such books (in the United States, anyway) are to college students forced to read those works for a literature class (many of whom probably won't actually read the whole book) and very few to people looking for an enjoyable or good book to read.
Quote from: SethwickI was told certain stories were very influential and worth reading because they play a significant role in the history of literature, but not that these stories were considered objectively good, just that they inspired others and had somewhat stood the test of time. Some have told me that certain books were terrible but essentially had to be read in that area of literature (Big one in this case was Le Morte D'Arthur, which the teacher thought was awful but needed to be read when doing romantic literature to lead up to Monty Python's Holy Grail and Don Quixote).
Well, isn't calling a book "terrible" making an objective value judgment? And if a work can be objectively terrible, why is it surprising that another book can be objectively good? Shakespeare gets ripped off constantly for movies plots while almost nobody is in a rush to rip off Dickens' Great Expectations for a reason.
Quote from: SethwickEdit: This is getting off track, I don't think that anyone suggested RPGs are going to replace single author writing as a method of creating literature, merely that RPGs are an entertaining way and that some people find it more entertaining to try to produce a high quality story. Personally I've found some of the Forge actual play reports highly entertaining and great stories, Ron Edwards and Vincent Lumply being the two big examples.
But are people really looking to try to create a high quality story or are they looking for something else? Why is it, for example, that the Narrativist games focus so strongly on character but often seem to downplay or fix the setting and sequence of events?
Quote from: MelinglorOK, I've been content to lurk on this thread, but I had to jump in here, 'cause sorry dude, but that's a terrible defense of "story"/indie/Forge-inspired game design. There's a lot of rhetoric to that effect on this site, coming from folks like the Pundit, including in this thread. It's easy to get sucked into defending the games on those grounds, but that's just letting the opposition control the dialogue. The point of a Story Game is NOT to drag players, "kicking and screaming," into creating a story. Nobody's forcing anyone to do anything, either within a given game or holding a gun to their head to make them play it. The purpose of this game design, which may not be everyone's thing, is to provide tools for players who want their games to produce stories with certain elements or qualities, to be able to do so in a reliable and fun way. One can critique this approach on a number of levels, but to claim that the design goal is anything more or less than this is pure slander.
Ah hah. So you're pissed off at him because he slipped and told the truth.
What "choice" is there? How can you play The Mountain Witch or My life With Master without creating forced pseudo-story-addressing-of-themes-crap?
You can't. And if you fuckers had your way, all RPGs would be like that.
RPGPundit
I haven't read half these books and I skived English Lit (no, I'm not proud), but I have played 'elfs'. I found it restrictive, it's just slapstick that gets boring very quick - no emotional investment, no heroism. It's a one trick pony.
Stories - In years to come I'll bore my grandbairns with how in our D&D game we stormed the orc stronghold to liberate the slaves, but I'll have forgotten the ThreeStooges-ism (use that yer muthas!) of the farting elfs.
-and that's Ron's most gamist book ?!?
Quote from: HaffrungSo does every hockey game.
You're saying your games have no more going on than a hockey game? Just one contest of skill after another?
I think there is a whole lot going on in this thread that needs to be sorted out, but today we have a holiday and I'm off to a barbecue. Chat amongst yourselves till I return.
Quote from: StuartWhile an interesting premise... I think this just isn't accurate. I've noticed a lot of Forge / Story Games designers work in the Sciences or IT. A lot of proponents of classic RPG design are from a humanities / arts background.
And I've had the reverse experience. I suspect there's no real difference, statistically.
Quote from: WarthurAnd I've had the reverse experience. I suspect there's no real difference, statistically.
Who are the key Forge/Storygames theorists with backgrounds in English Lit, Theatre Studies, etc.?
Quote from: droogYou're saying your games have no more going on than a hockey game? Just one contest of skill after another?
I think there is a whole lot going on in this thread that needs to be sorted out, but today we have a holiday and I'm off to a barbecue. Chat amongst yourselves till I return.
Come now, certainly a sporting contest has more story to it than one contest of skill after another! The last time these two teams meant was in the finals, and there's a lot of bad blood there--Team A is looking for revenge. As for Team B, the coach is on the hot seat, and another consecutive loss could see him on the streets. Meanwhile, Player X is fighting through a leg injury, and Player Z is just praying he doesn't get cut.
And you just know Player Y is going to shoot his mouth off after the game win, or lose. But will he demand a trade, or hang in there, even though the coach and him can't stand each other's guts?
Great stories in sports come from memorable characters finding themselves in memorable situations in a common medium. Try to script or control that over much, and you may get this (http://youtube.com/watch?v=doDoT9f5Vlc).
I wrote out a very long reply to this but then my browser freaked out and it got lost. Son of a bitch. here I go again.
Quote from: John MorrowWell, it does and it doesn't, which is my point. They also assume that they players can do a great deal that's not necessarily a given. For example, if a game contains a "Tell me why your character failed" mechanic, it assumes that I want to do so, that I know how to do so, and that I'll do a decent job of it, none of which are a given.
You wouldn't know you were good at it or for a fact you didn't like it till you tried it. And even trying and doing something badly is sometimes better than not doing anything at all. I never said you have to play these games forever if you, or anyone else, doesn't like them. I don't think they are for everyone, but I think everyone should give them a try.
QuoteSo you are endorsing trying to fix a problem that you don't understand?
Yes. Is that a problem? I mean, i can imagine several reasons for acting how I've seen players in there extreme stubbornness to avoid going into a dungeon or fighting anything in D&D or going out and being a world changing badass in Exalted.
They could just be disruptive jackasses, but I know a few people who don't act like that in any other activity and also GM so would know how it feels. They could be paranoid the GM will screw them for a small slip up or anything other than extremely conservative play that would make Nixon think you were overly cautious, but I got into gaming with some of these people and I know they acted like that before they ever experienced a killer GM. They not like the premise of the game (going into dungeons or fighting orcs in D&D, being a world changing badass in Exalted) and be passive aggressively showing their displeasure, but since I generally start my games with "Do you all feel like trying *blank*" with a general description of the premise, I kind of doubt it, plus I have one player who this would suggest likes no premise of any RPG, including some he expressed great desire to play. Another idea is they just like being transgressive, they enjoy characters that try to break the mold, like Rincewind, but this kind of character really only works if the player is fine with the character failing to get the peace that he wants. No one would care about Rincewind if he successfully stayed out of all the dangerous shit he tries to stay out of, and the player should ultimately want him to get into that dangerous stuff even though the character will never willingly do it. Otherwise it's just frustrating.
QuoteEat your broccoli. Eat your spinach. Eat your calves liver. Drink your soy milk. It's good for you. Don't like it? Just think of it as opening you up to a new experience. Oh, and it's good for you. And if you keep doing it, you might learn to like it... or not.
.
1. I never said you have to keep playing these games if you try them and don't like them.
2. I never said Forge games were good for you.
However, you act as if everyone has had an experience with Forge games, or soy milk, and that just isn't the case. The vast majority of people and roleplayers haven't experienced it, and if they have an opinion it is probably based on hearsay. If some of those people who have heard bad things about soy milk, or Forge games, tried them I bet some would like them. If not, no harm, but if they do like them wouldn't it be a shame to miss out because they were taken in by the opinions of others?
QuoteDo people really engage in recreational activities in order to be forced to do things that they don't want to do? What is this? A game or EST?
I have never forced people to play a Forge RPG or any RPG. I don't think anyone has. They're pretty easy things to get out of. One thing I see constantly harped upon by anti-Forge people is this idea that the Forge wants everyone to play only hardcore Narrativist games with a ton of story focus and nothing else, expecting people to spend years playing Sorcerer. No. The games are small for a reason, you're meant to switch up, experience a lot of different styles and such, and they aren't for everyone. Forge Nar style games generally aren't meant for long campaigns. People said about My Life With Master and Dogs in the Vineyard, "But what if I get bored playing a henchman/mormon cowboy and want to do something else?" Play a different game! It's that simple. You aren't meant to play one or even two or three games for the rest of your life. Although I think it is interesting to play the same situation/scenario twice (like Poinson'd) and see how things are different due to small differences in choice and such made by the characters.
Anyway, are you saying people shouldn't be encouraged to try new things they haven't experienced? I think they should. I don't believe people in general know exactly what they like and dislike without experience. I know I don't. I wouldn't have thought I would like sushi at all, but I love it. Curry is nothing like normal food I like, I don't like heavily spiced food, but I like curry. There are always exceptions and stuff and I personally always encourage people to try new things, whether they be food or RPGs.
If you've found your niche and are happy with it, that's cool, but you seem to be suggesting that "forcing" people to try these things is a bad idea which I don't think it is. Will everyone or even a majority or large minority of roleplayers like Forge style story focused games? Maybe not. Do I think they should all try them? Yeah. Because if they don't like them, no harm, and they know they don't like them, but if they DO like them they've found something else to enjoy, which I think is worthwhile.
QuoteFor example?
Combat is a great example. Take something like the Hero system or Riddle of Steel. Fights in them tend to be kind of slow and methodical because there are a lot of rules to consider and a good bit of book keeping and decision making. It sort of takes the urgency out of things. Then look at something like Unknown Armies or even Over the Edge. Combat is very quick, and with firearms, very deadly. Things move quickly and dying or not is something in question every round. It makes for a very different feel. Also look at something like Heroquest or SotC when you have the option of drawing out a conflict between two or more characters or keeping it to a single roll.
QuoteIt's pretty darned hard to produce a good story mechanically, but that hasn't stopped a lot of people from trying.
You can however use the mechanics to push people (who generally have an natural inclination to do what the game mechanics push them towards moreso than the games premise, I've never seen someone try to avoid going over Go in Monopoly) towards conflicts and issues which while it may not produce a story of great literary quality is at least more likely to produce a story that is interesting to participate in creating and where stuff happens.
QuoteI have a BA in English (with a writing concentration). I've worked in publishing (for a trade paperback publisher that published Nabokov's Despair and even read slush pile once). I've read dozens of books on writing stories. I've talked to plenty of authors and editors at cons.
You are more experienced than me in this area.
QuoteOf course you weren't.
Okay. I wasn't the one who brought up English Lit classes in the first place, I was just replying to what someone else wrote.
QuoteTry talking to editors, publishers, and looking at books about writing for publication and high sales. Try looking at books about writing good stories or read some accounts of the Clarion workship (where Damon Knight would write "Who cares?" on stories where none of the characters changes because of the events in the story).
Sure, most people will avoid talking about it in objective terms because, well, being objective and judgmental are the great sins of the modern day. But there is certainly a pretty clear pattern to what sells, what most people think is good, and what most editors and writing books advise against. And having worked at a publisher that published books like Nabokov's Despair and knowing what the print runs were like, I think it's likely that the majority of sales of such books (in the United States, anyway) are to college students forced to read those works for a literature class (many of whom probably won't actually read the whole book) and very few to people looking for an enjoyable or good book to read.
So because it's not widely popular, because it doesn't "sell" something is objectively not a good story? Does this apply to music to? Are Gogol Bordello and Leonard Cohen inferior to Lil' Jon and Chamillionaire? I mean, I know who sells better, who is more widely known and liked. I just don't accept that is a determination of quality. It's a determination of what most people enjoy, but that doesn't mean it's objectively good. I mean, Robert Jordan sold well, but his novels weren't good, they were drawn out and most of what happened in the first few books was reversed as they went into a holding pattern. But it sold, so it was good?
QuoteWell, isn't calling a book "terrible" making an objective value judgment? And if a work can be objectively terrible, why is it surprising that another book can be objectively good? Shakespeare gets ripped off constantly for movies plots while almost nobody is in a rush to rip off Dickens' Great Expectations for a reason.
No, it's a subjective opinion which she believes, from her teaching experience, most students share. She wasn't saying it was an objectively bad book, just that she thought it was terrible and we probably wouldn't enjoy it too much.
And again, we're back to this "what sells is good" idea. That works for publishers, because what they are interested in is making money, but making money definitely has as little or less to do with writing a quality story than playing a game, IMO at least.
You will probably call me a snob, but if calling Tom Clancy and Robert Jordan (although occasionally enjoyable reading) inferior writers and storytellers to Vladimir Nobokov makes me a snob, well. . . I'm a snob.
QuoteBut are people really looking to try to create a high quality story or are they looking for something else? Why is it, for example, that the Narrativist games focus so strongly on character but often seem to downplay or fix the setting and sequence of events?
Fixing the setting helps in a couple of ways. It allows the rules to be fine tuned and the game focused with the laser like precision that Forge games seem to strive for. It also means that the players aren't responsible for coming up with the setting and, even moreso, the immediate situation (setting design is easy, coming up with game opening situations is hard IMO) and fine tuning the rules to work with that idea and their desires. It makes the games much easier to pick up and play, without much prep work which is, IMO, anti-fun. You also suppose that the goal is to create objectively great stories which would, according to you, sell well to people, and that's not it. One, that's not what most people think of as great stories, "stuff that sells." Two, the goal is to create a story which it is interesting to participate in writing. The story is one that is essentially made by its own small audience, not made to sell to others. It is more akin to personal or amateur writing, except combined with a social aspect and gameplay aspects. The rules and game provide a jumping off point, impetus, and structure in which peoples creativity can play. Will all the stories that come up be interesting reading for people outside the game or of a publishable quality? No. Will they usually be fun for the people playing? Yes, atleast if those people like those kind of games.
Are you just avoiding the recent Colts loss out of loyalty, Zach? ;) ( and trust me, as a Bears fan, my season is pretty much over, dammit).
But, see, perhaps them thar Australians don't understand Sport the way we Competitive Americans do :D
I mean, look at that game - two undefeated teams. The Home team the Super Bowl champs from last year, having made it that far by defeating the Visitors in last year's AFC Championship. Arguably the two best quarterbacks in the league - one of which is racking up record numbers for the year. One QB, Manning, having finally removed the monkey off his back of last year by defeating the other, Brady. Two of the best Defenses in the league taking on two of the best offenses in the league.
The ebb's and flows of the game as momentum shifted. Great feats of individual athleticism; man versus himself, man versus man - it's like Story 101.
But, see, it can't be capital G Great capital S Story unless there is some mechanism that facilitates the addressing of the player-characters' Premise without deprotagonization while sharing narrative power.
Quote from: James J SkachAre you just avoiding the recent Colts loss out of loyalty, Zach? ;) ( and trust me, as a Bears fan, my season is pretty much over, dammit).
But, see, perhaps them thar Australians don't understand Sport the way we Competitive Americans do :D
I mean, look at that game - two undefeated teams. The Home team the Super Bowl champs from last year, having made it that far by defeating the Visitors in last year's AFC Championship. Arguably the two best quarterbacks in the league - one of which is racking up record numbers for the year. One QB, Manning, having finally removed the monkey off his back of last year by defeating the other, Brady. Two of the best Defenses in the league taking on two of the best offenses in the league.
The ebb's and flows of the game as momentum shifted. Great feats of individual athleticism; man versus himself, man versus man - it's like Story 101.
But, see, it can't be capital G Great capital S Story unless there is some mechanism that facilitates the addressing of the player-characters' Premise without deprotagonization while sharing narrative power.
. . .
Wow, this is just stupid. You are comparing sports, highly competitive things, to RPGs, even at their most competitive not even close to the kind of stuff you see in sports. Also, you are straw manning. No one ever said a great story can't come out of a non-Nar game, just that a great story is more likely to come out of a Nar game than a non Nar one and that Nar games are more fun for some of us.
Also, the creative output of sports are not stories. The creativity comes in brilliant plays and such. Stories build up around what happens in a sports game, the stories about sports are stories about what in RPGs we would refer to as the metagame. A story that comes up about sports is WAY more similar to one of Al Bruno's rants than it is an actual play. I just don't think there is much similarity. Sports are tests of athleticism and teamwork that occasionally create real life drama. Games aren't really a test of anything, they are a recreation, and create fictional drama (unless there is bad blood and something goes horribly wrong).
Professional Wrestling is a much better analogy :)
Quote from: Sethwick. . .
Wow, this is just stupid. You are comparing sports, highly competitive things, to RPGs, even at their most competitive not even close to the kind of stuff you see in sports. Also, you are straw manning. No one ever said a great story can't come out of a non-Nar game, just that a great story is more likely to come out of a Nar game than a non Nar one and that Nar games are more fun for some of us.
Also, the creative output of sports are not stories. The creativity comes in brilliant plays and such. Stories build up around what happens in a sports game, the stories about sports are stories about what in RPGs we would refer to as the metagame. A story that comes up about sports is WAY more similar to one of Al Bruno's rants than it is an actual play. I just don't think there is much similarity. Sports are tests of athleticism and teamwork that occasionally create real life drama. Games aren't really a test of anything, they are a recreation, and create fictional drama (unless there is bad blood and something goes horribly wrong).
Professional Wrestling is a much better analogy :)
Hey, fuckface - don't smile at me after calling me stupid.
And explain to me why the "creative output" of RPG's is any more a story than the "creative output" of sports, hmmm?
The creativity comes in brilliant plays? Like, say, wizards using spells in creative ways to overcome difficult situations - often in ways the designers never considered?
Stories build up around what happens in a sports game, the stories about sports are stories about what in RPGs we would refer to as the metagame? Are you serious?
You just don't think there is much similarity? I think that sentence is half right - the first half.
Quote from: James J SkachHey, fuckface - don't smile at me after calling me stupid.
And explain to me why the "creative output" of RPG's is any more a story than the "creative output" of sports, hmmm?
The creativity comes in brilliant plays? Like, say, wizards using spells in creative ways to overcome difficult situations - often in ways the designers never considered?
Stories build up around what happens in a sports game, the stories about sports are stories about what in RPGs we would refer to as the metagame? Are you serious?
You just don't think there is much similarity? I think that sentence is half right - the first half.
That can work for some RPGs but does not work, IMO, for most. Only grognard style D&D is really played as a pure tactical game now.
I think the important distinction is the fiction versus reality thing. Sports aren't absolutely real, but the drama and rivalry and such in sports is much closer to reality than the drama and rivalry present in RPGs. I may play a character who absolutely hates another character who makes his life a living hell, but I don't actually bear any hard feelings for the player of that character and may in fact very much enjoy my characters hatred and be glad their character is so hate-able.
You are right though, RPGs could be played like sports as tests of tactical and strategic thinking. Frankly, though, I'd never think of playing them like that, because then they are really just squad based strategy games.
Edit: And I didn't really call you stupid, just the unqualified comparison of RPGs and sports. I think it's ridiculous because, as stated above, most all RPGs produce fictional drama and conflict whereas sports are about real drama and conflict confined to a competitive game.
Quote from: James J SkachAre you just avoiding the recent Colts loss out of loyalty, Zach? ;) ( and trust me, as a Bears fan, my season is pretty much over, dammit).
Well, I
was... :deflated: :p
Nah, but that game did have a hundred different storylines, most of which played out as results and reactions to contests and plays on the field. It serves as an awesome (if deflating) example, too.
(Go Colts!!!!!)
Quote from: Zachary The FirstWell, I was... :deflated: :p
Nah, but that game did have a hundred different storylines, most of which played out as results and reactions to contests and plays on the field. It serves as an awesome (if deflating) example, too.
(Go Colts!!!!!)
Still, the difference is that was a real drama between real people acting (ostensibly) in their own best interest trying to win. It was not a fictional drama created with a conflict among fictional people being controlled by people who do no always act in the best interest of their character. Yes, dramatic stories can arise out of real world events, but to suggest to this is similar to fictional drama created in an RPG by people who often are trying to create drama is I think REALLY off base. The drama of sports comes from the fact that both teams are trying their best to win, whereas the drama of RPGs is almost always a fictional creation and not the results of real human beings matching wits and abilities. It's like warfare and writing a book about war, they are inherently different situations which, while both capable of producing dramatic stories, the dramatic stories produced by one will be of an entirely different quality than ones produced by the other.
Quote from: SethwickThat can work for some RPGs but does not work, IMO, for most. Only grognard style D&D is really played as a pure tactical game now.
Are you Pundit doing a sock puppet to drag down Story Gaming? I mean, really - "Only grognard style D&D is really played as a pure tactical game now." Are you serious?
Quote from: SethwickI think it's ridiculous because, as stated above, most all RPGs produce fictional drama and conflict whereas sports are about real drama and conflict confined to a competitive game.
Wow. The differences are astounding!!!!
Idiot.
Edit: This was a fairly interesting thread - droog, zoran, hinter, stuart, morrow, clash all contributing without a lot of the heat these things tend to bring out. Why did you have to ruin it?
Quote from: James J SkachAre you Pundit doing a sock puppet to drag down Story Gaming? I mean, really - "Only grognard style D&D is really played as a pure tactical game now." Are you serious?
Did I say there was something wrong with it? No. If I was pundits attempt at satire I would actually call how someone was playing bad. But really, I think most people who play RPGs now probably don't do them as a pure tactical game like old school D&D. I like old school D&D a lot more than modern, because it had a purpose and stuck to it and did it well, whereas the modern D&D just tries to be everything from a tactical wargame to an improv acting experience to an MMORPG on tabletop. I think most people who play RPGs on tabletop now are into it somewhat for the playacting sense, because frankly almost everyone who didn't grow up with tabletop games plays video games for their strategic/tactical RPG fix.
QuoteWow. The differences are astounding!!!!
Idiot.
The difference between real conflict among real people and fictional conflict among fictional people? You're damn right the differences are astounding! What the fuck? How is there not a huge difference between being on the field, feeling real anger and hatred and getting slammed to the ground by someone and sitting in a room and controlling a character who feels anger and hatred (which you, hopefully, don't feel) toward another fictional character. IMO the difference between fictional drama and conflict created among friends and real drama and conflict arising among people are pretty huge.
Quote from: James J SkachEdit: This was a fairly interesting thread - droog, zoran, hinter, stuart, morrow, clash all contributing without a lot of the heat these things tend to bring out. Why did you have to ruin it?
I called an idea stupid because it was. You took offense. And have you read the posts droog wrote to Pundit? Maybe if you are here long enough you just get used to ignoring Pundit and negative things said about him because they are so common, but I'd call that heat.
Quote from: SethwickWow, this is just stupid. You are comparing sports, highly competitive things, to RPGs, even at their most competitive not even close to the kind of stuff you see in sports. Also, you are straw manning. No one ever said a great story can't come out of a non-Nar game, just that a great story is more likely to come out of a Nar game than a non Nar one and that Nar games are more fun for some of us.
Games, whether sports or tiddlywinks involve challenges to the players -- mental, physical, or both. Mental challenges involve the players making meaningful choices that affect the outcome of the competition.
Some games are team vs team. Some are every player for themself. Some are team vs system.
All games involve a challenge. All games involve some aspect of winning... and losing.
Roleplaying GAMES share these traits with all other games.
Roleplaying can take place without a game, either as an activity in it's own right, or as part of some type of performance.
Quote from: SethwickNo one ever said a great story can't come out of a non-Nar game, just that a great story is more likely to come out of a Nar game than a non Nar one and that Nar games are more fun for some of us.
Sadly, this is not true. If you have a recording of a game session that produced "Great" Story, I'd love to hear it. Keep in mind the "Actual Play" reports aren't
actual play -- they're little stories someone has written ABOUT the game. This would be exactly the same as someone writing a little story about the sporting event they just watched.
Quote from: SethwickGames aren't really a test of anything, they are a recreation, and create fictional drama (unless there is bad blood and something goes horribly wrong).
Games are a test of something, or they're not a game. No exceptions.
Quote from: SethwickStill, the difference is that was a real drama between real people acting (ostensibly) in their own best interest trying to win. It was not a fictional drama created with a conflict among fictional people being controlled by people who do no always act in the best interest of their character. Yes, dramatic stories can arise out of real world events, but to suggest to this is similar to fictional drama created in an RPG by people who often are trying to create drama is I think REALLY off base. The drama of sports comes from the fact that both teams are trying their best to win, whereas the drama of RPGs is almost always a fictional creation and not the results of real human beings matching wits and abilities. It's like warfare and writing a book about war, they are inherently different situations which, while both capable of producing dramatic stories, the dramatic stories produced by one will be of an entirely different quality than ones produced by the other.
I find story comes most naturally and fluidly when no one is interested in making story. Like the Colts-Patriots game. If the characters act in their own best interests, if the players do their best to forget they are players and think like their characters, then the story comes flowing like water from a spring. It's a byproduct of roleplaying, not a purpose. Once it becomes a purpose, then it becomes stilted, artificial, and mannered.
-clash
Quote from: SethwickI called an idea stupid because it was. You took offense. And have you read the posts droog wrote to Pundit? Maybe if you are here long enough you just get used to ignoring Pundit and negative things said about him because they are so common, but I'd call that heat.
You called an idea stupid with a straw man argument. Other than my sarcasm, nobody has argued that real competitive sport is the same exact thing as playing an RPG.
The idea being discussed is whether or not Sport results in story. If so, how can that be if nobody is doing something to make sure that happens? If nobody is paying attention to story, yet one is created, why isn't that same true for RPGs?
Your insipid response is because it's
real drama as opposed to
fictional drama. Think about what you're saying. Virtually everything consumed (except for the recent turn towards reality TV) is fiction, fuckwad, including your precious Nabokov's Despair.
As I said, I don't think you've thought through the ramifications of what you are suggesting.
Quote from: StuartGames, whether sports or tiddlywinks involve challenges to the players -- mental, physical, or both. Mental challenges involve the players making meaningful choices that affect the outcome of the competition.
I don't play RPGs like that and I don't think a lot of people do. They are very collaborative and have been for a long time and I think ignoring that is ignoring a huge part of what RPGs different and interesting. Can you play RPGs like a game where the players try to control their characters and survive and achieve the most in game success? Sure. It's just that that kind of play has to compete with video games and nowadays I'd say video games are giving tabletop RPGs a pretty good run for their money.
QuoteSome games are team vs team. Some are every player for themself. Some are team vs system.
I find a huge difference between games where two people compete and games of team versus system. Huge difference. Having no actual human opposition who is trying to make you lose is a big deal. Also the fact that sports, atleast on the level where these great dramas arise are a serious business. Not a recreation. Not something played for fun.
QuoteAll games involve a challenge. All games involve some aspect of winning... and losing.
I agree with the first, disagree with the second. I can only think of one or two RPGs with actually defined winning and losing, and those are both Forge games. Most RPGs it depends entirely on how you play. In the White Wolf promoted sort of Storytelling way, there really isn't losing because if a roll would ruin things you fudge it. Your character dying certainly isn't always losing, it can make sense in the story and be a great boon to the game. I know I've killed off my own characters several times, and had terrible things happen to them (hospitalized, injured, tortured, etc) many more.
QuoteRoleplaying GAMES share these traits with all other games.
Not how some people play them.
QuoteRoleplaying can take place without a game, either as an activity in it's own right, or as part of some type of performance.
True, it can. Are games which minimize system then not RPGs? Anyway, that's not what Forge games are generally like, they often have very prominent system and game-like elements which make a big impact on play.
QuoteSadly, this is not true. If you have a recording of a game session that produced "Great" Story, I'd love to hear it. Keep in mind the "Actual Play" reports aren't actual play -- they're little stories someone has written ABOUT the game. This would be exactly the same as someone writing a little story about the sporting event they just watched.
I would wager that watching a game would pretty much be like watching an author at his typewriter. Rather boring if you aren't involved unless they are really good. Again a big different with sports, RPGs have the players as both audience and participants, sports don't. Sports are a spectator sport, RPGs aren't. Why? Because they aren't terribly competitive for one thing. Although the more important thing is that they are not really physical at all, and non-physical competition isn't that big (Chess tournaments don't draw high ratings). That's pretty immaterial to the discussion though.
I have been looking for an Actual Play Ron Edwards wrote for a game called, I am just barely remembering this, "Le Mon Mori" or something like that. He talked about how he made decisions as a player and it was really interesting and I think made for both an interesting story and interesting insight (I always like when people very explicitly talk about how and why they do things in game because often people assume others think the same way and leave things unsaid that would be enlightening). Unfortunately I have yet to find it, either I have the game name wrong or the Forge search engine sucks.
QuoteGames are a test of something, or they're not a game. No exceptions.
Well, I think that the way some people play RPGs fall outside your definition of game. Especially games which seek to have the system disappear, like Hearts and Souls and CineUni. I'm not a huge fan of those games, I prefer games with strong systems that act as a structure for player creativity in making an interesting story. I like games with a predetermined situation because that means less prep time and things go quicker from "Hey, we should play an RPG" to actually playing. I like games which are incredibly focused on a single idea or premise because I think those work best to avoid the game going all over the place.
