Games as Story Machines

[pemerton]

The Gamework video in particular reminds me of this much longer one

Are you able to give us a brief summary?

 

[niklinna]

Are you able to give us a brief summary?

It's basically about how (mostly computer) games, particularly those like Animal Crossing and Stardew Valley, just replicate work, except it isn't work because there's no obligation to do it, and goes from there into utilitarian objects vs. art and stuff. It's not long, and you can watch at 1.25x.

Oh you meant the Warcraft video! That's about how people optimizing the crap out of everything have ruined games for themselves and whoever else is playing the same game (MMOs in particular, but not just).

 

[kenada]

 

[Theory of Games]

I recently came across this video in a couple of gaming blogs that I read. I found it interesting, well-produced, and insightful, so I figured I'd share it here.

Story Machines Vol. 1

I'm curious what people think. The relationship of RPGs and stories has always been the subject for debate. This video looks at the relationship between games and stories, not RPGs specifically, but I think that helps bring a clarity to the topic that is often absent.

His points are 200% theoretical. The purpose of games is not to tell stories and if you study the the historical significance of games you begin to understand their real value.

"The only way you get match fitness is by playing games." - Aaron Ramsey

 

[Theory of Games]

For the Theater Kids, rpgs are magic treasure. It brings their tie-dye stories to life.

Or let us ask: What is greater, war or stories of war?

 

[aramis erak]

Are games really meaningless in their moments? I would be very surprised if moment to moment play isn’t very meaningful for any game worth playing. Whether it’s having to figure out how to defeat a boss that just appeared in the adventure board game you are playing or how to reunite the stupid korok with its friend, you’re getting something out of it once you’re past the obstacle. Otherwise, why even bother to play?

A roommate of mine and I used to play cribbage to be able to ignore the adverts while watching TV... The winning or losing was pretty immaterial... it was not uncommon to play two games (not hands, full 121+ points games) a day for the 3 years (over a span of 20) we were roommates, and 1-3 games per week when we lived a block apart (another 2 years).

It was something we did because it calmed our ADHD/Autistic need for distraction, while discussing other things.
We were much the same way when playing a simplified Riishi Mah Jongg... at least when no money was involved. It wasn't quite autonomous, but it was a background activity. (Riishi is basically a 4 player gin-rummy variation. But with special combinations.)

 

[aramis erak]

I think the OP's video is interesting, but the author/presenter overgeneralizes.

The biggest overgeneralization is that all games present obstacles to overcome. This is pretty much invalidated by "games" such as idiot's delight solitaire (which is always winnable, given enough time.)

Overgeneralization #2, equally as important, but not as obvious: players playing to overcome some situation or challenge just isn't a universal even for games designed with obstacles or direct competition. My grandmother never played Sorry with the intent to win. She played it to keep me busy, because I engaged with it.

Overgeneralization #3: that sequential events always result in story by design. Several abstract designers have stated they wanted to avoid story and so used as abstract a set of parts as they could.
I'll note that it's also a spectrum where the ludofunctional part becomes also narrative is wide. I've met a couple folk who don't get a story out of a game, despite 8 hours of play and in-persona treaty negotiation, while others see checkers as a race war analogy, and it's a personal battle... For me, Checkers ha no narrative to it, save a recollection of abstract decisions and whether or not my opponent won. Hnefatafl has a narrative - the king surrounded by 4 bands of unloyal vassals... Ship-Captain-Crew, a dice game, has labels, but to me it's just an abstract. Chess feels just shy of a narrative to me. And yet, Car Wars (classic) is very much a Role Playing thing for me, and Star Fleet Battles falls just shy of one.

Problem: His citations and academics chapter undermines his whole argument by showing that the existing ludologists and narrativologists don't go as extreme as he is proposing. When you're way off in the woods vs the body of literature you're drawing from and reacting to, your burden of proof is pretty high, and he has pushed it to the point where I can't agree, and feel he's not only failed to support his point, but essentually nulled it.

When it comes to boardgames, abstracts especially, pareidolia-like memory overlays a story for some. Clearly, he's one of them. I'm not as extreme. But one gal from church, she's aphantasic; she enjoys boardgames, but gets no story from them, even the ones with strong story. It's not that she's stupid - shes an ANP with an MSN. And a 3.8+ GPA. (And 6 kids at home when she did her MSN).

