It's JD's MO to basically restate the terms of the debate so that you either agree with the terms or you don't really want to discuss/are a moron. The thing is, the discussion here was about the games themselves, and what purpose they have, explicitly or implicitly, throughout their design.

Instead, JD very knowingly changed the premise to talk instead about story gaming as a play style. It's actually been raised at the beginning of the thread, that narratives can be played with traditional RPGs (and maybe vice versa, though it would be disruptive to my suspension of disbelief, and doesn't work for me, it could work for other people, theoretically, so I won't make a general pronuncement). Just like you can kill people with a spoon. The fact you can kill people with a spoon doesn't mean that the spoon's purpose was to kill in the first place. Though maybe some people might find spoons cool to kill people some time after their invention, and add rotating blades, chainsaws and whatnot on them to make them more useful to kill people. Then the spoon ceases to be a spoon. It becomes "something else that vaguely looks like a spoon but is intended to kill people."

Yes, that's true, to win arguments I start by being obviously right. People don't want to be wrong, so they won't argue, or they look foolish because they are arguing against someone who is obviously right.

I disagree that it's that hard to play a regular old RPG aiming at story, as I say, seems like a pretty normal thing to do given that the building blocks of story are character decisions (given explicitly to the players) in interesting situations (given explicitly to the GM). Stuff like "you get to say what your character says!" is icing on the cake.

Quote from: JDCorley;458639Yes, that's true, to win arguments I start by being obviously right. People don't want to be wrong, so they won't argue, or they look foolish because they are arguing against someone who is obviously right.

That's obviously not what I'm saying, but nice try in rebooting the same bullshit twice.

Quote from: JDCorley;458639I disagree that it's that hard to play a regular old RPG aiming at story, as I say, seems like a pretty normal thing to do given that the building blocks of story are character decisions (given explicitly to the players) in interesting situations (given explicitly to the GM). Stuff like "you get to say what your character says!" is icing on the cake.

That's not what I said. I acknowledged it was possible to play a narrative with a regular RPGs, regardless of the ease there is to do so while not making judgment as to play a trad play style with a story game, since I know it wouldn't work for me but could possibly work for someone else. The spoon thing says what it says: you can kill people very easily with a spoon, you know?

Quote from: JDCorley;458623Phew! Okay, finally.

Hit points and armor class are a great combat mechanic and combat is really important to a lot of stories. Therefore D&D's combat mechanic directly controls the narrative in that respect.

The ability to use different specific narration is no different from Primetime Adventure's "high card narrates a broad result indicated by the most successes" mechanic.  Of course you can call hits in D&D all kinds of stuff and describe it in different ways. That doesn't give it less of an impact on the story.

Actually, it might, depending on what happens later on. A better tool for the job is MRQ2's system where types of hits and wounds are more specific.

QuoteI name the aim of creating a story with a game "story gaming", that's all I've been saying since my first post.

I do not disagree with this statement, and never have. I'm not even discussing this, nor is it the topic of the thread.

QuoteWait, what? You're the one that said my definition, which was exactly the same as "story oriented play" (UGH), was "too encompassing". I assumed you said that because you knew how much story oriented play was happening! If you don't, then you don't know my definition is too encompassing and that statement is unfounded.

An unfounded statement on the Internet?!?  You will find me on the fainting couch.

Your definition is indeed too encompassing. You are asserting that, because all these games CAN be used to create stories, that they are all "story games", which is not true at all. Story games are games designed specifically to create a story collaboratively among the players. Roleplaying games, while able to also be used to create a story, were and are not designed specifically for that purpose. They're designed to allow the players to share the experience of exploring an imaginary setting. Note that this is separate from how the players actually use these (or any) games, which is as varied as the players themselves.

QuoteCertainly not, my definition just says that story gaming is gaming aimed at story. It assumes nothing about how prevalent it is. It was your critique that it was too "encompassing" that assumed it was extremely prevalent. Oh, and GameDaddy thinks all RPG play is story gaming under my definition, which is just not true.

The problem is, that's not the topic of the thread. I am defining the games themselves, not the act of playing them. We are talking past each other, and have been all along.

