Close This Thread

[fusangite]

If you theoretically were doing this to troll, to get people frustrated, then count me as a victim. I hope that's not the case.

I really don't believe mythusmage was doing anything malicious or intended to annoy anyone.

 

[mythusmage]

That portion of your post sounds like it's about railroading. It's the most concrete reason you've given as to why roleplaying shouldn't be storytelling.

Okay. Great. GMs shouldn't railroad. And? We already knew that. It was brought up by someone else very early in the thread. Some of us went "Well, yeah, that's obvious, he must be talking about something more complex than that." We discussed that "storytelling" or "story creation" or whatever could apply to collaborative efforts without a predetermined outcome, and that such efforts aren't subject to railroading.

Then a few days later, you expand on your original point, and it's the same stuff we hammered out on the first few pages.

If you theoretically were doing this to troll, to get people frustrated, then count me as a victim. I hope that's not the case. Either way, I'm setting away from this thread because I feel it's not especially productive. I'm sure the people who stay are getting value from it, so I don't want to be disruptive.

Now the RPGs are like stories meme has a consequence ...

Now, what follows that? I very clearly point out that railroading is a consequence of the RPG as story meme. At no time do I so much as hint it's my main point. My point has been, then and now, that RPGs are not like stories, RPGs are more like life.

To reiterate, railroading is a consequence of a misapprehension of what RPGs are. Namely, the belief that RPG adventures must be like stories, and therefor anything that changes the storyline is bad and must be corrected. My position has been consistently that RPGs are more like real life, and I would think I've shown this to the satisfaction of any reasonable person.

As for the first two pages. I read the posts arguing against my premise, and I found them unconvincing. A lot of, "You are wrong." with nothing substantial to back them up. I adressed them individually at first, then realizing a lot of the same arguments were getting restated over and over again, presented the clarification that is giving you such problems. You choice to focus on something I included as an illustration of why RPG as story is a bad idea instead of adressing my main point. Which is, and let me repeat myself yet again, that RPGs are not like stories. That is the thrust of my argument, has been the thrust of my argument, and will be the thrust of my argument.

In short, sir, you were wrong.

Could I have stated matters more clearly in the original post? Most certainly. Was I wrong to make a subsequent post clarifying what I originally said? Certainly not. I clarified in order to make things clear. I should hope I succeeded. It is not my fault you chose to read my clarification in the worst way possible to my argument.

Railroading is a consequence of the RPG as Story meme, a nigh unavoidable consequence given human nature. A GM sees his adventure being altered by the players, so he takes steps to, in his opinion, set things right. RPG as story supports this. It damn near makes it necessary. It's his story, it's supposed to have a certain outcome with certain events happening along the way. Any other outcome, any other sequence of events with any outcome other than the ones he planned for is not to be tolerated. That is what RPGs as Story leads to.

And in case you've missed it, RPG as Story is just plan wrong. RPGs cannot be stories or, to be precise, like stories because you cannot predict how things will turn out in the course of play. The meme leads to railroading which limits player choice for all intents and purposes. If you must have things turn out just so in your wonderful adventure, you might as well just write the damn story and stop belitting your players.

So maybe I shouldn't've mentioned railroading. Well excuse me. I thought it would help illustrate why the RPG as story is a bad idea. Maybe I expect too much of some people.

Sweeny Todd, I am disappointed in you. I expected better, and you have let me down.

 

[fusangite]

For Fusangite, in case he drops in this thread again.

What you think you said is not what I think you said. Evidently we have a case of miscommunication. A restating of your basic position vis a vis this topic would do us both a lot of good.

Actually, it would be pointless because I've learned throughout this thread that you don't actually take in or respond to statements in people's posts if they pose any threat to your theory. I would need evidence that you would not treat this new post exactly as you have all my others and I just don't see where that evidence would come from. Look at how Sweeney has finally reacted.

If you want me to engage with you in this thread any further, here's what you need to do: go back to my posts and answer the questions I pose that you refused to answer the first time you responded to them.

 

[mythusmage]

I really don't believe mythusmage was doing anything malicious or intended to annoy anyone.