I was wrong when I said games don't test anything. I guess what I should say is games are, IMO, ideally casual and non serious, unlike sports. This means they really can't produce the "real life" drama like sports can. I mean, I can get really into RPGs, gone so far as crying, but I've never felt real anger because of a conflict present in an RPG. Angry at people being disruptive? Yeah. Angry at someone because their character showed up mine, or because my character died or lost a conflict or something? No. There's a whole additional degree of seperation between the player and the conflict in an RPG than in most games. In Scrabble, if you lose, YOU lost. In RPGs if your character fails to succeed at something he or she tries it's not really a loss on your part, in fact you (if you are at all like me) may very well try things intending or believing your character will fail because it is interesting. It's what make RPGs unique, IMO, that the players avatar isn't exactly a representation of the player, it is something more. It's what makes them unique and still worth playing when, if you want to experience something you normally couldn't, it is incredibly easy and relatively cheap to find a video game with insanely good graphics and sound effects, good controls and fun gameplay. Similarly if you want to engage in a game of strategy, computer games can handle much more complex situations and rules without slowing down play. Computerized Advanced Squad Leader is quite a bit easier in the set up time than the real thing. Where RPGs are unique is the ability to have A. a living breathing arbiter who can adapt to you on the fly, and B. The chance to really create and make the story as you go along.
Quote from: Sethwick. . .
Wow, this is just stupid. You are comparing sports, highly competitive things, to RPGs, even at their most competitive not even close to the kind of stuff you see in sports. Also, you are straw manning. No one ever said a great story can't come out of a non-Nar game, just that a great story is more likely to come out of a Nar game than a non Nar one and that Nar games are more fun for some of us.
Also, the creative output of sports are not stories. The creativity comes in brilliant plays and such. Stories build up around what happens in a sports game, the stories about sports are stories about what in RPGs we would refer to as the metagame. A story that comes up about sports is WAY more similar to one of Al Bruno's rants than it is an actual play. I just don't think there is much similarity. Sports are tests of athleticism and teamwork that occasionally create real life drama. Games aren't really a test of anything, they are a recreation, and create fictional drama (unless there is bad blood and something goes horribly wrong).
Professional Wrestling is a much better analogy :)
I strongly disagree. Simply put, you are connecting the story of the events somehow to the events being performed. In the end, a football game and a game session could look exactly the same if written in the same style. AP reports are usually written more as flow of story. I tend to have a rough time with them because I write them up in more of a sports, blow by blow action mode. Sport events are reported on in a journalistic style. However, if you chose to describe the ebb and flow of the conflict, the contest of skill between the teams and the final climax of the game, you would have a story. Heck, look at the sport movies out there. Yes, they span several games but so do RPG games. Compare the sports movies to AP for a campaign and I doubt you would see much difference.
Bill
Or look at an NFL Films productions. "The autumn wind...". If those aren't presented in story form, I don't know what is.
Really, I'm unsure why it's such a stretch to identify how sports create stories. I'm not saying it's a direct comparison to how you get a good RPG story, but certainly having memorable characters in potentially memorable situations within a shared medium is a pretty good recipe to come out with a story. Perhaps not the story you wanted (damn Patriots) or even expected (how 'bout them Browns?), but a story nonetheless. I don't see just because it isn't a "fictional" exercise how it's a poorer comparison than writing a story (I don't think anyone said that here, but just as an example). Making great characters, having there be conflict/opposition, and setting is how I've always thought the best campaign tales I have to tell came about.
Quote from: SethwickI don't play RPGs like that and I don't think a lot of people do.
Yes you do. :)
The challenge of a storygame is the creation of "Great Story". The players are (assumedly) making meaningful decisions to try and reach that goal. It's a competition of the group vs. their own storytelling ability. It may also be every player for themself to show how good a storyteller / roleplayer they are, or to make sure it's THEIR story that gets told. Winning is telling a better story. Losing is telling a really bad one.
Quote from: SethwickThey are very collaborative and have been for a long time and I think ignoring that is ignoring a huge part of what RPGs different and interesting.
Good thing I said some games are team vs system then! ;)
Quote from: SethwickCan you play RPGs like a game where the players try to control their characters and survive and achieve the most in game success? Sure. It's just that that kind of play has to compete with video games and nowadays I'd say video games are giving tabletop RPGs a pretty good run for their money.
Don't believe the hype. Gameplay doesn't mean "combat".
Quote from: SethwickI find a huge difference between games where two people compete and games of team versus system. Huge difference. Having no actual human opposition who is trying to make you lose is a big deal. Also the fact that sports, atleast on the level where these great dramas arise are a serious business. Not a recreation. Not something played for fun.
There are lots of differences between player vs player and team vs system, but there's often still a level of competitiveness amongst team-mates. If you can "lose" as an individual -- if you can play the game really *badly* then there's an individual component. In a storytelling game, if you make really asinine contributions and keep trying to tell the same uncomfortable joke and basically ruining the "story" for everyone else at the table... you're losing. :)
As for sports -- it's not just the professionals. You can have great drama arise from a kid's sporting event. Have you ever played a sport? Maybe as a kid?
Quote from: SethwickI agree with the first, disagree with the second. I can only think of one or two RPGs with actually defined winning and losing, and those are both Forge games.
RPGs have done a poor job of self-examination and considering what winning / losing looks like. If you couldn't win or lose as a group, there would be no difference in the quality of the game from session to session. If you can say: "Wow, that sucked!" then that game wasn't a winner. ;)
Try not to focus on the
characters and their "winning" -- that's not always the same thing.
Quote from: SethwickIn Scrabble, if you lose, YOU lost. In RPGs if your character fails to succeed at something he or she tries it's not really a loss on your part, in fact you (if you are at all like me) may very well try things intending or believing your character will fail because it is interesting. It's what make RPGs unique, IMO, that the players avatar isn't exactly a representation of the player, it is something more.
Let me put it this way -- it's entirely possible to have a game where your character(s) win... but you lose.
What makes RPGs challenging to analyze is that they often have multiple "games" happening concurrently. Sometimes these concurrent games work well together, and sometimes they don't.
I was wrong to say stupid. It lowered the tone of the conversation and I'm sorry. I realize that I am unable to make clear quite what I mean so I'll just bow out for tonight and hope I am more clear another time.
Quote from: Zachary The FirstOr look at an NFL Films productions. "The autumn wind...". If those aren't presented in story form, I don't know what is.
Really, I'm unsure why it's such a stretch to identify how sports create stories. I'm not saying it's a direct comparison to how you get a good RPG story, but certainly having memorable characters in potentially memorable situations within a shared medium is a pretty good recipe to come out with a story. Perhaps not the story you wanted (damn Patriots) or even expected (how 'bout them Browns?), but a story nonetheless. I don't see just because it isn't a "fictional" exercise how it's a poorer comparison than writing a story (I don't think anyone said that here, but just as an example). Making great characters, having there be conflict/opposition, and setting is how I've always thought the best campaign tales I have to tell came about.
Exactly, Zachary! :D
-clash
Yeah, that's brilliant.
Look, you can call me stupid all you like. I've been called worse by other folks here, I'm sure. Don't hide behind that canard. Instead, you'd be better off admitting that getting a story from a sports event and getting one from a "traditional" RPG session are roughly analogous, and moving on.
The tone of the conversation it irrelevant.
Sethwick. . .dude. . .did you even see my reply to you from this afternoon? You're just rattling on as if it nevwer existed. Disagree with me if you want, sure, but I think it'd be unwise to ignore me as my point speaks pretty strongly tothe last 304 pages of snipi--er, debating.
You've started from a rather impossible position that it's good for games to force players to play in ways they don't want to. You've backpedaled a bit, but you're still pretty firmly settled in the idea that forcing someone to do something is OK, 'cause something good might come of it. That's pretty paternal and insulting. I might wish that more people would try the games I like, especially those I personally play with. But if I rammed it down their throats that'd be wrong of me, even if a couple of them turned out to like it (which seems less likely if I'm ramming it down their throats, but hey. . .).
Pundit must be creaming himself with glee right now. Honestly, this line of argument is a dead fucking end, and you're also falling into the tendency to post as if you're speaking for Everyone Who Plays Forge-Type Games, which only compounds the problem. Droog's approach ("This is MY opinion, and what this means to ME") is much more intellectually honest and courteous.
So hey, you're on your own, mate. I love a lot of the same games you do, it sounds like, but you're heading into some rhetorical territory where we part company. I'll just have to leave it to the reasonable reader to see that.
Peace,
-Joel
Quote from: SethwickI wrote out a very long reply to this but then my browser freaked out and it got lost. Son of a bitch. here I go again.
Yeah, this site does that sometimes. Cutting and pasting into another program can be a good idea for large replies.
Quote from: SethwickYou wouldn't know you were good at it or for a fact you didn't like it till you tried it.
Not true. I don't know how old you are but I've often got a pretty good sense of what I'm good at or enjoy and what I'm not going to be good at and won't enjoy. When I was living in Japan, I had a co-worker who was a big fan of the game Go and invited me to a party to promote Go after work. I knew it wasn't really for me and that I wouldn't be good at it but I went just to humor him. Yes, I learned a little but at the end, he admitted (being rather blunt for a Japanese person) that my playing was probably on par with that of his 6 year-old son.
Quote from: SethwickAnd even trying and doing something badly is sometimes better than not doing anything at all. [...] I don't think they are for everyone, but I think everyone should give them a try.
Life is too short to do everything and try everything. And unless you have an unlimited amount of money and free time, I suspect you filter what you do and don't try based on what you know about your own preferences all the time.
Quote from: SethwickYes. Is that a problem? I mean, i can imagine several reasons for acting how I've seen players in there extreme stubbornness to avoid going into a dungeon or fighting anything in D&D or going out and being a world changing badass in Exalted.
Have you ever actually asked them why that is?
Quote from: SethwickHowever, you act as if everyone has had an experience with Forge games, or soy milk, and that just isn't the case. The vast majority of people and roleplayers haven't experienced it, and if they have an opinion it is probably based on hearsay.
On what basis do you make that claim? One of the problems with this hobby is that it's full of anecdotal examples that are true for one person's experience but not true for the experience of others. I think people make a lot of assumptions about what other role-players have or haven't experienced are are often quite wrong.
My first role-playing games had no GM because nobody wanted to be the GM. We played the same way we played with action figures and toy cars, running groups of characters and just sort of cooperatively making up events augmented with random tables. I dabbled with my first homebrew systems within a year of getting my first RPG and it was cinematic, to the extent that it gave the "named" Star Wars figures a better chance to succeed than what people today call "mooks". That was, oh, 1982 or something like that. I've played games with no dice. Games where the only real rule was "high rolls are good". In high school, we had people playing a solo RPG (Traveller) with no other players. Most of the role-playing games I played in the 1980s and 1990s were run using homebrew systems and we rarely used published rules. We've always run games like the Hero System, when we do use a published system, with fast combats because we strip out the rules we don't really need. I never had to deal with killer GMs, rapist PCs, or parents worried that D&D was going to lead me to Satan.
Yet I've heard people describe experiences entirely different from my own. People who had their RPGs burned by religious parents. People who endured killer GMs. Groups who believe that all optional rules are mandatory and play with all the rules turned on. People who play strictly by the book. People who praise Fudge for giving them "permission" to homebrew a system, as if they needed someone's permission to do so. People who have never just sad down and winged an entire gaming session with almost no prep.
What's normal? Am I normal? Are they normal? Are you normal? I'm really not sure. And I think it's a problem to assume that your experience or my experience or anyone else's experience is common or normal.
Quote from: SethwickIf some of those people who have heard bad things about soy milk, or Forge games, tried them I bet some would like them. If not, no harm, but if they do like them wouldn't it be a shame to miss out because they were taken in by the opinions of others?
Do you taste everything that someone puts in front of you? Do you never have reason to believe that you won't like something based on past experiences with the ingredients or similar foods?
Quote from: SethwickThe games are small for a reason, you're meant to switch up, experience a lot of different styles and such, and they aren't for everyone.
In the early 1980s, universal systems became all the rage because people got tired of learning a new system to play every new genre or setting. Why? Because before the advent of universal systems, every game had it's own distinct set of rules.
Quote from: SethwickForge Nar style games generally aren't meant for long campaigns. People said about My Life With Master and Dogs in the Vineyard, "But what if I get bored playing a henchman/mormon cowboy and want to do something else?" Play a different game! It's that simple. You aren't meant to play one or even two or three games for the rest of your life. Although I think it is interesting to play the same situation/scenario twice (like Poinson'd) and see how things are different due to small differences in choice and such made by the characters.
Yet there are people who play and enjoy games like D&D, the Hero System, GURPS, and even games like Fudge and do play them for long campaigns and use the same system for the rest of their lives. What you seem to be describing are disposable games.
Quote from: SethwickAnyway, are you saying people shouldn't be encouraged to try new things they haven't experienced? I think they should. I don't believe people in general know exactly what they like and dislike without experience.
I think that people are often the best judge of what they do or don't want, and I think it's more than a bit arrogant to tell people that they don't know what they want.
Quote from: SethwickI know I don't. I wouldn't have thought I would like sushi at all, but I love it. Curry is nothing like normal food I like, I don't like heavily spiced food, but I like curry. There are always exceptions and stuff and I personally always encourage people to try new things, whether they be food or RPGs.
I had a pretty good idea that I wouldn't like sushi and, guess what? I really don't. (Sure, I'll eat California Roll but that's not really sushi.) What you are doing is assuming that because you are bad at predicting what you will and won't like that other people share that same problem. I don't think that's true.
Quote from: SethwickIf you've found your niche and are happy with it, that's cool, but you seem to be suggesting that "forcing" people to try these things is a bad idea which I don't think it is.
Did you ever hear the phrase, "If it's not broke, don't fix it"?
Quote from: SethwickWill everyone or even a majority or large minority of roleplayers like Forge style story focused games? Maybe not. Do I think they should all try them? Yeah.
So you think that everyone should try a game even if a majority of people won't like it?
Quote from: SethwickBecause if they don't like them, no harm, and they know they don't like them, but if they DO like them they've found something else to enjoy, which I think is worthwhile.
The harm of playing a game that you don't enjoy is 4-8 hours of your life that you'll never get back. Do you have an infinite amount of free time in your life to spend it constantly trying new things on the off chance that you might like them? Do you do so without preconceived notions or discrimination based on what you think you might or might not like?
Quote from: SethwickCombat is a great example. Take something like the Hero system or Riddle of Steel. Fights in them tend to be kind of slow and methodical because there are a lot of rules to consider and a good bit of book keeping and decision making. It sort of takes the urgency out of things. Then look at something like Unknown Armies or even Over the Edge. Combat is very quick, and with firearms, very deadly. Things move quickly and dying or not is something in question every round. It makes for a very different feel. Also look at something like Heroquest or SotC when you have the option of drawing out a conflict between two or more characters or keeping it to a single roll.
I'm talking about pacing the entire game and about story, not about pacing 2 minutes of game time.
Quote from: SethwickYou can however use the mechanics to push people (who generally have an natural inclination to do what the game mechanics push them towards moreso than the games premise, I've never seen someone try to avoid going over Go in Monopoly) towards conflicts and issues which while it may not produce a story of great literary quality is at least more likely to produce a story that is interesting to participate in creating and where stuff happens.
For me, personally, that's the wrong thing to do and it's why I avoid giving my characters story hooks. Do you know what happens when you turn the key and try to start an engine that's already running? Do you know what happens when you apply an electrical shock from defibrillator to a heart that's already beating? The problem I have with those mechanics is that if you apply them to players or a situation that's not broken, it breaks them.
Quote from: SethwickYou are more experienced than me in this area.
That's not really the point.
Quote from: SethwickSo because it's not widely popular, because it doesn't "sell" something is objectively not a good story? Does this apply to music to?
It can, but it's more complicated than that. William Hung's album sold incredibly well but I doubt anyone thought he was good. What makes William Hung an objectively bad singer is that you won't find people choosing to listen to him for the pleasure of listening to him sing.
Quote from: SethwickAre Gogol Bordello and Leonard Cohen inferior to Lil' Jon and Chamillionaire? I mean, I know who sells better, who is more widely known and liked. I just don't accept that is a determination of quality.
Then what is a determination of quality?
Quote from: SethwickIt's a determination of what most people enjoy, but that doesn't mean it's objectively good. I mean, Robert Jordan sold well, but his novels weren't good, they were drawn out and most of what happened in the first few books was reversed as they went into a holding pattern. But it sold, so it was good?
Well, you seem to know the answer to that question, don't you? And you seem quite able to explain why, too.
Quote from: SethwickNo, it's a subjective opinion which she believes, from her teaching experience, most students share. She wasn't saying it was an objectively bad book, just that she thought it was terrible and we probably wouldn't enjoy it too much.
What's the difference between saying that it's objectively terrible and saying that she thought it was terrible and most students probably wouldn't enjoy it too much?
Just because someone who is colorblind might look at a green shirt and call it red, does that mean that objective colors don't exist? Should we complain that horror movies are mislabeled because some people aren't frightened by them? Should we stop replace Shakespeare or Dickens with Robert Jordan at random in school literature classes because we can't objectively say that one writer is better than another?
Quote from: SethwickAnd again, we're back to this "what sells is good" idea.
Nope. That's your straw man. Like I said, it's more complicated than that. There are plenty of people who buy things that they'll admit are OK. What I'm actually saying is the opposite, "What doesn't sell isn't good." If you need to force students to read Great Expectations and nobody ever enjoys the experience, then it's not a good story. Did you ever read Nabokov's Despair? What did you think of it? Would you read it again or watch a movie based on it?
Quote from: SethwickThat works for publishers, because what they are interested in is making money, but making money definitely has as little or less to do with writing a quality story than playing a game, IMO at least.
If there is not such thing as an objectively good or objectively bad story, as you claim, then how does one judge the quality fo a story? And how can one possibly write a game designed to produce good stories if you can't assume that there is any common idea of what a good story is?
Quote from: SethwickYou will probably call me a snob, but if calling Tom Clancy and Robert Jordan (although occasionally enjoyable reading) inferior writers and storytellers to Vladimir Nobokov makes me a snob, well. . . I'm a snob.
How much Nabokov have you read for pleasure? According to Wikipedia, he's written over two dozen novels and short story collections. How many have you read? How many Robert Jordan books have you read? Or Tom Clancy books?
Quote from: SethwickFixing the setting helps in a couple of ways. It allows the rules to be fine tuned and the game focused with the laser like precision that Forge games seem to strive for. It also means that the players aren't responsible for coming up with the setting and, even moreso, the immediate situation (setting design is easy, coming up with game opening situations is hard IMO) and fine tuning the rules to work with that idea and their desires.
So, in other words, it railroads the players into a setting and situation. Why is it good for a system to do that but bad for a GM to do that?
Quote from: SethwickIt makes the games much easier to pick up and play, without much prep work which is, IMO, anti-fun.
Whether prep work is enjoyable or not is subjective. Plenty of people do enjoy it.
Quote from: SethwickYou also suppose that the goal is to create objectively great stories which would, according to you, sell well to people, and that's not it. One, that's not what most people think of as great stories, "stuff that sells."
That's your straw man, not mine.
Quote from: SethwickTwo, the goal is to create a story which it is interesting to participate in writing.
No, not really. But for "story" to have any meaning (beyond the unavoidable definition that applies to any series of events such that they players can't help but to create one), it has to have some sort of take-away value and retelling value. Hearing someone talk about their vacation is normally boring to listen to because they are describing a series of experiences that don't tie into a story. Hearing someone talk about an interesting sequence of events that they experienced while on vacation, that do play out as a story, can be interesting. For a role-playing game to tell a story in any meaningful sense, it needs that take-away value. Otherwise, it's simply an experience.
Quote from: SethwickThe story is one that is essentially made by its own small audience, not made to sell to others. It is more akin to personal or amateur writing, except combined with a social aspect and gameplay aspects.
Sure, but unlike personal or amateur writing, you're doing it with a group. So you don't simply have to please one person. You have to please everyone at the table.
Quote from: SethwickThe rules and game provide a jumping off point, impetus, and structure in which peoples creativity can play. Will all the stories that come up be interesting reading for people outside the game or of a publishable quality? No. Will they usually be fun for the people playing? Yes, at least if those people like those kind of games.
So are they creating a story, then, or simply a particular kind of experience?
Quote from: RPGPunditAh hah. So you're pissed off at him because he slipped and told the truth.
What "choice" is there? How can you play The Mountain Witch or My life With Master without creating forced pseudo-story-addressing-of-themes-crap?
You can't. And if you fuckers had your way, all RPGs would be like that.
Oh, brother. Yeah, I'm real bent out of shape, all right. I'm just hysterical with terror and rage because Sethy's about to blow my cover. Oops, I mean
our cover.
We are Forge. Resistance is futile.That was fun, but really. . .that was pretty weak sauce. It's a nice illustration of how one just can't win with you,though. . .agree with someone whose position you oppose and I'm e a mindless cultist.
DISAGREE with someone who's position you oppose. .and I'm trying to
COVER UP THE TRUTH!! zomg!!!1 :haw:
Thanks for the theater. To answer your question, the most
obvious choice is to
vote with your feet. In other words,
don't play My Life With Master if you're not into trying out the kind of story creation exercise that the game promises. I don't the games you have issues with are exactly
coy about their design goals. Nobody's getting suckered in with the promise of Ye Olde Dungeon Adventure and getting stuck with a dysfunctional-relationship drama instead. So there's no "forcing" going on in the first place.
And within the games themselves, well. . .it's interesting (that is, "predictable") that you picked a couple of the most narrowly-focused games in the crop. MLWM and TMW are pretty small-scope, single-scenario games. There are other, more medium-focused games like Dogs in the Vineyard that have a narrowly-focused situation,, but multiple scenarios possible within it. And then there are more wide-open games like Capes or Shadows of Yesterday which are geared toward a certain
kind of play experience but are adaptable to many situations/settings/whatever within that range.
In other words, there's a whole spectrum of Forge/Story/Indie games in terms of scope and focus. You're not gonna pick up My Life With Master unless you want to paly a game about. . .well, Life with Master. But TSoY can be played in a plethora of situations within its setting, or adapted to other settings or you can build your own. Like a lot of roleplaying games. There's a LOT of choice there. And if you're not interested in the particular
quality of play experience it offers, you can play a different game, or tweak it to your liking. I don't think Clinton Nixon is gonna hold a gun to your head. He doesn't really have the time.:cool:
Peace,
-Joel
Wow. Post. Watch a little television. Go to bed and get some sleep. Get up. Go to work. Do a bunch of stuff. Get home. Check the thread, expecting a couple of replies. Find a whole bunch of activity.
That's why I'll be addressing things from several pages back. Sorry if that bothers anyone.
Quote from: droogThis is why a knowledge of 'story' as it applies to prior forms doesn't have a lot to do with roleplaying games as they currently exist.
This is just special pleading.
"Oh, you can't judge the novel by the same standards used for prior forms. They were all communal experiences, whereas people read the novel by themselves. In private. Alone. It's completely different!
"And you can't judge film by those standards either! Actors always appeared before a live audience whose reactions gave them feedback on their performance. Films are made in isolation and only shown to an audience once they're finished. It's completely different!
"And comics! What about comics?! They have their own grammar. If a caption says "Meanwhile..." and the picture shows Batman punching a guy, that's like the predicate and subject of a sentence. It's completely different!"Every medium is different. However, the stories produced in various media can all be evaluated and analysed using the same techniques. If someone wishes to claim that RPGs are a story-telling medium, then the products of RPGs have to stand up to the same criteria.
QuotePlot - generally, an emergent quality (though there is a school that plots before play--see Settembrini's current complaint about Paizo).
On the other hand, it could be argued that character is simply an emergent quality of plot. If I'm doing a story about a pair of lovers who encounter a series of obstacles to their relationship and who overcome them to finally be together. Obviously, at least one of the characters will need to be dogged (to overcome the obstacles), faithful (so they don't just abandon the whole thing and find some other partner) and loveable (so the audience will accept the relationship). All these qualities just came out of the requirements of the plot.
People have been discussing stories, what they are and how they work, for over two thousand years. Actually, they've probably been discussing them even longer, but we only have records of their discussions going back a bit over two thousand years. During that time, various approaches and schools of thought have emerged.
Among these are what might broadly be called a plot-centred school and a character-centred school. The plot-centred school was most dominant in the first half of the twentieth century, up until the Second World War. The character-centred approach has been dominant from around 1970 on, with the 1950s and '60s being an interesting transition.
For various reasons, these two schools tend to be somewhat antagonistic. Lajos Egri's book
The Art of Dramatic Writing is part of the character-centred school and was written, in part, as a reaction to the plot-centred approach that dominated at the time (1942, revised 1946). As far as I can tell, Ron Edwards read Egri's book and took the whole character-centred approach on board without any awareness that there were alternate points of view. Or that some of Egri's claims and arguments are best understood in terms of a larger tradition.
From there, this rather limited attitude has spread far and wide through the Forge and all the fans and promoters of "indie" games. After a while the lack of any deeper knowledge just gets to be a bit annoying.
Sometimes plot is an emergent quality and sometimes character is an emergent quality and sometimes both are subordinate to something else. I mean, I suppose some people might read P. G. Wodehouse for the plot and characters, but I read his work almost entirely for the language. The guy just wrote really funny, witty and clever prose. As far as I can tell, most people read him for that reason.
QuoteIt's my understanding that most of these ideal elements are optional and debatable at this late stage of history, in any case. Aristotle was writing a long time ago.
And with an attitude like that it's unlikely that the lack of knowledge is going to change anytime in the foreseeable future.
I think we need to sort out some of the different issues here:
- Not everybody wishes to play RPGs to create a 'story' (whatever that is exactly but bear with me). Some people, of an unspecified number, do. Their preferences would appear to be as worthy of respect as anybody's.
- A sports game can of course create a story, or be part of an ongoing saga. That's doesn't seem to support the point that roleplaying games cannot produce a story; in fact, it appears to contradict it.
- A roleplaying game may not produce a story that will survive the centuries and be remembered by the generations, but then again, it doesn't have to. It lives in the moment of its creation and in the memory of those who create it.
- For those who do want to do 'story', there are different techniques for doing so. New ones are most likely going to continue to appear.
- Some of these techniques are private, some are transmitted orally, and some are embedded in games. There is certainly room for debate as to which technique, techniques or combination of techniques will work the best.
- There is a great deal of room for debate over what 'story' constitutes in the context of RPGs.
- All of these points are entirely separate from the question of 'indie vs 'trad' games. It's abundantly clear that many people are trying for 'story' using conventional rulesets, and in many cases, achieving it.
Quote from: Zoran BekricThis is just special pleading.
................................................................................
Every medium is different. However, the stories produced in various media can all be evaluated and analysed using the same techniques. If someone wishes to claim that RPGs are a story-telling medium, then the products of RPGs have to stand up to the same criteria.
And here I have to say that my learned colleague Professor Inverarity has raised a valid point in the past. We cannot evaluate all stories in the same way. Why is
Le Morte d'Arthur seldom read by modern audiences, to steal his example?
You simply can't evaluate one medium in exactly the same way as another. Each one is deeply embedded in history and its own particularity, for a start. And the huge difference between an RPG and most other forms is that the RPG is an ephemeral and private affair. They do not have to stand up to any criteria except those of the participants.
In any case, I'm finding your argument to be something along the lines of saying that if you can't write a best-seller at the first go, you shouldn't even try. If somebody can't paint, they can still spend their weekends producing shonky watercolours. They might even get pleasure out of it.
QuotePeople have been discussing stories, what they are and how they work, for over two thousand years. Actually, they've probably been discussing them even longer, but we only have records of their discussions going back a bit over two thousand years. During that time, various approaches and schools of thought have emerged.
Precisely, professor.
QuoteFrom there, this rather limited attitude has spread far and wide through the Forge and all the fans and promoters of "indie" games. After a while the lack of any deeper knowledge just gets to be a bit annoying.
Well, that's a separate issue. It's not the same thing as whether or not you can use an RPG to make 'story' or only the simulacrum of 'story'.
Again, maybe you should enter the ring.
QuoteSometimes plot is an emergent quality and sometimes character is an emergent quality and sometimes both are subordinate to something else..
Precisely, professor. And the Forgenik games have so far concentrated greatly on character, because this is one of the basic building blocks of the RPG. Attempts to go plot-first have attracted a great deal of ire: again I reference Settembrini's thread. Still, the other lesson from that discussion appears to be that the method is popular, so I suppose there's no accounting for tastes.
Finally, a small personal anecdote. I asked my wife, who has a degree in scriptwriting (and a couple of awards), and who does not play RPGs as a rule but has participated in the past, whether she thought you could get a story out of an RPG. Her response was "Of course you could. Why wouldn't you? It might not be a
great story, but it's a story."
Quote from: droogFinally, a small personal anecdote. I asked my wife, who has a degree in scriptwriting (and a couple of awards), and who does not play RPGs as a rule but has participated in the past, whether she thought you could get a story out of an RPG. Her response was "Of course you could. Why wouldn't you? It might not be a great story, but it's a story."
You can get a story from any game, sporting event... all sorts of things. That's not the point of those things though. :)
Quote from: StuartYou can get a story from any game, sporting event... all sorts of things. That's not the point of those things though. :)
But it seems pretty clear that a substantial portion of players do think it's the point of an RPG.
Quote from: SethwickIt's been definitely questioned. In fact that was one of the original idea around GNS and the previous version GDS. Only one of them really has anything to do with story.
And this is one thing that really annoys me. Pretty much every RPG has something to do with story.
