Driving NARRATIVE in RPGs, not STORY

[Obryn]

[MENTION=85870]innerdude[/MENTION] - Have you looked at Dungeon World yet? The rules are free online. It's maybe not addressing your needs, but it's a very different approach to D&D while remaining recognizably D&Dish.

 

[Random Bystander]

Generally, they don't. There's just multiple ways to play good games, and nobody likes *all* the ways.

I wasn't objecting to storygames. I was objecting to deep philosophy in games. At that point, it ceases to be a game. It's a matter of definition of focus - If you're playing to have fun, it's a game. If you're playing to "discuss the deep societal ramifications of intellectual cross-pollination of definitions of the fictional species "Orc" and it's relation to real-world ethnic concerns" or something, it's not a game; it's your thesis with game clothing on.

 

[Obryn]

I wasn't objecting to storygames. I was objecting to deep philosophy in games. At that point, it ceases to be a game. It's a matter of definition of focus - If you're playing to have fun, it's a game. If you're playing to "discuss the deep societal ramifications of intellectual cross-pollination of definitions of the fictional species "Orc" and it's relation to real-world ethnic concerns" or something, it's not a game; it's your thesis with game clothing on.

How does it cease to be a game?

-O

 

[Random Bystander]

How does it cease to be a game?

-O

If people are having fun discussing '"the deep societal ramifications of intellectual cross-pollination of definitions of the fictional species "Orc" and it's relation to real-world ethnic concerns" or something', then it is a debate.

If they are discussing it to have fun, then it's a game, and the discussion is the terrain and units.

FYI, I'm gaming this.

 

[Argyle King]

I wasn't objecting to storygames. I was objecting to deep philosophy in games. At that point, it ceases to be a game. It's a matter of definition of focus - If you're playing to have fun, it's a game. If you're playing to "discuss the deep societal ramifications of intellectual cross-pollination of definitions of the fictional species "Orc" and it's relation to real-world ethnic concerns" or something, it's not a game; it's your thesis with game clothing on.

...and what if you discuss deep intellectual issues with the intent to have fun?

 

[Umbran]

I was objecting to deep philosophy in games. At that point, it ceases to be a game.

With respect, in our Star Wars Saga Edition game, our Jedi came up largely without teachers. Discussing the philosophy of the Force (and by extension, Good and Evil) is a significant factor in how they stay away from falling to the Dark Side. It is very much part of the game, thank you.

 

[Random Bystander]

...and what if you discuss deep intellectual issues with the intent to have fun?

Warning: Longpost is long.

With all due respect to Conan (because he could twist my civilized, rotten-muscled neck off), that is best in life.

Everything is philosophy.

But to actually answer your question, I'm current playing a game with the following rules:

1) No sophistry.
2) I must work towards an end goal.
3) If my arguments are countered, I must react in a fair and rational manner.
4) Follow the rules of good debate.

So my answer is, if you're discussing to play a game, with a side effect of learning, it's gaming the discourse. That isn't what I'm doing, exactly; see below. I think my conditions mean I'm not cheating - And cheating in academics is one of the Deadlies. If you're discussing to answer the deep questions of life, it's not a game, it's...

To shift out of the game to explain, humans, in general, have a grasp of the concepts of "work" and "play". "Work" is serious business (no pun intended). Even if taken lightly, it involves situations of life-and-death - Yes, even pizza delivery. Without money, life and even survival gets a lot harder. Even if you enjoy your job and its something you'd do anyway, it's still of vital importance and does not have a primary purpose of fun - It's about responsibility.

Play is also serious business. It prepares us for situations we haven't encountered. It allows us to de-stress. And finally, it's fun. But it does those things as linked effects to its primary goal of fun. Games are play. Vitally important play and it's irresponsible to ignore play - Your mental and emotional health with suffer, sometimes to deleterious mental and emotional effects on those around you, without some form of play. But ultimately, a game must be fun. The purest (using the chemical definiton; ie, without any mixing, beneficial or otherwise) form of a game is done for no other reason than the sheer joy of playing. That is not the only form of play; mixing in other things can make a game more or less fun, or fun in different ways. But why not make a game about philosophy?

Reason and purpose are two different things. Reason is your basis for doing what you do. Purpose is what you want to achieve.

Thus, I feel my theory can be explained:

My reason for engaging in this debate is a belief that fun, itself, is valuable and that making a game about things other than fun is confusing reason with purpose.
My purpose is to convince you of my arguments.
My method is to game the debate.

