Quote from: Jaeger on October 18, 2022, 05:25:04 PM
This has all already been gone over on an earlier thread:

https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/telling-a-story-versus-presenting-a-situation/150/

As many are unwilling accept the actual dictionary definition of the word 'story' when making or defending their claims - any kind of productive discussion is impossible.

Oh yeah, I remember that. That's the one where you immediately rejected a dictionary definition, then clung to the one cherry picked definition that backed your position while rejecting the vast majority of dictionary definitions. And wherein I rejected zero dictionary definitions, but opted for a more disciplined and less self-serving choice for my own usage; one that was in the dictionary but also fit the context of the discussion and fit common usage.

Yeah. When you reject the majority of dictionary definitions and then run victory laps as if you're the dictionary guy, that's a good example of discussion in bad faith. And yeah, you're right. We have already been there and done that, and arguing in bad faith does render any kind of discussion impossible.

Quote from: Lunamancer on October 18, 2022, 08:30:58 PM

Quote from: Jaeger on October 18, 2022, 05:25:04 PM
This has all already been gone over on an earlier thread:

https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/telling-a-story-versus-presenting-a-situation/150/

As many are unwilling accept the actual dictionary definition of the word 'story' when making or defending their claims - any kind of productive discussion is impossible.

Oh yeah, I remember that. That's the one where you immediately rejected a dictionary definition, then clung to the one cherry picked definition that backed your position while rejecting the vast majority of dictionary definitions. And wherein I rejected zero dictionary definitions, but opted for a more disciplined and less self-serving choice for my own usage; one that was in the dictionary but also fit the context of the discussion and fit common usage.

Yeah. When you reject the majority of dictionary definitions and then run victory laps as if you're the dictionary guy, that's a good example of discussion in bad faith. And yeah, you're right. We have already been there and done that, and arguing in bad faith does render any kind of discussion impossible.

You're doubling down on your lack of reading comprehension, as this objection was addressed in my reply to Wrath of God which geeky bugle quoted in the top of the link.

So yes, when you are perpetually arguing in bad faith it does render any kind of discussion impossible.

It's a slow week though, so If anyone wants some action; I'll make this easy...  Pick whatever suits your fancy:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/story

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/story

https://www.encyclopedia.com/literature-and-arts/literature-english/american-literature/story#:~:text=sto%C2%B7ry1%20%2F%20%CB%88st%C3%B4r%C4%93%2F,to%20tell%20you%20a%20story.

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/story#:~:text=a%20description%20of%20events%20and,in%20order%20to%20entertain%20people

Quote from: GhostNinja on October 17, 2022, 09:07:23 AM
I agree with most of what has been said in this thread.

For me a storygame is where players co-op as the GM or there are no GM's or the story is what is most important and player actions and rules come second (if at all).

Not interested in those type of games.   A couple examples to me of what I would classify as a story game is: Fate, games that use the Powered by the Apocolypse system and even games like Amber Dicessless and Lords of Olympus.

As noted earlier there was a time when this was not the case and when story game meant something different than what it has been subverted into.

What we have now as 'story games' sometimes barely is a game at all. As said. They invariably keep pushing for removal of rules. Usually under the battlecry of "Muh Immershun!" ad nausium.

Cut away the cultist rhetoric and the usual (ill)logic traps they like to play as a "Gotcha! Neener neener you were playing a 'story game' all along!" gag and you get back to something that is a viable tool that is been a part of D&D from the beginning.

Quote from: jhkim on October 17, 2022, 08:09:47 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 16, 2022, 11:44:58 AM
Eh, well, broadly speaking there are two kinds of stories: 1) The 3-act structure and 2) Rambling shaggy-dog stories.

Some games are designed to elicit stories in 3-act structure. Let's call them story games. They provide incentives to generate introduction, confrontation, and resolution. Sometimes this advice enters into non-story game territory, such as advice that every scene (or every room of a dungeon) in a traditional RPG should pose a narrative question to the characters or that we should track torches with usage dice.

Some games are great at generating rambling "stories" that would make terrible movies. This kind of story only makes narrative sense to the players.

