Close This Thread

[SweeneyTodd]

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.

Thanks for clearing that up. I really couldn't tell whether you were intentionally being frustrating or if we just had a total failure to communicate.

As I've stated before, I think some of your points are clear and obvious (GMs should not force play to follow a predetermined path) and other points don't logically follow from that, from my perspective (thinking of roleplaying as collaborative storytelling always causes that to happen). I'm going to say "Okay, your opinion is noted" and leave it at that.

 

[Odhanan]

Firt off, thanks for the constructive answer.

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.

I can't speak for mythusmage, but that's indeed what I'm attacking, absolutely, with the only precision that I don't pretend to define "good" role-playing.

It seems mythusmage agrees though: That, really, is the problem I have with the RPGs are like stories meme. It leads to manipulation by the GM of the game to insure things happen as they should, instead of as they do. In extreme cases it can result in the players losing control of their characters and becoming, for all intents and purposes, a passive audience. Actors in a play. - Mythusmage, above.

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.

I'm starting to get a better grasp at what you are saying.

Without irony, I may be very bad at looking at the previous pages of this thread, but I don't find your examples of this storytelling in RPG practice that doesn't fall into this trap. Could you repeat some of them and explain how they contradict mythusmage's theory, please?

I'm willing to listen. Go ahead, give me a shot at it.

PS: avoid examples of role-playing books. "Core stories" (a misnomer really) and books as written are not role-playing games in practice. They influence some type of RP practice but are not the practice themselves. I just write this to be clear. I am talking personally of the game in effect, as being played rather than how the guide may be written/read (which isn't gaming by my book). Thanks!

PPS: what we are telling you is that there exists a point of intersection between storytelling and RPG play. We seem to agree on that point (the empathy for the audience that storytelling teaches). If you are not saying that RPGs can be storytelling, but are merely saying that there are common characteristics between RPGs and storytelling, then you are not, in essence, disagreeing with mythusmage. You would be speaking of different things altogether, wouldn't you?

 

[mythusmage]

Stuff it.

Fusangite, here is my answer to all those questions you've gotten so hot about. Read it carefully, ponder it carefully. Note what it does not talk about. It does not talk about Gamism, Narrativism, or Simulationism. It does not talk about play style or GM style. It does not talk about how other cultures tell stories, how stories are created, or the one true way to play RPGs. It is a simple, declarative sentence, and if that give you problems then it stinks to be you.

My Answer

RPG play is not like a story, the course of play in an RPG is too chaotic to ever be a story.

That is my answer. Anyone other than fusangite who wants to ask me a question about the statement, to raise objections to the statement, or present counter arguments can write to me via email. This thread is over.

Moderators, close this thread.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Hi, Odhanan.

I will quote an old post in a sec that refers to techniques lifted from storytelling that have nothing to do with railroading. Hopefully that'll be helpful.

And yes, I'm not in essence disagreeing with mythusmage, if we take his argument purely to say that "RPGs are not stories told by one person with a fixed outcome." I mean, that's like saying "X is not Y". It doesn't mean anything. Hence the frustration.

If his argument is that RPGs are not storytelling, and it doesn't say anything about how individual methods lifted from storytelling can be helpful or harmful towards roleplaying, then what's the argument? Seriously, help me out! Is it "don't railroad?" Okay, yes. Is it "This is my definition of story?" Sure, you can have that, I don't find semantic arguments interesting.

--
It's like an argument about cooking that says, "Steak isn't fish." Okay, fine. Are you saying that I shouldn't serve white wine with steak? That I shouldn't marinate steak in a citrus sauce? That's an interesting discussion, let's talk about it.

But no, you were saying that steak doesn't come from a fish, it comes from a cow. Okay, and? What's the argument?

 

[SweeneyTodd]

My Answer

RPG play is not like a story, the course of play in an RPG is too chaotic to ever be a story.

Okay. I hear you.

Why the stress? I was honestly hoping you wanted to go somewhere with this. I tell you what, I'll grant you your argument. I'll call the storytelling elements I use in gaming something else, and avoid the word story.

