Let's talk about "plot", "story", and "play to find out."

[Reynard]

I think that RPGs occupy a middle ground between story and game because the two are intertwined. The story is emerging through play, but sometimes it’s set up in advance, and sometimes it’s retroactively applied based on choices that were made during the game. I think there’s some emphasis being placed upon the completion of the story, and I’m not sure I’m comfortable with that being an important part of the definition. If a book or TV show is left incomplete, does it no longer qualify as a story? If an author leaves a story intentionally incomplete, and leaves it to the reader to make the final determination, is it not still a story?

When we play a game, we’re in the process of creating that story. I don’t know if there’s a tremendous amount of value for me to separate the act of creating a story from saying what results is a story. The similarities are greater than the differences to my mind. I don’t think there’s very many games that I’ve played where I didn’t complete the story in my mind even if it didn’t fully play out at the table, say due to a campaign that ended prematurely. I tend to imagine what the ending would’ve been and that’s enough for me.

My point is that when a story emerges from play, by definition that story (the tale of our band of weirdos liberating gold from a dragon's hoard, for example) is not complete until the game reaches some sort of resolution.

But what I am really trying to express is that when we play, we aren't in a sotry following a plot and acting in a coherent way meant to evoke Story. We are playing a game. Because of the nature of RPGs, that means we produce a story in that play.

Now, there are games that want you to play within a story. Modules from the 90s are a common offender in this regard, but even things like the "cinematic" adventures for Alien do something similar. And of course there are storygames whose sole purpose is to envelop the participants in story as part of play. But in all of those examples, it is necessary to restrict some choices that would otherwise be available to the players in order to force story beats and structure.

 

[Artamo]

My point is that when a story emerges from play, by definition that story (the tale of our band of weirdos liberating gold from a dragon's hoard, for example) is not complete until the game reaches some sort of resolution.

But what I am really trying to express is that when we play, we aren't in a sotry following a plot and acting in a coherent way meant to evoke Story. We are playing a game. Because of the nature of RPGs, that means we produce a story in that play.

Now, there are games that want you to play within a story. Modules from the 90s are a common offender in this regard, but even things like the "cinematic" adventures for Alien do something similar. And of course there are storygames whose sole purpose is to envelop the participants in story as part of play. But in all of those examples, it is necessary to restrict some choices that would otherwise be available to the players in order to force story beats and structure.

So if I understand correctly, you’re saying because story often means specific beats occurring, it can get in the way of the game or feel wrong? Conversely, if everyone has full freedom, the result may not be a satisfying story in any way?

 

[Blue]

I'll try and be concise: you cannot have a story until you have a plot, and a plot is the series of events that make up the story. Therefore, there is no story until the thing is done. After the last die is rolled, the aggregate of what happened at the table, tempered by the recollections and perceptions of the participants defines the story.

RPGs generate story, but you don't play one.

First, one that should be obvious even if you have this definition, is that there need not be a single plot. There can be subplots, and they don't need to start and end at the same time. Heck, according to you any series of books that's ongoing can't be a story because it hasn't ended, which should be patently, obviously untrue.

Second, when I was making up bedtime stories for my kids, they were stories long before I got to an end. Sometimes they'd fall asleep and there was no end. Sometimes it would go over more than one night, but I was still telling them a story that first night. Regardless if we continued or not.

There are slice-of-life stories that have no plot. Stream of Consciousness like William Faulkner.

A story in the telling does not need to have a completed plot to be a story. That's simply not part of the definition.

 

[Reynard]

First, one that should be obvious even if you have this definition, is that there need not be a single plot. There can be subplots, and they don't need to start and end at the same time. Heck, according to you any series of books that's ongoing can't be a story because it hasn't ended, which should be patently, obviously untrue.

Second, when I was making up bedtime stories for my kids, they were stories long before I got to an end. Sometimes they'd fall asleep and there was no end. Sometimes it would go over more than one night, but I was still telling them a story that first night. Regardless if we continued or not.

There are slice-of-life stories that have no plot. Stream of Consciousness like William Faulkner.

A story in the telling does not need to have a completed plot to be a story. That's simply not part of the definition.

Again, talking past each other. You seem to want me to be saying something I am not saying so you can argue with me.

I don't know what else to tell you.

 

[Reynard]

So if I understand correctly, you’re saying because story often means specific beats occurring, it can get in the way of the game or feel wrong? Conversely, if everyone has full freedom, the result may not be a satisfying story in any way?

That is a fine summation. I think the Game part is most important, and Story is just something that happens because of the nature of the game. Sometimes those stories are really great. Most of the time they require a lot of mental editing to be coherent, let alone "good."

 

[RenleyRenfield]

My point is that when a story emerges from play, by definition that story (the tale of our band of weirdos liberating gold from a dragon's hoard, for example) is not complete until the game reaches some sort of resolution.

But what I am really trying to express is that when we play, we aren't in a sotry following a plot and acting in a coherent way meant to evoke Story. We are playing a game. Because of the nature of RPGs, that means we produce a story in that play.