This is too important to me for me to troll. I want to see the RPG hobby prosper. It is my considered opinion that the RPG as Story meme is detrimental to the wider acceptance of RPGs in the general public, and the the RPG as life meme could actually be more appealling.

Now, I must ask a favor of you. Present all the objections you can to my basic premise. Even those you disagree with. Present them honestly without fear or favor. To assist you in this I now present my basic premise:

Roleplaying games are not like stories nor is playing in a roleplaying game like storytelling.

Now show me where I am wrong.

 

[mythusmage]

Actually, it would be pointless because I've learned throughout this thread that you don't actually take in or respond to statements in people's posts if they pose any threat to your theory. I would need evidence that you would not treat this new post exactly as you have all my others and I just don't see where that evidence would come from. Look at how Sweeney has finally reacted.

If you want me to engage with you in this thread any further, here's what you need to do: go back to my posts and answer the questions I pose that you refused to answer the first time you responded to them.

Did it ever occur to you I don't agree with what others said?

 

[fusangite]

This is too important to me for me to troll. I want to see the RPG hobby prosper. It is my considered opinion that the RPG as Story meme is detrimental to the wider acceptance of RPGs in the general public, and the the RPG as life meme could actually be more appealling.

Now, I must ask a favor of you. Present all the objections you can to my basic premise. Even those you disagree with. Present them honestly without fear or favor. To assist you in this I now present my basic premise...

Now show me where I am wrong.

When we present this evidence, you ignore those sections of our posts, don't respond to them and pretend you have not read them. That's why I've told you I will re-engage in debate if you can go through my posts and answer the questions in them; the questions in my posts are embedded in the sections of the text in which I make the case against your theory. In order to answer them, you would have to actually read my posts through (something I suspect you have not been doing).

We have already complied with your request above; the evidence of our compliance is the first four pages of this thread. We have already done what you are asking -- in many cases a half dozen times or more.

We have gotten tired of playing this game with you in which you say something, we present a valid counter-argument, you refuse to acknowledge the counter-argument and repeat yourself. It's amazing we have put up with this behaviour as long as we have.

 

[fusangite]

Did it ever occur to you I don't agree with what others said?

Yes. But most people's strategy for disagreeing is to listen to what the other person has said and explain what the flaws are in their reasoning. Your strategy is to stick your fingers in your ears while the other person talks and yell "na na na na na na!" so you can't hear what they are saying, then, after they have finished speaking, repeat yourself.

 

[mythusmage]

I disagree with Ron Edwards' GNS theory BUT...

Edwards very intelligently observes tha regardless of your style of play, all RPG play produces story. But it does not follow from that that all RPGs are collaborative storytelling. Story comes into being because the play describes/produces a series of connected events.

There are many styles for producing and describing these connected events. Some of them players acting directly and consciously on the story itself. But most do not. Most involve the players having their characters react to events in the game world based on a set of expectations about how things will go if a particular course of action is chosen. Sometimes this entails the player referencing knowledge derived past events that have been played out in the game; sometimes it entails the player referencing physical knowledge about the game world as expressed in the rules; sometimes it entails the player referencing other kinds information in other ways.

Games essentially excrete story involuntarily. Story is the product of RPG play, not the act of RPG play.

I disagree. Story can be the product of RPG play, but only when someone takes what happen during play and turns it into a story. Story does not arise spontaneously. Things happen, participants and/or witnesses talk about what happened, and thus are stories born. Some lizards can reproduce through parthogenesis, story needs a father.

Well, Cutter, I'm guessing mythusmage has put us on his ignore list because we are challenging his view that he didn't just invent the idea of simulationist play the other day. I'm guessing Sweeny and Umbran will join the list soon. Of course, you're being more offensive than I by repeatedly directing him to a website where people are and have been discussing his idea with greater sophistication for several years. Still, say what you will about the tenets of exclusionary simulationism, at least it's an ethos.

What made you think I was talking about simulationist play?

First of all, mythusmage, perhaps you could tell us why Story Now games are not what they claim to be. How do you explain games like Buffy that include mechanics that act directly on story? Are these games, like the ones that include battle maps, not RPGs either? Most RPGs are only story post-facto; a subset are stories both post-facto and during play.

Ever consider the possibility the whole Story Now thing is based on a false premise?