ANd then, there are themed abstracts... Risk Express, Age of War, Stratego... Ship Captain Crew.

Let me explain that last one: On their turn, each player antes, then rolls 5d6; to score, you need a 6 (the ship), a 5 (the captain) and as many crew as possible. You get 3 rerolls, hoping to get a captain, a ship, and 3 dice of crew (1-4 each, sum is score). I get no real story out of it . I still enjoy it, especially penny ante... Sometimes, between rerolls, a poker like round of bidding up the pot happens before those still in reroll.

Most computer games do have some narrative element, even if it's disconnected from the gameplay... Asteroids? Centipede?

Gamers' boardgames are often narrative linked to gameplay... and most RPG playstyles absolutely do include a narrative as part of play...

I really want to engage on this but darm, why why why can’t people just enjoy playing dnd.

Because

• D&D has a lot of tropes that don't work for many people,
  • I'm one of those.
• WotC and HasBro have behavior patters that many find as reason to not support them by playing their games
  • I'm also one of those
• Not all settings lend themselves to the tropes enforced by any given D&D ruleset
• There's no singular D&D to "just enjoy playing D&D."
  • OE, OE+Sups, Holmes, AD&D 1e, BX, AD&D1+UA, AD&D 2e, BECMI, BECMI+Gazateers, AD&D2+PO/CO D&D Rules Cyclopedia, D&D 3e/3.5e, D&D 4e, D&D5e, and the new version releasing later this year.
    • Note that my distinction is based upon "I can tell this edition from the sheet" - in the case of AD&D1+UA, the additional classes, and the various other changes, plus the extra attribute often make it easy to tell if the group is using UA. AD&D2 with the Player's Option books in force has customizable characters, and 12 attributes...
    • The BX, BECMI, and Cyclopedia are generally considered the same; the differences are minor but for the inclusion of more and more content... Cyclopedia includes all of BECM, but not I; it also includes small parts of the Gazetteer content, and some options novel to it.
  • Not many will happily play more than one or two; sites like this one tend to attract more wide tastes than D&D itself
• A lot of people call Pathfinder D&D. A lot more call anything from OSRIC to Mörk Borg D&D. A few people call Classic Traveller D&D. A few call the Buck Rogers XXVcgame D&D... others call it AD&D.
  • There are also D&D labeled board games
    • TSR had Mertwig's Maze and The Great Khan Game — neither of which were RPGing — and I've got one of them
    • WotC has some D&D branded boardgames...

So, D&D? Which D&D?
If I invite you over for a D&D game, do you know which I'm going to break out?
And even if told the ruleset, am I going to be in minis mode, story mode, hybrid mode?

I'll note that Mertwig's Maze never caused me to generate a narrative in recollection, but Great Khan Game, which is essentially a card wargame, often did... And many of the early dungeon crawls we played in middle school were horibly lacking plot... and narrative considerations. It was a minis wargame without the minis.
I get a narrative from Star Fleet Battles, too. Especially from ship duels.

 

[Smackpixi]

This was an old thread that got resurrected, I liked your expansive response, it doesn’t seem to have been engaged with, so I will.

For me, Checkers ha no narrative

It doesn’t, but if you anthropomorphize the pieces, you can imagine quite a story with some imagination.

And many of the early dungeon crawls we played in middle school were horibly lacking plot

Same here, a series of random encounters is meaningless, but part of the idea there was that, in play, the DM and players would collaborate and imbue them with meaning by adding narrative.

There's no singular D&D to "just enjoy playing D&D."

My point was that all these variations can be enjoyed, have fun with what is before you. I like TOTM, but, not gonna kill me to move a mini today.

If I invite you over for a D&D game, do you know which I'm going to break out?
And even if told the ruleset, am I going to be in minis mode, story mode, hybrid mode?

I don’t know, but unless your style is, “be a jerk to everyone in the room”, I’ll roll with it. Invite me over, I’ll play however you want to play at your place. The TTRPG space has many people who are real specific on how things need to be played. I understand that some of that arises out of their own particular neuro-peculiarities, or sensitivities about xyz, and accept that, but it’s weird, and as someone who is also very weird, I can discard their narrow window of acceptance and just move on and say what I said. “Why can’t people just play some DND?” Let’s make up some elf stories together and be nice to each other.

 

[Smackpixi]

Oh yeah, and for opening video, and my comment, it should be taken for ideas on how to build great stories, not how things should be.