Close This Thread

[mythusmage]

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...

You distance yourself. Your house, your rules. Still, aren't there times when you find yourself caught up in your character's adventures.

Still, with your post in mind, let me amend my remarks regarding RPG play. In an RPG the participants play characters living in an imaginary world. A participant may take on the role, or treat his character as a playing piece. Your author prefers to assume the role, in case you were wondering.

 

[mythusmage]

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.

I don't see what a reporter does in a live report as necessarily being an account of ongoing actions. A reporter gives an account of what has happened, and describes what is going on. Now description can be part of a story, but it is not a story in an of itself.

Where story creation is concerned, living is an act of story creation. Whatever happens in your daily life can be made into a story, should you so wish. Where story tellers creating stories as they tell them are concerned, the act of story creation becomes part of the story telling, but the two need not be simultaneous. In other words, it is possible to create a story without telling it.

Though, now that I think of it, you really can't call what happens in life or RPGs story creation either. The act of story creation involves taking events and putting them into a form that (one hopes) makes for a good story. A story needs to be put together, composed. You could compose your tale of shopping at the grocery while shopping at the grocery, but the composition is about your grocery shopping, not the shopping itself.

In other words, the events in an RPG session can be used while composing the tale of the adventure, but they don't in and of themselves make for a story.

In short, a story must be put together. Until the events to be included are put together into a story they are not a story.

 

[mythusmage]

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.

Trouble is, you weren't talking about my original position. So I restated it.

My basic position is that RPG play cannot be a story, nor can it be, strictly speaking, story creation. (See my reply to Umbran above). Where story and dramatic elements are concerned, I haven't really dealt with them since they are not entirely relevant to my argument. They have nothing to do with the case. Discuss story and dramatic elements all you wish, I reserve the right to focus on the topic.

ST, I will engage the thread when it deals with the topic.

 

[TheGM]

You are very fortunate - I'd call it about fifty-fifty from my own experience.

Some GMs are just so hell-bent on 'telling a story' that they forget it's a game for EVERYONE at the table. :\

Really? I would have long since quit the game if that was my style, it would get dull for everyone.

I like to create the situation and throw the PCs into the middle, with well-though-out NPCs that I can figure out what they would do even as events unfold. Occasionally there are plot points that must happen, but they're rare, and they just go to forward the rest of the game.

The possible downside to this system is that PCs have to be smart enough to know when they've stumbled upon something that they're not ready for. I've lost parties who failed to figure that out, and had parties be "whipped" and afraid of everything because they got kicked around once.

Of course, I (and most of my players) frown on what is currently called "optimization". Spend that time making the character an individual, and you'll get more out of it in my worlds.

I'm not saying that players who are all mechanics are wrong, but I am saying they won't be happy in my games, and I'm not going to change what my > 30 players (5 games) enjoy for one person.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

My basic position is that RPG play cannot be a story, nor can it be, strictly speaking, story creation. (See my reply to Umbran above). Where story and dramatic elements are concerned, I haven't really dealt with them since they are not entirely relevant to my argument. They have nothing to do with the case. Discuss story and dramatic elements all you wish, I reserve the right to focus on the topic.

Okay, we'll talk about how storytelling or story-creation techniques can add or detract from a particular style of play. (Actually, that's more moved to another thread that someone else started.) I think the issue some people are bringing up is that if you want play that has aspects of story creation, you can use techniques used in story creation in your play. Whatever you call that play, those techniques can be relevant (or not).

I prefer to treat my character as a character in a story, and decide their actions based on what I think will be most interesting and drive my agenda. That "author stance" is more like the playing piece approach than the immersion approach. It works for me, it doesn't work for others.

Were you interested in further discussing the benefits of immersion-focused play (which you've done to some extent here), or did you want to save that for another thread? Do you have particular issues with "story creation-ish" play other than that it's not your personal preference? I'd be interested in your views on the subject.

 

[mythusmage]

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.

Compose the tale while the events occur? No doubt many do it. Tell the tale while the events occur? Not in my experience. I get the feeling you want RPGs to be story. That you need RPGs to be story. So when somebody shows up contradicting your beliefs you get all huffy about it. Rather than give what I say due consideration you reject it out of hand.

For your information, rhetoric and reason mean nothing when the premise is in error. My premise re RPGs and story is based on observation of RPGs in play. Without exception the dynamics have been far closer to real life than to narrative, even when the players distance themselves rather than engage in immersion.

