Close This Thread

[mythusmage]

Why?

Step back from your pen-and-paper RPG player assumptions and you'll realize that the vast majority of other games (games which, I might add, generally sell much better and to far more people) do exactly what you're saying the shouldn't (or, rather, DON'T): enforce a core story that MUST be played out during the course of gameplay, or all of the players lose the game.

Someone WILL conquer the world in Risk. The core story of Risk is about alliances of great powers going to war, suffering setbacks and achieving victories, until one of them emerges triumphant. If one doesn't, well, it almost certainly means that the players got tired of the game and packed up before they were done.

The investigators WILL discover and stop the outer god's plot in Arkham Horror. The core sotry is about them doing so. If they fail, all the players lose (AH is more like a pen and paper RPG in that every one of the players can lose a session).

The PCs WILL defeat Kefka in Final Fantasy 6. The core story is about a group of heroes coming together to try to stop a great evil from unleashing an apocalypse, and, failing that, to free the world from it. If they DON'T, the player loses the game.

Before you ever sit down to play these games, you could write their stories down because the endings are either predetermined or essentially present one of two possibilities.

That's what the vast majority of games (those that aren't completely abstract, like poker) are. All three of those games have core stories that will be completed.

I posit that many, if not most, people who don't presently play RPGs would be more comfortable with them if they followed the same paradigm. The extreme initial success of White Wolf's World of Darkness was, IMO, was partly due to its strong metaplot drawing in players who were confused by the odd paradigm of most RPGs.

Now, experienced players tend to like that element less and less (Or would they, if not exposed to D&D and its thematic (or anti-thematic) direct descendents? I'm not so sure.), so they tend to drift toward other games or even complain about the very elements that made entering the hobby comfortable for them in the first place.

(I realize I said I wouldn't be replying, but this post caught my eye.)

I think what we have here is a disconnect between what I'm talking about and what you think I've been talking about.

I read Mike Mearls Livejournal Post on Core Story. Which, as far as I can tell, can also be called the reason for playing. What is the core story. Why are you playing. In D&D the classic core story is to kill monsters and take their stuff. In Tribe 8 the core story is; survive, organize, and learn the secret of the angels in order to destroy them.

I am talking about story, not core story. See the definition of story I included in my prior post above. That is what I mean by story. Core story, the reason why we play, is something else entirely. Even with the rpg as imaginary life paradigm you can have a core story. Only now there are more options in how the core story is pursued.

 

[donbaloo]

Now, that was simple enough. Its a clear definition which should put us all on the same page for the discussion. By the definition its clear the events occurring in an RPG are not storytelling and, as MM has been saying, cannot become a story until the retelling of them. I'm extremely interested to see where this is leading now MM! I don't think anyone's idea on what takes place in a game has been changed here, but the semantics have been ironed out. You walk yet a more shaky line though when you propose that players are effectively living vicariously through their characters. The definition you've provided makes it clear that the playing of the game cannot be considered a story but I still assert that it is manufactured in exactly the same way that a story is. Characters in a game are like characters in a book and players are no more living the life of their character than an author is living the life of his. But as has already been covered, that's my experience of roleplaying. Perhaps those that live by the immersion creed feel differently. But we've never felt our characters to be any more than pawns within a game, that when moved about collaboratively with the other players at the table, provide an interesting story. Looking forward to the rest of your discussion MM...

 

[Umbran]

My position is that an adventure being played cannot be a story by the above definition, since it cannot be an account or report of an event or group of events.

I am not so sure that it cannot be an account or report of events - it is an account or report generated as the events take place - the reporter on the scene still reports the story of events, even if the events have not yet reached their conclusion, and are still developing behind him as he faces the camera.

At worst, by your given definition, the players can be seen as being engaged in an act of story creation, rather than in the story itself. The only thing that then differs between RPGs and more conventional storytelling is the methodology of story creation. The characters, then, can still be in the story that the plaers are creating. What's the big deal?

But even there - I am not sure that splitting hairs between creation and relation of the story leads to an accurate description of storytelling. A good storyteller blends the two acts, so that they are inseparable.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Since we're going around and around on this subject, I thought I'd reiterate* my basic position. To help with this I present a definition from Your Dictionary
...My apologies for not replying to your replies to my previous post, but I thought it better to clarify matters and continue on. BTW, if you can persuade me that RPGs are story under the above definition, I shall acknowledge you superior intellect. But it's going to take a lot more than, "That's dumb." or the ever popular, "That's not what I heard."

We're not going round and round; we're having a discussion, and you pop in once every 24 hours and repeat your initial assertions in a manner that's not relevant to that discussion.

We've granted you that if you define story as something different from what happens in RPGs, then story is something different from what happens in RPGs.

But we've been discussing how gaming can be like creating a story together, how story elements can be useful, etc. And your refutation is a definition from an online dictionary.

Thanks for starting the thread, but it would have been better had you actually engaged with it.

