Quote from: Géza Echs;458671When you said:



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".

Well then, I guess that depends on who you talk to doesn't it? Let me illustrate...

http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1270505#m_en_us1270505

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/narrative

So we're both right... or wrong.... does it matter? The specific meaning of the word "narrative" has nothing at all to do with how I classify games.

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.

The events occurring in the RPG's game world are not fundamentally "bound together by plot and characterization with an over-arching condition of produced narrative" in any way that real world events are not. I am not saying of course that the RPG world events are equivalent in importance or moral weight to real world events but I maintain that they are "functionally equivalent" in that they bear the same relationship to a narrative recounting those events that real world events bear to a narrative recounting them. The basic process of RPG play is to treat imaginary worlds and their contents as if real for the purposes of the game. Perhaps this is a fatuous thing to do, but it is a game for entertainment; it's no sillier (and no less silly) than constructing a story collaboratively but it's a different process.

Quote from: Sigmund;458673You can disagree all you like, but as I've said to JDCorley, your disagreement does not constitute objective truth.

Nor does yours. But, more importantly, you seem to be mistaking mentor someone who cares at all about "RPGs" and "storygames" as categories, and whether or not there is a distinction between them. I'm not, as I learned much earlier in the thread. I re-entered it to address JDCorley's post about definitions of narrative and story, and then to address a more complicated post on issues of narrative construction in general and the analysis of it. That's all.

Quote from: SigmundSo we're both right... or wrong.... does it matter? The specific meaning of the word "narrative" has nothing at all to do with how I classify games.

Sure. It has to do with how you define "story", however, as you've demonstrated. My post, again, was simply supporting JdCorley's assertion that your distinction between "narrative" and "story" was incorrect. That's all.

Quote from: Cole;458677The events occurring in the RPG's game world are not fundamentally "bound together by plot and characterization with an over-arching condition of produced narrative" in any way that real world events are not. I am not saying of course that the RPG world events are equivalent in importance or moral weight to real world events but I maintain that they are "functionally equivalent" in that they bear the same relationship to a narrative recounting those events that real world events bear to a narrative recounting them. The basic process of RPG play is to treat imaginary worlds and their contents as if real for the purposes of the game. Perhaps this is a fatuous thing to do, but it is a game for entertainment; it's no sillier (and no less silly) than constructing a story collaboratively but it's a different process.

Now this is a discussion I'm interested in, since I like thinking about things like distributed narrative and other ways of playing with form. I don't want to short shrift what you're saying here, so let me think on it while I'm working and I'll respond later on today.

Quote from: Géza Echs;458678Nor does yours. But, more importantly, you seem to be mistaking mentor someone who cares at all about "RPGs" and "storygames" as categories, and whether or not there is a distinction between them. I'm not, as I learned much earlier in the thread. I re-entered it to address JDCorley's post about definitions of narrative and story, and then to address a more complicated post on issues of narrative construction in general and the analysis of it. That's all.

Which is why I am not presenting my opinions as objective truth, and have made the effort repeatedly to point out that how I currently view things is not the one true way. Your also pointing this out is redundant. You, however, have presented your understanding of "narrative" as the only correct one, and I've shown that's not the case. Who's right, Oxford, or M_W, or someone else? Does it even matter in relation to the thread topic? Since you have professed a complete lack of interest in the actual topic, I suppose we can dispense with this line of discussion then.

Quote from: Géza Echs;458679Sure. It has to do with how you define "story", however, as you've demonstrated. My post, again, was simply supporting JdCorley's assertion that your distinction between "narrative" and "story" was incorrect. That's all.

Really? In what way? Seems more like semantics to me. Oh, and my distinction was not incorrect according to the Oxford dictionary. Are you trying to tell me you're more of an authority than Oxford?

Quote from: Sigmund;458681Which is why I am not presenting my opinions as objective truth, and have made the effort repeatedly to point out that how I currently view things is not the one true way. Your also pointing this out is redundant. You, however, have presented your understanding of "narrative" as the only correct one, and I've shown that's not the case. Who's right, Oxford, or M_W, or someone else? Does it even matter in relation to the thread topic? Since you have professed a complete lack of interest in the actual topic, I suppose we can dispense with this line of discussion then.

It seems weird for you to respond to my post addressed to JDCorley and then suggest we shouldn't be discussing what you've just brought up. It's as though you want to get the last word in. Well, feel free.

Quote from: Géza Echs;458687It seems weird for you to respond to my post addressed to JDCorley and then suggest we shouldn't be discussing what you've just brought up. It's as though you want to get the last word in. Well, feel free.

It's weird to me that you would go to the effort of pointing out how wrong I am in a forum if you didn't want me to respond to it. If your post was meant for JDCorley only, there's a perfectly serviceable private messaging system here. Otherwise, by mentioning how wrong you think I am openly in public, I was led to believe you are open to discussing it. Since, despite your placement of the dissension in an open forum, you seem to lack the desire to engage with me on the topic, I will consider the matter closed. If this response is what you meant by the "last word", then here it is.

Quote from: Géza Echs;458687It seems weird for you to respond to my post addressed to JDCorley and then suggest we shouldn't be discussing what you've just brought up. It's as though you want to get the last word in. Well, feel free.

Oh come on, man. That's juvenile bullshit. You placed your answer already, and it didn't need half a dozen more posts afterwards - that's your choice, dude. Don't pretend like you're innocent or whatnot. You're not confusing anyone. Now, if we could you know, go on with the discussion without having to redefine basic literary concepts such as "narrative", that'd be great. So either you stop being a disingenuous asshole and get a basic idea of what we're actually talking about, or we're done here. Thank you very much.

