Gaming the game, or telling a story?

[wizardneedsfood]

Count me in as one of those that likes to play a game that has a story. If all I want is to tell or witness a good story then I'll go write a story or read a book or watch a movie. If all I want to do is play a game I can just pop in a video game and take it from there. RPing though is a way to tell a story while playing a game.

 

[MerakSpielman]

I'm for player-driven stories. I don't have a plot worked out ahead of time, I work it out almost on the fly to flow with what the players want to do. Near total freedom.

 

[random user]

I'm happy to do either now, as long as I know up front which I'm in.

I used to want a game with a story, but now that I'm running a campaign, I've "got my fix" so to speak, and would be happy to do either.

 

[Umbran]

This is a longstanding topic of discussion, and the folks at The Forge have codified this into a Theory of the three primary ways of approaching the rpg experience: Gamism (your friend), Narrativism (you), and Simulationism (the dominant mode during the 80s -- "realism" and creating a world are most important).

It seems to me that the stuff at The Forge is rather out-done by The Breakdown of RPG Players.

The superior points are:
1)This isn't just theory from thin air, or anecdotal evidence. It is the result of analysis of market research. I don't believe GNS theory can make the claim of such support.

2)Mr. Reynolds, I think, makes a much stronger point that these classifications are not hard and fast, that even if two gamers fit into two different categories, they share more commonalities than they do differences.

 

[Aaron L]

Ah, yes, that tired old religious dogma. Proof that it's a mere dogma is how one feels the need to capitalize "Theory" instead of it being a mere "theory". Actually, it's not even a theory but a hypothesis, and a fairly unfalsifiable (therefore, of little to no value) one, at that.

Dude, what? It's 3 ways of viewing gaming, they are NOT claiming that they are rules of nature.


I am a dedicated simutaltionist.

 

[Pielorinho]

"The terms theory and theoretical are properly used in opposition to the terms practice and practical. In this sense, they were exclusively employed by the ancients; and in this sense, they are almost exclusively employed by the Continental philosophers.'' --Sir W. Hamilton.

Always assume that fellow posters are use that definition of a word that strengthens, rather than weakens, their ideas .

I find both aspects of RPGs to be very entertaining, and I want my sessions to have both in them. This week's session went from figuring out how to charge across a crowded street, using game rules (shout, "BY ORDER OF THE CITY GUARDS, CLEAR THE STREET!" thereby using a free action to make a diplomacy check, and then delaying until the citizens complied, and then charging) to roleplaying the mother-in-law's visit to my PC's house as she arrives to help me take care of my extremely pregnant wife (no rolls required).

Occasionally we'll do an all-roleplaying session; occasionally we'll do a session that's little more than an extended series of fights. Both of them can be tremendous fun; both of them can also be horribly boring. But certainly it's the mix of them that keeps me interested in the pasttime.

I definitely find myself playing as a game when we're rolling the dice a lot. I reason that the dice accurately reflect my character's understanding of the cosmos: for example, a druid character will know that a centipede's venom is less virulent than a giant wasp's venom (reflecting my knowledge that the former's poison DC is much less than the latter's) and will therefore choose a wasp on which to cast the 3.0 Giant Vermin spell. A wizard knows that rogues can move out of the way of a fireball, and tends to save the fireballs to use against other wizards, as well as against the heavily-armored priests and warriors she faces. A barbarian fighter knows that if he grapples a halfling fighter, the poor halfling stands almost no chance of getting away (reflecting my knowledge of the huge benefits granted by size in a grapple), and so he'll suffer an AoO in order to get the grapple in.

Daniel

 

[random user]

It seems to me that the stuff at The Forge is rather out-done by The Breakdown of RPG Players.

I would LOVE to see a copy of this survey. I would be very interested in where my players rate on this scale (and myself for that matter).

 

[Elf Witch]

I like a little bit of everything. I want to play a character who has a rich background who grows and changes as a result of what happens to them in game. I wanted a plot and recurring NPCs and a chance to watch and help the story unfold and I want a character whoses stats and abilities can contribute to the party.

We were making characters last night for a new game and we were talking about the old skills and options book and one thing we both liked was the ability to take disadvantages to help round out the character. Something we also liked when we played Shadowrun. We felt that it avoided the sterotypical DnD character who just seems to be so good and to have no weakness what so ever.

I have played in pure storytelling games and pure roll playing games and I found both rather boring after awhile the rolling game much more but I did find I missed combat.

 

[T. Foster]

Ah, yes, that tired old religious dogma. Proof that it's a mere dogma is how one feels the need to capitalize "Theory" instead of it being a mere "theory". Actually, it's not even a theory but a hypothesis, and a fairly unfalsifiable (therefore, of little to no value) one, at that.

Abstract thought BAD! Everything must be concrete and quantifiable, like computer code! Whatever...

 

[Wormwood]

As a DM I prefer the Game, while my players preferred the Story.

We're on an extended hiatus.