Mythusmage, at this point I'm just going to come out and say it: you are acting like a megalomaniac. You state that something that appears to be a preference a "should be" is not really a preference but a fact, an absolute truth. What proof do you offer of this? You state "it is my considered opinion that this is the best way." The fact that you find a particular way or working is most effective in your own life does not make this way of working an absolute universal fact for everyone else in the world. You sound absolutely pathological here conflating your "considered opinion" about what is "best" with an unalterable universal fact. Step back and take a look at how you are communicating.So, it's bad for people to enjoy narrativist games? How, exactly, are they harming themselves or others by playing games with their friends in the privacy of their own homes and enjoying that experience. Why is it important for you to stop people having fun in this way?

How do you know it’s only my opinion? How do you know I’m conflating opinion with fact. Have you considered the possibility I might be right?

Why do you think it’s important for me to stop people from having fun a certain way? So long as they harm none what others do to amuse themselves is their business. Be their play Gamist, Simulationist, or Dramatist the only question that matters is, did they have a good time.

Have you ever read about how storytelling works in oral tradition cultures? Some anthropologists make the argument that storytelling started as a decentred, unpredictable, multi-person activity and that our modern construction of stories with careful plotting and a single narrator only came later. Are you really taking the position that cultures like the Australian Aborigines don't tell stories?

No, I haven’t. How do Australian Aborigines tell stories? Does one start with others joining in to add detail, remind people of things forgotten or overlooked, or amplify what was said? And what, really, does this have to do with my premise?

You see, mythusmage, things seem very clear to you right now because you have never studied storytelling, RPG theory or anything else about which you have been issuing authoritative "proclamations" the past few days. Being ignorant is an easy way to make the world appear simple and easily definable.Actually, the purpose of RPGs is to get together with your friends and have fun. They have no grand social purpose beyond that because It's just a game, man.

RPG play has nothing to do with storytelling, so studying storytelling is irrelevant. Why study something that has nothing to do with RPGs?

As to RPG theory. Since I have not studied it I obviously can’t say anything substantial about it. Have you studied RPG theory and can you give a short precis of it?

I agree that RPGs are only an amusing pastime. My purpose in presenting my thesis is to get people to rethink how they present RPGs, and as a result of this produce games that might appeal to a broader audience than currently. Now, if it’s only a game why are you so het up about it?

Why should we not insult mythusmage if he misrepresents our views, pretends important data does not exist and states that as a matter of fact, not opinion, that our play styles are invalid, not RP and should cease to exist? I'm sorry but what's good for the goose is good for the gander here. You will notice we didn't start saying insulting things about mythusmage's posts without considerable provocation. Perhaps, as a sympathizer of his, you could ask him to observe the same standards you are exhorting us to observe.

When did I say your play styles were invalid? What part of “playing RPGs is not like storytelling” invalidates different play styles?

This debate is more like the sudden re-emergence of the deconstructionist revolution in the late 1990s. Not only is there not the alleged polarity between orthodoxy and innovation but the paradigm shift that is being demanded has already taken place and people are now wrestling with the practical implications of it.

Then why do we have companies like White Wolf talking about storytellers and all that? And when did this paradigm shift take place? In case you hadn’t heard, not everybody got the message.

Just because something was debated before doesn’t mean it’s now untouchable.

(I have to end this here because my browser is close to crashing. I can only hope I can post this. How do I know my browser is close to crashing? Because it’s screwing page display and that sort of thing. More after I start up my computer again. Which may be a few hours, since I'm off to sell soda bottles for end of the month cash.

 

[Odhanan]

You see, mythusmage, things seem very clear to you right now because you have never studied storytelling, RPG theory or anything else about which you have been issuing authoritative "proclamations" the past few days.

*working his muscles out*

Incidentally, well, in fact repeating myself, I did, and I happen to agree with mythusmage. I'm sure Gary could show up again, and -excuse me- but the guy knows a little something about RPG theory. He also happens to agree with mythusmage.

I'm not only somewhat knowledgeable about the WW storytelling, but storytelling for short (actually telling non-RPG tales to an audience), studying and writing fiction. RPG theory has long been a favorite subject of mine, even if I prefer its practice. I think it is easy to just accuse people of being ignorant when they just don't agree with what you say. It's more difficult to actually try to understand what they're trying to say.

