L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
I'm saying it may not be much of a dichotomy in may cases because the *how* is not cleanly separable from the what. Or, the how is part of the what.
To take an example that will probably mean something to most of us here. John Williams' score for the Star Wars movies. Those pieces generally stand on their own, and communicate things without the movie. I dare folks to claim that those musical pieces are not content, in and of themselves. The presentation of Star Wars would not be the same story if it had, instead, music by... Abba, say.
I certainly think sometimes, yes.
Lowkey may be averse to LARP, but I am not. In one game for which I was a routine NPC, the resurrection of dead PCs went through an afterlife. Within the afterlife, the "what" was incredibly simple - interact cogently with one of the NPCs for long enough, and we'd give you a card that would allow you to leave. The *how*, was everything. The large, open, darkened space that echoed conveniently. The masks we wore. That we spoke cryptically in ways the PCs thought meant things (they didn't). No PC ever failed to get resurrected, but they didn't know that failure was nigh impossible to do. People actively avoided death in combat in large part because we made the afterlife anxiety-inducing. Our "how" influenced the "what" of PC choices.
So, at the cross section of horror and humor... I used to help run a very large, very long session of Paranoia each year.
We could have said, "The Production, Logistics, & Commissary citizens feed you some gross food." Instead, when dinnertime for the players came around, we tossed them baggies filled with shredded bologna in mustard with red food coloring, cooked spaghetti with chocolate sauce, and other foods that were actually entirely wholesome, but just looked nasty, or had weird textures.
Which do you figure would drive players to actually take action against each other to get choice bits - the words, "some gross food" or the *actuality* of gross food that they're expected to actually eat?
Well, that sounds like "willing, but without skills". In D&D, there are classes that are mechanically more simple than others (like, say, a typical fighter) that can be used until such time as the player learns somethings. Analogously, comedy has a role of the "straight man", who is kind of essential, but doesn't need to be quite so high-speed creative.
Well, then we find another game they are comfortable with. Not all games are for all people, and that's okay.
Change it from RPGs, to soccer - a game without all this presentation nonsense, right? What about the player who's a middle-aged guy, who's gone a bit round in the middle, can't run very fast or far. Are they not playing as well? Are they not enjoying the game as much?
Within RPGs - take the person who really doesn't have a flare for mechanics, and can't optimize their way out of a paper bag. Are they not playing as well? Are they not enjoying the game as much?
Whether or not they enjoy it as much probably mostly depends on whether they are in with people with the same general skills and desires out of play. The middle aged guy, playing in a pro game, probably won't enjoy it much. Playing with the other dads and moms in a neighborhood league, however, may be loads of fun.
But, let us be honest - most of us as GMs are not Tolkien or George RR Martin. Most of us are not professional writers or actors. We are not the soccer equivalent of Beckham. The learning curve isn't all that steep.
I’d argue that most classic dnd modules fall in this category. Most are straightforward dungeon crawls with little or no interesting content beyond kill and loot.
Yet, how they are presented have made them classics. Bree yark and various Gygaxisms. Otis artwork. All that sensawunda stuff that folks go on about.
There is no "real point" to RPGing. If your view is that there is One True Way to play the game, you are wrong. It's that simple. It doesn't matter if that it's an opinion. It's still an opinion about the One True Way to play the game.
Has anyone even argued that it's more important? I've seen people argue that it's present in all RPGs. I've seen people argue that it's equal to content. I've seen people argue that it's important, but less important than content. I don't recall anyone saying it's more important, though.
Your phrasing next seems a bit odd to me....."the presentation of Star Wars would not be the same story"....I don't think I agree. The story would be exactly the same. The presentation would indeed change. How much of an impact that has would depend on what Williams's score was replaced with.
I'm not sure if I could answer, but your question, [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], is definitely a question worth asking. But we can also find tremendous diversity in video games, film/television, and other media as well. Presumably it's the experience of participatory roleplay conjoined with mechanical processes to create shared fiction that binds everything together. Everything else are probably bells and whistles. What are your thoughts?Cant this be claimed for almost anything .. case in point... I dont think character relevant/specific content (mainly the type [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] puts forth earlier in the thread) is necessary for the rpg medium (andmight run counter to certain styles of GMing and play, such as beer & pretzels or games where exploration of the world is the focus).
Edit: in other words rpg's are so varied, playstyles are so varied and DM styles are so varied is there anything specific that can be applied to all??
Cant this be claimed for almost anything .. case in point... I dont think character relevant/specific content (mainly the type [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] puts forth earlier in the thread) is necessary for the rpg medium (andmight run counter to certain styles of GMing and play, such as beer & pretzels or games where exploration of the world is the focus).
Edit: in other words rpg's are so varied, playstyles are so varied and DM styles are so varied is there anything specific that can be applied to all??
Is there anyone who would place the presentation or performance above the content? If so, why
Ah. Let me ask a question. Do you differentiate between "story" and "plot"?
I do. In this context a plot is a series of events. You can take one plot, put emphasis or de-emphasis on elements by way of different genre conventions, and get two different stories. One plot can be rendered as, say, both an action-adventure story, or a noir mystery - different stories.