A game's reason is fun.
A game's purpose is "any and all". Including fun, but also including a real enjoyment of debate and verbal maneuvering
A game's method is its rules.

A game about philosophy would have philosophy as its reason and purpose, not fun. Fun would be a method.

This further develops the idea.

Reason is why.
Purpose is what/objective.
Method is how.

With respect, in our Star Wars Saga Edition game, our Jedi came up largely without teachers. Discussing the philosophy of the Force (and by extension, Good and Evil) is a significant factor in how they stay away from falling to the Dark Side. It is very much part of the game, thank you.

You mistake my intent. All these words should help explain, or convince you I desperately need sleep. See above; Are you discussing deep philosophy in-game to answer deep philosophical questions, or to RP your Jedi and have fun?

So, in a serious debate in a fun game with social mechanics, you have a reason, a purpose and a method.

In gaming the debate, my reason is that it keeps me from becoming too involved, my purpose is to have fun and my method is to remain within the rules outlined.

The reason I'm gaming the debate is not fun; that's just the end result I've selected based on the reason.

Now, to finally! begin to answer the question, (yeah, that's hopeful)

Bob goes to the gaming group because RPGs are fun, plays RPGs to have fun, and mostly plays games that involve deep social dynamics, because he finds that fun.
Frederick goes to the gaming group because his friends are there, plays RPGs to be socially engaged, and mostly plays kill-and-loot characters because he doesn't have to interact with the game much.
Jenny goes to the game because she's doing a paper on "Societal interactions of slave-owning societies and the effects of a theft-based economy". Her purpose is to simulate the social ramifications and her method is to enjoy the game and deep social ramifications.

Bob is playing a game, because he is engaging in play.
Frederick is playing a game, but in analysis, the game he's playing is "hang with friends", not the RPG of the moment.
Jenny is doing research for a paper. Playing the game is a method she's using to get as close to real-world research data as she wants to get. She has chosen to enjoy the game, but again, that's a method to make collection of research data easier. Playing the game is a secondary purpose for her.

If Jenny followed her reasons and purpose and made the best game for those reasons and purposes, it would be a better tool of research, and a worse game, for the same reason cheese makes terrible lettuce (I'm sure someone already has cheese that tastes like lettuce just to prove me wrong, but there's no perfect analogy. Third law of thermodynamics). The third law of thermodynamics is also my reason for this argument; if you make something better at X, it becomes harder to make it good at Y. And Jenny's purpose and reason are not the game.

I had an analogy about the Large Hadron Collider, but it limped too much, so I had to kill it and loot the body.

Now I have to re-read all that and make sure it makes sense.

tl;dr

Philosophy to game = An excuse to game.
A game with philosophy = A game with an excuse.
A game to philosophize = An excuse for philosophy.

 

[Umbran]

Are you discussing deep philosophy in-game to answer deep philosophical questions, or to RP your Jedi and have fun?

I reject the implication that the two are somehow mutually exclusive. One activity can serve multiple purposes - "two birds with one stone" and all that.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I can sympathize with what Random Bystander is saying here in a way. I don't reject other peoples' ability to play and philosophize,but when I sit at the table I am not really interested in the GM's take on Derrida or Sartre, his musings on the problem of identity or evil, nor am I interested in the game developing higher literary themes. And I absolutely have zero interest in the GM or player's real world politics. I am sure other people can enjoy this, and I am sure it is possible to play a game while doing so (just as it is possible to enjoy a movie but follow subtext). But that kind of gaming just has no interest for me, and subtext in D&D isnt what I am after.

That said, i can certainly overlook these elements if the GM is good and none of this stuff is encroaching on my enjoyment of the game.

 

[Umbran]

...when I sit at the table I am not really interested in the GM's take on Derrida or Sartre, his musings on the problem of identity or evil, nor am I interested in the game developing higher literary themes. And I absolutely have zero interest in the GM or player's real world politics.

Well, if you're playing a game with real alignments, some of the "problem of evil" is certainly going to show up in game. It won't necessarily be a formal debate, or anything, but the topic and philosophy are gong to be present, regardless, as the GM applies alignment rules.

Real world politics? Well, at the moment I'm running a Classic Deadlands game. While it is not the real world, the game-world political situation matters, seeing as to of the major forces involved are the alternate world's Union and Confederacy, in a state fo semi-cold semi-hot war. It isn't reasonable to expect that I'll really be able to scrub my own take on politics from this, is it? And so when the PCs discuss in-game politics, what, are they really talking about?