Actual storytelling is useful to the practice of role-playing games. What it brings mostly is accute senses regarding what the audience likes and dislikes in what's being told by the storyteller. The whole empathic part of storytelling, in fact. However, on the structural point, RPGs have little to do with stories in their practice (Structural story-elements can be used to build modules, scenarios, notes prior to the game, but they should not ever be considered as a story that should be enacted exactly as is).

It's convenient to think of RPG as some sort of noble heir to traditional storytelling. And in some ways it is. But RPG is not storytelling itself, and shouldn't be limitated in its scope because we'd define it according to the standards of other, different, crafts.

 

[fusangite]

Incidentally, well, in fact repeating myself, I did, and I happen to agree with mythusmage. I'm sure Gary could show up again, and -excuse me- but the guy knows a little something about RPG theory.

My understanding is that Gary is the creator of our hobby and has expressed a real antipathy what he preceives as the over-theorizing of RPG play.

He also happens to agree with mythusmage.

I agreed with Gary's post too; but, as I suggested when I responded to it, I don't think Gary was responding to mythusmage's assertions as a whole. For one thing, how could mythusmage's idea of RPG play constitute a "paradigm shift" if the creator of the games had always intended for them to be played this way from the outset and expected that this is what RPG play would be?

I'm not only somewhat knowledgeable about the WW storytelling, but storytelling for short (actually telling non-RPG tales to an audience), studying and writing fiction. RPG theory has long been a favorite subject of mine, even if I prefer its practice. I think it is easy to just accuse people of being ignorant when they just don't agree with what you say. It's more difficult to actually try to understand what they're trying to say.

I think you can credit Sweeney and me with a Herculean effort to comprehend what mythusmage was saying. And we did comprehend it.

Actual storytelling is useful to the practice of role-playing games. What it brings mostly is accute senses regarding what the audience likes and dislikes in what's being told by the storyteller. The whole empathic part of storytelling, in fact.

Agreed.

However, on the structural point, RPGs have little to do with stories in their practice

Well, as most of us have agreed, all RPGs produce story post-facto in hindsight. The issue we have been debating with mythusmage for four pages is whether it is possible for an RPG to include storytelling. Mythusmage's assertion is that it is impossible. My assertion, and that of Sweeney and others, is that most RPG play is not a type of storytelling; however, some RPG play is -- that there are ways of playing RPGs in which your activity does constitute storytelling. We have provided examples of this and pointed him to a corpus of reading on the subject. His response has been to assert that it is, by definition, impossible for RPG play to constitute storytelling. The types of creative agendas described in the GNS model as Narrativist and Illusionist are types of storytelling. Those types described as Simulationist and Gamist are not; the vast majority of games fall into these latter two categories.

We all credit that mythusmage has never played the types of RPGs that involve storytelling; they, after all, constitute a small minority of the hobby. The problem is the rather than seeing the fact that he has never been in a storytelling RPG may stem from his limited experience, mythusmage is arguing that these games, which many people have played, are not what their players report them to be.

It's convenient to think of RPG as some sort of noble heir to traditional storytelling.

You can't find anyone on this thread taking this position. Umbran, Sweeney and I have used examples of non-traditional storytelling to show how storytelling can be incorporated into RPG play without railroading or other forms of disproportionate GM control. What you and mythusmage are doing is attacking the strawman of GMs wanting to railroad their players into predetermined, mapped-out plots. But nobody is saying that is good RPG play. What we are saying is that there exist ways of playing RPGs and engaging in storytelling at the same time without falling into this trap. Some narrative traditions in pre-literate cultures provide us with guides for doing this. If you look at my Ninja-Bison example, you will see what I mean.

But RPG is not storytelling itself,

Some is. Most is not. Before declaring a thing is impossible by definition, it is important to investigate the claims and practices of those who claim to be doing it. But nobody on mythusmage's side here seems interested in doing that.

and shouldn't be limitated in its scope because we'd define it according to the standards of other, different, crafts.

Agreed. But, again you are attacking a strawman; nobody is saying that RPG play is a subset of storytelling; what we are telling you is that there exists a point of intersection between storytelling and RPG play.