Rob tells it like it is, Settembrini. Face it: You and Luke have a gamist mancrush!

No.
*sigh*
It´s totally not like that.
If even you misunderstand me, I digress.

It´s time to quit the site, I fear.

Sad day, sad day.

Quote from: SettembriniI´m not even understanding the reasons for WANTING "story" in your gaming. I cannot see any redeeming value to it.

Because the concept of story appeals to human beings on a fundamental level. It's the organisation and categorisation of information in such a way that entertains as well as informs. It provides a linear emotional context for events that otherwise may be regarded as dry or dull.

Just look at professional sports. Commentators, whether they be describing boxing, football or bowls are continually injecting as much narrative into competetive events as they can. Newspapers and websites follow the private lives of atheletes in such a way as to make them the heroes and villains of modern society. Grown men in the pub will wax lyrical about the trials and tribulations of their favorite team, reducing themselves to tears as they describe how victory was snatched from the jaws of defeat.

It's not an cop-out to describe the phenomenon as human nature, because in essence that's exactly what it is. It's also therefore no surprise that such a universal urge will be expressed in rpg's, in one form or another.

Quote from: Settembrinifreedom -'------------------------- drama

So ... drama is the inherent enemy of freedom?

>blink, blink<

Remind me ... you are trying to understand other people and why they value a focus on drama in their games, right?  This seems like an awfully critical point-of-view to be trying to gain that understanding from.

Quote from: Elliot Wilenestar, you've latched onto something about Sett that's been noticed before: an overemphasis on "game/challenge".

Being sympathetic to his viewpoint, I interpret it in a way that's more attractive to me. Namely, it's not that challenges are inherently attractive or "the point" of the game, but that the hallmark of emphasizing "story" is making in-game challenges impossible.

I understand completely. One aspect of my personal GM style is to play with the rules how they are. What fudging I do I do it with plot. Choosing plot alternatives that are the most fun or interesting. But if a Total Party Kill happens. It happens. Without the risk the reward isn't as sweet.

But I have experience with the alternative.

In LARP, you can't be as free form as in table-top. Within a event real world limitations means you can't plan and execute every eventually. In short you have to railroad the PCs somehow from the start of the event to its conclusion. And amazingly do this without making the PCs feel they are being railroaded and with the fact that many have run events and know they are probably being railroaded.

Note: this only within a event. The next event certainly can change on the result of the previous event.

The first trick is that before the event preplan only a handful of major modules that has to happen for your plot (an event is comprised of module in the NERO LARP) Then during the event you allow the players to choose the path they get to the major modules. Making them up on the fly or from a stack of generic templates.

So if the plot is killing the dragon in its lair. The events starts with the dragon attacking the town for the big opening fight (a standard clique opening in NERO LARPS). Soon they find out that the dragon's lair is unknown. So you start putting out modules that have clues to the lair. Some players may go to the hag on the river. Other may fight through the orc forest to the seer's tower. And so on. Eventually somebody will have a clue the dragon's lair assemble the town and go for the big closing fight (another NERO cliche)


It can be more complex than that. Hopefully you get the picture. As you can see this a lot more railroading than I would on for table top. And it is a challenge to do but if you plan it right it can be done and be fun.

But if you come to a NERO event expecting to tromp into the woods and goto the Dragon's Lair then you won't have fun. But there may be 50 people playing and only 15 on the staff back at the NPC Shack. We don't have the logistics to track and allow individual groups to whatever they want.

Enjoy
Rob Conley

P.S. The upside of NERO LARP is that

a) you are physically there in costume or in armor.
b) there is a person playing just that role in role-playing with you.
c) your fellow players both cooperate and compete with you and there is a lot of them with you.
d) You physically get to adventure.

Note that c keeps players in the game and a,b,d attract players to the game.

Quote from: SettembriniNo.
*sigh*
It´s totally not like that.
If even you misunderstand me, I digress.

It´s time to quit the site, I fear.

Sad day, sad day.

What's with the drama queenery, sector duke?!

I read your buddy Skyrock's ARS manifesto the other day: one-dimensional gamism drivel. If your own position is different, you need to work on elaborating that difference. It comes through occasionally but not systematically.

Quote from: estarSett,

I think you are focusing too much on the Game aspect.

There is the role-playing side too. Not just in the sense that you are acting out your character but there is a plot and a campaign world as well.


 Game-----------------|------------------Role-playing
   
I like to be here where the | is at


 Game--------------------------------|--Role-playing

Some like it where the | is at
Some think its superior
This annoys me

                                       
 Game--|---------------------------------Role-playing
Some like it here
This is how it started   in 1974.
Since different players and game designers moved the bar to where they liked it.

That's sheer genius.

[Edit: Removed Snark]

Quote from: SettembriniAnd why, oh why should one wallow in the worst that US-media have to offer (formulaic portrayal of the human condition)? Why?

There's a reason that the worst that US-media has to offer is popular.

Now, I'm on your side here; I have no desire whatsoever to emulate the cheesy drama of popular tv, movies, and books. Neither do my players, thankfully. But playing out hackneyed plots, melodramatic crisis, and sentimental characterization in RPGs is popular because all that stuff is popular in other dramatic mediums. I share your opinion that RPGs can do a lot more cool stuff than create a collaborative piece of Buffy fanfic. But it shouldn't be suprising that pop culture sensibilities are, well, popular.

Quote from: SettembriniI´m not even understanding the reasons for WANTING "story" in your gaming. I cannot see any redeeming value to it.

@estar: that axis of exchange you built up is ridicolous and damaging, it´s roll-playing vs roleplaying all over. But I know you and I mean the same when we think about what a good game is. The real axis of exchange for this debate is:


freedom -'------------------------- drama
(I´m over here *wave*)

I going to have to disagree. I am not sure why you put drama as the enemy of freedom. The correct axis, in my opinion is:

freedom ------------------------- railroading


drama is a plot point and nothing to do with freedom.