To suggest that what so-called gamists and simulationists are doing when they play is to ignore that they are involved in a
roleplaying game. A real gamist wouldn't be bothering with RPGs. They'd be off playing poker or chess. A real simulationist would be off building highly detailed dioramas or writing computer programs that model how hair behaves in sea water. A real dramatist would be off writing fan fiction. Or a play. Or a novel. Or pitching their screenplay. The only people who play RPGs are those who are, to a greater or lesser degree, interested in all three elements.
Let's take an example. On the RPGPundit's blog there are a series of biographies of various members of the Legion of Super-Heroes from his on-going LSH game. Now, the Pundit comes across as someone who doesn't approach gaming as a way to tell stories, but to suggest that his LSH campaign doesn't have anything to do with stories -- or, at least, that subset of stories that are about the Legion -- would be ludicrous. Of course the game has something to do with stories, it's just not pretending to be creating stories.
RPGs are very good at emulating certain elements of stories and of producing experiences that are similar to the experience found in reading stories.
What sort of experiences? How about escapism? Some people read/watch stories not because they're interested in plot or character or theme or any of that stuff. They just like to enter into an imaginative world different to their own. That's why some stories turn into series and go on and on. The fans just like entering the world being portrayed. Edgar Rice Burroughs kept writing Martian stories because fans kept wanting to go back and spend some more time on Barsoom. Paramount kept turning out
Star Trek shows because fans wanted to keep spending time in that fictional universe. People buy things like
The Atlas of Pern (http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Pern-Karen-Wynn-Fonstad/dp/0345314344) or
The Dune Encyclopedia (http://www.amazon.com/Dune-Encyclopedia-Authorized-Masterpiece-Imagination/dp/0425068137) because they want to spend more time in those worlds. Can RPGs do escapism? As far as I can tell, it's what they're best at, it's their primary appeal.
Some people may be interested in other aspects of the story experience and want games that cater to those interests. Fair enough. I like mystery and detective stories and what I most look for in a RPG is for an opportunity to investigate and solve a satisfying puzzle. I like games that emulate that aspect of those stories. However, just because a game may reproduce that part of the experience and satisfaction of reading a good Ellery Queen novel doesn't mean I've ever suffered from the delusion that what we were doing around the table was producing the equivalent of a mystery story.
All RPGs are connected to stories, I just don't think they're a way of creating stories.
And I really resent it when people imply that what I'm doing when I play has nothing to do with story. Trying to claim that only "narrativism" has something to do with story is just arrogant and offensive.
Quote from: droogBut it seems pretty clear that a substantial portion of players do think it's the point of an RPG.
Yes indeed.
Quote from: Zoran BekricAll RPGs are connected to stories, I just don't think they're a way of creating stories.
And I really resent it when people imply that what I'm doing when I play has nothing to do with story. Trying to claim that only "narrativism" has something to do with story is just arrogant and offensive.
Here here!
Quote from: droogAnd here I have to say that my learned colleague Professor Inverarity has raised a valid point in the past. We cannot evaluate all stories in the same way. Why is Le Morte d'Arthur seldom read by modern audiences, to steal his example?
Because fashions change. Why don't women wear bustles and men codpieces any more? Why did the hat disappear as an item of standard, everyday wear? Whatever happened to the toga? Why isn't disco all the rage anymore?
Fashions change.
However,
Le Morte d'Arthur has never stopped being a story.
QuoteYou simply can't evaluate one medium in exactly the same way as another. Each one is deeply embedded in history and its own particularity, for a start. And the huge difference between an RPG and most other forms is that the RPG is an ephemeral and private affair. They do not have to stand up to any criteria except those of the participants.
Like I said, special pleading.
QuoteWell, that's a separate issue. It's not the same thing as whether or not you can use an RPG to make 'story' or only the simulacrum of 'story'.
I never said that a RPG could create only the simulacrum of a "story", I said a RPG could reproduce certain selected features of stories. Different thing.
QuoteFinally, a small personal anecdote. I asked my wife, who has a degree in scriptwriting (and a couple of awards), and who does not play RPGs as a rule but has participated in the past, whether she thought you could get a story out of an RPG. Her response was "Of course you could. Why wouldn't you? It might not be a great story, but it's a story."
Well, of course she could. A competent scriptwriter could turn pretty much anything into a story and, since you say your wife has a degree and has won a couple of awards, I assume she's competent.
However, the question isn't "could you get a story out of what happens in a RPG?" I believe that's what's known in Forge parlance as "story after". The claim is that RPGs can produce "story now", that is that the raw product of a game session is a story. Would your wife take the raw transcript of a game session, remove any extraneous chatter, and submit it as a script? If not, why not?
My personal anecdote: I was once involved with someone who tried that very experiment. They figured it would be a great way of not having to pay those greedy scriptwriters. Didn't quite work out the way he hoped.
Hey, there's a Hollywood writers' strike happening currently. Why don't all the story-gamers try to take advantage of it? Technically, what they're doing isn't writing, so they won't be breaking guild rules, but if the products of their games are "stories", then the studios will be able to use them to fill the drought. And, who knows, the studios may decide they prefer employing story-gamers instead of writers, so this could be the beginning of a fairly lucrative career for them. If your wife has participated in RPGs in the past, she could use that experience to get in on the ground floor of this.
Quote from: Zoran BekricLike I said, special pleading.
Only to the extent that it's special pleading for every form. Epic poetry isn't the same as a modern novel. You're underplaying those differences but they're real
QuoteHowever, the question isn't "could you get a story out of what happens in a RPG?" I believe that's what's known in Forge parlance as "story after". The claim is that RPGs can produce "story now", that is that the raw product of a game session is a story. Would your wife take the raw transcript of a game session, remove any extraneous chatter, and submit it as a script? If not, why not?
I don't know. She might, if she was still interested in doing scriptwriting.
Maybe your friend had crap roleplaying sessions, or didn't know how to adapt something from one form into another.
QuoteHey, there's a Hollywood writers' strike happening currently. Why don't all the story-gamers try to take advantage of it?
Once again, you're measuring by the wrong yardstick. The very form of RPGs is going to mean that stories are pretty personal, and meaningful mainly to those playing. Could be a great story for those at the table without being something for others.
Quote from: MelinglorOh, brother. Yeah, I'm real bent out of shape, all right. I'm just hysterical with terror and rage because Sethy's about to blow my cover. Oops, I mean our cover. We are Forge. Resistance is futile.
That was fun, but really. . .that was pretty weak sauce. It's a nice illustration of how one just can't win with you,though. . .agree with someone whose position you oppose and I'm e a mindless cultist. DISAGREE with someone who's position you oppose. .and I'm trying to COVER UP THE TRUTH!! zomg!!!1 :haw:
No, if you actually disagreed with him, that'd be admirable. The point is that you are trying to pretend that a VAST NUMBER of Forgies don't feel the way he does. Your whole statements on here aren't about disagreeing with him, they're about damage control, going out of your way to claim "this man doesn't speak for us, he's a lone nut"; except that like closeted republicans in airport bathrooms, you guys sure have a whole fucking lot of these "lone nuts" that occasionally let slip their contempt for regular roleplayers and their desire to impose themselves on regular RPGs as a hobby (including your Dear Leader Ron Edwards).
RPGPundit
Quote from: droogBut it seems pretty clear that a substantial portion of players do think it's the point of an RPG.
No real roleplayer I've ever met.
RPGPundit
No true Scotsman wears underpants, either.
Quote from: Zoran BekricAll RPGs are connected to stories, I just don't think they're a way of creating stories.
And I really resent it when people imply that what I'm doing when I play has nothing to do with story. Trying to claim that only "narrativism" has something to do with story is just arrogant and offensive.
Yes, there are two interconnected issues here: first, it is to elevate story to the "central purpose" of RPGs, and second is the claim that only this imaginary thing you call "narrativism" can tell story.
So you do those things in combination, and bingo, you've got a pretentious elitist method of feeling superior to everyone around you.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundita VAST NUMBER of Forgies
There aren't a vast number of Forge-based gamers, let alone a significant number of them that agree on anything.
Quote from: Levi KornelsenThere aren't a vast number of Forge-based gamers, let alone a significant number of them that agree on anything.
Take vast as a percentage, then. Because out of all the Forgies I've run into, a huge majority (with only a couple of notable exceptions) feel exactly the way this guy does, where they believe in their hearts that what they're doing is intellectually superior to that of the "unwashed masses" and that the Forge crusade should penetrate and infect regular roleplaying and impose itself on those "ignorant" regular roleplayers "for their own good" so they can "be guided" to the superior forge play.
And you see this over and over again, when they slip up, speaking in situations where they think no one from the "unwashed" is looking.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditBecause out of all the Forgies I've run into
A lovely self-selecting sample if there ever was one.
You've been railing against, at most, a hundred actual gaming snobs, making "us vs. them" noises and screaming how much you hate everyone even associated with them, how they are infectious and evil and part of a crusade.
For several
years you've been doing this.
What a waste of time.
You've got to admit, though, Levi, it's not a bad marketing technique.
Quote from: droogOnce again, you're measuring by the wrong yardstick. The very form of RPGs is going to mean that stories are pretty personal, and meaningful mainly to those playing. Could be a great story for those at the table without being something for others.
They don't have to be personal stories at all. The reason they are enjoyable to people at the table but generally not other people isn't the quality of the story -- it has more to do with the immersive world / immersive trance, and the players feeling ownership for the story created through gameplay.
Quote from: droogYou've got to admit, though, Levi, it's not a bad marketing technique.
*Shrug*
Hate gets the responses, and the attention, sure. But it doesn't
go anywhere with that, and there are pretty severe limits to what can be learned from it and with it.
Quote from: StuartThey don't have to be personal stories at all. The reason they are enjoyable to people at the table but generally not other people isn't the quality of the story -- it has more to do with the immersive world / immersive trance, and the players feeling ownership for the story created through gameplay.
Big can of worms there. But we're agreed that the story created can be good for the players without being anything special for others, right? And that that arises from the unique form of the RPG?
Quote from: DroogBig can of worms there. But we're agreed that the story created can be good for the players without being anything special for others, right? And that that arises from the unique form of the RPG?
The experience of the game can be good for the players without being special for other people watching it. The story of the gameplay has the potential to be as special to the players as the story of many other games you might have been involved.
My friend and I used to play the RAGE CCG -- it's kinda-sorta like Magic, but White Wolf Werewolf Fightin' with lots of special powers, attacks, items, and locations. We hated the collectible aspect of the game though, and started drawing from the same deck. We also started narrating what happened "in the game" when you drew a new card (gain a power, get an ally, find an item) or as the result of the voting or combat in the game. This produced stories VERY much in the same way that RPGs produce stories. Since it had all the trappings of an RPG (Vampire/Werewolf) in a lot of ways the STORY created was actually better than the RPG, because it moved faster, involved more abstract elements, locations, and characters.
We enjoyed the gameplay, and the stories created by that gameplay. Were they "Great" stories? Of course not. But they were certainly on par with RPG stories.
What that gameplay DIDN'T have that RPGs did wasn't anything about the story -- it was the immersive world / immersive trance, and a different set of game decisions to make.
Quote from: droogMaybe your friend had crap roleplaying sessions, or didn't know how to adapt something from one form into another.
Or, maybe, the raw material just wasn't a story.
Maybe he should have tried trawling through fan fic sites.
QuoteOnce again, you're measuring by the wrong yardstick. The very form of RPGs is going to mean that stories are pretty personal, and meaningful mainly to those playing. Could be a great story for those at the table without being something for others.
I'm sorry, but in the interview (http://theoryfromthecloset.com/2007/05/14/show008-interview-with-ron-edwards/) Stuart linked to (back in post #187), Ron Edwards defined story as "Story is a fictional situation
that engages an audience and...
resolves." (Emphasis added, kinda; some of it's an interpretation of how he said it.)
Note the "engages an audience" part. An audience being someone other than the creator(s). If the "story" produced by a RPGs is incapable of engaging an audience, then it isn't a story. By Edward's own definition.
(That interview ran for just under a hundred minutes and I listened to the whole thing. Like the saying goes: I suffered for my art; now it's your turn... to suffer for my art.)
I will, however, point out that some groups are pod-casting their gaming sessions. I believe Yog-Sothoth.com (http://www.yog-sothoth.com/index.php) is one that features such pod-casts of
Call of Cthulhu games. I don't know how many people listen, but to the extent that anyone does, I'd say they have a better claim to producing RPG stories than anything that's come out of the Forge or related story-games so far.
Quote from: Zoran BekricI will, however, point out that some groups are pod-casting their gaming sessions. I believe Yog-Sothoth.com is one that features such pod-casts of Call of Cthulhu games. I don't know how many people listen, but to the extent that anyone does, I'd say they have a better claim to producing RPG stories than anything that's come out of the Forge or related story-games so far.
I listened to a few episodes of HAL and his group at RPGMP3 run through the Bannewarrens (Ptolus) and the Sunless Citadel (D&D 3.0 intro module). Sure there's a "story" but it's certainly not "good" -- but that's not what made the episodes interesting (at times) to listen to. It was much more that some
scenes were entertaining. Usually when the players were debating some point in character. The player with the chaotic character trying to reason out why it was OK for them to steal something so the player with the lawful character would feel like they could go along with it was often very amusing. That had very little to do with the story itself, which in retrospect was actually pretty disjointed and ended with all the player characters dying.
It's also worth reiterating that listening to ACTUAL play is very different from reading an "Actual Play" report.
Quote from: droogBut we're agreed that the story created can be good for the players without being anything special for others, right? And that that arises from the unique form of the RPG?
A couple or weeks ago one of the regular players to the game I'm currently involved in couldn't make it and rather than play without him, I dug out my old copy of
Nuclear War (http://www.flyingbuffalo.com/nucwar.htm) and we played that instead. We had a blast! It was really good for us, but I doubt it would have been anything special for others. Does that mean
Nuclear War is a way of producing stories?
It's the nature of games to be enjoyable for those participating. Well, of good games. Those that aren't enjoyable don't survive all that long. Being enjoyable for the participants is not a sign that what you're producing is a "story". It's only a sign that it's enjoyable for the participants.
Quote from: StuartIt was much more that some scenes were entertaining. Usually when the players were debating some point in character.
Well, I haven't listened to any of the podcasts. I prefer things like Decoder Ring Theatre (http://decoderring.libsyn.com/), which emulate the style of old time radio drama. However, I know that half the fun of a RPG session often has very little to do with the adventure being played.
QuoteIt's also worth reiterating that listening to ACTUAL play is very different from reading an "Actual Play" report.
Indeed.
Quote from: Zoran BekricI'm sorry, but in the interview (http://theoryfromthecloset.com/2007/05/14/show008-interview-with-ron-edwards/) Stuart linked to (back in post #187), Ron Edwards defined story as "Story is a fictional situation that engages an audience and... resolves." (Emphasis added, kinda; some of it's an interpretation of how he said it.)
Note the "engages an audience" part. An audience being someone other than the creator(s). If the "story" produced by a RPGs is incapable of engaging an audience, then it isn't a story. By Edward's own definition.
Now, that's a pretty lame argument. What does it actually matter what Ron Edwards thinks? You appear to be confusing two separate issues. The first is whether RPGs are a form that can be a storytelling medium. The second is whether Forge games are better at doing this.
Quote from: Zoran BekricA couple or weeks ago one of the regular players to the game I'm currently involved in couldn't make it and rather than play without him, I dug out my old copy of Nuclear War (http://www.flyingbuffalo.com/nucwar.htm) and we played that instead. We had a blast! It was really good for us, but I doubt it would have been anything special for others. Does that mean Nuclear War is a way of producing stories?
Now you're getting desperate.
Quote from: StuartWhat that gameplay DIDN'T have that RPGs did wasn't anything about the story -- it was the immersive world / immersive trance, and a different set of game decisions to make.
Like I said, big can of worms.
Quote from: droogLike I said, big can of worms.
A man may fish with the worm that hath eat of a king, and eat of the fish that hath fed of that worm.
:haw:
Quote from: StuartThey don't have to be personal stories at all.
To creeps like Vincent Baker and Ron Edwards, narrativist games are definitely about personal stories - mainly their preoccupation with abuse and power struggles. Baker himself admitted that he sees RPGs as drama therapy. And really, if the story you're crafting isn't really a very good story, and it has to be about something intimately personal, then it's simply drama therapy and not some brave and sophisticated new genre of fiction. It's the difference between John Lennon and Yoko Ono screaming and wailing into a tape recorder, and Lennon's pre-acid-meltdown output of carefully crafted pop songs.
Quote from: StuartThe reason they are enjoyable to people at the table but generally not other people isn't the quality of the story -- it has more to do with the immersive world / immersive trance, and the players feeling ownership for the story created through gameplay.
Precisely. But the forgites are so obsessed with character, premise, and therapeutic roleplaying that they don't really understand immersion in a game world. It's all about empowerment and emotional catharsis for those flakes.
Quote from: droogNow, that's a pretty lame argument. What does it actually matter what Ron Edwards thinks?
Well, I quote it because I happen to agree with him. Stories are about engaging an audience. If you're not engaging an audience, or trying to engage an audience, whatever you're doing, it's not telling a story.
Ron Edwards just happens to be right in this instance.
QuoteYou appear to be confusing two separate issues. The first is whether RPGs are a form that can be a storytelling medium. The second is whether Forge games are better at doing this.
Actually, I'm using the second issue to test the first. If games are capable of producing stories, then presumably those Forge games dedicated to producing stories would be the ones to do it. If they fail, then the earlier issue would seem to be answered in the negative.
However, nothing you've written so far suggests that the products of a RPG session is anything other than a reproduction of certain aspects of the story experience.
QuoteNow you're getting desperate.
No, just pointing out the limits of your claim.
If a RPG session can be a "story" because it "can be good for the players without being anything special for others", then why not a session of some other type of game that meets the same criteria? It's up to you to explain why your criteria apply only to RPGs and not to other types of games.
Quote from: StuartA man may fish with the worm that hath eat of a king, and eat of the fish that hath fed of that worm.
That's cosmic, man.
Quote from: Zoran BekricI prefer things like Decoder Ring Theatre (http://decoderring.libsyn.com/), which emulate the style of old time radio drama.
:win: YES!:win:
A man of taste.
Quote from: droogThat's cosmic, man.
Oh, it's better than that (http://www.bartleby.com/46/2/43.html#txt2). :)
Quote from: Zoran BekricActually, I'm using the second issue to test the first. If games are capable of producing stories, then presumably those Forge games dedicated to producing stories would be the ones to do it. If they fail, then the earlier issue would seem to be answered in the negative.
Completely circular. Just because Forge games (and not all, I might add) are labelled 'Story Now' doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to live up to that. But whether a certain design philosophy does or does not achieve what it wants to doesn't prove anything for the general case. Leonardo's flying machine not working didn't mean heavier-than-air flight was impossible.
QuoteIf a RPG session can be a "story" because it "can be good for the players without being anything special for others", then why not a session of some other type of game that meets the same criteria? It's up to you to explain why your criteria apply only to RPGs and not to other types of games.
I'm not so sure about that. I think, in the face of many gamers who do claim to want 'story' out of their games (and claim to have achieved it), it's up to you to demonstrate why they're wrong.
QuoteHowever, nothing you've written so far suggests that the products of a RPG session is anything other than a reproduction of certain aspects of the story experience.
I don't know about that either. You gave a list of elements--not all of which are present in all stories--and I gave a run-down of how they might be applied to RPGs.
If you're going to try these sorts of debating tactics--taking isolated quotes out of context, for example--we're done here. Your last paragraph there is reeking of bad faith.
Quote from: Levi KornelsenA lovely self-selecting sample if there ever was one.
You've been railing against, at most, a hundred actual gaming snobs, making "us vs. them" noises and screaming how much you hate everyone even associated with them, how they are infectious and evil and part of a crusade.
For several years you've been doing this.
What a waste of time.
As you just pointed out, if there's "a hundred actual gaming snobs" among the storygames movement, that'd pretty well be a majority, or at least a very sizeable percentage, wouldn't it?
Also, the elites who determine what is "cool" in the Forge/Storygames movement (the ones who decide what classifies as "indie" or not, and who all the lesser humanoids in their forums listen to with bended knee hanging on their every word to find out which games have the seal of approval) are the worst offenders, the ones who show the most contempt for regular roleplayers. So it isn't just a question of quantity, its also a question of who influences and directs the "movement".
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditAs you just pointed out, if there's "a hundred actual gaming snobs" among the storygames movement, that'd pretty well be a majority, or at least a very sizeable percentage, wouldn't it?
The Forge has 5500-and-change members. In general, on a webforum, 1/5 to 1/10 of the listed "members" are actual posters of any real activity. I don't know the stats on Story-Games (not sure if they're shown anywhere).
So, let's go with a lowball estimate. 700 people, total, active on those forums and on related sites. Say that there are a hundred gaming snobs there. That's one person in seven.
Which is neither here nor there, really. The point is that your whole "war on Forge Swine" is a grudge match directed at a relatively small group of people whose primary offense is talking crap on the internet in a way that rubs you wrong.
I mean, really. That's worth years of bluster?
Quote from: RPGPunditSo it isn't just a question of quantity, its also a question of who influences and directs the "movement".
Do they get uniforms? When they meet, do they all wear black cowls and robes to disguise their identities?
You probably should lay off the question above, Pundie. Remember what happened to the last journalist who went snooping around too deeply behind the scenes at The Forge?
Quote from: Levi KornelsenThe Forge has 5500-and-change members. In general, on a webforum, 1/5 to 1/10 of the listed "members" are actual posters of any real activity. I don't know the stats on Story-Games (not sure if they're shown anywhere).
The Forge has been around a long time, and has lots a lot of accounts that haven't been used in years. I can't tell how recently they were online, but there are 620 members at the Forge who have made more than 50 posts.
Let's look at Storygames, which is where most of the current "scene" is.
There are 1310 registered members on Story Games.
721 members have made more than a single post.
288 members have made more than 50 posts.
In that top group of 288 members you also have people like me (#134) which means that's less than 288 "Storygamers" actively participating.
We're arguing about a number that Levi just pulled out of his ass to make a more general point. One more reason you need to drop your crusade Pundit. Once you get on this line of argument, you start debating like a sophist, arguing over stupid details, snagging tossed-out lines as some signifiant evidence against someone's argument. It brings down the level of discourse.
But really, I should stop feeding the troll. Sorry.
Quote from: walkerpWe're arguing about a number that Levi just pulled out of his ass to make a more general point.
Not even a particularly good point, to be honest. The total amount of elitism I've seen out of Forge-based posters isn't even
remotely close to the level of it I've listened to from Pundit.
I reopened a debate about splinters in the eye with someone carrying around a plank.
I can only conclude that I must be blockhead.
And, possibly, that my sense of humor is wooden.
Quote from: Levi KornelsenNot even a particularly good point, to be honest. The total amount of elitism I've seen out of Forge-based posters isn't even remotely close to the level of it I've listened to from Pundit.
I thought we'd established that "The Pundit" was a persona and not the same as the author of "The Pundit". He's said his persona is deliberately over the top. That he comes across as
more elitist than Forge-based posters doesn't really say much.
:shrug:
Quote from: StuartI thought we'd established that "The Pundit" was a persona and not the same as the author of "The Pundit".
Yep, sure is.
But, in the context of this board... so what?
It's the persona that I have to deal with when I engage with him here.
Quote from: RPGPunditNo, if you actually disagreed with him, that'd be admirable. The point is that you are trying to pretend that a VAST NUMBER of Forgies don't feel the way he does. Your whole statements on here aren't about disagreeing with him, they're about damage control, going out of your way to claim "this man doesn't speak for us, he's a lone nut"; ETC ETC. . .
Well, clearly there's no way on this forum to say "I disagree with Sethwick" and have you take me to mean, "I disagree with Sethwick." Oh well.
Quote from: Levi KornelsenThere aren't a vast number of Forge-based gamers, let alone a significant number of them that agree on anything.
WORD.
Peace,
-Joel
Quote from: StuartThe Forge has been around a long time, and has lots a lot of accounts that haven't been used in years. I can't tell how recently they were online, but there are 620 members at the Forge who have made more than 50 posts.
My account is still active, but I only reached 36 posts during my brief time there.
Quote from: Levi KornelsenWhich is neither here nor there, really. The point is that your whole "war on Forge Swine" is a grudge match directed at a relatively small group of people whose primary offense is talking crap on the internet in a way that rubs you wrong.
I mean, really. That's worth years of bluster?
Hell yes, if these people are trying to subvert and ruin the regular RPG fora, and even trying to influence and subvert regular RPG design.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditHell yes, if these people are trying to subvert and ruin the regular RPG fora, and even trying to influence and subvert regular RPG design.
RPGPundit
Based on what some people are saying....they've already done that.
4th edition D&D anyone?
Quote from: droogCompletely circular. Just because Forge games (and not all, I might add) are labelled 'Story Now' doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to live up to that. But whether a certain design philosophy does or does not achieve what it wants to doesn't prove anything for the general case. Leonardo's flying machine not working didn't mean heavier-than-air flight was impossible.
(...)
I'm not so sure about that. I think, in the face of many gamers who do claim to want 'story' out of their games (and claim to have achieved it), it's up to you to demonstrate why they're wrong.
Not even remotely circular.
Here's how it works:
- It's impossible to prove a negative. As you point out, it doesn't matter how many RPGs fail to create a story, it's always possible that some new game or session will create one. A potentially infinite number of failures will not demonstrate that something doesn't exist.
If someone claims that a magic elf named "Santa Claus" lives at the North Pole, then it doesn't matter how often or how carefully one scours the North Pole looking for and fails to find him, it's always possible that one missed him.
.
- Given 1 above, it's up to those making a claim to demonstrate that it's the case. This has the advantage that only a single instance need be produced. If someone can produce a story created through a RPG session, it demonstrates that RPGs can create stories. Doesn't matter how many other failures there were, that single instance shows that RPGs can create a story.
Similarly, if someone locates Santa Claus at the North Pole, it doesn't matter how many other people failed to find him, he's obviously there.
.
- Someone deliberately looking for something is more likely to find it. As far as I can tell, the Forge and Story-Games have deliberately set out to do 2 above. They will demonstrate that RPGs can create stories by producing at least one RPG that creates a genuine, full-fledged story.
Of course, we could ignore their efforts and just assume that someone will stumble across the required demonstration by accident. Such things do happen. But any such accidental discovery is likely to be reported at the Forge or Story-Games and trumpeted far and wide as the required evidence that RPGs can create stories.
So, keeping an eye on those fora, waiting for them to announce that they have produced the required evidence seems a perfectly reasonable way to approach the question. Especially since I'm willing to allow them any number of failures before they produce that evidence.
And, of course, once the claim has been independently verified -- that is someone unconnected to the original group manages to also produce a story using the techniques described by the original group -- this whole discussion will become moot.
Similarly, if someone announces that they have found Santa Clause at the North Pole and someone else confirms it, I will accept that there is a magic elf living at the North Pole -- as I believe will most people under those circumstances.
The ball is entirely in the court of those claiming that RPGs are a way of creating stories. I'm willing to examine any evidence they provide, but I'm not going to accept unsupported ascertions.
However, I will amend my statement to:
"If games are capable of producing stories, then presumably those Forge games dedicated to producing stories would be the ones to do it. If they fail, then the earlier issue would seem to be answered in the negative so far."Not sure what else you could reasonably expect someone to do.
QuoteIf you're going to try these sorts of debating tactics--taking isolated quotes out of context, for example--we're done here. Your last paragraph there is reeking of bad faith.
I'm not debating. I'm seeking information that will settle the question. I am using what I know about various fallacies and rhetorical techniques to avoid falling for spurious arguments, but I am perfectly willing to be convinced by a valid argument.
Exactly which quote did I take out of context?
If it's the one from Ron Edwards, I will point out that it's the only definition of "story" that's been provided. Definitions are important because it prevents people from talking past each other. If what I mean by "story" is different from what you mean by the term, then the entire disagreement may turn out to be no more than a difference in definition. If we reach a mutually satisfactory definition of the term, then at least we both know we're talking about the same thing.
By adopting Edward's definition I was being quite reasonable. I think there's a bit more to "story" than what he said, but I'm willing to take his definition as a minimal requirement. If the examples you provide don't even meet that minimal definition, then you have two options:
- Admit that the examples aren't stories; or
- Provide a new definition which
[LIST=i]
- does cover your examples; and
- is equally acceptable to others involved in the discussion.
[/LIST]
As for "bad faith", allow me to suggest that your attempts at mind-reading --
"I think Zoran is questioning whether RPGs have anything whatsoever to do with 'story', independent of GNS or GDS." (post #216) -- and attempts to transfrom the discussion into a personal conflict --
"Sorry, but I'm not dancing to your tune." (post #210) -- are much stronger signs of bad faith than anything I've done.
If you want to treat this as a fight rather than a discussion, I'm more than happy to drop it. I have no interest in debating you.
Well, Zoran, follow the link to the RPG.net discussion and you'll find a story that came out of a game. But I fail to see how it will convince you. I could have made it up, after all.
I say 'bad faith' because you are picking portions of what I say and not responding to other portions.
Quote from: Zoran BekricThey will demonstrate that RPGs can create stories by producing at least one RPG that creates a genuine, full-fledged story.