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 17, 2022, 06:00:08 PM
Do you have experience with Microscope, The Quiet Year, Fiasco, or other "RPGs" that commonly fall into the story game category? (RPGs in quotes because these games are marketed as RPGs but many people here would not consider them RPGs.)

Hi, rytrasmi.

Your implied claim here is that Microscope, The Quiet Year, and Fiasco produce stories in the 3-act structure, but that is the opposite of my experience. As I've played them, all of those games produce rambling shaggy-dog stories that have very little structure. Microscope doesn't have anything resembling a storyline, since characters are only invented on the spot for rare cards. It produces a timeline that is closer to a setting document than a story. The Quiet Year produces a map and disjointed projects and events. Fiasco is cinematic so there are at least characters going through a plot, but because players are alternating scenes with no pre-planning, it makes extremely messy plots that don't have any structure.

Conversely, some traditional RPG adventures come much closer to three-act structure by the design of the adventure elements. Many published modules are designed with a setup in the town, a twist in the middle of the dungeon, and then a final climactic boss fight. There is deliberate escalation, twist, and further escalation that intentionally resembles the 3-act structure. And even outside of published modules, there are some GMs who design adventures this way. When I would run cinematic genre RPGs like Star Wars D6 or Buffy the Vampire Slayer, I'd often have such a structure.

Many other traditional RPGs get even more explicit. Adventures in games like White Wolf's Storyteller or West End's Torg have sections explicitly labelled "Acts" and "Scenes" within those.

There is a definite divide between traditional RPGs and the storytelling game category (Microscope/The Quiet Year/Fiasco) based on whether players can only control their characters, or if players can control wider story elements. But giving players greater power over elements doesn't make things more into the 3-act structure.

And there are also a lot of other games that aren't close to Microscope - but are still widely considered story games like Burning Wheel, Dogs in the Vineyard, or Good Society.

Jhkim has it fairly right here. Most modules have a certain pacing. Not all mind you. But quite a few have an AB and C more or less going on.  A few a little too much.

I think the problem with some so-called story games is that they sometimes feel much more like story telling. With the hated rules cut out so much they might as well not be there. Universalis spends hundreds of pages saying "Make stuff up!" and "Spend your vote if you dont like what someone made up!" Theres no game there and its essentially story telling by committee.

The ones that work for me are the ones that give clear prompts as to how to form the next action.
"Is the door locked?"
No - But
And interpret that how you want based on the action setting and all that. So you could read that as "The door is unlocked. But it rusty hinges are stuck and will need a little shoving to get open."

Mythic gives added twists on a percentile system as another example and those twists have some defined parameters if one wants them. Such as the character steps into a room, you check for anything out of the ordinary and get something like "remote action" and maybe read that as elsewhere a trap just armed itself, or the front door you got through just closed and locked. and so on.

They take a certain mindset to enjoy I think and there are players that are just never going to be able to make use of such systems, or can with one like Mythic, but not with say FU.

Quote from: Jaeger on October 18, 2022, 10:52:32 PM
You're doubling down on your lack of reading comprehension,

I must have missed when I singled down. But good to note right up front that this is your first go to.

Quoteas this objection was addressed in my reply to Wrath of God which geeky bugle quoted in the top of the link.

Yeah. That's precisely what I was responding to. Meaning that's not exactly an open and shut case to refute me.

QuoteSo yes, when you are perpetually arguing in bad faith

Name once. "Bad faith" doesn't mean "things you don't agree with."

Quote
it does render any kind of discussion impossible.

It's a slow week though, so If anyone wants some action; I'll make this easy...

Yeah, because having to back up what you say is so beneath you.

QuotePick whatever suits your fancy:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/story

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/story

https://www.encyclopedia.com/literature-and-arts/literature-english/american-literature/story#:~:text=sto%C2%B7ry1%20%2F%20%CB%88st%C3%B4r%C4%93%2F,to%20tell%20you%20a%20story.