I was genuinely interested in hearing about what prioritizing the paradigm of play as "virtual life in a virtual world" was like. You never got around to that. Would you rather take it to a new thread?

Or if you don't want to talk about techniques involved in the "virtual world" model, that's okay too. I'm just not sure how the paradigm you describe can change things unless there are particular techniques that can be used to support it.

 

[fusangite]

Stuff it.

Fusangite, here is my answer to all those questions you've gotten so hot about. Read it carefully, ponder it carefully. Note what it does not talk about. It does not talk about Gamism, Narrativism, or Simulationism. It does not talk about play style or GM style. It does not talk about how other cultures tell stories, how stories are created, or the one true way to play RPGs. It is a simple, declarative sentence, and if that give you problems then it stinks to be you.

My Answer

RPG play is not like a story, the course of play in an RPG is too chaotic to ever be a story.

That is my answer. Anyone other than fusangite who wants to ask me a question about the statement, to raise objections to the statement, or present counter arguments can write to me via email. This thread is over.

Moderators, close this thread.

Translation: "na na na na na na na can't hear you can't hear you can't hear you."

Note what it does not talk about. It does not talk about Gamism, Narrativism, or Simulationism. It does not talk about play style or GM style. It does not talk about how other cultures tell stories, how stories are created, or the one true way to play RPGs.

Translation: "Stop talking to me about refraction and photons! Any fool can see this thread is about light!"

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Translation: "na na na na na na na can't hear you can't hear you can't hear you."

Meanie.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Odahan, here's that post where I was talking about storytelling-like techniques I find useful in play. I told mythusmage I'd grant him his definition of the word "Story", so I'm going to replace it in my posts with "Fizzgig", a made up word which I define as "collaboratively created sequence of events that are about something." That something could be "adventurers go on a quest", or "love and loss", or "power and responsibilty", it's up to you, depending on what kind of Fizzgig you and your group want to tell.

I ramble a bit, but the important part is that these "Fizzgig Now" techniques aren't about playing out a monolithic prepared plot at all. They're about driving creative input on the part of the players and GM towards interesting decisions and the consequences of those decisions.

So for example, if we as a group want our play to tell a Fizzgig that addresses the premise "How far will you go for justice?" then you'd be using these techniques to consistently deal with issues about justice and the costs involved. Hope that's helpful.

Okay, Fizzgig Now is basically the idea that play can be made up of meaningful decisions and their consequences. The original theory defines "Fizzgig" as addressing a given theme, but that part isn't necessary. (Or we can define theme as something like "Adventurers fight evil"; same result.) So whatever our game is about, as it evolves through play, we'll call that Fizzgig.

It's possible to play a Sim game where you just sort of trudge around the countryside, interacting with things as they come up. To the extent things come up, they're injected into the imagined landscape by the GM. He usually has a purpose to this, unless he's just rolling random encounters. Players get to make meaningful, big decisions from time to time, but maybe there's a lot of fighting orcs cause they're there, or buying supplies, or hanging out in taverns. I'll call that "Fizzgig Whenever", 'cause if you were to tell somebody about the stuff that happened in the game, you're kinda skipping the blah parts and getting to the parts where the PCs did something really interesting.

If you're going for Fizzgig Now, every session's going to have several places where the players had their characters make meaningful decisions. You're not driving for big, dramatic stuff every scene, but you're not playing out three days of overland travel either. Whatever the parts are that your group thinks are kinda blah, you gloss over them.

Okay, so Bangs and scene framing are tools towards that approach. A Bang is just a situation the GM presents that forces a meaningful decision. It's a question that can't be ignored, but doesn't have one right answer. (If the PC can ignore it, it's just an event; if there's only one right answer, it's railroading. Either way, not a Bang.) By "meaningful" I mean it makes a difference in how play proceeds past this point, and not just "I die or don't die".