Of course, we could ignore their efforts and just assume that someone will stumble across the required demonstration by accident. Such things do happen. But any such accidental discovery is likely to be reported at the Forge or Story-Games and trumpeted far and wide as the required evidence that RPGs can create stories.
I doubt it, because it's pretty much taken for granted at those forums that RPGs can and do produce story.
What is a 'genuine, full-fledged' story? Is it a story that will get you a gig in Hollywood? I don't think I've seen one of those, no. But then, I don't think I know a writer who's written such a story (and I know several writers).
QuoteIf a RPG session can be a "story" because it "can be good for the players without being anything special for others", then why not a session of some other type of game that meets the same criteria?
Because other types of games do not feature people sitting around making up fiction about characters.
You give Ron Edwards' definition:
QuoteStory is a fictional situation that engages an audience and... resolves.
Personally, I'm not going to listen to that whole interview again to check whether you've got that right. But I fail to see why you are so adamant that RPG sessions can't produce, either during or after the fact, a story by this definition.
You are going to have to answer my point, which you've either ignored or overlooked, that a story doesn't have to be a
great story. Are you really arguing that no story that fails to get published is a story? Because I'm finding your position a bit difficult to understand.
You are going to have to answer my point that the RPG represents a new form in which the author and audience are coterminous. Because certainly this audience have been engaged at many times in my life in roleplaying. As it happens, I have also seen an audience that was not the authors being engaged, but I, unlike you, don't think that's part of the definition of a story.
EDIT: Nah, nevermind.
Quote from: droogI doubt it, because it's pretty much taken for granted at those forums that RPGs can and do produce story.
What is a 'genuine, full-fledged' story? Is it a story that will get you a gig in Hollywood?
The fact that in Japan there are book shelves full of "replays (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Record_of_Lodoss_War#Replays)" (= transcripts of RPG sessions)
that are read even by a non-gamer audience makes the discussion whether RPGs can or cannot produce genuine stories moot.
The anime Record of Lodoss War (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100044/) is a direct result of those replays.
Alas, Dirk, now you are terrribly muddying the waters.
AFAIK, these replays aren´t transcripts. They are more like story-hours on ENWorld, no?
It´s like the World Championship compared to "Deutschland - Ein Sommermärchen". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutschland._Ein_Sommerm%C3%A4rchen)
Only even less so, as I doubt dice rolls are described in a dramatic fashion in those replays.
Quote from: droogWell, Zoran, follow the link to the RPG.net discussion and you'll find a story that came out of a game. But I fail to see how it will convince you. I could have made it up, after all.
Stories can come out of a game. Just about any game.
The raw gameplay itself only becomes a Literary / "Good" / Complete story with some revision and editing.
I think it's the difference between "Story NOW" and "Story After".
Quote from: droogBecause other types of games do not feature people sitting around making up fiction about characters.
Yes the do. I gave an example of a CCG where this happened. Actually, most wargames (even abstract ones like Risk) usually have people making up fiction about what's happening in the game.
Kramer: "You know what the Ukraine is? It's a sitting duck. A road apple, Newman. The Ukraine is weak. It's feeble. I think it's time to put the hurt on the Ukraine."
I played with a couple of guys who would *always* play Germany and England in Risk, and as they'd have a couple of drinks there would be LOTS of fiction about the generals of these two nations at war. Lots of borderline larping. Sometimes borderline brawling. :D
There are lots of boardgames where you control a single "character" and the gameplay builds up a fictional narrative about them.
Quote from: StuartStories can come out of a game. Just about any game.
The raw gameplay itself only becomes a Literary / "Good" / Complete story with some revision and editing.
I think it's the difference between "Story NOW" and "Story After".
Yes, it is (I wonder if that gets the thead moved). That depends heavily on whether you accept the idea of 'Story Now', of course.
My little story follows closely the play of the game. The play was longer than the story and more dramatic (the written record is only the shadow of what happened in the game). I hold that we constructed a story on the fly, which engaged us as audience while it was being constructed.
Quote from: StuartThere are lots of boardgames where you control a single "character" and the gameplay builds up a fictional narrative about them.
Proto-roleplaying, surely. And evidence of the urge to create narrative. But not evidence to say "this doesn't happen in an RPG."
Quote from: droogI hold that we constructed a story on the fly, which engaged us as audience while it was being constructed.
Since it engaged you WHILE it was being created, it couldn't simply be that it being a "good" / literary /
concluding story was what you found engaging. If you had stopped half-way and walked away from the table you would still have found it engaging -- even though it wasn't a full story because it had no ending.
So it was something else that engaged you in the narrative besides it being a "good" / literary / concluding story. For a lot of people I think that something else is narrative immersion.
Quote from: droogProto-roleplaying, surely. And evidence of the urge to create narrative. But not evidence to say "this doesn't happen in an RPG."
It happens in all games. Even sports.
Quote from: Zoran Bekric- It's impossible to prove a negative.
Gah! People always say this, and it's always irritating. Proof by contradiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction) is real and it works, people.
Quote from: StuartSince it engaged you WHILE it was being created, it couldn't simply be that it being a "good" / literary / concluding story was what you found engaging. If you had stopped half-way and walked away from the table you would still have found it engaging -- even though it wasn't a full story because it had no ending.
Well, it may have been, but it wouldn't have been as satisfying. Anyway, I can walk away from a book or movie half-way through, too.
Quote from: SettembriniAlas, Dirk, now you are terrribly muddying the waters.
AFAIK, these replays aren´t transcripts. They are more like story-hours on ENWorld, no?
Here (http://t-walker.jp/mugefan/html/rr_trpg/replay/replay_01_01_07.html#head) is an example of a replay.
There are
also novelizations of replays, and
Record of Lodoss War has seen those as well before it became a manga and an OVA.
QuoteIt´s like the World Championship compared to "Deutschland - Ein Sommermärchen". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutschland._Ein_Sommerm%C3%A4rchen)
Only even less so, as I doubt dice rolls are described in a dramatic fashion in those replays.
And why should they? The dice rolls are not part of the story, they are part of the game that produced the story.
The dice rolls are more like the director's audio comment on a DVD - the stuff explaining what happened behind the scene, and the stuff that inevitably pulls the viewer out of the story.
OTOH, when the story/replay is about a bunch of gamers sitting around a table rolling dice, then the dice rolls are an integral part of the story. But even that story would be the result of a game.
(Btw, the linked example
does include dice rolls.)
Quote from: droogWell, it may have been, but it wouldn't have been as satisfying. Anyway, I can walk away from a book or movie half-way through, too.
Exactly! :)
You can watch part of a movie or read a section of a book and find that enjoyable. It's not the entire structure of the narrative that's engaging you. It's narrative immersion. :)
Quote from: Dirk RemmeckeThe anime Record of Lodoss War (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100044/) is a direct result of those replays.
Correct. In fact, I own a replay in the form of a Runequest manga from Comiket. But was Lodoss revised to make it a better story or a straight transcript of everything that happened in the game? Mary Kuhner used to post stories derived from some of the games she played in, and she talked about having to edit things down to make them more story-like.
And I suppose I should also point out that many of those "stories" come from the traditional model of the GM creating the plot and the players playing through it, not from the players trying to collaborate and dynamically create a story without any sort of centralized planning or plotting about where it's going.
The Dragonlance novels were based in large part upon the game sessions from the Dragonlance modules. Characters like Raistlin were in large part based on the player's "performance" during the sessions.
However... the dragonlance modules certainly include a good deal of railroading... so it's more like:
Story > RPG Session > Story+
Quote from: StuartHowever... the dragonlance modules certainly include a good deal of railroading... so it's more like:
Story > RPG Session > Story+
Correct. And I suspect the same is true of many of those Japanese replays.
So the question, I think, is whether one can reliably get:
"Premise" > RPG Session > Good Story
or, at least, whether the latter approach produce a Good Story more reliably and better for most people than the former approach.
Quote from: John MorrowSo the question, I think, is whether one can reliably get:
"Premise" > RPG Session > Good Story
or, at least, whether the latter approach produce a Good Story more reliably and better for most people than the former approach.
I think you'd need to limit the number of people being able to control the story.
You could have an excellent oral storyteller being given a premise, and then starting to tell a story. There could be certain points when the audience can fill in a detail of the story. "And do you know what she met in the forest?" "A Witch!" "A Wolf!" "A Handsome Prince!" The storyteller would be able to continue creating a "good story".
I think where the problem lies is that most people playing a game, RPG or otherwise, aren't really good storytellers. :)
Compound this with a "too many cooks in the kitchen" approach to building the story, and it becomes increasingly unlikely to have a good narrative.
I think it *can* happen, sort of by the same logic as a million monkeys on a million typewriters, but that doesn't change the fact that it's
less suited to creating a good story than it is to doing other things.
Lose the preoccupation with making the quality of the "story" the point of the game, and you're smiling. :)
Quote from: StuartI think you'd need to limit the number of people being able to control the story.
Yes, which is why traditional RPGs have a person who has that job called the GM (or, sometimes, co-GMs).
My earliest role-playing games had no GM because nobody wanted to do it. We just played them the way we played with action figures and toy cars -- each of us ran a collection of characters, we'd make stuff up as we go, and we'd play opponents for each other. I know what that's all about and did it for years as a kid. I consider the single point of control an improvement, because it adds a level of consistency, continuity, unpredictability, and long-term connectivity to the game that's usually lacking in the collaborative approach.
Quote from: StuartI think where the problem lies is that most people playing a game, RPG or otherwise, aren't really good storytellers. :)
I keep imagining seeing a fiction writing book that suggests that you and your friends sit down at a keyboard and all start telling a story together, in one pass, without revision as a way to produce a good story. I think that even professional writers who are good storytellers would fail at that task more often than not.
Quote from: StuartLose the preoccupation with making the quality of the "story" the point of the game, and you're smiling. :)
The reason why I keep raising story quality as an issue is that if the quality of the "story" isn't important, than it suggests that the goal really isn't the "story", per se, but something else. After all, for a player looking for a good challenge, the quality of the challenge matters. And for a player looking for verisimilitude in the game, the quality of the game world is going to matter. But how can one claim that their goal is a "story" and not care about the quality of the "story"? That seems mighty strange to me.
It's interesting that some of the most successful gamer-turned-writers in commercial terms - I think of Raymond Feist and Elizabeth Moon, neither of whom I'm that big a fan of, but still - were players rather than GMs. Brust IIRC was a GM but said he had to give it up to concentrate on writing, as they put the same energies towards different ends.
Quote from: StuartExactly! :)
You can watch part of a movie or read a section of a book and find that enjoyable. It's not the entire structure of the narrative that's engaging you. It's narrative immersion. :)
Well, it might be. It also might be the language or the situation or something else. There might be several reasons I don't finish the book, among them that I don't really care about what happens to the characters. But if I find the story engaging and want to find out what happens, I will surely return to finish it. There's a reason why you get phrases in reviews like 'the ending was a bit weak.'
PS What's with the rash of smileys?
Quote from: droogPS What's with the rash of smileys?
What smileys? :mad:
Okay, been busy for a week. Now I'm back. Let's see where this has gotten to.
Quote from: droogI doubt it, because it's pretty much taken for granted at those forums that RPGs can and do produce story.
Among astrologers it's pretty much taken for granted that the sun rises in the constellation of Aries on the 21st of March each year -- even though anyone who actually looks at the sky on that date will see that it currently rises in Pisces.
Just because something is taken for granted doesn't mean it's true, it just means that it's unquestioned by those taking it for granted.
QuoteWhat is a 'genuine, full-fledged' story? Is it a story that will get you a gig in Hollywood? I don't think I've seen one of those, no. But then, I don't think I know a writer who's written such a story (and I know several writers).
I've been thinking about this the past few days and I think it comes down to definitions.
The first problem is that those saying RPGs produce stories refuse to say what they mean by "story". You said
"You're getting yourself tied in knots over the definition of 'story'." The you pointed me to an RPG.net post of yours and the essay on Narrativism by Ron Edwards, neither of which actually described what is meant by story.
As I said, definitions are important because they stop people from talking past each other. You know, in that bit of my post you chose to ignore and not respond to after accusing me of "bad faith" for not responding to every portion of each of your posts. I suspect that you didn't respond to that portion because you didn't consider it relevant to the discussion. Perhaps I haven't responded to some of the things you've posted for the same reason.
The second problem is the word "story" itself. Up until the 1500s it was not differentiated from
history, both meaning a
record or account of events. This survives in the journalistic sense where newspaper articles and reports on news programs are referred to as "stories".
This usage presents a couple of difficulties. First, most people use the term as a metonym for the events described, not just for the account of those events; thus the big fire is a "story", not just the article about the big fire. If this is the sense in which people are using "story" when talking about RPGs, then RPGs do produce a story -- in the sense that they produce a series of events and any subsequent account of those events will be a story.
The second difficulty is that it's impossible not to produce a "story" under this definition. Any and every series of events becomes a story as soon as someone produces an account of them. RPGs produce stories, but so do card games, board games, sporting events, family outings, celestial phenomena, waiting for a bus -- everything. No matter what happens in a RPG, it's fodder for a potential story. So what's all the fuss about? Gamists produce stories, Simulationists produce stories, everyone produces stories. They can't help doing so. They can't avoid doing so. So separating story out as a goal or distinctive feature of a type of gaming is just pointless.
Also, the whole "story now" idea excludes it, since this sense of story is definitely "story after".
Story is also used in a narrower sense to mean a work of fiction designed to engage an audience. RPGs are clearly related to works of fiction -- novels, films, television shows, comics -- and some people argue that RPGs can tell those type of stories just as well as those other media. This is a much more specific claim than to say RPGs can produce a series of events that can be subsequently related.
I've been gaming since 1981 and I have yet to see a RPG produce a story in this sense. Now, maybe I've just been unlucky, but there it is. I've seen RPG sessions produce plenty of drama, but never an actual story.
This, I suspect, is where our differences lie. By "drama" I mean something that engages the emotions; something exciting or moving or thrilling or suspenseful or scary or inspiring or any other emotion. You find drama in all kinds of things -- life, sports, games. And fiction. Stories are about dramatic events because dramatic events engage the emotions of an audience and that's what stories want to do: engage an audience.
However, there's more to a story than just dramatic events. Dramatic events are to a story as raw stones and precious ore are to jewellery. There's a level of craft involved in cutting and polishing a dramatic event and creating a setting to show it off to best effect. I've yet to see an example of that type of craft come out of a RPG session.
Can someone take a dramatic event or series of dramatic events that occurred in a RPG and craft them into a story? Sure. But if someone says that a RPG produced a story in this sense of "story", I expect something that doesn't need someone to come along latter to add the craft. The craft should already be there; otherwise it ain't a story.
That's what I suspect is going on. However, I can't be sure because various people advocating story-games refuse to discuss what they mean by "story", dismiss definition and shift between the different meanings of "story" as the mood suits them. This makes them come across as shifty and evasive. And makes it difficult to resolve the issue.
Back on usenet in rpg.advocacy the theory was GDS -- for Gamist-Dramatist-Simulationist -- which I think was a lot closer to the mark than GNS. Drama I can see; narrative, no.
QuoteBecause other types of games do not feature people sitting around making up fiction about characters.
But the events of any other type of game can be recounted. That makes them a "story" under the broader definition. If they contain any dramatic events, those events can be crafted into a "story" under the narrower definition.
If you feel that the events of a RPG session have some sort of special quality that distinguishes them from these other types of stories, then please tell me what that quality is.
QuoteYou give Ron Edwards' definition:
QuoteStory is a fictional situation that engages an audience and... resolves.
Personally, I'm not going to listen to that whole interview again to check whether you've got that right. But I fail to see why you are so adamant that RPG sessions can't produce, either during or after the fact, a story by this definition.[/i]
Because it doesn't engage an audience. That's the second of the three elements listed in that definition.
And the definition is presented about a minute-and-a-half into the podcast. It's the answer to the first question asked, so you won't have to listen for too long before you hit it.
QuoteYou are going to have to answer my point, which you've either ignored or overlooked, that a story doesn't have to be a great story. Are you really arguing that no story that fails to get published is a story? Because I'm finding your position a bit difficult to understand.
Okay, a story doesn't need to be
great. It doesn't even need to be
good. -- though being good helps. Up until this post I never said a story had to be anything. I kept hoping you would offer a definition of "story", thus clarifying what you meant by the term.
QuoteYou are going to have to answer my point that the RPG represents a new form in which the author and audience are coterminous. Because certainly this audience have been engaged at many times in my life in roleplaying. As it happens, I have also seen an audience that was not the authors being engaged, but I, unlike you, don't think that's part of the definition of a story.
I have no idea what you think is part of the definition of a "story". You have yet to offer any sort of definition or description.
You say your wife has a degree in scriptwriting. Exactly what did they teach her while she was getting that degree? Because, as far as I can tell, if there's no craft involved in making a story, then the only thing to teach is the correct script format required by different markets -- and, quite frankly, you can get that from a pamphlet. It's only because there is craft involved that it's teachable. And if the product of a RPG fails to display that craft, it's not a story.
As for the notion of the author and audience being coterminous, I believe the technical term for that is "masturbation".
Quote from: Dirk RemmeckeThe fact that in Japan there are book shelves full of "replays (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Record_of_Lodoss_War#Replays)" (= transcripts of RPG sessions) that are read even by a non-gamer audience makes the discussion whether RPGs can or cannot produce genuine stories moot.
Could you point me to an example of one of these "replays"? In English if possible, since I don't read Japanese.
And these are the raw transcript of the play session? Not edited?
Quote from: WarthurGah! People always say this, and it's always irritating. Proof by contradiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction) is real and it works, people.
Only in logic. When dealing with claims about the real world we are, unfortunately, forced to look to the real world for evidence.
After all, it's easy to demonstrate through a
reducto ad absurdum that the
Iliad must be a work of fiction -- it's all about mythological gods and heroes, after all -- so Troy must be legendary. Then that Heinrich Schliemann fellow went and found the place. Bugger about that.
Quote from: Zoran BekricOnly in logic. When dealing with claims about the real world we are, unfortunately, forced to look to the real world for evidence.
True. And in real world science, reducto ad absurdum happens all the time. The Michelson-Morely experiment is a classic example: it was set up based on the assumption that space is permeated with a luminiferous aether, through which light waves propagate. If the luminiferous aether were real, the Michelson-Morely experiment should have detected it. It didn't, and so hammered one more (very important) nail into the coffin of the aether theory in general, and the assumption that classical physics as a model for reality works at any scale you care to look at in general.
Science is filled with instances of people saying "Well, if that theory is correct, then we shouldn't be able to do this, and we can't."
QuoteAfter all, it's easy to demonstrate through a reducto ad absurdum that the Iliad must be a work of fiction -- it's all about mythological gods and heroes, after all -- so Troy must be legendary.
Only if your logic is actually faulty. Through your argument, because we found a place we can (with a certain amount of confidence) call "Troy", everything in the Iliad must be real, gods, monsters, wooden horses and all.
This is a fallacious argument:
- The Iliad claims that Troy exists.
- The Iliad claims that gods existed at the top of Mount Olympus.
- There are no gods at the top of Mount Olympus.
- Therefore, the Iliad is a work of fiction.
- Therefore, the Iliad cannot contain any true statements.
- Therefore, Troy does not exist.
because it contains the logical leap that works of fiction must consist entirely of false statements.
Here is a correct use of reducto ad absurdam:
- Let us assume that the Iliad is an accurate historical account.
- According to the Iliad, the gods lived on Mount Olympus, and threw a big wedding party there.
- If our assumption is correct, we will find the abode of the gods on Mount Olympus.
- There are no signs of gods living on Mount Olympus; furthermore, we can carefully search the mountain and conclude that there is no archaelogical evidence of buildings there large enough to accomodate a large wedding celebration as is described in the Iliad.
- This contradicts the assumption that the Iliad is an accurate historical account.
Here is another one:
- Let us assume that the Iliad is entirely fictional and contains no elements of truth.
- According to the Iliad, there was a city called "Troy" in a particular location.
- If our assumption is correct, we will find no signs of a city existing there in Homeric times.
- We have discovered signs of an ancient city dating back to Homeric times in that location.
- Therefore, our assumption that the Iliad contains no elements of truth is incorrect.
See?
Quote from: WarthurOnly if your logic is actually faulty. Through your argument, because we found a place we can (with a certain amount of confidence) call "Troy", everything in the Iliad must be real, gods, monsters, wooden horses and all.
[clip good stuff]
See?
Yes, but it is often very hard to tell what is fallacious logic and what is not. That is always the danger of such arguments. That is not to say they should not be used, just that they should be used with great care and rigorous step by step testing of the logic chain.
-clash
Outstanding post, Zoran. Especially this:
Quote from: Zoran BekricHowever, there's more to a story than just dramatic events. Dramatic events are to a story as raw stones and precious ore are to jewellery. There's a level of craft involved in cutting and polishing a dramatic event and creating a setting to show it off to best effect. I've yet to see an example of that type of craft come out of a RPG session.
Quote from: flyingmiceYes, but it is often very hard to tell what is fallacious logic and what is not. That is always the danger of such arguments. That is not to say they should not be used, just that they should be used with great care and rigorous step by step testing of the logic chain.
-clash
This makes them no different from every other argument.
Quote from: WarthurThis makes them no different from every other argument.
Did I suggest otherwise? :D
-clash
Quote from: flyingmiceDid I suggest otherwise? :D
-clash
You didn't, but Zoran did with his blanket "You can't prove a negative" earlier. Which, you know, might just be a minor thing, but I do agree with a lot of the other points he's been making in the wider conversation, and I feel that lazy thinking like that undermines his otherwise-strong arguments.
Quote from: WarthurYou didn't, but Zoran did with his blanket "You can't prove a negative" earlier. Which, you know, might just be a minor thing, but I do agree with a lot of the other points he's been making in the wider conversation, and I feel that lazy thinking like that undermines his otherwise-strong arguments.
OK - agreed! I am personally all for rigorous logic testing, no matter what the argument. Then again, I rarely argue. :P
-clash
Quote from: Zoran BekricAmong astrologers it's pretty much taken for granted that the sun rises in the constellation of Aries on the 21st of March each year -- even though anyone who actually looks at the sky on that date will see that it currently rises in Pisces.
Irrelevant. You asked whether eg Story Games posters question whether an RPG can produce 'story'. I answered your question, replying that it's taken for granted that it can. The truth-value of that is not in question. You are just trying to twist my answer to your own ends.
QuoteI've been thinking about this the past few days and I think it comes down to definitions.
That's what I said in the first place.
QuoteThere's a level of craft involved in cutting and polishing a dramatic event and creating a setting to show it off to best effect. I've yet to see an example of that type of craft come out of a RPG session.
This is where your definition differs from mine. I do not think that a story requires craft in any sense. It's entirely possible to have a bad story, or a badly-told story. But I've already said this, so you might as well move on or give up.
QuoteAs for the notion of the author and audience being coterminous, I believe the technical term for that is "masturbation".
Now, isn't that just a silly little dig, Zoran? You might as well say that any RPG involves masturbation. Unfriendly people have said as much to me before.
I think the technical term for your position is 'vested interest.' Maybe people don't need professional scriptwriters (especially unknown ones) if they can make their own entertainment.
I also think this argument is going round in circles (after a week, too).
Quote from: WarthurYou didn't, but Zoran did with his blanket "You can't prove a negative" earlier. Which, you know, might just be a minor thing, but I do agree with a lot of the other points he's been making in the wider conversation, and I feel that lazy thinking like that undermines his otherwise-strong arguments.
We seem to be talking at cross-purposes here. Back when I was at university I was taught that "prove" is what you do in logic or mathematics, "demonstrate" is what you do in science. The statement "You can't prove a negative" is valid because, at some point, you have to go off and check reality. You can't just use pure logic or argument.
Your examples pretty much support this. They incorporate demonstrations along the way: The Michelson-Morely experiment and examining Mount Olympus. This introduces new information along the way, it's not just a development of the initial premises.
As far as I can tell, this is why science is so successful as a way of understanding the universe. It incorporates both logic and observation, using one to check the other.
Back in 1628 Thomas Hobbes (1588 - 1679) had an interesting encounter. From John Aubrey's
Brief Lives: (http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/hobbes/life)
He was forty years old before he looked on geometry; which happened accidentally. Being in a gentleman's library Euclid's
Elements lay open, and 'twas the forty-seventh proposition in the first book. He read the proposition. 'By G ,' said he, 'this is impossible!' So he reads the demonstration of it, which referred him back to such a proof; which referred him back to another, which he also read.
Et sic deinceps, that at last he was demonstratively convinced of that truth. This made him in love with geometry.
Ever since then all manner of philosophers have fallen in love with the system presented in Euclid's
Elements and figured that, if only they could start with the right premises, they could deduce everything -- and I mean everything -- about reality using nothing but pure logic. What's more, many of them assumed this was an inherently superior way of gaining knowledge than by messing about with mucky reality.
(Just as an aside, this meme floated around early sf. I'm thinking of things like the Arisians from E. E. "Doc" Smith's Lensman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lensman) books, whose
"Visualisation of the Cosmic All" is pretty much a version of this type of project.)
Having encountered any number of these purely logical systems -- and some modern-day philosophers who believe they can determine how things "really" work through pure logic -- while studying philosophy at uni, I glommed onto the notion "You can't prove a negative". If someone says something is the case, it's up to them to show that it is, not up to me to show that it isn't.
Is that lazy? Yeah. It saves me time and effort. You find Troy and I will accept that Troy exists. You find Atlantis and I will accept Atlantis exists. You show me a story that came out of a RPG and I will accept RPGs can produce stories.
Quote from: Zoran BekricYou show me a story that came out of a RPG and I will accept RPGs can produce stories.
Of course, you mean the second definition from your discussion with droog, correct? Not the first, retelling-of-events story.
Quote from: droogIrrelevant. You asked whether eg Story Games posters question whether an RPG can produce 'story'. I answered your question, replying that it's taken for granted that it can.
So that would be a "no", then. They haven't asked that question. Okay, thank you.
QuoteThe truth-value of that is not in question. You are just trying to twist my answer to your own ends.
Actually I was just offering an example of how something that's
"pretty much taken for granted" by a group of people can turn out not to be the case.
QuoteThat's what I said in the first place.
Actually, you told me
"You're getting yourself tied in knots over the definition of 'story'." Perhaps I misinterpreted that statement, but to me it suggested that you thought definition wasn't something worth examining -- or, at least, not something worth getting myself tied in knots over.
QuoteThis is where your definition differs from mine. I do not think that a story requires craft in any sense. It's entirely possible to have a bad story, or a badly-told story. But I've already said this, so you might as well move on or give up.
You're right. Our definitions differ. I don't think craft is sufficient to guarantee that a story won't be bad or badly-told. I just think it's necessary for it to be a story.
That's why I asked if Ron Edwards actually sat down and wrote a play using what got out of Egri's book. If he had, he would have run into the elements of craft involved.
QuoteI think the technical term for your position is 'vested interest.' Maybe people don't need professional scriptwriters (especially unknown ones) if they can make their own entertainment.
So now it's "entertainment", not "story"?
At this point all I can do is quote Herbie Brennan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Herbert_Brennan) from his contribution to the
My Life & Role-Playing column in
Different Worlds #30, September 1983, shortly after the release of
Man, Myth & Magic, the game he designed for Yaquinto Publications:
So my stepson volunteered as Dungeon Master, I got to be a gnome or something equally ridiculous, and the adventure started.
I was enthralled instantly. Hypnotised ... spellbound ... fascinated ... addicted. Right through until early March my head was full of hit points, spells and armor classes, characters and purple worms. My career was suffering but I didn't care. I am weak-willed: I can resist anything but temptation.
All the same, it had to stop. As a professional writer, nobody was paying me to play games all day. Bankruptcy, if not exactly looming, was at least crawling determinedly over the near horizon. I locked the game in a cupboard, threw away the key, and got back to work. A week later, I was in a Dublin game shop buying up every role-playing game I could find.
I'm not only weak-willed and perpetually confused, but I suspect I may also be feeble-minded. Instead of getting on with my next novel, I found myself figuring out excuses for continuing to play role-playing games. Finally I came up with a lulu. It went like this:
To a professional writer, role-playing represents the greatest creative challenge since the invention of the novel. It is, in essence, a new medium of expression, a vast field, virtually fallow, in which the elusive literary masterpiece might be lovingly and expertly crafted.
In other words, people who write a lot of role-playing get to play a lot of role-playing games.
Vested interest: if I can get viable stories out of roleplaying games, I not only get to spend more time playing roleplaying games, I get paid for it too.
Not working out too good, so far, though.
Quote from: James J SkachOf course, you mean the second definition from your discussion with droog, correct? Not the first, retelling-of-events story.
Yeah. Story as in
work-of-fiction-designed-to-engage-an-audience.That what happens in a RPG can be turned into an
account-of-events type story is, I think, beyond any sort of reasonable doubt at this point.
Quote from: Zoran BekricWe seem to be talking at cross-purposes here. Back when I was at university I was taught that "prove" is what you do in logic or mathematics, "demonstrate" is what you do in science. The statement "You can't prove a negative" is valid because, at some point, you have to go off and check reality. You can't just use pure logic or argument.
