Unpopular opinions go here

[mamba]

Maybe, but at the risk of throwing out a popular opinion, neither does a gripping RPG.

I am not aware of anyone wanting to track this, so I am not sure why you consider this a popular opinion

 

[Reynard]

I am not aware of anyone wanting to track this, so I am not sure why you consider this a popular opinion

I do. I mean, not specifically, but I want (for certain campaigns) players to treat their characters as real people not just protagonists. They have to eat and sleep and poop. They get tired and sometimes just want a bath after days out in the wild. They are impacted by the violence they commit. Stuff like that.

 

[mamba]

I do. I mean, not specifically, but I want (for certain campaigns) players to treat their characters as real people not just protagonists. They have to eat and sleep and poop.

I mean, tracking rations and torches (and maybe arrows) I can see, I never was overly concerned with it but I see a point to it. Personally I draw the line at rations, and even that only if it matters to the type of story.

But tracking bowel movements would take it to a whole other level

 

[Willie the Duck]

I mean, tracking rations and torches (and maybe arrows) I can see, I never was overly concerned with it but I see a point to it. Personally I draw the line at rations, and even that only if it matters to the type of story.

But tracking bowel movements would take it to a whole other level

I think the level Reynard means is closer to 'should I put latrines in my encampment map' decisions and maybe offhand reference that the ranger character knows the party should properly dispose of their leavings to avoid being tracked in displacer beast territory, not actually tracking the rations-out alongside rations-in.

 

[CleverNickName]

When your DM starts their "evil NPC villain monologue" scene, let them finish.
They're saying goodbye to their character.

 

[Reynard]

I think the level Reynard means is closer to 'should I put latrines in my encampment map' decisions and maybe offhand reference that the ranger character knows the party should properly dispose of their leavings to avoid being tracked in displacer beast territory, not actually tracking the rations-out alongside rations-in.

I am also talking about trying to inhabit characters a little, including their misery. As a former US Army Infrantryman, I know a little of what it is like to walk a long way carrying a lot of crap and sleeping in poor conditions and unsafe environs. You really want a good shower and good toilet after that.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The longer a media property goes on, the less creative it tends to get, as a desire for canon and continuity mean it mostly turns in on itself, detailing what were once bold broad ideas, rather than adding new bold ideas to the mix. The "new stuff" eventually just becomes endless remixes of what came before, when the property was not constrained the way it is now.

 

[J.Quondam]

Folks think "rpgs tell stories" because they retroactively edit the largely chaotic and/or boring events of play into something approaching a coherent narrative. Like we do with history, and our own lives.

Folks who say RPGs tell stories are using a more colloquial idea of "story" that is not quite the the same as the specific definition used by people engaged in storycrafting as an occupation. (Seriously, look up "story" in any random dictionary.) In ordinary usages, story is just narrative about people doing things, maybe with a little nod to "fiction" or "amusing" or something; plus there are a number of other specialized meanings, as well. Which is why we routinely use the word story to refer to all sorts of narratives, including: novels, kids playing with dolls, newspaper articles, scripts, convoluted lies, epic poetry, travel logs, biographies, RPG narratives, parables, historical accounts. (Hint: history)

This "debate" is really just a case of dueling definition fallacies. What the "RPGs are not story" people really mean is "RPGs are not structured stories suitable for sharing with an audience" or something. (Which is true, of course.) But too often they don't clarify that until others object, as they seem to assume their own definition is axiomatic. That causes confusion at first, and it causes consternation later when the broader colloquial meaning is claimed to be wrong or inapplicable. At that point, it becomes gatekeeping, because it just an "us vs them" line marking a division where one doesn't belong (or even exist, in this case).

As typically framed, "RPG is not story" is exactly as illuminating as the "role-playing vs roll-playing" thing, which is to say: It isn't. At all.

Remember, most people think and speak colloquially by default; we're not all scriptwriters and lit professors here; and some might not have had an English class in 30+ years. So if the honest objective is to have an inclusive discussion rather than a fight, then take the time to provide some reference points and some direction. A truly interesting discussion on the topic, for example, could...

1. offer a definition of structured story for discussion. ("In creative creative writing classes you get a definition of story that is something like [X].")
2. offer a view of what RPG is and how it relates to that definition of story. ("Playing RPGs makes narrative like [Y], but that isn't the sort of story [X] as we understand it in creative writing.")
3. and offer a framing or point for the discussion ("How can you get from RPG campaign notes to something suitable for a novel or streaming series?" "RPGing and structured story telling are clearly related, but how exactly?" "What lessons from the one story form can be applied to the other story form?")

Do something like that and there is hope for a discussion that is inviting to everyone, and that is more than just whipping out our dictionaries for yet another boring slap-fight.

Spoiler

Tone policing? In an unpopular opinion thread???
I wouldn't dare!

¯\(ツ)/¯
.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I write for a living and I agree with @J.Quondam: Everyone should unclench a lot when talking about writing. (Especially about the Oxford comma, lordy.)

 

[Gradine]

Anybody who judges another person based on their personal spelling, grammar, and/or pronunciation, is not to be trusted.

In particular, spelling, as a skill, has about as much use in the modern day as cursive, which is to say, barely at all.