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/story#:~:text=a%20description%20of%20events%20and,in%20order%20to%20entertain%20people

All of the above. If you actually stand by these sources, we have no qualm. The definition I used in that thread is the same one I used now is the same one I've been using for years is the same one that I think players mean when they request more story in the campaign is the same one you find as the "in daily use" meaning listed in the Oxford Literary Dictionary--a source a little better suited for the finer points than a standard dictionary--and that same definition in one paraphrased form or another can be found in all those sources you linked. And it's very similar to the definition you yourself cited over an that thread.


The problem is you got all obsessive over the word "description" and you asserted Wrath of God was hanging his hat on that word--I didn't see him doing any such thing. He raised the definition replying to someone who said the story needs to have a beginning, middle, and end. Whether you use the word "description" "account" "recount" "telling" "recital" or any of the other words you'll find used in the definition of story that you and I and Wrath of God and all these great sources agree to, there's nothing explicitly stating "beginning, middle, and end." So Wrath of God's point on that stands.

The two contentious issues in that thread were beginning, middle, and end, and whether or not you have stories in real time. None of these common use definitions speak to either of those issues. Recount can be interpreted as having connotations that the event had to have already happened, but some of the other words used in its stead in the various concurring definitions have no such connotations. Even if Wrath of God was badly misreading "description," it was immaterial to the point to which he posted the definition in response. Nor the thread in general.

The common use definition of story is very broad. It's more a matter of it being a good story. And there I'm in favor of whatever works.

Greetings!

Well, in my Thandor campaign world, I have run numerous campaigns through the years with different player groups. Generally, I organize a sandbox for the players to roam around in. For the most part, the Players get involved and do their thing. From this multi-faceted involvement, a story emerges. I tend to have a loosely-defined theme for a specific region, under which are several detailed story frameworks, with guiding plot-points, character goals, motivations, strategies and tactics. These various story frameworks have different levels of detail, with various elements of random-rolls thrown into the mix. Depending upon the Players involvement and actions, such produces results and consequences within these story frameworks.

Beyond such elements to provide some degree of structure for campaigns set within various geographical regions of Thandor, each particular Adventuring party has a sort of "Group Story" comprised loosely of the various adventures and struggles encountered by the party. Drilling down, each individual Player Character has their own personal, ongoing story, formed of their own actions, goals and motivations, interwoven with a set of different NPC's. The individual stories often intersect with other members of the Adventuring Group, naturally, though many tangents do not connect directly or involve other members of the Adventuring Group at all.

As the DM, I push pieces across the "Chess Board" and see what develops. I don't control or foreordain any particular result. The consequences of any number of stories reflects what the Player Characters do--or do not do.

*Shrugs* I prefer a huge, sandbox environment, with a lightly structured story framework to provide plot points, guidance, and a sense of direction. The precise details, outcomes and conclusions vary greatly.

The whole "Story Game" narrative format though, getting rid of rules, giving all kinds of narrative "agency" to the Players, and so on, I think is BS. The Players control the behavior and actions of their own Characters. I, the DM, control everything else.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Lunamancer on October 19, 2022, 09:58:54 PM
...
Yeah, because having to back up what you say is so beneath you.

I do. I haven't seen anything so far that actually refutes the points made.

Quote from: Lunamancer on October 19, 2022, 09:58:54 PM
The problem is you got all obsessive over the word "description" and you asserted Wrath of God was hanging his hat on that word--I didn't see him doing any such thing.

I zeroed in on that word because in the post of his I was responding to he used his interpretation of description to support this nonsense:

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 20, 2021, 07:26:10 AM
...
If player is playing big heist then generally speaking he needs to describe fictional actions of his character. And that itself, real live time is already a story.
Game = whole event. Story = whatever is happening in fictional world game generates including GM descriptions, players declaration of actions, results of random rolls declared by GM or players. ...

Describing the fictional actions of your character during play is not a story.

Story is emergent from gameplay; not what you are doing while playing the game.

It doesn't matter if you use Account, Report, or Description; in the definition of Story, the result is the same. As explained in my post in the previous thread.

Quote from: Lunamancer on October 19, 2022, 09:58:54 PM
All of the above. If you actually stand by these sources, we have no qualm. ....

I do - so it seems we have no issue then.