Your examples pretty much support this. They incorporate demonstrations along the way: The Michelson-Morely experiment and examining Mount Olympus. This introduces new information along the way, it's not just a development of the initial premises.
The distinction is fine in theory, but in conversational English most people use "prove" and "demonstrate" interchangeably.
Quote from: Zoran BekricSo that would be a "no", then. They haven't asked that question. Okay, thank you.
You should have worked that out the first time I wrote it.
QuoteActually, you told me "You're getting yourself tied in knots over the definition of 'story'." Perhaps I misinterpreted that statement, but to me it suggested that you thought definition wasn't something worth examining -- or, at least, not something worth getting myself tied in knots over.
My position from the beginning has been that 'story' means something different--perhaps not yet well-defined--when applied to RPGs.
In my experience, there is something happening when the group creates a shared fiction. It seems to happen usually through the medium of the characters. It gets constructed on the spot, usually subject to some random element. At it's best, it has a satisfactory conclusion much like a book or film. It goes beyond raw materials and into something consciously manipulated.
It also has, when examined, all the elements of a story you threw at me earlier.
Note that I'm not claiming this is the way everybody plays, but that I have observed it happening.
I haven't claimed at any time that you could take this experience and distil it easily into another form. It's not easy to transform anything between media while keeping its integrity, and the unique features of roleplaying (spontaneity, improvisation, random resolution of conflicts) make it even harder.
I originally disagreed with your thesis that RP is to story as wargame is to war. I think the relationship is much closer.
QuoteYou're right. Our definitions differ. I don't think craft is sufficient to guarantee that a story won't be bad or badly-told. I just think it's necessary for it to be a story.
I think your position is elitist, and further assumes that the members of the group cannot between them muster any craft.
QuoteVested interest: if I can get viable stories out of roleplaying games, I not only get to spend more time playing roleplaying games, I get paid for it too.
Not working out too good, so far, though.
Of course it isn't. It's not that easy. You should study some of the most and least successful filming of novels. And novelisations of films are invariably a load of tosh.
Quote from: Zoran BekricStory as in work-of-fiction-designed-to-engage-an-audience.
"I went to the toy store yesterday, but when I asked about the toy I wanted, they told me that I couldn't buy it. And looked at me suspiciously. And whispered to each other while I was leaving. Turns out if you eat the stuffing, you get suggestible; they must have thought I was a bad man."That didn't actually happen. Therefore, it's a work of fiction.
I wrote it so that you would read it it and note that it is a story. Thus, engaging an audience - in this case, to make an intellectual point, rather than an emotive one.
RPGs can create that kind of thing. It doesn't have to be
good.
When a fifth-grader draws mommy and daddy outside their house, that's art.
When I bullshit a fictional series of events to entertain, that's story.
But haven't we agreed, at this point in the conversation, that RPG's are capable of creating stories - even if they are bad ones? So, to take an example from the old RSDancey thread, four characters standing in the middle of an endless plain fighting off hordes of undead is a story. It might not be a good one, but it's a story.
So is the point of a Story Building Game redundant? I doubt that's the case. The "Story Now!" moniker is upon it; but I get this strange sense that "Story Better!" is the real agenda.
Quote from: James J SkachSo is the point of a Story Building Game redundant? I doubt that's the case. The "Story Now!" moniker is upon it; but I get this strange sense that "Story Better!" is the real agenda.
It depends what you want. Do you want to use 'Forgey' techniques is the real question? Lots of those techniques were identified at the Forge, not invented.
And couldn't we all get a little better? I know I've always looked for ways of improving my practice, and every idea is just another tool in that box.
Quote from: Levi KornelsenRPGs can create that kind of thing. It doesn't have to be good.
When a fifth-grader draws mommy and daddy outside their house, that's art.
When I bullshit a fictional series of events to entertain, that's story.
No.
"It's like a good novel... only much, much worse. ('s okay, though.)"
Do not use populism to make up for a lack of terminological acuity.
To define the experience produced by new medium A as a lesser version of the experience produced by old medium B is a sure sign for an inability to come up with a term that adequately describes the new specificity of new medium A.
That's not my private little pet idea, either. I deal with that in my work on a regular basis.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityTo define the experience produced by new medium A as a lesser version of the experience produced by old medium B is a sure sign for an inability to come up with a term that adequately describes the new specificity of new medium A.
Those are some nice big words, there. I don't entirely agree with 'em.
Quote from: Levi KornelsenThose are some nice big words, there. I don't entirely agree with 'em.
How so?
Quote from: Pierce InverarityHow so?
I don't think it's necessarily a sign of any kind of inability.
We don't need "Story, Storyillo, Storyette" like we need "Cigar, Cigarillo, Cigarette".
Sometimes, vague terms are okay. Not for any specific reason. Just because they sometimes
are.
Quote from: Levi KornelsenI don't think it's necessarily a sign of any kind of inability.
We don't need "Story, Storyillo, Storyette" like we need "Cigar, Cigarillo, Cigarette".
Sometimes, vague terms are okay. Not for any specific reason. Just because they sometimes are.
So, "it's true... coz it's true"?
Quote from: Pierce InveraritySo, "it's true... coz it's true"?
Not quite.
Just "It's not made false because nobody can prove it to your satisfaction."
So... how is your argument different from merely putting a charitable spin on "Story, Storyillo, Storyette"?
How are RPGs NOT just storyettes?
Quote from: Pierce InveraritySo... how is your argument different from merely putting a charitable spin on "Story, Storyillo, Storyette"?
How are RPGs NOT just storyettes?
Well, 'cuz I just made that word up. If you like it, it's cool; then they're storyettes instead of full-blown stories.
I'm just not at all sure why people put any stock at all in the word "story". It's a vague word to begin with; trying to tighten up the definition in order to exclude RPGs strikes me as just plain dumb.
Again, like the fifth-grader and art. Objecting to RPGs-as-story is like pronouncing the word "art" with that shitty accent that makes it sound like "ought". Thinking that "being story" makes an RPG into a precious little fucking butterfly, equally so.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityTo define the experience produced by new medium A as a lesser version of the experience produced by old medium B is a sure sign for an inability to come up with a term that adequately describes the new specificity of new medium A.
That's not my private little pet idea, either. I deal with that in my work on a regular basis.
I don't think that's true. To give an alternate example: film still uses the term "story" to describe what happens, even though feature film stories are different than the stories of prior art -- i.e. novels or plays. A feature film whose narrative is exactly like a play or a novel is an inferior work -- but they handle this by using the same term ("story") and defining that a good story for feature film is not the same as the old medium.
Now, I think that in the case of role-playing games, the differences are even more pronounced than the shift from novels and plays to film. Still, I think it does make sense to talk about "story" and "plot" and so forth within an RPG rather than coining all-new terms.
Conversely, RPGs also borrow other terms from prior media such as "campaign" and "scenario" from wargames. I also think that this is fine. I generally prefer "campaign" for a long sequence of play rather than some of the alternatives like "saga". However, I also will refer to things like the "plot" of a session for what happened, and "story arc" for, well, stories within the campaign.
John, terms like "campaign" and "scenario" are much less harmful precisely because the fact they're just metaphors used as shorthand is so evident. No one will mistake these terms of convenience for specific descriptions.
In the case of film, the term "story" is far more harmful, in fact comparably to RPGs. It's not just that most movies, when pared down to a written narrative, are infinitely cruder than novels. It's that the paring down itself is misguided. Movies exist in their own visual and auditory world. They engage other senses, nonnarratively. The slick overproduction of Gattaca is as important as its banal plot, and far more impressive. The sound of gunfire in a Leone Western, the noise of engines in Bullitt, the music of Henry Mancini produce their own sensory worlds. To say that in film, sound, music and cinematography "support" a "story" is just lazy thinking that doesn't do justice to the richness of the experience.
Likewise, I've yet to see reasons why the term "story" should be used for RPGs--beyond the fact that some people rilly rilly like using it.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityLikewise, I've yet to see reasons why the term "story" should be used for RPGs--beyond the fact that some people rilly rilly like using it.
Because it's a convenient way to describe the goal many people are shooting for. And nobody likes 'narrativism' or 'thematic play'.
The same points you made for film being different apply to RPGs. They exist in their own visual and auditory world and engage the senses in different ways from film or print. Some people use it in non-narrative ways; that's fine. But it's pretty undeniable that a huge number of films (and the most popular) possess narratives.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityIn the case of film, the term "story" is far more harmful, in fact comparably to RPGs.
Harmful? You gotta be kidding me.
When I talk about the story of a movie, I don't narrowly exclude all other elements, focusing only on the plot and ignoring all else. I broaden the use of the word "story", and include them as presentation - it's one way of framing the experience.
Having several ways to frame an experience is useful. Insisting on having a unique frame for a unique experience is obstructive.
You didn't address my above question, Levi.
Quote from: Levi KornelsenHarmful? You gotta be kidding me.
When I talk about the story of a movie, I don't narrowly exclude all other elements, focusing only on the plot and ignoring all else. I broaden the use of the word "story", and include them as presentation - it's one way of framing the experience.
Having several ways to frame an experience is useful. Insisting on having a unique frame for a unique experience is obstructive.
Getting an experience right by being attentive to its specificity is never obstructive. Profession of pluralism as excuse for muddy thinking always is. So is subsumtion of uniquely filmic elements under the nonfilmic term "story," which is what in so many words you say you do.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityYou didn't address my above question, Levi.
Which one?
Quote from: Pierce InverarityGetting an experience right by being attentive to its specificity is never obstructive.
This, right here, is an internet message board.
I'm being
very attentive to the specifics of my medium.
:p
Quote from: Pierce InverarityProfession of pluralism as excuse for muddy thinking always is. So is subsumtion of uniquely filmic elements under the nonfilmic term "story," which is what in so many words you say you do.
Prove it.
(Filmic? Filmic?)
Quote from: Levi KornelsenWhich one?
I missed your post #390, in which you answered it...
QuoteI'm just not at all sure why people put any stock at all in the word "story". It's a vague word to begin with; trying to tighten up the definition in order to exclude RPGs strikes me as just plain dumb.
Quite so. So why hang on to it?
QuoteProve it.
Are you saying the "story" of Bullitt, Arabesque, A Fistful of Dollars, In the Mood for Love, etc. etc. to infinity, is the core of the experience of these movies, to which everything else plays supporting fiddle? If so, then I can't help you.
Quote(Filmic? Filmic?)
Like, totally, dude.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityAre you saying the "story" of Bullitt, Arabesque, A Fistful of Dollars, In the Mood for Love, etc. etc. to infinity, is the core of the experience of these movies, to which everything else plays supporting fiddle?
That's one way of many to look at those films, yes.
It's not the only way. Nor is it invalid.
Quote from: Levi KornelsenThat's one way of many to look at those films, yes.
It's not the only way. Nor is it invalid.
And now, using the range of examples I gave, you get to explain that position, succinctly and comprehensively.
And once you're done with that, you get to answer this question:
QuoteI'm just not at all sure why people put any stock at all in the word "story". It's a vague word to begin with; trying to tighten up the definition in order to exclude RPGs strikes me as just plain dumb.
QuoteQuite so. So why hang on to it?
Quote from: Pierce InverarityAnd now, using the range of examples I gave, you get to explain that position, succinctly and comprehensively.
Or not.
Right now, I have no reason to do what you seem to want, just the desire to say my piece in my own fashion. There's nothing
interesting about writing to those constraints.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityAnd once you're done with that, you get to answer this question:
Why not? It's a nice, vague arm-wave in a specific direction, a generalised point of view.
I find it useful. And
so do you, or you wouldn't be able to pick out movies where the story isn't the important part, because
you wouldn't be able to seperate the story out from the rest.
:rollbarf:
I must commend you on your use of the medium.
QuoteI'm just not at all sure why people put any stock at all in the word "story". It's a vague word to begin with; trying to tighten up the definition in order to exclude RPGs strikes me as just plain dumb.
QuoteQuite so. So why hang on to it?
This strikes me as pretty basic hypocrisy.
There is tons of criticism here about making up jargon. But then you take a term like "story" -- which is a perfectly ordinary, non-technical English word that lots of people use in this sense all the time -- and you claim that it shouldn't be used because it is vague.
If I really were to drop the term "story" and instead come up with some other made-up term for what I do in a game of
Polaris or
1001 Nights, it seems pretty certain that you'd attack the new term as pointless made-up jargon and demand that people use plain English to talk about their games.
There is a reason for general, broad words in a language -- like "story" or "reason". Yes, these can be vague, but sometimes you just want to convey a general idea. Normal people use the word "story" all the time to communicate, and it is not some great conspiracy.
A few other points:
1) It's true that not everything in a film -- like music, action, or photography -- needs to be in the service of a central story. However, the exact same thing is true of books and plays. Not everything in a book needs to be in service to a story. Indeed, there are many books and plays that have no story in any sense -- i.e. no continuous sequence of events, like a book of poems or expressionist theater.
2) Some people may have messed-up ideas about the importance of story to a work as a whole - in films, novels, plays. That doesn't invalidate the term, though. If you're going to talk to people in plain English (as opposed to made-up jargon) about novels, plays, or films -- the term "story" is going to come up.
3) Similarly, people may have messed-up ideas about what "story" means to RPGs. There are one-true-way-ists of every stripe, from those who say that because D&D is the most popular that any other games are invalid to like, to those who say that their niche game is superior to the "roll-playing" of the masses. If you're going to drop any term that anyone misuses, you'll be left with no words that you can use at all.
QuoteThere is tons of criticism here about making up jargon. But then you take a term like "story" -- which is a perfectly ordinary, non-technical English word that lots of people use in this sense all the time -- and you claim that it shouldn't be used because it is vague.
I agree with most of your statements but not with this one.
We need to distinguish between different kinds of language use. They depend on context. Everyday language use is not suited for theoretical discussions where clear distinctions and definitions are essential. It's full of shortcuts and vagaries.
This is fine so long as that vagueness doesn't get dragged into the context of a highly specific debate. There, as here, it just serves to muddy the waters and gives people a false sense of familiarity.
Why do you think all the sciences and humanities have their own technical idioms? Grant a cultural discussion what you assume for computer nerd lingo as a matter of course: terms "made up" to ensure rigor and precision.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityThis is fine so long as that vagueness doesn't get dragged into the context of a highly specific debate.
Note that I don't use the word "story" in my theory-stuff
anywhere.So, I agree there.
But not here. This specific discussion? Hasn't been a debate of the kind you mean, despite your efforts to turn it into one.
Quote from: Levi KornelsenNote that I don't use the word "story" in my theory-stuff anywhere.
So, I agree there.
But not here. This specific discussion? Hasn't been a debate of the kind you mean, despite your efforts to turn it into one.
Of course not, given your bubblegum responses.
Whether it's "story" or "indie-as-creator-owned": bubblegum all the way. You're being put on the spot and asked to show how terms like these are valid and useful, and your responses are invariably one or all of these:
a) I like what I like;
b) OK, they suck, but somehow they work for me;
c) I'm not actually using them.
Quote from: WarthurThe distinction is fine in theory, but in conversational English most people use "prove" and "demonstrate" interchangeably.
Point taken.
Quote from: droogMy position from the beginning has been that 'story' means something different--perhaps not yet well-defined--when applied to RPGs.
Way back when, in early days of the hobby, a single adventure or episode was called a "scenario" and a series of linked scenarios was called a "campaign". I don't know why those terms ever fell out of favour. Especially since scenario fits so well. From WordNet via Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scenario):
scenarionoun- an outline or synopsis of a play (or, by extension, of a literary work)
- a setting for a work of art or literature; "the scenario is France during the Reign of Terror"
- a postulated sequence of possible events; "planners developed several scenarios in case of an attack"
You get a connection to fiction, an emphasis on setting and a sense that any plan or intent is only potential, with the reality not emerging until actual play.
In my experience, if you tell people they are there to tell stories, what happens is they try to tell stories, which leads to endless headfucks and grief. If you tell them they're going to play through a scenario, they don't try to tell a story, instead they just play.
QuoteIn my experience, there is something happening when the group creates a shared fiction. It seems to happen usually through the medium of the characters. It gets constructed on the spot, usually subject to some random element. At it's best, it has a satisfactory conclusion much like a book or film. It goes beyond raw materials and into something consciously manipulated.
Yeah, RPGs have a magic all their own. I don't deny that. I just don't see why people need to co-opt the word "story" to describe what's happening when even you acknowledge that it's something different.
Quote think your position is elitist, and further assumes that the members of the group cannot between them muster any craft.
If by "elitist" you mean I believe there is an element of skill in most things and that such skill can be learned and improved through study and practice, then, yeah, I guess I'm an "elitist".
I know of no reason why a group could not muster the craft necessary to create a story. It all depends on the participants. I just observe that most RPGers not only don't make any attempt to master the skills involved, but are actively hostile to the idea that there are such skills.
I suspect that if you had a group made up of people who had acquired the necessary skills, they could riff off each other like a bunch of accomplished jazz musicians. Most groups, however, are made up of the equivalent of people whose closest approach to any kind of music is occasionally listening to it.
Quote from: Zoran BekricWay back when, in early days of the hobby, a single adventure or episode was called a "scenario" and a series of linked scenarios was called a "campaign". I don't know why those terms ever fell out of favour.
I think you'll find those terms are still in use, but they also carry annoying connotations. 'Campaign' definitely suggests military origins, and doesn't always seem suitable. 'Scenario' has the ring of 'treatment' (and 'outline' or synopsis' or 'setting' sounds more like the GM's notes. 'Play through a scenario' raises the spectre of The GM's Story for me.
Quote from: Zoran BekricIn my experience, if you tell people they are there to tell stories, what happens is they try to tell stories, which leads to endless headfucks and grief. If you tell them they're going to play through a scenario, they don't try to tell a story, instead they just play.
I just don't see this happening. Maybe it's all perception.
Quote from: Zoran BekricI just don't see why people need to co-opt the word "story" to describe what's happening when even you acknowledge that it's something different.
I'm not married to 'story'. I just think it's good enough until I hear something better.
Quote from: Zoran BekricI just observe that most RPGers not only don't make any attempt to master the skills involved, but are actively hostile to the idea that there are such skills.
.......................................................
Most groups, however, are made up of the equivalent of people whose closest approach to any kind of music is occasionally listening to it.
Well, my impression is not entirely the same as yours. I've met a lot of funny, creative people who developed some decent skills. Sure, I've also met some utter goobers, but I think people should have the right to try.
RPGs are not a storytelling medium in the same manner that mainstream literature, film, tv, or theatre is.
If you want to compare RPGs to films... you should be looking at experimental films. If you want to compare RPGs to theatre... you should be looking at improv and experimental theatre.
It's significant that those forms are not primarily valued for the quality of the 'story' but for their other elements. This is exactly the same for RPGs.
QuoteRPGs are not a storytelling medium in the same manner that mainstream literature, film, tv, or theatre is.
Those aren´t storytelling media. Period.
EDIT: but you are right in that they don´t have anything substatial in common with RPGs.
OK, here's an anology.
Say you have a company which makes, oh, I don't know, corrugated sheet metal with holes punched in it for construction purposes or something. They have an automated factory set up to make these sheets of metal and to punch holes in them. All well and good.
Anyway, one day one of the factory supervisors is tinkering about with the pieces of metal that get punched out of the sheets and realises that he can actually bend them to make a useable paperclip. He talks to the management, and they make a small off-shoot of the factory where the off-cuts from the main factory are taken to be made into paperclips. All well and good. However, our factory worker also wants to modify the original machines to improve the quality of the off-cuts to sell more paperclips. The management slap him down: the paperclips are a sideline, and the real action is with the corrugated sheet metal, and if the quality of the latter is allowed to slide for the sake of the paperclips the company will be committing suicide.
Now, we've come to a sort of agreement that an RPG will inherently create stories - even lame ones, like four goons on a featureless plain fighting zombies. What I would argue is the following:
- Traditional RPGs are like the corrugated sheet metal machine, and the sheet metal represents all the non-story sources of enjoyment we get from them (which Levi identified in his manyfold interviews).
- Story - in the sense we seem to be talking about it here - consists of the off-cuts of the process. You can take them away and turn them into paperclips (good stories that people who weren't actually there at the time would like to hear), but it takes work.
- Story-gamers are like the factory worker who isn't satisfied with taking the story away and working on it afterwards to make it into a good story: they want to change the way the machine works for the sake of the paperclips, even though this will reduce the quality of the sheet iron. What they really ought to do, if they want to be satisfied is make an entirely new factory (entirely new gaming approach) that's solely devoted to making paperclips, rather than taking a machine which is designed to make sheet metal and try to turn it into a paperclip machine (taking traditional RPGs and modifying them).
Again, I'd like to point out that the best "storytelling" game I've ever played is Once Upon a Time, a card game with no roleplaying elements whatsoever: no GM, no exclusive control of setting elements, no PCs, no pre-planning, just a simple game mechanic, a winning condition and a bunch of cards.
Quote from: WarthurOK, here's an anology.
Analogy was not bad. But it missed the mark for me. However it DID make me realise how the story game thing fits in with me. The secondary output is necessarily Story that would sound good to someone else who wasn't there, which is laudible if you can do it. The real corrigated sheet, however, is not just game action of Man-vs-Zombie. It is Story that is good enough for me to get involved in mentally during the course of the game. In other words if you roll me up a character in your world and the next thing that happens is I'm on a flat featureless plain fighting zombies I'm not going to be all that interested in the game overall, though the tactics of zombie combat may hold my interest for the course of the battle. But if that is all there is I will probably get bored, especially when I compare that with playing in Telthanar. The missing element is, again, Story. When I play in a world that has a truly great GM who has a fascinating World, the stories themselves may not make great Story for an outsider who wasn't there - but it does make great Story for me, as is evidenced by my sense of immersion during the game. For me, I understand the context of my character and what has been going on in the world and the clues and history and relationships with other characters and all. So that's all part of Story. And without that, the game is flat. So instead of corrigated sheets, you wind up with flat sheets, if you don't have Story. And the better the Story the better the corrigation. um. ok anyway, that's my take.
QuoteRPGs are not a storytelling medium in the same manner that mainstream literature, film, tv, or theatre is.
I think what you mean is that RPGs are not always used as a storytelling medium (just like mainstream literature, film, TV, or theatre).
But there seems to be a persistent urge to use these media for telling stories.
Quote from: StuartIf you want to compare RPGs to films... you should be looking at experimental films. If you want to compare RPGs to theatre... you should be looking at improv and experimental theatre.
It's significant that those forms are not primarily valued for the quality of the 'story' but for their other elements. This is exactly the same for RPGs.
Bullseye. It's not as though improvisational drama is something entirely new. You see it in improv theatre, and you see it in the films of directors like Robert Altman and Mike Leigh. But even the best of those works, the collaborations between remarkably talented and experienced directors and actors, do not create compelling stories. I mean, what's the story of Nashville?
Just because the folks who play storyteller games desperately want to believe they're making compelling stories does not mean it's so. If the stories they generate are only interesting to the participants, then it's a dramatic experience that they're engaging in, and not the crafting of a story. The next obvious question is why the people who play those games can't admit that what they generate in their play isn't stories. Why isn't drama good enough?
Quote from: WarthurAgain, I'd like to point out that the best "storytelling" game I've ever played is Once Upon a Time, a card game with no roleplaying elements whatsoever: no GM, no exclusive control of setting elements, no PCs, no pre-planning, just a simple game mechanic, a winning condition and a bunch of cards.
And it has outsold every storytelling RPG on the market by a wide margin.
Quote from: droogBut there seems to be a persistent urge to use these media for telling stories.
Which is interesting in itself, but doesn't necessarily lend credence to the argument that RPGs can generate compelling stories.
Quote from: SettembriniThose aren´t storytelling media. Period.
Are we lost in translation?
I mean those media are used to tell people stories.
Quote from: DroogI think what you mean is that RPGs are not always used as a storytelling medium (just like mainstream literature, film, TV, or theatre).
But there seems to be a persistent urge to use these media for telling stories.
No, what I mean is that in mainstream film, literature, tv and theatre there is a pre-existing story before the audience shows up to enjoy it. In experimental video performance art, improv theatre, and experimental theatre the story doesn't necessarily exist in advance. It is created interactively and often involves an interaction with the audience.
I'm saying that if you want to think of RPGs as a new artform or media, it's not of the same lineage as mainstream literature > theatre > film > tv. It's actually a kind of improv theatre, which doesn't share all of regularly theatre's traits. If you want to seriously consider RPGs as an artform, thinking of it in the same context as mainstream film, theatre, etc isn't heading in the right direction. :)
Nobody watches "Who's Line is it Anyway?" for the story. Lot's of people watch it though.
Quote from: StuartAre we lost in translation?
I mean those media are used to tell people stories.
Are they?
I don´t think so.
Quote from: SettembriniAre they?
I don´t think so.
Sett, are you thinking that Stuart is saying that books, TV, the theatre and so forth are
exclusively used to tell stories? Because that would be incorrect - there's plenty of factual books and TV shows, for example - but that doesn't seem to be what he's saying.
Or are you honestly saying that books, TV, the theatre etc are not used to tell stories
at all? Because, erm, you're getting into crazy moon talk there.
Quote from: WarthurOr are you honestly saying that books, TV, the theatre etc are not used to tell stories at all? Because, erm, you're getting into crazy moon talk there.
Sett? Crazy moon talk?
NEVERS! :D
-clash
QuoteSett, are you thinking that Stuart is saying that books, TV, the theatre and so forth are exclusively used to tell stories? Because that would be incorrect - there's plenty of factual books and TV shows, for example - but that doesn't seem to be what he's saying.
Or are you honestly saying that books, TV, the theatre etc are not used to tell stories at all? Because, erm, you're getting into crazy moon talk there.
No, I´m saying neither, as both are obvious in their answer.
I´m saying, that the mainstream media are not concerned with telling stories. It´s not their purpose. You can tell a story, no question about it.
But if you think Star Wars or Married with Children are there to tell you a story: They aren´t.
And neither are most theatre plays.
Now, there are instances and stories are somehow in all of them. But the stuart´s asessment of looking at all mass media as story vehicles is ass-backward and ridiculously wrong.
It´s as if I said everything in those media was about sex & violence, or even better about power. Only that I would be even more right than stuart was.
It´s more like saying every movie and TV show is REALLY about the visuals.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityOf course not, given your bubblegum responses.
Whether it's "story" or "indie-as-creator-owned": bubblegum all the way. You're being put on the spot and asked to show how terms like these are valid and useful, and your responses are invariably one or all of these:
a) I like what I like;
b) OK, they suck, but somehow they work for me;
c) I'm not actually using them.
A) Yes; it's a subjective hobby, filled with subjective opinion.
B) Yes; I'm capable of reading generously, and see value in vague terms and casual discussion. I also see no reason to obey someone else's bullshit rules about "what would make my opinion valid"; there's nothing in it for me to do so.
C) I'm capable of writing seriously when I think it's called for. Pissant sematic debates about "Are RPGs capable of making story" aren't serious to me anymore; I've seen too many.
Not sure what your point is Sett. :confused:
Quote from: StuartNot sure what your point is Sett. :confused:
He's saying that while there's story in these media, that's not what they are
mainly about. Which is true.
And following up by saying "And therefore framing them in that fashion is totally invlaid". Which is bullshit.
Levi, aren´t you contradicitng yourselves in only two sentences here?
Quote from: SettembriniLevi, aren´t you contradicitng yourselves in only two sentences here?
Nope.
Dinner isn't mainly about dessert, either, but I can critique the whole dinner
in terms of how it led up to dessert. It's one way of framing the discussion of dinner; it's not the only one, but it's still valid.
???
Sorry?
Dinner is not leading upt to Dessert.
Discussing it as if it was is plainly counterfactual.
Now, you might discuss the multiple dimensions of dinner, or media. And you might discuss the story dimension of them, too.
But pretty, pretty please differentiate.
Quote from: Settembrini???
Sorry?
Dinner is not leading upt to Dessert.
Discussing it as if it was is plainly counterfactual.
I'm totally going to start a new thread for this, over in theory & design.
Quote from: Levi KornelsenHe's saying that while there's story in these media, that's not what they are mainly about.
*SNIP*
Which is bullshit.
There we go. ;)
If you guys want to start a discussion about how literature, theatre, film, and television aren't mainly about storytelling, then godpseed you whack emperors. :haw:
Quote from: Levi KornelsenI'm totally going to start a new thread for this, over in theory & design.
And, done. (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8214)
Quote from: StuartThere we go. ;)
If you guys want to start a discussion about how literature, theatre, film, and television aren't mainly about storytelling, then godpseed you whack emperors. :haw:
You were an English major? Rilly?
Can we get some precise thoughts and examples on that little word "mainly"? Because the way it's used here it's synonymous with BS.
Film is a temporal medium in which events occur in succession. Hence movies have "plots," which is something infinitely lesser than the schlock high-mindedness which the term "story" carries with it in RPG discussions.