Where experience is concerned, how it is interpreted often depends on how you see things. You see RPGs as story you will interpret your RPG experiences as supporting your perception. This is known as observer bias. I see RPGs as analogous to life, so my interpretations follow that meme.

However, you have not, in any way, provided any evidence to support your conclusions. You have made assertions, but you have not backed them up. On the other hand, I have asked people to observe an RPG in play and to take note of what is going on. What goes on during play? People deal with events as they happen (my emphasis). When did that become story.

As to changing how we see RPGs changing why we play RPGs. A lot of people play because they think they're in a story. Their perception changes they might play because they can vicariously experience life in an imaginary world. Some day soon I hope to post why the RPG as story paradigm is not only wrong, it is harmful. Until I can post it I will leave you with this word, "railroading".

Update: My apologies to Fusangite, I missed this part during my reading.

On being wrong. I could be wrong. But you have yet to present anything that might persuade me. As the old writer's advice goes, "Show, don't tell."

 

[mythusmage]

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.

Explaining how one's character fits into the setting may help here. I submit that focusing on the mechanics and slighting how the character fits into the setting is the sticking point. What role does the character play in society? How do others see him? Who does he know? How does he know them? Who can he depend on? Who can depend on him and are most likely to call on him for help? Who are his friends, his enemies? Who is his family? By doing this you can provide a framework the player can use when creating a character.

Where the mechanics are concerned, explaining how they work would certainly help here.

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.

Playing the bad guy is fun for a lot of people. I've noticed that most of the folks who like playing evil characters in D&D tend to be adolescent or young adult males. Though adults are not unknown in the ranks of the antisocial. This same demographic forms the core fandom for cyberpunk RPGs.

(Aint I controversial? )

 

[TheGM]

As to changing how we see RPGs changing why we play RPGs. A lot of people play because they think they're in a story. Their perception changes they might play because they can vicariously experience life in an imaginary world.

Okay, now I'm starting to 'get' the gist of your argument. For the most part I agree with you on this point, but there are some things that are indeed story-like. Certain NPCs are placed somehwere with information, the location of lairs and monsters are known ahead of time to the GM, etc. The timeline may not be plotted, but at least some of the important points are, and the motivations/personalities of the antagonists is known.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

As to changing how we see RPGs changing why we play RPGs. A lot of people play because they think they're in a story. Their perception changes they might play because they can vicariously experience life in an imaginary world. Some day soon I hope to post why the RPG as story paradigm is not only wrong, it is harmful. Until I can post it I will leave you with this word, "railroading".

So is that part of your point, that thinking of play as a story can lead to railroading?

I think we addressed that in this thread a few days ago. If the "story aspects" you borrow for RPGing include "one author, fixed outcome", then yes, you get railroading. If you borrow other "story aspects" like "multiple authors, uncertain outcome", then there's no reason at all for that to lead to railroading. And the thing is, most other people in the thread are talking about "multiple authors, uncertain outcome".

If you want to talk about observed experiences, I'm happy to. The game I run involves a lot of techniques borrowed from storytelling. Players can describe their actions in narration, including changes to the environment. Sometimes they use dialog instead. We use scene framing techniques to skip long stretches of time and to prioritize certain events over others. We focus on certain themes we feel are relevant to play.

Those are storytelling techniques, not very immersion-friendly at all. But there's no preprepared plot, only story created through the collaborative input of GM and players, using system to help determine the outcome of uncertain events. I can't railroad this game, because I don't have a set outcome to aim for.

So maybe you can help me out. Is there storytelling, by your definition, involved in that kind of play? Or story creation? If not, okay, then I just disagree with your definitions of those terms. If so, then I submit that it is possible to borrow storytelling techniques for nonimmersive play without railroading.

If your main point is that thinking of the game as a story where the GM is the author and the players are characters is harmful, hey, I'll grant you that. It's not possible for the GM to author all the events in the game without removing the players' ability to do anything meaningful. It's not possible to let the players do meaningful things without removing the GM's ability to author everything. Some theories refer to this as The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast, and I agree that it's an untenable situation.

But The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast doesn't apply to situations where GM and players are all authors working together to produce something whose outcome is unknown.

 

[TheGM]

But The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast doesn't apply to situations where GM and players are all authors working together to produce something whose outcome is unknown.

Tack on to this the caveat that it is not an equal contribution, and I'll give it to you. My players decide the direction of the game, and many put lots of time into their characters outside of play (logging, working on history, building personality, etc.), but the contribution on the part of the GM is definitely higher.

I'm nitpicking your wording - it sounds as if it's an equal contribution when it almost never is.