Quote from: Jaeger on October 20, 2022, 06:09:11 PM
I zeroed in on that word because in the post of his I was responding to he used his interpretation of description to support this nonsense:

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 20, 2021, 07:26:10 AM
...
If player is playing big heist then generally speaking he needs to describe fictional actions of his character. And that itself, real live time is already a story.
Game = whole event. Story = whatever is happening in fictional world game generates including GM descriptions, players declaration of actions, results of random rolls declared by GM or players. ...

Describing the fictional actions of your character during play is not a story.

Story is emergent from gameplay; not what you are doing while playing the game.

It doesn't matter if you use Account, Report, or Description; in the definition of Story, the result is the same. As explained in my post in the previous thread.

Okay. Fair enough. I still don't think describe was the operative word.

The questions I would raise (in response to Wrath of God) are:
1) The definition said description of event; does that make description of action kosher?
2) Isn't there an important distinction between description and declaration in this context?
3) Where does Game = whole event come from?

And then the questions I would have for your comments are:
4) What part of describing the fictional actions of your character are you objecting to equating to story? Is it a matter of description vs declaration, action vs event, or both?
5) Where does "Story is emergent from gameplay" come from? It's not in the definition of story we've all agreed to.


My comments for each of these questions would be as follows.

1) On first blush, the difference between an action and an event seems to be one of scale. While it's not explicit by the definition of story that the description of a single action can also be a story, it's also not explicitly excluded. The answer cannot just be assumed by definition.

I've got a whole separate issue here. I probably raised it at some point in the previous thread. It has nothing to do with the changing or warping or assuming the definition of story. It has more to do with the technical science of conscious action. Conscious action is goal-oriented. It is formally defined as the utilization of scarce means to achieve ends. Hence, conscious action is motivated. It must begin from a state of dissatisfaction with the initial state with an aim of achieving a preferable state.

And that means the anatomy of an action itself fits the narrative structure. It has a beginning--the initial state of dissatisfaction, a middle--the utilization of means with the aim of achieving the ends, and an end--the resultant state of the action. And so actions are stories not because that's the definition of story. But because it's the nature of actions. It's baked into the technical (not dictionary) definition of action.

I'm fine using the technical definition of action while using the casual definition of story. My reason for this is the only point I see to even discussing any of this is, at the end of the day, I want to run a better game. So the only definition of story that matters is the ones the players mean when that word appears in part of their feedback. But if I'm going to go back an analyze a game or a session to see what can be approved, I need a more technical definition of action for my analysis.

2) To me, the term declaration in the context of declaring a character's actions in an RPG is what I would call in the "Mother, may I?" phase. You can declare, "My bunnyman monk scoops up the field mice and bops them on the head." But it's not part of the story until I rule on it, which will likely involve some dice rolls. It should be taken to mean "Bunnyman attempts to scoop up the field mice." If I say, "Okay, make a scoop check," and the dice roll is good, "You successfully scoop up the field mice; as they are held and helpless, you don't need to roll to bop them on the head." The complete action is a composite of the player's declaration and my ruling. The declaration by itself is not even a complete action, much less a story. And neither is my ruling. But combined, they are.

3, 4) No comment. I'm just seeking clarity there.

5) This is one of the key hotly contended topics. If story can only ever happen after the fact, if story can only ever emerge from gameplay, not happen in real time, then what does that say about the theory of "Story Now" vs "Story Later"? Is "story now" complete bunk because you just can't have story in real time? And if not, why isn't it also permissible to have story now via different method and mechanics? Isn't there some baked-in assumption without evidence that when I run a sandbox it must look a lot like your experiences playing and/or running sandboxes?

On the flip side of it, I would argue of course stories can happen in real time. Because they are experienced in real time. The entire narrative structure rests upon this fact. A climax wouldn't be a climax if people didn't experience a heightened level of excitement at that point. A level of excitement they don't feel during the rest of the story. The story technically actually does not need to have an end to elicit that feeling. Imagine you're watching a movie and just as you reach the climax, the power goes out. Now imagine the story was actually written that way.