QuoteNope, as I've said numerous times in this thread, and everyone can see, you are just making this up out of thin air.

Actually no. I may be exaggerating though, and I'll certainly own up to that. If you truly believe that I am making it up out of nothing, and that nothing you have said leads me to this kind of conclusion, just ask around and see.

QuoteYou tell me, you're the one that brought it up!

Did I? Where? I see no post of mine that mentions anything like what percentage of people play anything. How you get that from my saying that trying to call any game that is capable of providing even a rudimentary experience of creating a story a "story game" makes the term "story game" too encompassing and vague is beyond me. Notice that nowhere in the above statement, which mirrors what I've said before, is the percentage of anything mentioned or even relevant.

QuoteI said "story gaming is gaming aimed at story" and you said "no, that's too encompassing", which means you think that there's way too much gaming aimed at story for my definition to be useful. Like, if you believed as GameDaddy believes that all gaming (or even the overwhelming majority) is ultimately about the story, then that would be a good critique of my definition.  
 I personally don't pretend to have any knowledge of the proportions involved, but really doubt that's the case. When I play at conventions, for example, with a lot of different people, the majority aren't too interested in story.  A significant percentage don't use things like dialogue or description, and don't look for means of expressing character.

Not really, no. If that's what you think I've said then go back and read again. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, although I thin it more likely you're trying to twist my words just to prove yourself right in a debate you've already lost. I said and say and will continue to say in the future that defining a game (not the playing of the game, the game itself) as a story game just because it can provide a story gaming experience, however imperfect or forced, is pointless. The reason games have been written to provide a more pure story gaming experience is because roleplaying games are not very well suited to the task. Otherwise why write these new types of games? The mechanics they use are aimed at allowing greater control over the story creation by the players rather than just the game master. They get al the players involved in creating the setting details, controlling the pacing, building the structure. A roleplaying game provides tools for none of these things to the players, because roleplaying games are not designed for this purpose.

QuoteHeck, I only story game about 60 percent of my gaming time. People think because I have a wise and precise definition of story gaming that I'm some kind of evangelist for it, I'm not. I have never, ever, in this entire thread, ever said once that everyone should be story gaming, or everyone is. That hasn't happened and anyone who thinks that is making it up out of their own head.

Actually, from what I've been told by other folks, peope enjoy much of what you write... except for this wonky view you have that conflates the games with the experience of playing them. If you think i am the only one you are sorely mistaken, I'm just the only one presently willing to take the time to patiently point it out to you.

QuoteAgain, I've said all along that this is a big mistake. Talking about products is inferior to talking about experiences and techniques.  People can use products in so many different ways, fruitfully.

You are certainly entitled to hold this opinion if you like. Other folks may have different priorities. None of this, however, has any bearing on whether it is useful to classify a game by it's intended purpose, no matter how much weight you give to the discussion of it.

QuoteAbsolutely! If they come to a board wanting help/information about D&D, their approach and goal is extremely relevant to what help or information they wll find valuable! Glad you asked!

How does this, in any way, depend on what you or I call the game? If a player needs help with D&D, they will say "I need help with D&D." The rest is just details. If they then say, "I want to create a story using D&D's rules", then we know what to say. Nowhere is this absolutely dependant on what you or I call the game itself. However, what we call the games might make it easier or harder to get at the solution. If the player comes on here and says (using your definition), "I want to play a story game", we will have to ask many more questions just to get at the kind of story game they want to play. However, if they say (using my definition), "I want to play a story game", we can immediately begin recommending actual story games, and games with varying levels of story game mechanics, until we arrive at a specific game that they feel will satisfy their needs. My way, simply saying "story game" communicates a mechanical style that best supports the specific  gaming experience (story gaming) they're desiring. If they then say, "I want to story game with a roleplaying game", we will know which games to exclude in our recommendations, and which games are going to be less likely to provide the specific experience the person is looking for.

Quote from: JDCorley;458625No, I mean, look, that's just not true at all:

Dictionary.com:

1. a story or account of events, experiences, or the like, whether true or fictitious.
2. a book, literary work, etc., containing such a story.
3. the art, technique, or process of narrating

Synonyms:  
chronicle, tale. Narrative, account, recital, history  are terms for a story of an event or events. Narrative  is the general term (for a story long or short; of past, present, or future; factual or imagined; told for any purpose; and with or without much detail).