Quote from: JDCorley;458557Also this is just not true. As I said, (and as many screamed at me, thinking I had not just said that), there are plenty of valid ways of playing RPGs or other games that do not aim at creating a story.

How can it be an RPG if the players are not creating a story?

It can be a game of course. It can be a competition, with the other players... or with the game mechanics (the game designer). It can be simple entertainment, a diversion... Iterations of creation for inspiration.

An RPG however features roleplaying. That is to say the players imagine themselves to be the people or creatures in a unique situation, setting, or genre. The purpose of roleplaying is to better understand the people or creatures and why they make the decisions they do based on a combination of skills and talents (or lack thereof), the environment around the players (including random events that may affect the players), and the obstacles to success they face...

The obstacles can be any manner of things from monsters, to traps, to the players lack of skill or knowledge.

Overcoming them obstacles is the challenge... the source of the conflict, the source of drama, and the foundation of the story.  

RPGs can't exist without a story. If... there's no story, you might be playing a game yes... but it's definitely not an RPG so any story or narrative would naturally be irrelevant.

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

90% of what is right about the internet can also be found in this thread.

Honestly, I've pretty much said all I can say on this topic, my position is pretty clear I think. Geza Echs, No hard feelings brother. In all honesty, on the topic of the word "narrative", I'm more inclined to agree with you and JD that it is pretty much synonymous with the word "story". It might not have started that way, which is where I think the discrepancy arises, but I think common usage has evolved it to this point. In other things, as well, I find what you write more interesting than not, and you certainly seem smarter than I when we get right down to it. I'd definiately say more educated anyway. I look forward to your future postings.

JDCorley, thanks for an at times interesting, and always passionate discussion that we kept pretty dang civil, as these things go. Appreciate it. Keep on gaming brother, have fun

Now I gotta get back to work

Quote from: Cole;458677The events occurring in the RPG's game world are not fundamentally "bound together by plot and characterization with an over-arching condition of produced narrative" in any way that real world events are not. I am not saying of course that the RPG world events are equivalent in importance or moral weight to real world events but I maintain that they are "functionally equivalent" in that they bear the same relationship to a narrative recounting those events that real world events bear to a narrative recounting them. The basic process of RPG play is to treat imaginary worlds and their contents as if real for the purposes of the game. Perhaps this is a fatuous thing to do, but it is a game for entertainment; it's no sillier (and no less silly) than constructing a story collaboratively but it's a different process.

I've been turning this over in my head, and I think my initial response would be to ask for some expansion or clarification of your central thesis. To whit: if RPGs are to narratives as lived experiences are to narratives, in what way are RPGs and lived experiences functionally equivalent but not equivalent equivalent? This isn't a Socratic trap, for what it's worth. I'm hhonestly curious about how you can illuminate this point.

For me, I keep going back to Noel Carroll's argument in his superlative The Philosophy of Horror (which I pimp out whenever I can) where he discusses the difference between "horrific things" and "art-horror" and why we respond to exposure to art-horror (Ghostface slaughtering Drew Barrymore's character being met with shrieks and laughs) in ways distinct from how we would respond to exposure to horrific things (witnessing an actual serial killer dispatch a victim with panic and pleas for help from authorities). If your argument (as I understand it) is that there is this equivalence between RPGs and lived experience such that their relationship to narrative is the same, I would first wonder about what, in your eyes, is the meaningful distinction between how we treat events in RPGs and how we treat events in lived experience, how we can understand that distinction if there is one, and if there is no distinction how we can reconcile the fact that we treat the two functionally differently.

Equally, isn't the treatment of a fictional world as though it were real (for differing values of "real", qua Carroll above) a necessary function of all narrative? This would follow from Coleridge's formulation of suspension of disbelief, it seems to me, and coincide with how we actually interact with fictions in the first place. Again, the fact that there are differing values of "real" in play should not be disregarded, but it strikes me that the engagement with a world presumed to be real in some sense is an aspect of the relationship between readers / viewers and texts in general and not just players and RPGs in specific.

Of course, I do take your point about the relationship of narrative write-ups to RPG gaming sessions and think it's an important one. But what it makes me immediately think of is oral fictions and improvisation versus the written record of those oral experiments. Certainly the fact that the written record is more what we would recognize as a "traditional" narrative form doesn't preclude the shared oral improvisation from also being a narrative form, albeit non-traditional? I admit that I'm struggling for examples here, outside of non-specific references to poetic experiments, free-form storytelling, and the like, so please forgive me. It seems to me that in RPGs there is an emergence of shared narrative that can be encapsulated in written form a posteriori that is not equivalent to lived experience being recorded in written form due to the inherent distinction between the two in reception and reaction, and though there is certainly a difference between narratives emerging from RPG play and constructed narratives describing said play, the difference is more one of form than it is one of substance. I'm not convinced we could or would engage with RPG sessions, in "adventures" and "campaigns" involving plot and characterization in all persons, tenses, and modes both free indirect and direct as we do without it being some form of narrative expression (however non-traditional or outré).

I hope that all makes sense. I'm struggling with a rather arrogantly obtuse French critic today and so my frustration levels are high and my coherence is perhaps not what it could be.

Quote from: GameDaddy;45869690% of what is right about the internet can also be found in this thread.

How would you know? You haven't actually read any of it.