Drama for a game oriented person is where you enter the dragon's lair and go "oh shit" in you are in the fight for your life. Or when you have to win this battle or pick this lock.

Drama for a role-players is like that Star Trek time travel debate. Is the party going to change time to return home. Or this going to be the universe they stay in.

 You can have a campaign totally focused on blowing star-destroyers yet the GM is railroading you from battle to battle with no meaningful choice.

You can have a campaign that has you under the influence of a magic deer that totally dictates your moral choices or suffers the penalties of a dark force. (Oh wait this has been done)

So a proper understanding of the issues is to combine the axis of game versus Role-playing with freedom versus railroading.

Note that even a dual axis may be too simple. Which where the Forge falters in my opinion. Because RPGs are open ended they can focus on a lot of different things at once.  The key is understand the choices you made for your game, and what your players consider to be fun.

So far it seems to me that you enjoy the gaming side i.e. the wargaming part of RPGs more than the role-playing side. Which is great. Lots of people have fun with RPG campaigns that are essentially a series of scenarios that are related by a plot. Not saying that what exactly what you play but it sounds like you are on that area of the whole RPG spectrum.

I would pick the nit, then, that it's not just railroading - that's just the GM side of things. What about the players?

It's approaching a game with the idea that certain dramatic/thematic/narrative goals outweigh other considerations (in game consistency, for example).

I don't agree with Sett's view that one is this type of gaming and the other is that, or that one is good and right and the other bad-wrong-fun.

But I do see a scale here where those could be represented as polars as the tension of the two play against each other.

Yeah, but ... freedom? :confused:

Every game is going to restrict your freedom to play an entirely different game.  That doesn't make them opposed to freedom generally.  In a D&D session I don't have the "freedom" to have my character suddenly access a new reserve of power just because it's dramatically appropriate (i.e. the princess he loves is imperilled).  However, I don't leap to the conclusion that there's a spectrum with tactics on one side and freedom on the other.

Certainly Sett expressed his opinions but his original post stated that he didn't understand. Which I  am trying to explain based on my witnessing actual play and others playing. Also with why gamers think they stink or not stink.

Because running a LARP I had to very pragmatic about "theory". I had to come up with some "theory" because when you are running events for 50 or more people at a expensive campsite you don't want just throw plot out there and just hope the shit just works. You need to take  a hard view at what happened in previous events. Take what was good and build on it. This include plots as well the logistics of running things.

Some of it I found is applicable to running a good tabletop game.

Quote from: TonyLBYeah, but ... freedom? :confused:

Every game is going to restrict your freedom to play an entirely different game.  That doesn't make them opposed to freedom generally.  In a D&D session I don't have the "freedom" to have my character suddenly access a new reserve of power just because it's dramatically appropriate (i.e. the princess he loves is imperilled).  However, I don't leap to the conclusion that there's a spectrum with tactics on one side and freedom on the other.

Oh...so close, Tony.

That's right, you don't, but it's not because of any rule in D&D. you could very well have that happen in D&D if you wanted to play it that way - that is, in a way that allowed a dramatic need to override the internal consistency.

But I agree with you that "freedom" is not on the other side - it's the wrong word but perhaps Sett's just not ready with the right one - or he's referencing a more intricate interlocking situation where I can't act consistent with the framework is someone else's "dramatic" focus takes precedence.

This is the weird nebulous part of GNS that kinda makes sense (watch the flames there, boys).  If two people have different games in mind, they will have to work out a way to play together or the game will struggle.  That's as far as I would take any idea of Creative Agendas from GNS and apply it - you have to bring in Cheetoism to handle the rest!

Quote from: TonyLBYeah, but ... freedom? :confused:

Every game is going to restrict your freedom to play an entirely different game.  That doesn't make them opposed to freedom generally.  In a D&D session I don't have the "freedom" to have my character suddenly access a new reserve of power just because it's dramatically appropriate (i.e. the princess he loves is imperilled).  However, I don't leap to the conclusion that there's a spectrum with tactics on one side and freedom on the other.

On the two axis posted so far it is rare that a RPGs is totally pegged to one extreme. If it is the campaign won't last for long.

The ideal point for me on freedom axis is that you have a GM that is flexible enough to handle players going off in any direction but savvy enough to keep putting plot hooks and keep players interested enough to in the plot to follow it of their own volition. Because once they are willingly following a plot prep time becomes way easier.

Otherwords the player are railroaded because the they want to be.

And Sett one of things going on with the "story" games you mentioned that the player are willingly accepting the railroading that involved to make them work.

Quote from: SettembriniFuck the Princess. She´s an excuse for going unto SPACE ADVENTURES!

So the game isn't about the characters, it's about the cool stuff the characters can do?  That's a little too harsh of a polarization for what constitutes drama or story in a RPG to me.  I want to do all of that COOL stuff too but I also want to have a reason why my character wants to save the princess.  I need that reason for putting my character's ass on the line or from the players if I'm GMing.  I don't need a half hour dialogue in character to achieve this either.  In game it would look like this:

Player 1 (Luke):  We should probably save the Princess.  She's here and it's the right thing to do.

Player 2 (Han):  Screw that!  I'm not putting my character's ass on the line.

Player 1 (Luke):  She's rich and you could use the money to pay off Jaba.

Player 2 (Han):  Uhhhh... Ok, I'll do it.  

Player 3 (Chewie):  ROWWRRRLLLL!  (he's the thespy type)

The game is about what the characters want to do based on whatever the agreed upon premise is (defeat empire).  What are the characters trying to accomplish and why?  The trick for the GM is to find themes that the players want to engage their characters in.