Samuel Johnson defined it in 1788 as "A Relation, an Account". Noah Webster in 1831 said it was a "story, recital of particulars".  So it's not even like my use of the word is so bizarre that it's just been invented.  Pretty much the normal use of the word "narrative" is a synonym with "story" and that's how I've used it.

I mean, I'm sure literature experts have their own definition, but i'm not a literature expert, I'm just a regular dude, and as I said all along, I was just using the good old regular dude definition.

Nah, you're quite correct. I've not seen anyone in literary analysis ever draw a hard-line distinction between "narrative" and "story". At most, I've seen critics and theorists draw a distinction between "narrator" and "plot". And, I suppose, there's been some high-order wrangling of what "narrative" means in terms of author-function and other presupposed states, but structuralism of that sort is rather out of date. Functionally, in terms of day-to-day work and instruction of students, literary analysts don't draw the distinction between "narrative" and "story" that Sigmund is insisting on -- his definition is, by our lights, unnecessary and incorrect.

Edit: For my part, I have a difficult time with his distinction since all story is, by necessity, narrated. If it weren't, it would be uncommunicable by being neither produced nor received. But, then, I also see no functional difference between "telling a story" and "experiencing a fictional world through exploration", so I have no real dog in this race.

There is a difference between a series of events and a narrative. This is the case even if the events are imaginary/theoretical. This is not Ph.D. material here, you don't have to be ferdinand de saussure to grasp this distinction. I mean even if we forget games and talk about fiction, you've got writers who are more or less autobiographical, Bukowski writes Factotum about going from job to job, fucking up. There's a difference between going from job to job fucking up and a novel about going from job to job fucking up. The RPG process is  analagous to the going from job to job fucking up part, not the creating the novel about it. I mean, unless your RPG character is writing a novel about his prior adventures in the course of the game; I guess that could happ...OH MY GOD IT'S FULL OF STARS

90% of what is wrong with the internet can be found in this thread.

Quote from: Aos;45864790% of what is wrong with the internet can be found in this thread.

We can hit 95%. We just have to believe in ourselves.

Quote from: Cole;458649We can hit 95%. We just have to believe in ourselves.

Without pictures of catgirls fucking octopi, it will be very difficult to bridge the gap.

Quote from: Aos;458652Without pictures of catgirls fucking octopi, it will be very difficult to bridge the gap.

Well, I didn't say 100%.

Quote from: Cole;458645There is a difference between a series of events and a narrative. This is the case even if the events are imaginary/theoretical. This is not Ph.D. material here, you don't have to be ferdinand de saussure to grasp this distinction.

Well, yes, if that "series of events" consists of atomistic vignettes that are wholly unconnected with each other in any way. Once you have a connection between them and they come to exist in relation to one another, bam, you have narrative and story. Edit: Enacted usually, but not always, through vehicles like plot and character.

 

QuoteI mean even if we forget games and talk about fiction, you've got writers who are more or less autobiographical, Bukowski writes Factotum about going from job to job, fucking up. There's a difference between going from job to job fucking up and a novel about going from job to job fucking up.

Well, first, that difference exists in the codification of lived experience within a narrative form (in Bukowski's case, which I'm overwhelmingly familiar with, said codification happens at the point where he writes his experiences in his poetry, stories, and novels). This codification is bound up in issues of historiography and other schools of thought that problematize autobiographical -- or historicy in general -- as being truly "non-fictional". Second, and perhaps more germane, even if we accept Factotum etc as actual recorded experience rather than fiction, it is not the experience itself but a record of said experience created and shaped in order to convey information via -- you guessed it -- narrative and story.