 

[fusangite]

First of all, Moogle, your theory about the evolution of RPG play both in the community and within the individual is a very interesting and compelling theory. I think it's going to occupy the 40 minute smalltalk session before my Monday night game this week. Kudos. This is one of the most interesting things I have read on ENWorld in a long time.

Now, on to responding to mythusmage,

An account or recital of an event or a series of events, either true or fictitious

So, how does this definition prohibit this recital or account from taking place contemporaneous with the events? More importantly, isn't it "storytelling" that you should be posting a definition of? We all agree that RPGs produce story post-facto; the issue you are raising is whether they can be a form of storytelling.

At the core the players are vicariously living a life in an imaginary world. Often a more exciting life than what they have in real life. But, by the most commonly accepted definition of story, what they are engaged in is not a story.

This is a different way of seeing RPGs, a change in paradigm. Style of play has nothing to do with this, players are as free to pursue whatever playing style they wish.

Most people who have theorized on this issue draw a pretty clear link between how people perceive play and their play style. Why would people's perceptions of play not condition their playing style in your theory? More importantly, how can you be sure nobody perceives RPG play the way you do already? I realize that we're working with a restricted data set here but what makes you so sure that this idea originates with you? If it doesn't perhaps you should look at how other people who think this way play their games and what information their play can provide you in constructing your alleged paradigm.

The only thing it really changes is why people play RPGs.

Whoa! So, simply being in contact with your perceived insight about gaming will alter everyone's motivations for playing RPGs? If this is true, won't this change who chooses to play RPGs and who doesn't if your insight is really so profound that it will alter people's motivations on a large scale. If this is true, why hasn't this happened to any of the 40 or so people who have read this post on ENWorld? Why haven't any of our reasons for playing RPGs changed? Also, if my motivation for playing RPGs is conditioned by this insight, how is that operationalized in my life. You say that it won't change my style (despite the fact that your theory entails that everyone adopt a simulationist agenda); so, what will it change? Usually, when there is a significant realignment in someone's thinking, it manifests in their behaviour in some way.

If one follows a Gamist or Simulationist Stance is still possible. It does change the Narrativist Stance however. Here the Narrativist Stance becomes the Dramatist Stance. The Dramatist Stance being where the player is concentrating on the dramatic possibilities in RPGs and RPG play.

Try not to jumble the Edwards terminology if you are going to employ it. Stances are a separate set of categories in his theory and are things like "actor," "author," and "pawn." The things to which you are referring are agendas. The "Dramatist" agenda, as I understand it, comes from an earlier and better-liked version of the theory. That stated, I don't really buy that seeing the world like a simulationist won't affect gamist behaviour or dramatist behaviour in as defined in that earlier draft.

I've noticed that both games/settings basically follow the RPG as imaginary life paradigm for all intents and purposes. Probably unconsciously, but still.

Why would it be unconscious? Your epiphany about how RPGs can be perceived took place for some of us twenty years ago. The problem is that because, by your own admission, you don't actually accept other people's accounts of their experiences as valid data but instead see your experiences as the only valid data, you can't accept that other people have had this realization decades ago and the RPG hobby has chugged along as it has anyway.

One more thing. Gloating or moaning over my errors in explanation/explication will do nothing to change my mind.

But surely if you notice your model is premised on a mistake, you will credit that this may entail revisions to your model, right?

Droll sign. Drolls are known for their ability to reiterate; and for their skill at saying the same thing over again with a change in vocabulary.

Hey kettle, get over here! I need you to talk to mythusmage again!

Well, I'm predicting you'll "win" this thread. You seem impervious to data, reason and rhetoric and we've thrown copious amounts at you here with no apparent effect.

 

[The Shaman]

I posit that many, if not most, people who don't presently play RPGs would be more comfortable with them if they followed the same paradigm. The extreme initial success of White Wolf's World of Darkness was, IMO, was partly due to its strong metaplot drawing in players who were confused by the odd paradigm of most RPGs.

Now, experienced players tend to like that element less and less (Or would they, if not exposed to D&D and its thematic (or anti-thematic) direct descendents? I'm not so sure.), so they tend to drift toward other games or even complain about the very elements that made entering the hobby comfortable for them in the first place.

I gravitated toward roleplaying from wargames, games in which the attributes of leaders such as the ability to rally troops or command units or the leader's own morale were often defined by point values or a similar mechanic: some leaders were better than others, and we often introduced rudimentary roleplaying into the game based on these attributes and by the events of the game - if a leader had a couple of good rolls, then the figure tended to take on a sort of 'legendary' status for as long as they survived or until they failed miserably. (We played a French v. English 'Battle of Fashoda' and one of my French colonels, after surviving a vicious attack and leading a charge that took out an enemy artillery battery, was such a figure - on the spot that mini became "Col. Henri, Comte de la Vitesse" or somesuch, and I was crushed when he was eventually cut down by a Maxim gun.) This experience led us to assigning names and personalities to our figures on a regular basis, something that the military boardgame Squad Leader would eventually incorporate as well, including a means for creating 'characters' that could be advanced as they gained experience.