I'm not saying it wouldn't feel extremely unsatisfying without a resolution. Just pointing out you can feel the climax even if the ending isn't written. So why can't the ending be determined at the tail end of the climax? Why can't a story be created in real time? If the audience isn't feeling heightened excitement during the climax without the ending, they're not going to feel it with the ending either. And then your problem isn't whether or not the story has an ending. The bigger problem is it has no climax. That's how the insistence it can't happen in real time unravels the whole structure.

I would define a "story game" as any game whose principal purpose is the creation of a narrative structure in real-time with the game.

Role-playing games, in this definition, create a story via memoir, a narrative crafted from the events after the fact.

The big dividing factor is "does the game work to ensure every activity in the game advances the narrative instead of allowing any action that would be part of a character's life regardless of its presence in the narrative". In a story game, everything should be something a writer telling the story in a novel would include in a novel. In a roleplaying game, the pieces of life the novelist would leave out are just as valid as game activities.

I would say initially the relationship between story games and RPGs is the same as early RPGs and wargaming. The former is an offshoot of the latter. RPGs have long had their own identity and culture separate from, but still adjacent to, wargaming. I do not think story games have successfully crossed that divide.

Quote from: PulpHerb on October 21, 2022, 05:53:12 PM
I would define a "story game" as any game whose principal purpose is the creation of a narrative structure in real-time with the game.

Role-playing games, in this definition, create a story via memoir, a narrative crafted from the events after the fact.

Is "principal" the operative word here?

Obviously if I'm here saying that RPGs do create stories in realtime, that suggests at the very least that the way I run my RPGs creates stories in realtime. And as I quoted earlier from the 1E DMG Foreword, at least one of the aims of the game was to watch a story unfold. So I am creating narrative structures. And I'm using a set of rules where that is an explicit purpose.

I wouldn't call it principal. But I also wouldn't necessarily call any of my other purposes principal. My biggest beef with RPG theory has always been this idea of splitting things into different styles or creative agendas or what have you, and that these things are assumed to be in conflict, so if you want to maximize the one thing you like the most, you have to cut back on a lot of other stuff. I always thought that was total bunk.

For myself, I view it more like a recipe. These things work best when brought together. There's room to tweak if you like a little more or a little less flour, sugar, egg, etc in your cake, according to taste. But if you like more egg, and cut everything else out to go all in on egg, it's not a cake anymore. It's scrambled eggs.

And maybe that's the point. Maybe some people are sick of cake and just want eggs. That's fine. But that doesn't mean you go back and re-define my cake into being just powdered white stuff. Just because story games are all egg doesn't make RPGs eggless. Just because story games have realtime narratives doesn't mean that RPGs don't. Players in an RPG unquestionably feel climactic moments as they're happening--it's not an experience only appreciated in a re-telling after the fact.

QuoteThe big dividing factor is "does the game work to ensure every activity in the game advances the narrative instead of allowing any action that would be part of a character's life regardless of its presence in the narrative". In a story game, everything should be something a writer telling the story in a novel would include in a novel. In a roleplaying game, the pieces of life the novelist would leave out are just as valid as game activities.

When I was 13, I made a new friend in middle school. It was the first time I made a friend who already had played D&D. Up to that point, the only people I ever had to play with are the people who I got into gaming and taught how to play. He told me a story about the game he played in, where one of the PCs stepped behind a tree to take a piss, and a hand popped up from the ground and grabbed his dick. That was the only time anyone I met face to face ever had a story about playing in an RPG where you played out going to the bathroom.

If RPGs really are or ever have been about playing out parts of a character's life as first and foremost, even when those moments are not narratively interesting, why don't we have more tales going around about going to the bathroom in-character? Should there be a to hit roll to get it in the bowl? If the stream splits, do we use the same modifiers as two-weapon fighting?

This is not the stuff of RPGs at all. People give me funny looks just because I require the monthly disease checks per the 1E DMG. Skipping over the mundane details has long been the tradition of RPGs. We pick and choose only those moments that are important to play out. Important to what or to whom? That's up to the GM. Important to the narrative is certainly always a candidate. Yeah, you probably also want to play out anything that could result in a PC's death or dismemberment. But it's hard to imagine an example something like that happening to a main character in a story not also being of narrative interest.