Now, there are games that want you to play within a story. Modules from the 90s are a common offender in this regard, but even things like the "cinematic" adventures for Alien do something similar. And of course there are storygames whose sole purpose is to envelop the participants in story as part of play. But in all of those examples, it is necessary to restrict some choices that would otherwise be available to the players in order to force story beats and structure.

Ehhh, I dunno.... Dread alone proves most all of this wrong. It has no limitations based on beats or structure, and his highly able to facilitate either play into a give story or play with nothing known, and anything else. For the Queen also has no limitation on story structure other than "and now it ends", how you got there and what happened can be again, pure storytelling or can be chaotic discovery and all kinds of other ways a person could narrate any given idea to a prompt.
..............

I think this is trying too hard to avoid discussion of rpg as "story". Instead there has been a lot of forcing people to acknowledge that there is no agreement on a universal definition of story or plot or whatever. Ok, sure so we may not be able to apply one dictionary definition to this story in rpg. But language has no inherent meaning, so we can do what others suggested and just discuss what happens in roleplaying. Can we skip the denial of everything as definition denial?

My post and @Fenris-77 post are talking to how these terms are used when it comes to roleplaying. Folks DO have ways these terms come up, and there are talking points that are helpful in giving a person guidance as to what a given game might be about (again see my post).

If you simply take the 3 points I made in my post, they can be easily expanded on to describe what a person feels (in any give mix match) any give RPG does to play out or generate a story. Both are possible. And limitation is not required.

 

[Artamo]

That is a fine summation. I think the Game part is most important, and Story is just something that happens because of the nature of the game. Sometimes those stories are really great. Most of the time they require a lot of mental editing to be coherent, let alone "good."

I see the distinction, but I would say part of what draws me to TTRPGs is the story aspect - the fact that my play at the table is creating a story, even if it’s a bad one, or one which could only charitably be viewed later as a cautionary tale of overconfident adventurers getting killed because of their own stupidity! I’m coming to the table with a different expectation that I would if I were playing a run of the mill board game or card game.

To put more of a contrast on it, I can be invited to a poker game, and I’m not thinking of it in terms of an emerging story. If I’m invited to a D&D game, I’m already starting to think in story related ways. Whether the result ends up satisfactory is kind of beside the point for me, though it’d have to be really bad for me not to come away with some sort of synopsis for what happened in that game.

 

[Reynard]

Ehhh, I dunno.... Dread alone proves most all of this wrong. It has no limitations based on beats or structure, and his highly able to facilitate either play into a give story or play with nothing known, and anything else. For the Queen also has no limitation on story structure other than "and now it ends", how you got there and what happened can be again, pure storytelling or can be chaotic discovery and all kinds of other ways a person could narrate any given idea to a prompt.
..............

I think this is trying too hard to avoid discussion of rpg as "story". Instead there has been a lot of forcing people to acknowledge that there is no agreement on a universal definition of story or plot or whatever. Ok, sure so we may not be able to apply one dictionary definition to this story in rpg. But language has no inherent meaning, so we can do what others suggested and just discuss what happens in roleplaying. Can we skip the denial of everything as definition denial?

My post and @Fenris-77 post are talking to how these terms are used when it comes to roleplaying. Folks DO have ways these terms come up, and there are talking points that are helpful in giving a person guidance as to what a given game might be about (again see my post).

If you simply take the 3 points I made in my post, they can be easily expanded on to describe what a person feels (in any give mix match) any give RPG does to play out or generate a story. Both are possible. And limitation is not required.

I'm being specific because that is my position, not because I am trying to force anyone to think that way. Discussion boards are for discussing stuff, after all.

I totally agree that RPGs are full of "story things" that make them fun. And I know that people use "plot" in its broad, common definition to talk about things that are really "situations." And of course the colloquial definition of "story" is a pretty good description of what happens while playing an RPG.

But I wanted to come at it from a literary angle in order to try and pick apart the idea of "story" in RPGs.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think you'll get a whole lot of pushback on "If it isn't complete yet, it isn't a story."
Like, is Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope not a story? Because there's an Episode V and VI. And I, II, III...

There's a new Star Wars animated series coming out next month, about Maul. Since there's still elements in the overall series of events still not detailed, is none of Star Wars a story?

That, of course, would seem ridiculous, right? So, maybe we need a better basis than "done".

Different smaller stories can make up a larger one. Episode IV is a story. It is also a portion of the Skywalker Saga story. When Episode IV came out, it was a complete, done story. But the Skywalker Saga wasn't done, so that story didn't exist yet. Now it does.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So if I understand correctly, you’re saying because story often means specific beats occurring, it can get in the way of the game or feel wrong? Conversely, if everyone has full freedom, the result may not be a satisfying story in any way?

Yup. I would further add that creating a satisfying story is wholly unnecessary to RPG play, as much as some seem to feel otherwise.