The Lord of the Rings movies tell the "story" of one man's passionate struggle for a huge budget and of his meticulous reading of the books. One watches them in order to behold the CGI and the "Visit New Zealand" landscapes, and in order to compare notes on obscure Tolkieniana.
You and I could have written the "story" of the Matrix while taking a dump. Well, and googling "gnosticism" afterwards.
Bullitt isn't about the "story" of a detective. Contrary to popular opinion, it isn't about the car chase either. It's about people interacting with the spaces and sounds of the then latest technology (the Mustang, but also the fax machine, and the highway noise that drowns out conversations) and institutions (the precinct, but also the hospital).
Iron Cross is about killing.
Soap operas are about communication. Infinite, inexhaustible and always at least somewhat meaningful communication, reassured by ever new installments. This is important to people because real life is so different from that.
MASH, Friends, and Seinfeld are about friends talking--friendship lasting forever because communication lasts forever. Brazilian-type soap operas are about new passions on a weekly basis.
And on and on.
I'm not going to reply to any lame retorts, btw. You want to make a counter-case? Build one.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityYou were an English major?
No.
I see.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityYou were an English major?
No, but I was a Japanese general once. Does that count?
-clash
Quote from: StuartNo, what I mean is that in mainstream film, literature, tv and theatre there is a pre-existing story before the audience shows up to enjoy it. In experimental video performance art, improv theatre, and experimental theatre the story doesn't necessarily exist in advance. It is created interactively and often involves an interaction with the audience.
I'm saying that if you want to think of RPGs as a new artform or media, it's not of the same lineage as mainstream literature > theatre > film > tv. It's actually a kind of improv theatre, which doesn't share all of regularly theatre's traits. If you want to seriously consider RPGs as an artform, thinking of it in the same context as mainstream film, theatre, etc isn't heading in the right direction. :)
Nobody watches "Who's Line is it Anyway?" for the story. Lot's of people watch it though.
Neither improv theater nor traditional theater/television/movies are the "right" direction for RPGs. There is no "right" direction.
For example, taking from improv theater such as "Who's Line is it Anyway?" suggests short form, where only what is said on-stage is true. The closest RPGs to this are things like Inspectres, Polaris, or 1001 Nights. I like these games, but they aren't the "right" direction.
A lot of games, including most traditional RPGs, have important prepared material which overrides people's improvisation. i.e. There are notes that represent a stable fictional world.
Quote from: SettembriniI´m saying, that the mainstream media are not concerned with telling stories. It´s not their purpose. You can tell a story, no question about it.
But if you think Star Wars or Married with Children are there to tell you a story: They aren´t.
And neither are most theatre plays.
Now, there are instances and stories are somehow in all of them. But the stuart´s asessment of looking at all mass media as story vehicles is ass-backward and ridiculously wrong.
I don't speak for Stuart, but it seems to me that you're twisting people's statements. So, if someone says "Films are used to tell stories" -- you're interpreting that as "All films have the sole purpose of conveying story and every part of the film should be slave to that purpose". The latter statement is indeed wrong, but I don't think that's what people are saying.
Story is not just something that happens to appear in feature films -- it is a deliberate goal of the film-makers, and usually an important one. That doesn't mean it is the sole or primary goal. The primary goal might be to make money, say. You can analyze a film in terms of its box-office potential, and you can also analyze it in terms of its story. You can also analyze it in terms of its pure photography or pure special effects.
Still, I think that story in film is important to many people -- both creators and audience. If you ask many directors, they will often talk about the story as what is central. Similarly, if you ask a typical person what a given feature film is about, he'll likely tell you about the central story. This isn't true of all media. Books and songs are also sequential media, but they don't always tell a story and that's accepted. You can ask "what's that book about?" or "what's that song about?", and you might get answers like "it's about historical ship-building" or "it's about loneliness".
Are Beatles songs about the lyrics?
Quote from: flyingmiceNo, but I was a Japanese general once. Does that count?
-clash
Totally, because then you're equipped to understand that Kurosawa movies aren't about "story."
Quote from: jhkimThe primary goal might be to make money, say. You can analyze a film in terms of its box-office potential, and you can also analyze it in terms of its story.
Just to be clear: What I said about the LotR movies was not meant as a critique of its supplementary goals (= make cash), but as a description of the experience of watching them. "LOOK at that... that must have cost a fortune! -- Did you see that? How did they DO that? -- Gollum looks creepy! -- Man, New Zealand is beeyootiful!" Etc. etc.
QuoteStill, I think that story in film is important to many people -- both creators and audience. If you ask many directors, they will often talk about the story as what is central. Similarly, if you ask a typical person what a given feature film is about, he'll likely tell you about the central story.
That's because plot is infinitely easier to talk about than sound, sight, motion, gestures, costumes, color, angle, distance, cuts, close-ups, zooming out, 360 degrees of a couple embracing etc etc etc. Those are hard to verbalize because while utterly central they're nonverbal. So people, including directors in nontechnical conversation, focus on the plot. But that's ok. I talk about "the Baroque" in nontechnical discussions, even though I know no such thing ever existed.
Unfortunately, Professor Inverarity has blocked my frequency, or I would point out to him that while an academic may not watch Seven Samurai for 'the story', there is most certainly a narrative happening, concerning characters for whom we come to care deeply.
I would suggest to him that RPGs, in fact, centre around the characters, and that we impose narrative upon these characters at the slightest pretext. That this is where we might fruitfully seek for the meaning of 'story'.
That while Persona may be a wonderful film, it is several orders of magnitude less popular than The Godfather.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityI talk about "the Baroque" in nontechnical discussions, even though I know no such thing ever existed.
I always go for Baroque.
-clash
Quote from: Pierce InverarityTotally, because then you're equipped to understand that Kurosawa movies aren't about "story."
Of course not - they're about the eyebrows. If you watch the eyebrows, you don't need the subtitles.
-clash
I'm not sure how relevant this is but in film, "plot" just seems to be much easier to screw up than other elements. At least, this is the level on which so many movies fail for me.
I think if competent "plot" (and perhaps scripting) could be taken for granted, it'd also seem less important to the total experience.
Quote from: droogUnfortunately, Professor Inverarity has blocked my frequency, or I would point out to him that while an academic may not watch Seven Samurai for 'the story', there is most certainly a narrative happening, concerning characters for whom we come to care deeply.
That's exactly how an academic watches a film. You can analyze the other aspects as well, but they're by and large secondary -- unless you're talking about experimental / avante garde film.
A
You have a story.
An audience is told the story.
B
You do not have a story.
An event takes place.
An audience views / experiences the event.
C
You do not have a story.
An event takes place.
An audience views / experiences the event.
Another audience is told the story of the event.
Feel free to place Popular Film, Board Games, RPGs, Sporting Events, Actual Play Reports, Improv Theatre, Literature, Walking the Dog etc. in either A, B, or C. It should be easy.
(Regarding how directors and audiences talk about story as important to them...)
Quote from: Pierce InverarityThat's because plot is infinitely easier to talk about than sound, sight, motion, gestures, costumes, color, angle, distance, cuts, close-ups, zooming out, 360 degrees of a couple embracing etc etc etc. Those are hard to verbalize because while utterly central they're nonverbal. So people, including directors in nontechnical conversation, focus on the plot. But that's ok. I talk about "the Baroque" in nontechnical discussions, even though I know no such thing ever existed.
While this might be true to some extent, I'm extremely wary of assuming that people can't say what they like or are interested in. That's how some of the most annoying Forge posters would write (i.e. "X gamers don't really like what they're doing -- they just say that.") -- and Pundit has done the same things about story gamers (i.e. they don't really enjoy playing their favorite games, they just want to be elitist).
If someone says that she likes a film for the story, then IMO you've got a heavy burden of proof that you know what she thought better than she does.
Quote from: StuartThat's exactly how an academic watches a film. You can analyze the other aspects as well, but they're by and large secondary -- unless you're talking about experimental / avante garde film.
Bullshit. That's how everyone always watches movies. It just takes a specialist to come up with a language for describing the experience. Your notions about what humanities people do are even wackier than mine about computer scientists.
QuoteOf course not - they're about the eyebrows. If you watch the eyebrows, you don't need the subtitles.
High five!
Quote from: jhkimIf someone says that she likes a film for the story, then IMO you've got a heavy burden of proof that you know what she thought better than she does.
One difference is that I'm not saying people actually don't like the movies they claim to like. It's that they communicate their enthusiasm using insufficient terms. They pack the complexity into a single verbal concept, and IMO they're usually actually aware of doing it. They mean the right thing and use a shortcut. Again, I myself do that all the time unless I deliberately focus on the matter.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityBullshit. That's how everyone always watches movies.
Have you noticed you first disagree with me, and then immediately give an example agreeing with me?
All people watch movies like that.
Academics are a subset of all people.
Therefore academics also watch movies like that.
Honestly, it seems like you're being deliberately pedantic. :raise:
What's your background Pierce? You make vague references to being a "Professional Art Thinker"... whatever that is.
I think the problem here is that "story" is so nonspecific that almost anything you might advance as being important to the enjoyment of a film can easily be turned into an element of "story" or ancillary to "story".
Have you seen Aguirre: The Wrath of God, Stuart? If there's a specific story-quality which can be distilled from it and distinguished from other elements such as the acting and scenery, then I'd say those elements are at least as important to the overall experience. Not secondary.
I said "
Mainstream Film" and was actually including Film along with Literature, Theatre, and TV.
The point was:
Quotein mainstream film, literature, tv and theatre there is a pre-existing story before the audience shows up to enjoy it. In experimental video performance art, improv theatre, and experimental theatre the story doesn't necessarily exist in advance. It is created interactively and often involves an interaction with the audience.
Are there films, books, tv shows, and theatre events where they're primarily about something different than story? Certainly.
Koyaanisqatsi, The Warlock of Firetop Mountain, The Lawrence Welk Show, and the Music of Andrew Lloyd Webber for example.
That's not the point though. :)
QuoteAre there films, books, tv shows, and theatre events where they're primarily about something different than story?
Nearly all are.
Quote from: StuartHave you noticed you first disagree with me, and then immediately give an example agreeing with me?
All people watch movies like that.
Academics are a subset of all people.
Therefore academics also watch movies like that.
Honestly, it seems like you're being deliberately pedantic. :raise:
Huh?
Here's what I'm saying: The divide you claim exists between the way academics watch movies and everyone else watches movies does not exist. The former simply watch them in a more conscious, focused and professional way. Unsurprisingly, coz that's what they do for a living.
QuoteWhat's your background Pierce? You make vague references to being a "Professional Art Thinker"... whatever that is.
I have a Ph.D. in modern art and theory, and that is what I teach at a US research university. Last week I showed "The Man with a Movie Camera" to the kids. Check it out. No story, but much goodness and hilarity.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityOne difference is that I'm not saying people actually don't like the movies they claim to like. It's that they communicate their enthusiasm using insufficient terms. They pack the complexity into a single verbal concept, and IMO they're usually actually aware of doing it. They mean the right thing and use a shortcut. Again, I myself do that all the time unless I deliberately focus on the matter.
OK, so you claim that people in general "mean the right thing" when they say they like a film for the story. However, when people on this forum say "story" you have claimed that they're ass-backwards and wrong. Did I miss something?
Obviously, one word is liable to communicate less than an extended discussion or analysis. However, that doesn't mean using a shortcut is wrong. If a lot of people use "story" to mean the right thing in speaking, they probably understand it as roughly the right thing too.
However, "story" means something different in the context of film from what it does in a book. In a film, the visuals, the music, the acting--all of these contribute to the "story". In a book, you have none of these. Therefore when you translate the term from one medium to another, you either import a vast number of irrelevancies, or you must, inevitably, refer to some quality which is present (and important) in both. The latter may seem to be attractive, but where it fails is that it essentializes that common quality. So where "story" or "storytelling" in a film may encompass plot, dialog, acting, cinematography, the use of the camera--in literature it becomes just "plot and dialog". Which leaves out use of language, description, even (one might argue) the use of allusion to other works, which may impact a literary audience differently from a film audience.
The same thing happens with the use of "story" in RPGs, only much more drastically.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityHere's what I'm saying: The divide you claim exists between the way academics watch movies and everyone else watches movies does not exist. The former simply watch them in a more conscious, focused and professional way. Unsurprisingly, coz that's what they do for a living.
I didn't say there was a divide. So why are you arguing with me again?
Quote from: Pierce InverarityI have a Ph.D. in modern art and theory, and that is what I teach at a US research university. Last week I showed "The Man with a Movie Camera" to the kids. Check it out. No story, but much goodness and hilarity.
Yeah, that was my guess. :)
Again (and again) I said
*MAINSTREAM* film. Not experimental Russian films from the 20s. I've seen lots of whacked experimental films too. How does it help the discussion here?
Quote from: StuartI didn't say there was a divide. So why are you arguing with me again?
QuoteThat's exactly how an academic watches a film. You can analyze the other aspects as well, but they're by and large secondary
Academic as opposed to ordinary people, yes?
QuoteYeah, that was my guess. :)
:) :) And how is that? :) :)
QuoteAgain (and again) I said *MAINSTREAM* film.
Me too, kid. Check out the examples I gave. Note the plural in "examples."
And with this, I'm done with talking about talking. Next post I want to see something substantial from you, something that amounts to more than waving a flag called "mainstream film." Like, a specific observation or three that's meaningfully tied to a general idea.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityAcademic as opposed to ordinary people, yes?
No.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityAnd how is that?
Art History faculty seem to approach Film studies a bit differently than Media Studies or Film Departments. Your book suggestion earlier, and suggestion on focusing on the differences between each art form was also very Art History. Not sure what else a "professional thinker" would be besides an academic. Personally, I'd just say Media Studies Faculty, not "professional media thinker".
Quote from: Pierce InverarityNext post I want to see something substantial from you, something that amounts to more than waving a flag called "mainstream film." Like, a specific observation or three that's meaningfully tied to a general idea.
If you can't follow along with the thread, there's not much I can do to help you Pierce. Next post i'd like to see you contribute something to the discussion besides being pedantic. You seem to be missing the point entirely.
It's not about whether something is mainstream. It's not about "the essence of the artform". The point was that sometimes you have a story before the audience shows up... and sometimes you don't.
Quote from: SettembriniNearly all are.
Sett, what German word are you translating "Story" as? Are you sure we're talking about the same thing?
Quote from: StuartSett, what German word are you translating "Story" as? Are you sure we're talking about the same thing?
I pray to the gods this is not a semantic argument. I hope he is not hung up on the difference between "about" and "told". As in, "The movie about a story that Shakespeare wrote" as opposed to "The movie told the story of Taming of the Shrew".
I really honestly hope I am wrong here but it really looks that way.
Bill
Quote from: droogI think you'll find those terms are still in use, but they also carry annoying connotations. 'Campaign' definitely suggests military origins, and doesn't always seem suitable. 'Scenario' has the ring of 'treatment' (and 'outline' or synopsis' or 'setting' sounds more like the GM's notes. 'Play through a scenario' raises the spectre of The GM's Story for me.
So you object to those terms because of the connotations, but we should all ignore the connotations of "story" because... umm... I'm not really sure. Why should we ignore the connotations of "story"?
QuoteI just don't see this happening. Maybe it's all perception.
So you're telling me people don't try to tell a story?
What, exactly, are you saying then?
QuoteI'm not married to 'story'. I just think it's good enough until I hear something better.
Scenario is not good enough. Drama is not good enough.
All I know is that "story" has been deliberately substituted for two earlier terms that didn't carry the same connotations and I have to wonder why.
QuoteWell, my impression is not entirely the same as yours. I've met a lot of funny, creative people who developed some decent skills. Sure, I've also met some utter goobers, but I think people should have the right to try.
I never said people weren't creative or bright or funny. I said most of them make no effort to acquire the skills involved in producing a story. That's a different thing. I agree entirely with you that they have the right to try, but I see very little evidence of them making any such effort.
Hang around a writers' or screenwriters' forum. Look at the kinds of things being discussed. Some of them are specific to the technical details of the particular medium, but others are general discussion about how stories work and how to accomplish various effects. Now look at RPG forums, especially those dedicated to story games, and there's almost none of the second type of discussion. Instead, those pursuing story in RPGs seem to have decided that "story" needs to be redefined to match what happens in their RPGs. This comes across as arrogant.
Those who are interested in roleplaying games represent a very small fraction of the broader society. As a consequence, if what RPGs produce isn't a "story" in the sense that the broader society understands the term, then it's up to those interested in RPGs to come up with a different and more appropriate term.
What I see is people redefining "noise" as "music" because it makes them feel good. All well and good, but along the way this ends up devaluing the work of a whole bunch of people who take music seriously and are actually trying to produce it.
So, yes, people have a right to try. But, along with that goes a responsibility to actually try.
Quote from: StuartRPGs are not a storytelling medium in the same manner that mainstream literature, film, tv, or theatre is.
If you want to compare RPGs to films... you should be looking at experimental films. If you want to compare RPGs to theatre... you should be looking at improv and experimental theatre.
It's significant that those forms are not primarily valued for the quality of the 'story' but for their other elements. This is exactly the same for RPGs.
I believe those who value RPGs for their other elements are referred to as gamists and simulationists.
Those who value RPGs for their "story" are called narrativists. Such individuals dominate the "indie" label in RPGs. That's what this discussion is about: those who do value "story" in RPGs. Pointing out that they do not constitute the entirety of the hobby is valid, but not particularly relevant.
ARRRGGHHHHHHH!!! HE SAID GNS!!!!!!
Quote from: Zoran BekricSo you object to those terms because of the connotations, but we should all ignore the connotations of "story" because... umm... I'm not really sure. Why should we ignore the connotations of "story"?
I think you should be aware of them. I like to be aware of connotations when possible.
QuoteSo you're telling me people don't try to tell a story?
I'm saying that I haven't seen this idea of 'telling a story' become bad shit in play.
QuoteDrama is not good enough.... All I know is that "story" has been deliberately substituted for two earlier terms that didn't carry the same connotations and I have to wonder why.
'Drama' is okay. It has some of its own connotations, like 'theatre' and 'acting', of course. And didn't the earliest drama tell stories about gods and heroes?
I'm pretty sure that nobody tried to slip 'story' in. It just sort of came in on its own.
QuoteI never said people weren't creative or bright or funny. I said most of them make no effort to acquire the skills involved in producing a story. That's a different thing. I agree entirely with you that they have the right to try, but I see very little evidence of them making any such effort.
Maybe you have very high standards. Or had bad luck with groups.
QuoteInstead, those pursuing story in RPGs seem to have decided that "story" needs to be redefined to match what happens in their RPGs. This comes across as arrogant.
I don't think it's that way at all. I think a lot of people started using the word in a natural way. I don't think folk lingo can be arrogant.
QuoteThose who are interested in roleplaying games represent a very small fraction of the broader society. As a consequence, if what RPGs produce isn't a "story" in the sense that the broader society understands the term, then it's up to those interested in RPGs to come up with a different and more appropriate term.
The Broader Society, in my dealings with them, use the word 'story' quite naturally in connection with RPGs. Might be the sort of thing I expose them to.
Quote from: HinterWeltI pray to the gods this is not a semantic argument. I hope he is not hung up on the difference between "about" and "told". As in, "The movie about a story that Shakespeare wrote" as opposed to "The movie told the story of Taming of the Shrew".
I really honestly hope I am wrong here but it really looks that way.
Bill
Now maybe this is all something lost in translation. But Hinterwelt, your sentences don´t make sense in the way you might want to. EDIT: to me, that is. I really am open to the thought it could be my wrong. but exxplaining what I think might help highlight the error/differences.
"The movie about a story that Shakespeare wrote"...
would be one of the recent Dr. Who episodes, wherein it was explained how Shakespeare got his creative input for witches etc. and that one of his "stories" [did Shakespeare write any? I think mostly plays and poetry, no?] was never released, because of interdimensional-temporal convolutions
"The movie told the story of Taming of the Shrew"
...would have to be a documentary. It would treat the creation, dissemination, publishing history and changing reception of the play.
Quote from: Zoran BekricI believe those who value RPGs for their other elements are referred to as gamists and simulationists.
Those who value RPGs for their "story" are called narrativists. Such individuals dominate the "indie" label in RPGs. That's what this discussion is about: those who do value "story" in RPGs. Pointing out that they do not constitute the entirety of the hobby is valid, but not particularly relevant.
I'm... not... talking... about GNS terms.
I'm saying, if you want to compare RPGs to other media, it would be the ones that don't have a pre-established story they're telling to an audience. It would be the improv / interactive ones.
Quote from: SettembriniNow maybe this is all something lost in translation. But Hinterwelt, your sentences don´t make sense in the way you might want to. EDIT: to me, that is. I really am open to the thought it could be my wrong. but exxplaining what I think might help highlight the error/differences.
"The movie about a story that Shakespeare wrote"...
would be one of the recent Dr. Who episodes, wherein it was explained how Shakespeare got his creative input for witches etc. and that one of his "stories" [did Shakespeare write any? I think mostly plays and poetry, no?] was never released, because of interdimensional-temporal convolutions
"The movie told the story of Taming of the Shrew"
...would have to be a documentary. It would treat the creation, dissemination, publishing history and changing reception of the play.
It could very well be me misunderstanding the conversation. I do not hold advanced degrees in any forms of literature or the like. I just looks like on one side you have people talking about story is an element of movies, books and such. On the other side, you seem to be saying that movies and such are not about story. It looks like like both sides are saying very different things.
Essentially, they seem to be saying (somewhat confusingly) that story is the underlying structure of certain media. You seem to be saying that movies and tv are about the experience and (maybe) they tell a story but are not about a story.
I restated a couple of times there to try for better understanding and may or may not have helped.
Bill
Quote from: HinterWeltI pray to the gods this is not a semantic argument.
It is.
It's a semantic argument that exists
because people have tried to redefine "story" many times in gaming. So, getting back to a plain-sense version of it is viewed with deep suspicion, and met with semantic arguments, because, hey, been burned.
Here, in this thread, one side wants sense (which is fair). The other wants to keep the door firmly shut against bullshit redefinitions of their hobby (also fair).
Well, that's my interpretation, anyhow, arrived while trying to figure out why Pierce was being all persnickety.
Quote from: StuartI'm... not... talking... about GNS terms.
I'm saying, if you want to compare RPGs to other media, it would be the ones that don't have a pre-established story they're telling to an audience. It would be the improv / interactive ones.
This is an interesting point. It is certainly the case that RPGs do not have exclusively pre-fabricated story. If they did then there would be no room for the Players to do anything other than speak the pre-scripted lines of their Characters. Yes, it is much more like Improv Theater. However, what was confusing me about this argument was the idea that Films, etc are not mainly focused on telling a story. Somehow that is so counter-intuitive as to border, frankly, on the nonsensical. Seems to me to be a post-modernist kind of argument where the effort goes toward attacking the details to the point that the substance itself is eliminated, and then claiming that the whole thing was pointless to begin with (got that from someone's tag line here, but I thought it was a really good point). So lets say you don't like the idea of Story Games. When someone brings it up, the answer for the post-modernist is then to kill the concept of Story itself in any way it is mentioned by ridiculing the details of whatever the person says to the point where the conversation becomes meaningless... and then claiming that therefore you've "proved" that Story is a meaningless concept. The problem is that just doesn't work. Story is not a meaningless concept, no matter how much you ridicule it. It may be overbroadly used by some, yes. It may not be the sole focus of films, tv shows, etc, yes. It may not be easy to create good story in RPG format, yes. However, to therefore say that RPGs can not and should not produce good story is still nevertheless false, in my opinion and experience. I've seen some very good stories come out of RPGs. The real question is not, can it be done? But How can we do this better? Well, that's *my* question anyway. If others are not interested in whether or not their RPG has good story, and are content to run around the featureless plain killing zombies, so be it. Who am I to say what should or shouldn't be fun for someone else? But I do expect the same courtesy. I LIKE and PREFER an RPG that has a good story to it, both in the BackStory and in the FrontStory. Sorry if anyone is offended by that. But that's how it be. Nuff said. I head back to the lurker's shadows now.
... woooshhh...
Levi, VBWyrde:
If you continue your way, you kill all exchange of thoughts. Let me introduce you to your next twenty years of online discourse:
VB: "I like RPGs with story in them"
Levie: "Me too! Isn´t it great when the story is great?"
VB: "It definitely is."
:rolleyes:
Quote from: SettembriniLevi, VBWyrde:
If you continue your way, you kill all exchange of thoughts. Let me introduce you to your next twenty years of online discourse:
VB: "I like RPGs with story in them"
Levie: "Me too! Isn´t it great when the story is great?"
VB: "It definitely is."
:rolleyes:
Not so! The discussion will go like this:
VB: "I like RPGs with story in them"
Levie: "Me too! Isn´t it great when the story is great?"
VB: "It definitely is."
Levie: "How can I improve my technique?"
VB: "Ok, sure... what are you doing now, and how would you like to see it improved?"
... an actually interesting discussion ensues...
Levie: "Wow that was cool. Thanks!!"
VB: "Sure, np. Good luck with the Campaign."
:)
Quote from: VBWyrdeThis is an interesting point. It is certainly the case that RPGs do not have exclusively pre-fabricated story. If they did then there would be no room for the Players to do anything other than speak the pre-scripted lines of their Characters. Yes, it is much more like Improv Theater.
Yes!
Quote from: VBWyrdeHowever, what was confusing me about this argument was the idea that Films, etc are not mainly focused on telling a story. Somehow that is so counter-intuitive as to border, frankly, on the nonsensical. Seems to me to be a post-modernist kind of argument where the effort goes toward attacking the details to the point that the substance itself is eliminated, and then claiming that the whole thing was pointless to begin with (got that from someone's tag line here, but I thought it was a really good point).
Exactly!
Quote from: VBWyrdeSo lets say you don't like the idea of Story Games. When someone brings it up, the answer for the post-modernist is then to kill the concept of Story itself in any way it is mentioned by ridiculing the details of whatever the person says to the point where the conversation becomes meaningless... and then claiming that therefore you've "proved" that Story is a meaningless concept. The problem is that just doesn't work. Story is not a meaningless concept, no matter how much you ridicule it. It may be overbroadly used by some, yes. It may not be the sole focus of films, tv shows, etc, yes. It may not be easy to create good story in RPG format, yes.
Total agreement!
...and I'm not going to quote any of the rest of it. :haw:
But seriously, to address some of your other questions, and to put this in terms friendly to those in favour of "STORY" in their RPGs (aka the Forge / Storygames crowd):
If you sit down to watch a movie, read a book, or sit in the audience at the theatre -- those are all Story
Before. If you want to recreate this experience at the game table you get a 'Railroading' type game. The GM is trying to tell a story to the players. Unless you want this, don't think of RPGs in the same terms as things that produce Story Before.
If you really want Story
Now you need to look at other things that do that -- Improv theatre, experimental video, etc.
You should also think about how almost any game or event can produce Story
After. Is Story Now any better than Story After in creating "good" stories? I don't think it is.
So, like other things that produce Story Now, the quality of the story isn't in fact the most compelling part of the format. Like watching Improv theatre, it's not the story that's most enjoyable, it's watching the players try and meet the challenge of creating a story with all the constraints of the premise and rules of the "game".
That's right -- Game. Which is what's holding back the Storygames crowd
immensely -- the artificial separation of Story and Game in their theories. Improv Theatre and Story Now experiences are Games about building Stories. They have rules. You can do well (aka win) and you can do poorly (aka lose). There is challenge, competition, and all the other elements of a game.
I think it's why I'd say Jason Morningstar is closest to producing successful "Storygames" -- because he's trying to bridge the gap between what the Forge set think of as "Game" and "Story".
Quote from: SettembriniLevi, VBWyrde:
If you continue your way, you kill all exchange of thoughts. Let me introduce you to your next twenty years of online discourse:
VB: "I like RPGs with story in them"
Levie: "Me too! Isn´t it great when the story is great?"
VB: "It definitely is."
:rolleyes:
Of course! Because discussing whether or not one can view a game in terms of story is valid is
the only possible useful discussion.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. In fact, I've never talked about anything other than story-quality in games, and actively resent it when anyone ever tries to talk about anything else. That's just what I do.
Fuck off, Sett.
Are you guys for realz?
I mean, can´t you see your folly?
That "story" you keep talking about, it doesn´t mean or exist in the way you think.
Moreso, nobody knows what you mean with that word, and chances are great it´s different from what VBWyrd or stuart means.
It would be funny, if it wasn´t so sad.
I´m out. Re-read my last couple of posts as often as you wish, revelation and enlightenment might follow.
What really is so pathetic and annoying s that you guys make claims without ever backing them up, as in "I´m talking about story all the time!"
When you actually don´t show us or never have shown it.
*shakes head in disbelief*
Quote from: StuartYes! Exactly! Total agreement!
...and I'm not going to quote any of the rest of it. :haw:
But seriously, to address some of your other questions, and to put this in terms friendly to those in favour of "STORY" in their RPGs (aka the Forge / Storygames crowd):
If you sit down to watch a movie, read a book, or sit in the audience at the theatre -- those are all Story Before. If you want to recreate this experience at the game table you get a 'Railroading' type game. The GM is trying to tell a story to the players. Unless you want this, don't think of RPGs in the same terms as things that produce Story Before.