One of the reasons that our little group of minis gamers gravitated to RPGs was specifically because they expanded on what we were already doing in wargames and because they were open-ended - instead of satisfying a set of scenario conditions to define victory (or simply having at it until one side fled the field or was wiped out), the goal was survival from session to session. That was the appeal at the time, and it remains so today.

 

[barsoomcore]

I posit that many, if not most, people who don't presently play RPGs would be more comfortable with them if they followed the same paradigm. The extreme initial success of White Wolf's World of Darkness was, IMO, was partly due to its strong metaplot drawing in players who were confused by the odd paradigm of most RPGs.

This, I'm not sure about.

A) I believe the biggest block in getting people playing RPGs is character creation. The "make up the story as you go" paradigm is familiar to anyone who ever played "let's pretend" as a child, so I don't think it makes most people uncomfortable. I think the bewildering amount of math and decision-making up front in most games (especially when you have almost no frame of reference for making those decisions) is what keeps people from playing these games. I have had great success getting all sorts of non-roleplayers into gaming simply by providing them with pre-generated characters. I've never had a problem explaining to them that the "story" of the game is invented by them during play.

B) I also doubt your assertion on the reason for WW's initial success. I think you can just as easily (and as accurately) assert that their success hinged much more on production values and design, or tapping into a subject matter of great appeal at the time (how many people read The Vampire Lestat and saw a game called Vampire?), or just appealing to the victimized outsider cool chic, which is always an easy sell to teenagers and young adults.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

This, I'm not sure about.

A) I believe the biggest block in getting people playing RPGs is character creation. The "make up the story as you go" paradigm is familiar to anyone who ever played "let's pretend" as a child, so I don't think it makes most people uncomfortable. I think the bewildering amount of math and decision-making up front in most games (especially when you have almost no frame of reference for making those decisions) is what keeps people from playing these games. I have had great success getting all sorts of non-roleplayers into gaming simply by providing them with pre-generated characters. I've never had a problem explaining to them that the "story" of the game is invented by them during play.

My antecdotal evidence is just the opposite.

I've encountered several people who enjoyed (often quite complicated) games, but who were uncomfortable with the open-endedness of RPGs. They had indeed played 'let's pretend' as children, and that was precisely the stumbling block: Gaming, to them, was not a childish activity, but on some level, Let's Pretend was. The other stumbling block I've encountered is the lack of competitiveness in the standard RPG.

In my opinion, a competitive RPG with a preset plot would be a great introductory product. Something along the lines of a "SJG's Munchkin board game/wargame," but more serious and complicated.

B) I also doubt your assertion on the reason for WW's initial success. I think you can just as easily (and as accurately) assert that their success hinged much more on production values and design, or tapping into a subject matter of great appeal at the time (how many people read The Vampire Lestat and saw a game called Vampire?), or just appealing to the victimized outsider cool chic, which is always an easy sell to teenagers and young adults.

You could well be right in this particular instance. I don't know a whole lot about WW then or now.

I will say, though, that for whatever reason the World of Darkness games were able to grab and keep a large number of players who prior to playing them were not 'RPG gamers,' and who appear to have relatively little overlap with other RPG gamers.

 

[barsoomcore]

I've encountered several people who enjoyed (often quite complicated) games, but who were uncomfortable with the open-endedness of RPGs.

But surely people who enjoy complicated games are in the minority?

I mean, I don't doubt that competitive people who enjoy complicated games find RPGs difficult to get into, but I doubt that such people form the majority of, um, people.

I would think the lack of competition in RPGs is a bigger barrier than the lack of pre-defined stories. I mean if lack of story is a problem for competitive, smart people (to be unforgivably general); surely that's a subset of competitive people we're talking about. Lack of competition is presumably a problem even for stupid competitive people.



Maybe the problem is that a competitive, pre-defined-story RPG would offend my sensibilities on a number of levels. The fact that it might be really popular even more so.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

But surely people who enjoy complicated games are in the minority?

I mean, I don't doubt that competitive people who enjoy complicated games find RPGs difficult to get into, but I doubt that such people form the majority of, um, people.

I would think the lack of competition in RPGs is a bigger barrier than the lack of pre-defined stories. I mean if lack of story is a problem for competitive, smart people (to be unforgivably general); surely that's a subset of competitive people we're talking about. Lack of competition is presumably a problem even for stupid competitive people.



Maybe the problem is that a competitive, pre-defined-story RPG would offend my sensibilities on a number of levels. The fact that it might be really popular even more so.

I agree - the lack of competition is the biggest barrier to entry, not the story-creation/-telling aspect.

Personally, I'd love to see a working competitive RPG, with or without predefined stories.