QuoteThe RPG process is  analagous to the going from job to job fucking up part, not the creating the novel about it. I mean, unless your RPG character is writing a novel about his prior adventures in the course of the game; I guess that could happ...OH MY GOD IT'S FULL OF STARS

I think that's an interesting way of looking at it, but I think it's problematic because it presupposes that a fictional set of events bound together by plot and characterization with an over-arching condition of produced narrative are functionally equivalent to lived experiences. And I just don't agree that -- whatever you want to call it -- the stuff that is produced during the play of an RPG is a lived experience. Certainly the actual playing of a game is a lived experience (I go to my GM's house and try to solve a murder on the Orient Express in CoC), but what is produced (Grayfang Warbler gets into a shootout with cultists in the dining car!) is not.

Quote from: Géza Echs;458644Nah, you're quite correct. I've not seen anyone in literary analysis ever draw a hard-line distinction between "narrative" and "story". At most, I've seen critics and theorists draw a distinction between "narrator" and "plot". And, I suppose, there's been some high-order wrangling of what "narrative" means in terms of author-function and other presupposed states, but structuralism of that sort is rather out of date. Functionally, in terms of day-to-day work and instruction of students, literary analysts don't draw the distinction between "narrative" and "story" that Sigmund is insisting on -- his definition is, by our lights, unnecessary and incorrect.

Edit: For my part, I have a difficult time with his distinction since all story is, by necessity, narrated. If it weren't, it would be uncommunicable by being neither produced nor received. But, then, I also see no functional difference between "telling a story" and "experiencing a fictional world through exploration", so I have no real dog in this race.

Really? Where? All I said is what I know, which is that the "narrative" part of the story is when the storyteller is talking, as opposed to the dialogue, which is when the characters are talking. None of which has anything to do with the thread topic or how I define story games. If we do not distinguish between "telling a story" and "experiencing a fictional world" then neither story gaming, nor story games even exist. It is all the same and only the details are important. One is perfectly capable of viewing the gaming world in such a way if one chooses, but it is not a very useful view. If, however, we are going to insist on distinguishing between "story gaming" and "not story gaming", then I  will continue to assert that classifying games with mechanics which support the creation of a literary style of story (which is what "story gaming" is as far as I can tell) as "story games" is more useful than not.

Quote from: JDCorley;458639Yes, that's true, to win arguments I start by being obviously right. People don't want to be wrong, so they won't argue, or they look foolish because they are arguing against someone who is obviously right.

Seriously, dude, you just look like a stupid clown doing this.

Quote from: Sigmund;458658Really? Where?

When you said:

QuoteIf by 100 percent right you mean completely wrong, you've nailed it. Narrative is the narrated portion of a story. Look it up. Apparently not so simple after all.

Which JDCorley responded to, and I responded to him. Agreeing that, again, "narrative" and "story" are functional synonyms that do not preclude us from also discussing "narration" as it exists as a quality aside from "plot", "character", etc. In other words, "narrative" is not distinct from "story" by being "the narrated portion of a story".

Quote from: Géza Echs;458657I think that's an interesting way of looking at it, but I think it's problematic because it presupposes that a fictional set of events bound together by plot and characterization with an over-arching condition of produced narrative are functionally equivalent to lived experiences. And I just don't agree that -- whatever you want to call it -- the stuff that is produced during the play of an RPG is a lived experience. Certainly the actual playing of a game is a lived experience (I go to my GM's house and try to solve a murder on the Orient Express in CoC), but what is produced (Grayfang Warbler gets into a shootout with cultists in the dining car!) is not.

You can disagree all you like, but as I've said to JDCorley, your disagreement does not constitute objective truth. The "stuff" that is produced by a roleplaying game session is memory. The part of the memory that is the game being played from the character's pov is fictional, but it's still the memory of an imagined experience. A great many of us give no thought to plot or literary structure when we play RPGs. What we give thought to is an imagined setting and experiencing the imaginary setting through the viewpoint of imagined people. An imagined experience, IMO, dos not equal a literary style of story. A literary style of story can be, and has been, constructed after the fact of the experience, but the two are not, IMO, the same. On the contrary, story gaming, as I understand it, is the experience of building a literary style of story using a game. The experience is different. That both can, although not automatically will, result in the same kind of thing does not mean the experiences are the same. I am classifying the intended experiences. If you don't find that useful, then rock on, but don't presume to tell me I'm wrong if I do.