If you really want Story Now you need to look at other things that do that -- Improv theatre, experimental video, etc.
You should also think about how almost any game or event can produce Story After. Is Story Now any better than Story After in creating "good" stories? I don't think it is.
So, like other things that produce Story Now, the quality of the story isn't in fact the most compelling part of the format. Like watching Improv theatre, it's not the story that's most enjoyable, it's watching the players try and meet the challenge of creating a story with all the constraints of the premise and rules of the "game".
That's right -- Game. Which is what's holding back the Storygames crowd immensely -- the artificial separation of Story and Game in their theories. Improv Theatre and Story Now experiences are Games about building Stories. They have rules. You can do well (aka win) and you can do poorly (aka lose). There is challenge, competition, and all the other elements of a game.
I think it's why I'd say Jason Morningstar is closest to producing successful "Storygames" -- because he's trying to bridge the gap between what the Forge set think of as "Game" and "Story".
Ok that's clear to me now. However, I would like to add that it is possible to have good story from Improv. It is my experience some of the elements required to create a good story from RPG are:
- Good BackStory from whatever source (the GM, or RPG settings book, or Novel, or film or whatever)
- Good Players with creative imagination and a sense of story and a sense of their characters.
- Good Gamesmastering Technique in regards to comprehension of what makes a good story, descriptive capability, excellence in portraying characters (NPCs), and a flexible creative mind that can take current improv events and swiftly and successfully analyze them in regards to the BackStory and derive good Story Now.
I think there are probably more, but that should serve at least as a base set. I do believe you can get good, and potentially even Great Story from an RPG. But it's not easy. Success takes a lot of work. My contention however is that when you do succeed, it is pretty damn awesome and actually worth the effort.
Quote from: SettembriniThat "story" you keep talking about, it doesn´t mean or exist in the way you think.
You don't know what I think. Here, let me expand.
When I walk out of a movie theatre, or out of a play, or go home from a LARP or tabletop session, I might turn to the guy next to me and ask what he thought. And he might very well say that it was okay, but he thought the story was weak.
By saying this, he is prompting me to frame the experience form the perspective of “how was the story?”, examining the experience from that perspective. Doing so has value; it allows me to look at the series of fictional events as presented had some kind of increasing tensions as they went along, some kind of core conflict, if they were tied together not only by causality but by tone and feel, if they concluded in a fashion that managed to bring the central conflict to a satisfying end, and if there were side events that detracted from the whole.
It’s not the only perspective of value. I might very well come to conclude that, yes, the story was weak, but the other strengths of the piece more than make up for it to *me*. And then, of course, I start looking at the experience from the other perspectives in my toolbox.
Let’s say that it was an RPG we just left - a session of Undermountain, as played by my own group. Thinking about it as a game, I note the great combat challenges and how they occurred, as well as why they were great. Thinking about it as a dramatic thingy, I applaud the really cool scenery-chewing fun for the guy playing the dwarf. All of this takes about a quarter-second, and then I respond to my friend to tell him why I thought it was great.
And, in turn, I’m asking him to look at the experience from those perspectives; and if he really gets it, he’ll be able to adjust to a closer mental map of the things that others put their priorities on in play, which is good.
Multiple different perspectives are better than some undefined and non-existant One Right Way, because multiple perspectives are what really exist. There is no One True Viewpoint; it doesn’t exist.
Quote from: StuartYes!
Exactly!
Total agreement!
...and I'm not going to quote any of the rest of it. :haw:
But seriously, to address some of your other questions, and to put this in terms friendly to those in favour of "STORY" in their RPGs (aka the Forge / Storygames crowd):
If you sit down to watch a movie, read a book, or sit in the audience at the theatre -- those are all Story Before. If you want to recreate this experience at the game table you get a 'Railroading' type game. The GM is trying to tell a story to the players. Unless you want this, don't think of RPGs in the same terms as things that produce Story Before.
If you really want Story Now you need to look at other things that do that -- Improv theatre, experimental video, etc.
You should also think about how almost any game or event can produce Story After. Is Story Now any better than Story After in creating "good" stories? I don't think it is.
So, like other things that produce Story Now, the quality of the story isn't in fact the most compelling part of the format. Like watching Improv theatre, it's not the story that's most enjoyable, it's watching the players try and meet the challenge of creating a story with all the constraints of the premise and rules of the "game".
That's right -- Game. Which is what's holding back the Storygames crowd immensely -- the artificial separation of Story and Game in their theories. Improv Theatre and Story Now experiences are Games about building Stories. They have rules. You can do well (aka win) and you can do poorly (aka lose). There is challenge, competition, and all the other elements of a game.
I think it's why I'd say Jason Morningstar is closest to producing successful "Storygames" -- because he's trying to bridge the gap between what the Forge set think of as "Game" and "Story".
Finally, something like an argument.
Two observations.
1. Your post is derivative and has been posted on the wrong website.
Everything you just said is not a fresh insight into anything but has been received opinion for years now. Why try telling the Forge crowd what they themselves came up with? And why tell them here? And so risk moving the thread to Off Topic?
2. Its central thesis provokes, one more time, the obvious rebuttal:
Story Now is a deeply contradictory concept.
It shows how, to the extent a roleplaying game is a roleplaying game, it's precisely not a story.
Story Now = Oxymoron.
1. Because of its TEMPORALITY. The game happens NOW. How many "stories" do you know--besides some obscure artsy-fartsy shit--a) whose events are written in the present tense; AND b) which are being told in the present moment? AND which incorporate point 2?--
2. Because of the in-built radical unpredictability generated by the randomness of the die roll. CHANCE is the natural enemy of story.
All you can ever hope to do, when playing the game as game and yet trying to turn it into what it is not, is tame or bracket chance. Foul compromises are always an indication of muddy thinking about media.
Proof: your examples.
QuoteIf you really want Story Now you need to look at other things that do that -- Improv theatre, experimental video, etc.
Experimental video? Improv theater?
Gee, what happened here? How did we get from a "mainstream" desire for "stories" to this artsy-fartsy NONNARRATIVE stuff?
Quote from: Pierce InverarityFinally, something like an argument.
It's the exact same point you've been struggling with.
Quote from: Pierce Inverarity1. Your post is derivative and has been posted on the wrong website.
I feel the same way about your 'contributions'... :rolleyes:
Quote from: Pierce InverarityEverything you just said is not a fresh insight into anything but has been received opinion for years now. Why try telling the Forge crowd what they themselves came up with? And why tell them here? And so risk moving the thread to Off Topic?
1. No.
2. Check the thread topic. Dumbass.
Quote from: Pierce Inverarity1. Because of its TEMPORALITY. The game happens NOW. How many "stories" do you know--besides some obscure artsy-fartsy shit
I don't recall giving any examples besides improv theatre and experimental video art.
Pierce, you continue to not actually disagree with what I'm saying, but just present it in a very disagreeable way.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityExperimental video? Improv theater?
Gee, what happened here? How did we get from a "mainstream" desire for "stories" to this artsy-fartsy NONNARRATIVE stuff?
Seriously, go back and re-read the thread. You obviously aren't keeping up. You seem to think I'm arguing in favour of a 'mainstream desire for "stories" in RPGs' (of the Forge/Storygames variety), which is not only inaccurate but it seems to be clouding your perceptions of what's actually being discussed.
It's like VBWyrde said, anytime someone says the "S" word you knee-jerk into pedantic attack mode.
Either contribute something of value, or let grown ups talk.
Stuart, beyond any pro/con story disagreements, there's something off here at a basic level. Your statements and intentions connect only partially or not at all. That makes any further debate futile.
QuoteThat makes any further debate futile.
Thank god.
I really see more agreement than disagreement in the above, as it pertains to RPGs...the derailment having more to do with arguments over the applicability of "story" across established art forms.
Here I agree completely with Stuart:
QuoteSo, like other things that produce Story Now, the quality of the story isn't in fact the most compelling part of the format. Like watching Improv theatre, it's not the story that's most enjoyable, it's watching the players try and meet the challenge of creating a story with all the constraints of the premise and rules of the "game".
And here I agree with Pierce:
QuoteStory Now is a deeply contradictory concept.
It shows how, to the extent a roleplaying game is a roleplaying game, it's precisely not a story.
And this takes us way back to what I was writing about earlier in the thread. Forge-type "indie" games are marked by "focus"; but the channelizing effect of the underlying theory, which draws on outside media and essentializes the points of overlap between RPGs and those media (competitive board games and film drama), has resulted in a few narrow focuses dominating. In particular, Nar="Story Now"=Egri/Edwards/Baker-type drama has a centripetal effect on both the content ("hard choices") and the methods.
Among the less knowledgeable adherents of the theory, any expressed desire for "story" gets swept up in the semantic confusion. But even at the very core of theory authority, you have the same effect. That is, if your gaming shows evidence of interest in mortal questions, character development, anything that resembles the Nar "agenda", it can then be judged successful by how well it focuses on that agenda.
Eliot;
I don't think you're talking about anything I'm talking about.
Are you?
What I'm talking about may relate to stuff you've written in this thread, but I was only thinking about the discussion between Stuart & PI when I wrote it.
Broadly, though, there's a connection to where PI called you on the "storyette" branch of the thread. Point being, I think, if playing an RPG is great even if the "story" isn't much, then focusing on "story" in RPGs risks compromising the quality or qualities which actually make the game worthwhile.
Quote from: Elliot WilenI really see more agreement than disagreement in the above, as it pertains to RPGs...the derailment having more to do with arguments over the applicability of "story" across established art forms.
El, for one thing that's not a derailment but a pointer to one of his basic tenets. See that "immersion" thread and all those wacky transmedial narrative ideas he's citing. And for another, you'd have to explain to me how I'm in agreement with this kind of thing:
QuoteThat's right -- Game. Which is what's holding back the Storygames crowd immensely -- the artificial separation of Story and Game in their theories. Improv Theatre and Story Now experiences are Games about building Stories. They have rules. You can do well (aka win) and you can do poorly (aka lose). There is challenge, competition, and all the other elements of a game.
I think it's why I'd say Jason Morningstar is closest to producing successful "Storygames" -- because he's trying to bridge the gap between what the Forge set think of as "Game" and "Story".
Not a single sentence here to which I'd subscribe.
Quote from: Elliot WilenPoint being, I think, if playing an RPG is great even if the "story" isn't much, then focusing on "story" in RPGs risks compromising the quality or qualities which actually make the game worthwhile.
Er. Right, I agree with that.
What I'm saying is that it doesn't follow that "Looking at RPGs from such a perspective, at any time, for any reason, is Always Bad And Stupid."
Quote from: Levi KornelsenWhat I'm saying is that it doesn't follow that "Looking at RPGs from such a perspective, at any time, for any reason, is Always Bad And Stupid."
The premise of GNS, the foundational theory of many "Indie" games, that game and narrative are somehow seperate in a "Story Now" activity is "Always Bad And Stupid".
The game is trying to make a story under the challenging conditions of the activity.
Quote from: StuartThe premise of GNS
Sorry, you lost me right there.
I
don't care what GNS says about it. I'm not for that theory, or against it.
I. Just. Don't. Care.
So, if GNS is what you think I'm talking about, think again.
Quote from: Elliot WilenI really see more agreement than disagreement in the above, as it pertains to RPGs...the derailment having more to do with arguments over the applicability of "story" across established art forms.
That's actually quite pertinent. It's absolutely true that a story is told in a different way through film than through words. Nevertheless, stories are told.
It's true that RPGs are a very different medium, and yet--many RPGers talk of 'story'. Outsiders watching say things like "It's like a real adventure story!" (actual quote). People feel that they are, somehow, making up a story on the spot.
These people may be naive, but there appears to be a strong intuitive feeling that 'story' and RPGs are not unconnected. Maybe we've got a whole new way of telling stories, and some preconceptions are going to have to be reexamined. Or maybe not.
QuoteAmong the less knowledgeable adherents of the theory, any expressed desire for "story" gets swept up in the semantic confusion. But even at the very core of theory authority, you have the same effect. That is, if your gaming shows evidence of interest in mortal questions, character development, anything that resembles the Nar "agenda", it can then be judged successful by how well it focuses on that agenda.
That's all sort of another argument. I'd say that anybody after 'story' qualities in their RPing is likely to develop strong techniques in pursuit of that goal (or be continually disappointed). Forge games tend to embed techniques, and to the extent you can live with that, that's one way of tackling the problem. Forge 'narrativist' games further do tend to follow Ron and Vincent's thinking on premise, tough choices etc (though I think it's a bit tenuous in many cases).
Quote from: Elliot WilenBroadly, though, there's a connection to where PI called you on the "storyette" branch of the thread. Point being, I think, if playing an RPG is great even if the "story" isn't much, then focusing on "story" in RPGs risks compromising the quality or qualities which actually make the game worthwhile.
Well, I agree, but so what? Making a diceless game risks compromising qualities that make dice-using games worthwhile. Making a sci-fi game risks compromising qualities that make fantasy games worthwhile. And yes, making story-focused games risks compromising qualities that make non-story-focused games worthwhile.
Some new game designs will go into new territory. Change involves risk. Some new games won't be fun, or will be fun in different ways that earlier games. That's the nature of diversity.
I like many old games. Some of my favorites include James Bond 007, 2nd ed Ars Magica, and 4th ed HERO. However, new games should be... well...
new.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityEl, for one thing that's not a derailment but a pointer to one of his basic tenets. See that "immersion" thread and all those wacky transmedial narrative ideas he's citing.
I raised concerns about those, sure, but here I see Stuart putting traditional media on one side, and RPGs on another--basically, that film and literature are both about story, while RPGs aren't. With RPGs as the focus of discussion, I think that lumping other media together isn't that important.
That said, I also don't get or agree with the other part you quoted.
Quote from: droogThat's actually quite pertinent. It's absolutely true that a story is told in a different way through film than through words. Nevertheless, stories are told.
I don't dispute that, or even that within the same medium you may have a greater or lesser overlap with other media in terms of how they engage an audience. E.g., I think both in TV and in literature there are works whose appeal depends strongly on "plot", in the sense of "what happens next".
Other times, not so much. I'm thinking of my relatively underwhelming experience reading (admittedly in translation) the Vietnamese epic,
The Story of Kieu. It's a sort of picaresque tale, based on a Chinese story, about a girl who has a bunch of unhappy adventures in various marginal parts of society, before finally finding some redemption and solace in old age. The plot could be a good skeleton for an engaging melodrama, but there's almost no characterization, nothing really exciting in terms of action. Leaving out the possibility that I'm just not up to the work, I've gathered that the real genius and resonance of the poem is due to the use of language and the historical and cultural connotations evoked by the story. As such, appreciation is extremely difficult not only in a written translation, but even if it was kept in the native language and translated to a different medium, I think you'd end up with either an entirely different work, or a work whose success depended mainly on the audience's familiarity with the written poem.
In RPGs, the same phenomenon exists where if you observe what it is, precisely, that's carried over from other media, it ends up playing a lesser role than it did elsewhere, and often in a very stunted form compared to how it worked in the source medium. This is one reason that bad books sometimes make good movies, and vice-versa.
Quote from: Elliot WilenI don't dispute that, or even that within the same medium you may have a greater or lesser overlap with other media in terms of how they engage an audience. E.g., I think both in TV and in literature there are works whose appeal depends strongly on "plot", in the sense of "what happens next".
Obviously, right?
QuoteIn RPGs, the same phenomenon exists where if you observe what it is, precisely, that's carried over from other media, it ends up playing a lesser role than it did elsewhere, and often in a very stunted form compared to how it worked in the source medium. This is one reason that bad books sometimes make good movies, and vice-versa.
This, in my opinion, is where things are still developing.
Quote from: jhkimWell, I agree, but so what? Making a diceless game risks compromising qualities that make dice-using games worthwhile. Making a sci-fi game risks compromising qualities that make fantasy games worthwhile. And yes, making story-focused games risks compromising qualities that make non-story-focused games worthwhile.
Somewhere between simplistic declarations of like/dislike, and banal acknowledgment that others may like things that I dislike, there's the exploration of the reasons for liking stuff and what it means to us, in a manner that's intelligible to others.
Furthermore, "focusing on moral dilemmas" may or may not be new in the RPG context but it's not innovative in itself. If RPGs were the only way to approach some issue, that would be one thing; if the argument for playing an RPG is that it offers an alternative, often weaker, approach, then it's strongly susceptible to the complaint "why wouldn't I just do X" (for values of X including "write a book", "play Scruples", "play a videogame", etc.)
Quote from: droogObviously, right?
Well, what I'm thinking of is serial fiction where to a large degree the only thing offered is a succession of events. I admit I'm biased against most soap opera but I get the impression (based partly on the existence of magazines like
Soap Opera Digest) that the "stuff" which the audience craves is supplied almost as well textually as audiovisually. Whereas there'd be much less point reading the bare bones of a
Futurama episode.
Or another way of looking at it: I do watch
Smallville, and I used to watch
24, but having seen an episode of either show both my wife and I agree that we have zero interest in seeing a rerun. That tells me that a big part of the show's appeal (for me) is just "learning what happens next". Not so with an episode of
Seinfeld, or (original)
Star Trek, or to pick what I think was a much higher quality serial, the first few seasons of
Homicide.
Quote from: Elliot WilenIf RPGs were the only way to approach some issue, that would be one thing; if the argument for playing an RPG is that it offers an alternative, often weaker, approach, then it's strongly susceptible to the complaint "why wouldn't I just do X" (for values of X including "write a book", "play Scruples", "play a videogame", etc.)
That's the hard question that R. Edwards asks. For me, I like roleplaying with a group of friends. I find it a great way to connect with people--better than going to the movies together. I like the ways people can craft drama and narrative out of random resolution and bouncing off each other (I like group work in general). I'm not artistically ambitious. But it beats TV. There's nothing quite like it.
André Breton said that the novel was a chess game the author played with the reader, did you know?
On some of your examples, I think there's actually a lot more story in
Seinfeld than they'd have you believe. Each episode is like a little morality play. On soapies, I used to be hooked on
Neighbours (in the Kylie Minogue days) and I have to disagree. Visuals are still very important in soaps, and one way they keep you hooked is by overlapping storylines so that there's always something on the go. I haven't seen
Smallville or 24, and I could always take or leave the others.
Anyway, I think there are certainly people who play as a 'succession of events'. In books it's like
Daily Life in the Early Middle Ages.
Levi, your post approaches the problem, so I´m staying.
What you say is, that media hav several dimensions. That´s what I also said.
Full agreement.
It is also possible to talk about the "story" of a movie, keeping with the example.
But that´s not what Stuart said. Stuart said that mainstream pop culture is a Storytelling medium. When it is never ever and is really not one.
The rare instances of storytelling are those souped up docutainments like: "The Mars brothers - Rise and Fall of the Chocolate Empire part II".
Even more so, all instances of people in RPGS talking about "story" in RPGs or media highlight the fact that most people use the word in a very contradictory or plainly wrong way.
Examples:
All of the Forge, see up-thread.
Ryan Dancey.
The main honcho of Fear the Boot.
Mark Rein-Hagen
etc.
For example, the FtB guy always talks and talks about how he is more concerned with the Story of his RPG. Whereas he only means it´s not so much about the rules, but about the verisimilitude of the in-game events. And with his campaign and GM ideas being more important than rules or tactics.
Ryan Dancey: Nobody knows what he means when talking about story. It sounds a bit like he is kinda like the FtB-guy, but not totally.
Stuart? Who knows. He´s talking about the Forge right now. Now, Ron Edwards thinks Star Wars is REALLY about Luke´s heroic journey. Go figure.
Storytelling from WW: ...is different from what Hagen wanted. Hagen wanted a player centered chronicle with a lot of player freedom and somesuch. WW turned it into railroading, metaplot wankfests, that said it was Campbellian and Aristotelian (which is contradictory itself, but alas...) but wasn´t even that.
Others, confusingly Ryan too, talk about dramatic structure. Interestingly enough, they don´t understand dramatic structure it seems. because it obviously never ever is reached without heavy GM interference and curtailment of what makes RPGs RPGs.
What stands out: Not a single Forge game can deliver dramatic structure. Whichs highlights their story is not concerned with that.
Moreso: Stuart and Ryan for example behave like there is a general acceptance and ultimate truth regarding the proper dramartic structure. Albeit there are paradigms and cliches in (American mass culture), they are not alone and they are not very effective in regards of conveying a body of events in their factual interrelation. The techniques are for emotional purposes, not for purposes of storytelling.
To sum it up:
- mass media are not primarily or even secondarily concerned with storytelling, just as they are not concerned with conveying music.
- "story" and storytelling have no discernible meaning in RPG discourse
- "story" has also no use in day to day talk. It can only serve as a discussion starter. Only after the discussion will it become clear what was bad when someone said: "The story in that movie sucked"
- sloppy use of the word increases confusion
Quote from: SettembriniNow, Ron Edwards thinks Star Wars is REALLY about Luke´s heroic journey. Go figure.
OK, I'll bite. What IS Star Wars really about?
Quote from: MelinglorOK, I'll bite. What IS Star Wars really about?
Arguably, taken as a whole, the fall and redemption of his father.
:rolleyes:
Do you really think that?
Please take a minute and think bout what is awesome about Star Wars, and what your thoughts and feelings were when you first watched the original trilogy.
Compare that to what you posted.
I do not believe a sinlge moment that the father-son relationship is or was of any import in regards of your emotional investment and enjoyment of the trilogy.
Hint: It´s like an opera.
Quote from: droogI think you should be aware of them. I like to be aware of connotations when possible.
As far as I can tell, your entire position is based on "story" being just a placeholder until some better term comes along. So when you say "story", you don't mean story, you mean something-kinda-like-story-only-different. This would seem to be ignoring not only the connotations of "story", but the denotation as well.
QuoteI'm saying that I haven't seen this idea of 'telling a story' become bad shit in play.
Really? So you've never encountered the kind of thing described in the From the Horses mouth: Paizo´s own brand of Story-Swinery (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8086) thread?
If people are told they're supposed to "tell a story", they automatically start railroading. They come up with a story and they want to tell it.
If such railroading is considered a problem, then "story" gets redefined so it's not about plot. This removes the term from the way the term is used by the vast majority of people.
In more extreme cases, those who do not go along with this new definition of "story" get dismissed as suffering from "brain damage". Actually, that probably shouldn't have quote marks around it, since it's been made clear it's not meant as hyperbole or metaphor, but as literal brain damage.
QuoteMaybe you have very high standards. Or had bad luck with groups.
Given my ongoing interest in popular fiction -- pulp magazines, dime novels, chapbooks, fanfic -- most people say I have very low standards.
I'm currently exploring the replays introduced into this thread by Dirk Remmecke in post #343. I am hampered by the fact that I don't read Japanese, but from what I've been able to track down so far, this seems to be a much more promising line of development than anything that's come out of the Forge or the Story-Games Fora.
I find it interesting that (based on a very limited sample, I admit), that replays use very traditional systems -- D&D comes up surprisingly often -- and the player/GM relationship seems traditional. This last one, I'm not entirely sure about.
By contrast, other than the podcasts of gaming sessions -- most of which also seem to mostly use traditional systems and player/GM relationship -- I have yet to find any examples of stories that have come out of games and groups specifically dedicated to producing stories.
So, if I'm having bad luck with groups, it's not just the groups I happen to have played with. It would seem to an internet-wide phenomenon -- at least in the English-speaking (writing?) internet.
QuoteI don't think it's that way at all. I think a lot of people started using the word in a natural way. I don't think folk lingo can be arrogant.
And lots of kids just decided to start using "gay" as an insult. I'm not sure that the fact that no-one deliberately started doing so makes the usage any the less offensive.
QuoteThe Broader Society, in my dealings with them, use the word 'story' quite naturally in connection with RPGs. Might be the sort of thing I expose them to.
They also use the word "story" when talking about political campaigns, historical events and journalistic reporting. Perhaps they're just using to mean
a-series-of-events-that-can-be-retold.
Quote from: StuartI'm... not... talking... about GNS terms.
Use whatever terms you want. The point remains that some people playing RPGs are interested in other things, and some are interested in story.
Those interested in story are self-declared as interested in story. They come together in fora dedicated to exploring RPGs as a way of telling stories.
If you want I will refer to those interested in story as "story-gamers" and those interested in other things as "non-story-gamers". But the underlying point will remain the same.
QuoteI'm saying, if you want to compare RPGs to other media, it would be the ones that don't have a pre-established story they're telling to an audience. It would be the improv / interactive ones.
And I'm saying that if you're dealing with RPGs whose declared intention is to tell a story, then the media you compare the results to is other media whose declared intention is to tell a story. Apples with apples.
If story is the declared goal, then story is the standard by which the results are judged.
If RPGs are not a story-telling medium, then declaring story to be a goal of some types of play would seem to be more than a little wrong-headed.
Quote from: Zoran BekricReally? So you've never encountered the kind of thing described in the From the Horses mouth: Paizo´s own brand of Story-Swinery (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8086) thread?
Sure--and I also noted that it appears to be popular. My hypothesis is that many people do want some form of narrative, and that's a way of getting it that goes way back.
QuoteIf people are told they're supposed to "tell a story", they automatically start railroading. They come up with a story and they want to tell it.
If such railroading is considered a problem, then "story" gets redefined so it's not about plot. This removes the term from the way the term is used by the vast majority of people.
Not in my experience.
Now, I'm not going to address the whole bit about the Forge, Story Games etc. I think it's irrelevant to this particular discussion.
QuoteAnd lots of kids just decided to start using "gay" as an insult. I'm not sure that the fact that no-one deliberately started doing so makes the usage any the less offensive.
They also use the word "story" when talking about political campaigns, historical events and journalistic reporting. Perhaps they're just using to mean a-series-of-events-that-can-be-retold.
Perhaps they are, and perhaps they just use the most convenient word to hand. That's what people do.
Quote from: droogNot in my experience.
Now, I'm not going to address the whole bit about the Forge, Story Games etc. I think it's irrelevant to this particular discussion.
Your experience appears to be highly selective. If you're going exclude the Forge, Story Games, etc. as irrelevant, then obviously your "experience" will be that there are no problems.
If you exclude night as "irrelevant", you can claim that, in your "experience", the sky is always blue.
QuoteSure--and I also noted that it appears to be popular. My hypothesis is that many people do want some form of narrative, and that's a way of getting it that goes way back.
But not universally popular. So, by excluding any instances of people complaining about such things as being "irrelevant", you can say that, in your "experience", telling people they're going to tell a story in a RPG never results in any headfucks or grief.
QuotePerhaps they are, and perhaps they just use the most convenient word to hand. That's what people do.
Given that people had to deliberately substitute "story" for scenario and drama, I don't think so.
Or have you excluded that from your experience as irrelevant as well?
Quote from: SettembriniBut that´s not what Stuart said. Stuart said that mainstream pop culture is a Storytelling medium. When it is never ever and is really not one.
Um... Sett? That's not even close to what I was saying. I don't think anyone would ever claim a culture, pop or otherwise, was a storytelling medium. I think you may be mistranslating things.
Quote from: Zoran BekricYour experience appears to be highly selective. If you're going exclude the Forge, Story Games, etc. as irrelevant, then obviously your "experience" will be that there are no problems.
What's irrelevant is the specific complaint about that angle. People want 'story': that's what we're actually talking about. Forge techniques are only one way to achieve that goal.
QuoteBut not universally popular. So, by excluding any instances of people complaining about such things as being "irrelevant", you can say that, in your "experience", telling people they're going to tell a story in a RPG never results in any headfucks or grief.
I have seen headfucks and grief arise from various forms of roleplaying, but never specifically from claiming that we were all there to 'tell a story'. I've seen the GM railroad work just fine (perpetrated it, in fact).
Stuart, you said that:
QuoteRPGs are not a storytelling medium in the same manner that mainstream literature, film, tv, or theatre is.
And Levi and I got into an argument over that.
I can only repeat, those aren´t storytelling media. It´s neither their primary nor secondary nature or mission in most cases.
Quote from: SettembriniStuart, you said that:
QuoteRPGs are not a storytelling medium in the same manner that mainstream literature, film, tv, or theatre is.
And Levi and I got into an argument over that.
I can only repeat, those aren´t storytelling media. It´s neither their primary nor secondary nature or mission in most cases.
You're translating "mainstream literature, film, tv, or theatre" as "pop culture". That's not accurate, and certainly not what I'm saying. I'm using the word "mainstream" there to qualify that I'm not referring to uncommon uses of the different media I'm listing. An example of the distinction I'm making is "regular" theatre vs "improv" theatre. "Regular" theatre is more mainstream than "improv" theatre.
So what?
Ignore my pop-culture sentence. Concentrate on what I said:
Mainstream media (the ones you just named) aren´t storytelling media.
That is, their primary, secondary and maby even tertiary concerns and missions are differetn from storytelling.
Quote from: SettembriniI can only repeat, those aren´t storytelling media. It´s neither their primary nor secondary nature or mission in most cases.
This is that counter-intuitive bit that seems like reductio absurdum, though I give you the benefit of the doubt. But do you really believe that film is not a storytelling medium?