Bangs are tricky to come up with. Attacked by orcs? Not a Bang if you have to fight them (not a choice), or if it doesn't matter if you fight them or run (not a meaningful choice). But "Orcs attack, and your old half-orc friend Grog is among them, and he's on their side" is a Bang. What's the deal here? Why's Grog with them? Do we kill them all, or try to kill everybody except Grog, or try to reason with him, or run away and worry about it later? Whatever choice they settle on is going to affect later play.

Scene framing is perhaps simpler. Mostly it's about thinking about what the conflict and the stakes are in the scene you want to set. It's definately about having a reason for a scene other than "some stuff happens." Lots of things happen off-camera in a movie, but we only see the interesting ones. That example Bang above frames a scene (there's a conflict and stakes), but you could also have a scene of the party traveling overland and just having a conversation for a while. The biggest thing here is developing a sense of both how to start a scene (what you want it to accomplish), and how to end it (when that's been accomplished).

Both of these techniques can work fine in Sim; to some extent, people use them all the time. Talking about them explicitly as techniques just makes it easier to discuss them.

I think it's interesting that both of these techniques could be described by some people as "railroady". Partly, that's because there's no clear definition of what railroading is. Both of them do limit player choice, I admit. But we're talking about constraining the ability to "do anything" in exchange for focusing play on "doing interesting things". They're really just ways of editing the in-game events to get to the good stuff. And because they're just techniques, you don't use them exclusively -- players can still propose actions during play, for example.

I do think it's interesting that you can use these techniques to create story, but that it's not a set story of the GM's creation. Every time you throw a Bang to the players, you're telling them, "Tell me where you want the Fizzgig to go." You talk to your group, figure out the kinds of things they're interested in and enjoy, and drive play towards that kind of stuff.

Again, this doesn't contradict mythusmage's assertions at all, since Fizzgig is not Story, so it's probably not even on topic anymore, but he's said he doesn't want the thread anymore so he probably won't mind.

The point being that these techniques are intended to make a coherent Fizzgig, or Story, appear through player decisions, so they can't be railroading.

 

[Odhanan]

And yes, I'm not in essence disagreeing with mythusmage, if we take his argument purely to say that "RPGs are not stories told by one person with a fixed outcome." I mean, that's like saying "X is not Y". It doesn't mean anything. Hence the frustration.

If his argument is that RPGs are not storytelling, and it doesn't say anything about how individual methods lifted from storytelling can be helpful or harmful towards roleplaying, then what's the argument? Seriously, help me out! Is it "don't railroad?" Okay, yes.

That's how I understand it, yes.

The concept of storytelling, and in fact, mainly, its emphasis in games like the WOD lines, pushes some GM to get frustrated when players "don't get along with the story". And IMO, that's because of the base assumption that is harmful to the nature of RPG (i.e. social interactive games of let's pretend). There isn't a story that a player should get along with, but only a series of pointers from the GM to the players that help create the feeling of believability. The game elements should get along with everyone for everyone to have fun, not the reverse.

This is repeated ad nauseam on various boards including this one, and it becomes "politically correct" to voice this argument, but it seems like some game designers and/or gamers are hard of hearing on this topic. If that wasn't the case, why would I read so much subjects of GMs wondering why they can't control their PCs? My answer is almost always "because you're not supposed to control them - all you can do is propose. They dispose." It's part of the job of a GM to realize that s/he does not control the game but merely acts as a guide to the game. Sometimes the players don't want to follow the guide and in most cases the GM should get along.

 

[Campbell]

Mythus Mage,

I'm experiencing difficulties trying to comprehend if you've actually stated anything useful. You've usen extroadinarily narrow definitions of 'story' and 'storytelling' to 'prove' that roleplaying games are by definition not a form of 'storytelling' without actually addressing the manner in which people engage in the play of roleplaying games. You have given hints of how you approach play by comparing roleplaying games to real life, but without further development this analogy is largely fruitless. Additionally, and this is the big kahuna here, you fail to explan why the paradigm should be shifted and how the change in people's perceptions of what RPGs are would affect their popularity and the play experience. In short, why should I care about what you have to say?