QuoteI would say initially the relationship between story games and RPGs is the same as early RPGs and wargaming. The former is an offshoot of the latter. RPGs have long had their own identity and culture separate from, but still adjacent to, wargaming. I do not think story games have successfully crossed that divide.

I do wonder if wargaming ever got retroactively redefined to give these newfangled RPGs a wide berth to avoid swilling.

If a game is called a story game because it allows players to narrate their actions through their characters than name an rpg that doesn't do this?

That is the very core of what playing roleplaying games is all about. Whether or not some RPGs offer players narrative-meta-fictional-world-game tools to alter the world or not on a meta level is irrelevant. All TRPGs are player driven narrative focused socially focused with game rules games.

How you play and narrate your actions in D&D is no different than how you do it playing Dungeon World. GM describes situation, players respond via narrative description, GM responds, and back and forth you go. Sometimes you need to roll dice, the dice roll leads to consequences of action which then leads to further narrative flavoring by the players and GM. Repeat until game ends.

Sometimes players will then tell stories of their adventures after the game is over. That's about 98% of how all TRPGs function.

The others that are labeled RPGs, like Microscope or Fiasco, I don't think are RPGs.

Right. The disconnect is when the storygamers want to either remove the DM, and/or remove the Game, or even the Role Play part of RPG.

Quote from: RebelSky on October 22, 2022, 01:04:39 AM
The others that are labeled RPGs, like Microscope or Fiasco, I don't think are RPGs.

Microscope at best is collaborative world building. Normally it's just a GM tool to world build. People who call it a "Game" always make me wonder if they consider a presentation to be a game
Never played Fiasco though, so can't comment on it.

Quote from: PulpHerb on October 21, 2022, 05:53:12 PM
I would define a "story game" as any game whose principal purpose is the creation of a narrative structure in real-time with the game.

Role-playing games, in this definition, create a story via memoir, a narrative crafted from the events after the fact.

This right here is my problem. With this whole 'logic' if you could even call it what people who enjoy "story" or "narrative" games have. The Storyteller System by White Wolf, the "OG" Storygame as some people would call it has back and forths with GM's where actions and events within the game generate the game while it occurs. Just like in every single edition of D&D, where a character interacting with the world generates the story as the GM and the Player uses the rules to mediate the situation. Just like in Apocalypse World where a Player makes a prompt using the rules and then rolls if the rules call for it and the GM mediates what's happened. All of this happens in real time. You are not writing down the events and then after the game session vomiting out what happens. That's called basing your book off of a really cool TTRPG game you played once.

Take for example a "Tactical Sci-Fi Horror Game" I ran for a group of friends for a good 50 sessions. Near the middle of our campaign the players were having a good ol'fashion "train fight", things where looking dicy so a player who had been lugging around some breaching charges since nearly the start of the campaign decided to use them in the middle of the fight. The rules allow for it, and so the player tosses them, makes a roll for damage since these charges have a little rule saying "Do not require setup to use" meaning, the player just needs to roll damage. The "train" explodes and has a wreck, it nearly kills everyone and it completely changed how the story was going seconds prior to the player being like "Fuck it, I use a bomb"

If that's not "making a story in real-time with the game" then your "definition" is hogwash. As in a "Storygame" the player does the exact same thing, maybe they don't need to roll damage,  but they still "State their action" and the GM still "Mediates what happens". Almost like, TTRPGs are collective story telling or something and always have been or something.

I'm not into pure storygames like Microscope or Fiasco, but I LOVE games that mesh it with trad or old-school sensibilities. Stuff like LANCER, Blades in the Dark, The Sprawl, Beyond the Wall, Shinobigami, Trophy Dark, Brindlewood Bay, Forbidden Lands, etc. and I'm glad this is a trend these days.

I see it happening in boardgames too, where you had clear "ameritrash" and "eurofag" genres before but now most games are meshing the two, resulting in novel and interesting stuff like say, Gloomhaven or Scythe or Blood Rage.