EDIT: ah you replied while I was writing this up. Ok - so it is Mainstream media you are talking about? Hmm... Even so, I'm not sure I understand or agree.
Consider what your thoughts and feelings are, when you watch Star Wars.
Movies, mainstream movies are all about evoking emoitions by presenting a multi-dimensional experience.
Mainstream media are emotional and experiential endeavours.
Story is only a very unimportant part in that scheme. Like music is a minor part. An important one, but it´s a means, not the end.
I think there's a case to be made that story is also a means to an end in RPGs (which are also an emotional and experiential endeavour).
Quote from: SettembriniMainstream media (the ones you just named) aren´t storytelling media.
That is, their primary, secondary and maby even tertiary concerns and missions are differetn from storytelling.
"Mainstream Media", just like "Pop Culture" isn't what I'm talking about.
I'm saying classic literature is not the same as interactive fiction.
I'm saying a Shakespearean play is not the same as Improv Theatre.
I'm saying a TV drama is not the same as watching Video installation art.
I'm saying that RPGs shouldn't model themselves after things with pre-established stories -- people interested in story in there RPGs (don't assume that's me!) should look at media where the story is built during the performance.
Edit:
Sett, what is the German word for "Story"? Geschichte?
Quote from: Zoran BekricIf story is the declared goal, then story is the standard by which the results are judged.
Exactly. :)
All games have goals, and success of failure in reaching those goals is how you determine if you're winning or losing a game.
But just like Improv Theatre the story itself is not the primary thing a storytelling GAME is (or should be!) valued for. It's the gameplay experience that's most important, and the challenges to the players.
THIS is where I think a lot of game designers interested in Storytelling games are seriously disadvantages by the Forge Theories.
Like playing piano with oven mitts on. :D
Quote from: SettembriniConsider what your thoughts and feelings are, when you watch Star Wars. Movies, mainstream movies are all about evoking emoitions by presenting a multi-dimensional experience. Mainstream media are emotional and experiential endeavours. Story is only a very unimportant part in that scheme. Like music is a minor part. An important one, but it´s a means, not the end.
Search your feelings, Luke. I am your father.Well, ok. I'm searching... gosh - guess what? Am I supposed to hate Star Wars now? Um... my feelings tell me something different. I found Star Wars, especially when I saw it the first time when I was pre-teen, to be exhilarating and one of the most magical movie experience ever.
The weird thing about your comment "Movies, mainstream movies are all about evoking emotions by presenting a multi-dimensional experience." is that ALL stories are about evoking emotions by presenting a multi-dimensional experience (whatever that means). This has the appearance of Reductio Absurdum to me. Don't all movies, mainstream or not, do that?
As far as I can tell, Story itself is about evoking emotions by presenting a multi-dimensional experience (via speech with hand gestures, or words with pictures, or films with music, or whatever means by which Story is communicated). Films, TV and the other forms of Story-Media evoke our emotions, in fact,
BY telling Stories. It's the Story that evokes the emotion.
Lets put it this way, if I told a child the story of Star Wars: A New Hope, with Luke and the Princess and the old wizard, and Solo, and the Dark Lord and the Empire and all I did was just sit with him and I managed to pull off a pretty good narration of that story, that child would be fascinated. Why? Because it's a great Story. I'm not seeing why that should be considered "an inimportant part" of the experience. For me it wasn't unimportant. The Story was of primary importance because I really enjoyed it. Tremendously. What made the movie so increadibly successful was the fact that it was a great story, wrapped in an increadibly visually astonishing film, with awesome music. Note: Story comes first, not last. At least for me.
Assuming this relates to mine, which is a good bet (sorry, been stomping Carthage into the ground);
Quote from: Settembrini:rolleyes:
Go fuck yourself, Swine.
QuoteDo you really think that?
That arguably, taken as a six-part series of movies, Star Wars collectively is 'about' the fall and redemption of Anakin Skywalker. I think the argument relies on appeal to authorial intent because the first three (episodically, not chronologically) weren't very good, but I think it's arguable, yes. I wouldn't bother arguing it, however.
QuotePlease take a minute and think bout what is awesome about Star Wars, and what your thoughts and feelings were when you first watched the original trilogy.
Compare that to what you posted.
Both are about the awesomeness of Jedi (who doesn't love psychic wuxia samurai paladins in space?), so at least I'm in the ballpark.
QuoteI do not believe a sinlge moment that the father-son relationship is or was of any import in regards of your emotional investment and enjoyment of the trilogy.
You'd be right, but I believe it's a rather "blind hurling at the dartboard" kind of rightness. Law of averages and all.
QuoteHint: It´s like an opera.
'Hint'? What, like "Let me help you understand why you like Star Wars"? See the beginning of my post.
Now, rather than remain off-topic, I'll resume lurking this thread. War stuff's always good for a :haw: :haw:.
Quote from: VBWyrdeThe weird thing about your comment "Movies, mainstream movies are all about evoking emotions by presenting a multi-dimensional experience." is that ALL stories are about evoking emotions by presenting a multi-dimensional experience (whatever that means). This has the appearance of Reductio Absurdum to me. Don't all movies, mainstream or not, do that?
Dude:
- First off, it's reductio ad absurdam.
- Secondly, I don't think that phrase means what you think it means (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdam).
Quote from: Settembrini- "story" has also no use in day to day talk. It can only serve as a discussion starter. Only after the discussion will it become clear what was bad when someone said: "The story in that movie sucked"
Starting a discussion
is a use - and letting someone know that you're switching tracks mid-discussion to look at things from another angle, also useful.
I'll grant that saying "story" never, ever
finishes a discussion with any degree of precision, or progresses the discussion beyond that framing. For that, you need to get down to details.
But broad, easily recognised frames of reference - story, game, improv, emulation, and the like - those are all such ways of looking at this whacky shit we do.
Quote from: WarthurDude:
- First off, it's reductio ad absurdam.
- Secondly, I don't think that phrase means what you think it means (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdam).
Dude:
Thanks for the correction.
Yes, it means this:
QuoteReductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to the absurd") also known as an apagogical argument, reductio ad impossibile, or proof by contradiction, is a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument, derives an absurd or ridiculous outcome, and then concludes that the original assumption must have been wrong as it led to an absurd result.
Which is *exactly* what I'm talking about.
So, what was your point, exactly?
I PH34R YR L33T LaTiN 5KiLL5
Have yous lot read the Actual Play threads on these Storyboy sites ?
Judge them as stories then
With all this emphasis on the story you'd think the stories they have generated would be better than the ones they've done. It's a bit embaressing at times and I divn't wanna slag them as I bet they're canny people an' all:
- but it's murstly a bag o' shite
PLEASE TRY HARDER (cause I'll give yrs another chance, like, generous blerk that I am) or RurLL PERCENTILE !
Any decent story will tend to be about several things, and to be of sufficient complexity that different people may take different things from it.
And that doesn't have to be that complex.
So Star Wars is about Luke's heroic journey, and it's about Darth Vader's redemption, and it's a rollicking space opera, and it's a number of other things. Like most stories it bears a number of meanings.
And note I'm not saying here all meanings are valid, just that most stories are capable of bearing more than one solitary meaning.
That said, story in this thread is being defined out of anything I recognise in ordinary life. If someone says "hey, what story does Star Wars tell?" there are a few answers you can give but "technically it is not a story but a multisensory experience designed to evoke emotional response" is frankly just wrong. It is a film, and like almost all films it tells a story, because film is in fact a storytelling medium to anyone except a handful of pedants on this thread.
And rpgs are a storytelling medium too, the question is what kind of stories and are they good ones or fun to experience, not do we have them. It's only semantic rightthink which even creates the debate.
If my dwarf goes into a room, finds an orc and a pie, kills the orc and takes the pie we've just created a story. It's just not a very good one and it has no thematic resonance of any kind (which may not be an issue). But outside of the lunacy of rpg debates one could sensibly speak of the story of how the dwarf came to kill the orc and eat the pie.
Quote from: VBWyrdeSo, what was your point, exactly?
You said:
QuoteThe weird thing about your comment "Movies, mainstream movies are all about evoking emotions by presenting a multi-dimensional experience." is that ALL stories are about evoking emotions by presenting a multi-dimensional experience (whatever that means). This has the appearance of Reductio Absurdum to me. Don't all movies, mainstream or not, do that?
You seem to be saying that the poster in question is deploying a reductio ad absurdam argument, on the basis that they are saying something which to you seems self-evident - but that's not how reductio ad absurdam works. They are not taking the position that movies are "all about evoking emotions by presenting a multi-dimensional experience" to be true, taking into account the implications of that statement, and showing that the original statement is false as a result (nor are you - you're agreeing with them, but you're saying that "evoking emotions" are what stories are all about). They are taking that position because they believe that it is actually true.
QuoteTremendously. What made the movie so increadibly successful was the fact that it was a great story, wrapped in an increadibly visually astonishing film, with awesome music.
No sir, the story sucks donky balls. Ever has and always will. Now, there are strong conflicts that are pretty basic, so you can hook up your feelings. But it´s just a pretty rough canvas to project your wishes upon. The story is lame.
And all the better, Star Wars, the first movie, doesn´t even have that father shit.
Imagine 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.
Especially it´s not RILLY about relationships or somesuch.
Alas, the way you seem to understand "story":
QuoteAs far as I can tell, Story itself is about evoking emotions by presenting a multi-dimensional experience (via speech with hand gestures, or words with pictures, or films with music, or whatever means by which Story is communicated). Films, TV and the other forms of Story-Media evoke our emotions, in fact, BY telling Stories. It's the Story that evokes the emotion.
Is plainly wrong and counters all efforts of communication. because if it´s all story for you, than we can´t talk about story.
Emotions via story my ass.
That´s crazy moon talk, as some would say.
Opera, my dear friends!
You don´t even have to understand what they are singing.
Costumes, music, gestures, archetypical situations.
Definitely not story.
I can only hammer on that point, but it seems to no avail. If you lump the whole experience together and call it "story", any further commuincation is for naught.
ESPECIALLY in an RPG context. Please think things through, you will see the problem, I hope.
Sett, at this point it's probably easiest if you give your own definition of "story". Otherwise everyone's going to talk at cross-purposes for another 100 posts and get nowhere.
That totally depends on context, don´t you think?
I´m not making the wild claims, it´s you guys, who proclaim that mass media are mainly storytelling media.
But I´ll start defining story with:
sequence of events
Even with this most coarse definition, it should be obvious why especially movies are totally not RILLY about reporting a sequence of events.
Quote from: BalbinusIf my dwarf goes into a room, finds an orc and a pie, kills the orc and takes the pie we've just created a story. It's just not a very good one and it has no thematic resonance of any kind (which may not be an issue). But outside of the lunacy of rpg debates one could sensibly speak of the story of how the dwarf came to kill the orc and eat the pie.
Notice the slippage in tense? Makes all the difference. "
Looking back, that was/wasn't a good story."
The activity of roleplaying exists in the present moment. This is one of its basic parameters as a medium. It is itself a sequence of events, not the telling of one.
To be precise: The statements in roleplaying exist on the same temporal order as speech acts aka performatives do in J. L. Austin:"I declare you man and wife."
"I attack him with my sword."
Rather than:
"I attacked him with my sword, and a great battle ensued."
A "story" OTOH is a retroactive narrativization of such a sequence of speech acts. What's involved in that?
Editing of chaotic uncertainty--a defining feature of present-tense action--by way of dramatization. Events get linearized and adorned with unified overall meaning. Schlockification of real-time events ("story" aka Campbell soup).
To consider speech acts a lesser version of narrative is to succumb to Campbell Soup Malady.
Postulate:
In order to advance the discussion, those with sufficient time on their hands should look into models that deal with culture as present-tense action. Austin on speech acts, but more recently Performance Studies. NOT script writing.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityNotice the slippage in tense? Makes all the difference. "Looking back, that was/wasn't a good story."
The activity of roleplaying exists in the present moment. This is one of its basic parameters as a medium. It is itself a sequence of events, not the telling of one.
At any point in a film or novel one could say the same, I moved tense because the story was concluded, at any given point I was creating story and at the end we knew what the story was.
I just watched Quatermass II, ten minutes in one can't say yet what the story is, but nonetheless a story is in the process of being told. When my dwarf walks in the room story is being created, we just don't know yet the full nature of the story (we just know it's about a dwarf and a room).
notes scribbled during Prof. Inverarity's lecture:- If roleplaying exists in the present moment, clearly a new form is being born--ephemeral, temporally-bound.
- cf. making up a story on the spot (eg for kids)--the story does not fully exist until complete, yet exists during the moment.
- story being created is the form--no need for 'retroactive narratization' (look up).
- audience creates for themselves.
- 'chaotic uncertainty'--random elements creative limitations--take story in unexpected directions. Important for analysis of form.
- Prof. likes to swing dick around; cf. Prof Edwrds.
Quote from: BalbinusAt any point in a film or novel one could say the same, I moved tense because the story was concluded, at any given point I was creating story and at the end we knew what the story was.
You yourself didn't do any such thing. Others did that for you, and in the past, not in the present of your experience, and not involving you as performer.
Watching a movie = a) passive consumption, b) of a past product. Not knowing what happens next in this set-up = trivial. For one knows that something has been made to happen already, and has been edited for effect, often schlockily so, as one will see (one is sure of this) in a moment.
QuoteWhen my dwarf walks in the room story is being created, we just don't know yet the full nature of the story (we just know it's about a dwarf and a room).
No. Events are being enacted, and you don't know what's going to happen next. I made a case for this. Merely denying it is not enough. The brunt of my argument will have to be addressed.
Beware of Campbell Soup!
Unless you're Andy Warhol.
Quote from: SettembriniBut I´ll start defining story with:
sequence of events
Even with this most coarse definition, it should be obvious why especially movies are totally not RILLY about reporting a sequence of events.
I'll quibble with that definition very slightly: I'd say that it would be more accurate, if you want to attack "story" from this perspective, to define "story" as "a narrative report of a sequence of events".
The distinction is important, especially if we are talking about the story of something which happened in real life: if nobody is reporting the sequence of events, there is no story - nobody is communicating anything to anyone. If we're talking about non-fictional events than the sequence of events exists whether or not anyone is talking about it - and if we're talking about a fictional the sequence of events isn't real and didn't happen, even though somebody
is talking about it.
If I write a story nobody sees, and I lock it in my desk until one day the house burns down, taking the desk with it: was there ever really a story?
Quote from: SettembriniNo sir, the story sucks donky balls. Ever has and always will. Now, there are strong conflicts that are pretty basic, so you can hook up your feelings. But it´s just a pretty rough canvas to project your wishes upon. The story is lame.
And all the better, Star Wars, the first movie, doesn´t even have that father shit.
Imagine 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.
Especially it´s not RILLY about relationships or somesuch.
Alas, the way you seem to understand "story":
Is plainly wrong and counters all efforts of communication. because if it´s all story for you, than we can´t talk about story.
Emotions via story my ass.
That´s crazy moon talk, as some would say.
Opera, my dear friends!
You don´t even have to understand what they are singing.
Costumes, music, gestures, archetypical situations.
Definitely not story.
I can only hammer on that point, but it seems to no avail. If you lump the whole experience together and call it "story", any further commuincation is for naught.
ESPECIALLY in an RPG context. Please think things through, you will see the problem, I hope.
It is as I suspected. You are quite mad, you know. I've had enough of your brand of nonsense. You didn't like Star Wars? Ok. I can buy that. But your not liking it doesn't make it a bad story. Nuff said on this topic. Peaceout.
Quote from: SettembriniThat totally depends on context, don´t you think?
I´m not making the wild claims, it´s you guys, who proclaim that mass media are mainly storytelling media.
But I´ll start defining story with:
sequence of events
Even with this most coarse definition, it should be obvious why especially movies are totally not RILLY about reporting a sequence of events.
Ok, I'm just a tad curious. Go on... Sequence of events ... what?
Quote from: WarthurI'll quibble with that definition very slightly: I'd say that it would be more accurate, if you want to attack "story" from this perspective, to define "story" as "a narrative report of a sequence of events".
But it isn't. While a narrative report of a sequence of events can be a story, not all stories are a narrative report of a squenece of events.
I find this definition:
Quotesto·ry 1 (stôr, str) n. pl. sto·ries
1. An account or recital of an event or a series of events, either true or fictitious, as:
a. An account or report regarding the facts of an event or group of events: The witness changed her story under questioning.
b. An anecdote: came back from the trip with some good stories.
c. A lie: told us a story about the dog eating the cookies.
2.
a. A usually fictional prose or verse narrative intended to interest or amuse the hearer or reader; a tale.
b. A short story.
3. The plot of a narrative or dramatic work.
4. A news article or broadcast.
5. Something viewed as or providing material for a literary or journalistic treatment: "He was colorful, he was charismatic, he was controversial, he was a good story" Terry Ann Knopf.
6. The background information regarding something: What's the story on these unpaid bills?
7. Romantic legend or tradition: a hero known to us in story.
Only 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.
It is like saying that since a banana is a fruit, therefore an apple isn't.
However, again, I fear this argument is an Alice-in-Wonderland romp to nowhere. If you can't even see that Star Wars is a story (whether you like that story or not), then there really is no point in discussing this further. It does not mean, however, that you've successfully killed the conversation about Story, nor that you've successfully anihilated the concept of Story, which I suspect is the intention here (not you Warthur - I sense you are trying to be reasonable). It just means that there's no point in debating this question. Moonbattery is exactly right. Amazing.
I love Star Wars.
Some people have problems understanding the very stuff they cite.
My final hint: Opera.
Have fun with your "stories".
I leave a little wiser on the nature of the internet and western civilization.
Take care.
1. Online dictionaries: Where living words go to die.
2. Even reading a dictionary entry does require comprehension skills.
Quote from: BalbinusAny decent story will tend to be about several things, and to be of sufficient complexity that different people may take different things from it.
And that doesn't have to be that complex.
So Star Wars is about Luke's heroic journey, and it's about Darth Vader's redemption, and it's a rollicking space opera, and it's a number of other things. Like most stories it bears a number of meanings.
And note I'm not saying here all meanings are valid, just that most stories are capable of bearing more than one solitary meaning.
That said, story in this thread is being defined out of anything I recognise in ordinary life. If someone says "hey, what story does Star Wars tell?" there are a few answers you can give but "technically it is not a story but a multisensory experience designed to evoke emotional response" is frankly just wrong. It is a film, and like almost all films it tells a story, because film is in fact a storytelling medium to anyone except a handful of pedants on this thread.
And rpgs are a storytelling medium too, the question is what kind of stories and are they good ones or fun to experience, not do we have them. It's only semantic rightthink which even creates the debate.
If my dwarf goes into a room, finds an orc and a pie, kills the orc and takes the pie we've just created a story. It's just not a very good one and it has no thematic resonance of any kind (which may not be an issue). But outside of the lunacy of rpg debates one could sensibly speak of the story of how the dwarf came to kill the orc and eat the pie.
I concur. This is well said. My guess is that the knee-jerk reaction to Story in the RPG thread is to attack the very concept of Story itself in a vain attempt to anihilate it. That is doomed to failure. However, the true effect is to disrupt the otherwise interesting conversation on how to make RPG Stories more interesting, deeper, and more meaningful. We can not get far on that subject without one of the pedants reductio ad absurdatizing the thread with "Story does not Exist!" type of arguments. I suspect the real intent is to disrupt an otherwise interesting discussion which those persons do not like, and therefore wish to eliminate. I am guessing this because it seems like the only rational explaination for this behavior that I can think of. Of course it is possible they are simply quite mad. I'm undecided.
Wow, there's been some awesome nonsense today! :haw:
The "Star Wars isn't a story -- it's an Opera" argument has to be some sort of high water mark.
Quote from: StuartWow, there's been some awesome nonsense today! :haw:
The "Star Wars isn't a story -- it's an Opera" argument has to be some sort of high water mark.
Indeed. I agree, of course. However, your Avatar has given me a savage pain in the eye. Can you revert back to the former one, which was merely frightenning? I thank you.
Rascal.
Quote from: droogIf I write a story nobody sees, and I lock it in my desk until one day the house burns down, taking the desk with it: was there ever really a story?
Yes, 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.
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.
Quote from: droogBut 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?
I agree that collaborative storytelling is a storytelling medium. I agree that the traditional RPG format can be used for collaborative storytelling. I do not agree that the traditional RPG format is a superior format for collaborative storytelling than other models out there, including Once Upon a Time, campfire stories, and online zero-rules RP communities on LiveJournal.
If you want an analogy: television can be a great storytelling medium. I would not, however, expect to get a better story out of the sports result than out of
The Sopranos.
QuoteI 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.
How are you defining story? If you are saying that story is plot - a series of event that happens - that's fair enough, but traditional RPGs yield story either organically (and thus we accept the possibility that the story will be suboptimal) or in a pre-planned way (in which case railroad ahoy).
Quote from: WarthurI agree that collaborative storytelling is a storytelling medium. I agree that the traditional RPG format can be used for collaborative storytelling. I do not agree that the traditional RPG format is a superior format for collaborative storytelling than other models out there, including Once Upon a Time, campfire stories, and online zero-rules RP communities on LiveJournal.
If you want an analogy: television can be a great storytelling medium. I would not, however, expect to get a better story out of the sports result than out of The Sopranos.
I think your first point comes down to preference. For example, I have no interest in the online freeform stuff, for various reasons.
On the second point, that may be so, but it seems obvious that a show produced with an eye to telling a story is going to be prima facie a better story than a gladiatoral contest. Not necessarily better entertainment, of course.
QuoteHow are you defining story? If you are saying that story is plot - a series of event that happens - that's fair enough, but traditional RPGs yield story either organically (and thus we accept the possibility that the story will be suboptimal) or in a pre-planned way (in which case railroad ahoy).
I think there's a much wider variance and tolerance in 'traditional' gaming than you're giving it credit for. There are many techniques beyond and between 'let it work itself out' and 'railroad plot'.
We haven't yet arrived at a solid definition of 'story' in RPGs. I'd suggest that beyond a simple series of events, a 'story' has a unifying element, a 'point'. In a 'traditional' setup, you might:
- Have strong characters with lots of goals and motivations.
- Targeting of the players' goals by the GM.
- Drive towards resolution of conflict and achievement of goals.
- Mutual agreement, not always explicit, as to overall style of game.
- Social rewards (esteem, respect) for good story play.
All that can push a game strongly towards 'story play' without ever leaving the traditional reservation.
Quote from: droogI think your first point comes down to preference. For example, I have no interest in the online freeform stuff, for various reasons.
On the second point, that may be so, but it seems obvious that a show produced with an eye to telling a story is going to be prima facie a better story than a gladiatoral contest. Not necessarily better entertainment, of course.
Exactly, but a show produced with an eye to telling a story will take
an entirely different approach from the ground up. This is why I feel that the goal of "story games" requires abandoning an awful lot of what makes a traditional RPG, to the point where it will end up not resembling an RPG at all.
I'd say that the breadth of playstyle you're pointing to, droog, is indisputable; at the same time, the "story approach" is IMO historically a kind of distortion*, even if it did appear fairly early commercially and, most likely, even earlier in actual play. In a way I rather swinishly agree with comments that have come out of the Forge suggesting that such play, while possible, is like teaching yourself how to eat salad with a spoon (my analogy). It can be done, and possibly quite gracefully, but it doesn't flow naturally from the tools at hand.
*Evidence: accounts of Weseley's Braunsteins and Arneson's early games, which strike me as experiential games of pretend. And I mean that in a way which puts "story" very low as a priority of the game just as much as "story" is a very low priority in a sports match.
I can't believe you're making a 'system does matter' argument, Elliot. But anyway, that's beyond the point I'm driving at.
Personally, I really don't care about the historical roots (beyond the basic interest I have in history). The roleplaying industry stemmed from a 'distortion' in the wargaming market. With such a broad array of possible approaches to the new form, it was pretty inevitable that it would splinter into interlocking groups of preferences.
Quote from: WarthurExactly, but a show produced with an eye to telling a story will take an entirely different approach from the ground up. This is why I feel that the goal of "story games" requires abandoning an awful lot of what makes a traditional RPG, to the point where it will end up not resembling an RPG at all.
Et tu, Warthurius? But what have you to say to my 'traditional' techniques?
If it surprises you, I don't know what to say. I don't think I've ever said that game systems don't influence how a game is played, or that one game isn't better for certain styles of play than others. From some of your responses to things I've said, I think you've tended--frankly, like many sympathetic interpreters of the Forge--to assume that its critics haven't thought through these issues at all.
The difference between the development of RPGs from wargames, and the development of those various other styles of play within RPGs, is that the RPG has a cluster of structural differences from wargames (some wargames share some of these characteristics but no wargames share all of these characteristics with RPGs) to support its different style of play. The most prominent to my mind are non-rigid, less-than-fully-prescriptive rules, to support unexpected situations and actions, single-character identification, player-character/GM-world split, and lack of a clear-cut "victory condition". (The closest thing, death vs. gaining experience points is, well, different, partly because it gets folded back into the ongoing dynamic of the game.) At the same time, RPGs kept wargame elements like mechanical resolution systems which simulated a sort of objective reality. (Wanting to win a fight and winning it are two different things.)
The result: creation of an experiential structure of play supporting the idea that the player is the character.
Quote from: Elliot WilenIf it surprises you, I don't know what to say. I don't think I've ever said that game systems don't influence how a game is played, or that one game isn't better for certain styles of play than others. From some of your responses to things I've said, I think you've tended--frankly, like many sympathetic interpreters of the Forge--to assume that its critics haven't thought through these issues at all.
It's hard to sort out the knees from the jerks sometimes.
QuoteThe difference between the development of RPGs from wargames, and the development of those various other styles of play within RPGs, is that the RPG has a cluster of structural differences from wargames (some wargames share some of these characteristics but no wargames share all of these characteristics with RPGs) to support its different style of play...The result: creation of an experiential structure of play supporting the idea that the player is the character.
That's as may be. As I usually say, I think you're downplaying the historical diversity of play. But anyway, the future is not yet the past, and I still haven't managed to see what's wrong with development within a field.
Ultimately, aren't you saying that some people are doing it wrong?
System matters. Some people are doing it wrong.
If they're having fun, that's awesome -- but it's not a good example to follow for well designed games.
Hmmm, well I think that one thing that can throw people off is that theorywank is (or at least should) be kept to game design and maybe game prep and not focused on so much while actually playing. What's important during an actual game is having fun, for example in the Spirit of the Century campaign that I've been playing in "player empowerment" has mostly consisted of asking the GM:
1. "Does X exist in the area?" in an area where X would logically exist (a tray of eclairs in a patry shop etc.).
2. Asking the GM if we can pay a Fate point to add a fact to the setting (for example at one point we decided that it would be fun if there was a masquerade ball at the Imperial embassy going on when we broke in and handed him some Fate points. The GM thought that that was a great idea and had it be a themed costume ball with everyone in very similar costumes which resulted in a fun V for Vendetta-style sub-plot.
3. Asking the GM if we can add an NPC that it would make sense for our PCs to know (so far the only NPC who's been created this way was is a child street beggar).
4. Asking the GM to introduce a plot hook related to our backgrounds and giving him a Fate point.
In all cases the GM has veto power, but I don't think he's used it more than once in four adventures, hasn't been a need to...
Where all of those examples of forgy play? Dunno, but I DO know that they resulted in a lot of fun.
Also buried under a lot of theorywank are a lot of common sense ideas that people have been using for decades but having them written out in a logical manner is really helpful. For example while running D&D games I had some good adventures and some not so good adventures. Reading about "bangs" really helped me realize what made my good adventures good since every single one of my adventures that the players liked had textbook examples of "bangs" and every one of the adventures that sucked didn't. So a lot of the theorywank has been useful to me, at long as I avoided taking it to seriously.
Quote from: droogThat's as may be. As I usually say, I think you're downplaying the historical diversity of play. But anyway, the future is not yet the past, and I still haven't managed to see what's wrong with development within a field.
Nothing at all wrong with it.
QuoteUltimately, aren't you saying that some people are doing it wrong?
I agree, in a way I am. But it mainly applies to people who do it wrong and complain that it can't be done right. I'm looking at RPG rules as tools. If you use a tool improperly and get bad results, it's not the tool's fault. If someone uses it in an innovative fashion and gets great results, I can't exactly say they're doing it wrong. (Here's where I might suggest searching for "dance, voldo, dance", but it's common in art; I don't have examples off the top of my head but I think you even have industrial tools and materials used in visual arts not only to make some conceptual statement but also purely because they can be exploited in new ways.)
Where I think people tend to go off the rails--though here I suspect I'm in a vast minority, at least given trends in commercial "adventure design"--is in viewing (traditional) RPGs in terms of story vehicles: they're not story vehicles, by which I mean that, like sports, the construction of a story is less important than the "experience". But it doesn't follow that they can't appeal by engaging emotions and values or dealing with human relationships. The trademark of "Indie" games, insofar as they're seen as "Forgie", is rather tightly connecting the desire for play that's engaging on a "human" level with play that emphasizes those elements of construction that come from "story telling".
See also: what I just wrote in post #4 in this thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=157332#post157332).