The Story and The Rules

[John Morrow]

Well, yeah. But that line is out of context. I said a great deal more. Among them is that this is my preference; and that I don't go in for "narrative driven" play because I think it's often an excuse for poor DMing. Actually, I could fix the part of my post that you quoted by simply adding ideally in front of it. Ideally the story is the product of the game and what happens to the PCs, not something that the GM "writes" before the game even starts. What the GM should write is an interesting backstory and set-up, and then maybe a list of possible avenues that he thinks it likely the PCs will explore with some possible consequences of following those avenues.

There are plenty of folks that love "narrative driven" play. Heck, there are plenty of players who want the GM to lead them through a story. If you look around role-playing message boards, I'm sure you'll find some messages where a GM is annoyed because his or her players won't do anything unless the GM leads them to it. Is that the wrong way to play? If everyone is having fun, of course it's not, even if you'd rather hit your head with a hammer than be in a game like that.

But my bigger problem is that once you define "story" as simply the events in the game (whether the players or GM direct it), is there such a thing as a game without story? What distinction is the term making?

 

[Desdichado]

There are plenty of folks that love "narrative driven" play. Heck, there are plenty of players who want the GM to lead them through a story. If you look around role-playing message boards, I'm sure you'll find some messages where a GM is annoyed because his or her players won't do anything unless the GM leads them to it. Is that the wrong way to play? If everyone is having fun, of course it's not, even if you'd rather hit your head with a hammer than be in a game like that.

A comment that I addressed in the very next line, which you declined to quote. I'm aware that this is my preference, not some universal standard, and I've said as much a few times now in this thread.

But my bigger problem is that once you define "story" as simply the events in the game (whether the players or GM direct it), is there such a thing as a game without story? What distinction is the term making?

I dunno. Is there such a thing as real life without story? Certainly we can make stories out of what happens to us on a given day, or week, or month, etc. Doesn't mean those are going to be interesting stories, but they are stories nontheless. And that's the model I strive to emulate in my games; I put together a set-up, and see what the PCs are interested in, and then I develop the game further based on the decisions and preferences that they give me. I don't write a story, because there's no plot. The plot doesn't happen until the PCs do something. How can a story not have a plot? That's the distinction I'm getting at.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Semantics warning: This thread is on the point of deteriorating into definitions.

At this point, according to the rules of Messageboard, the only valid moves are:

1. Start extremely pedantic definitionmongering including quotes from dictionary.com;
2. Immediate and total thread derailment.

Quick! Someone mention Hitler!

 

[John Morrow]

What the GM should write is an interesting backstory and set-up, and then maybe a list of possible avenues that he thinks it likely the PCs will explore with some possible consequences of following those avenues.

Just so you don't think I'm picking on you, this is one of the approaches that I prefer as a player and use as a GM. But I'm not doing it to get a story out of it or call what happens a story any more than I'd ride a roller-coaster to travel or call the outcome travel. Technically, what happens to the characters might be a story and technically riding a roller coaster is travel but that simply eliminates an important distinction rather than allowing it to be contrasted.

 

[John Morrow]

A comment that I addressed in the very next line, which you declined to quote. I'm aware that this is my preference, not some universal standard, and I've said as much a few times now in this thread.

I'm not saying that you didn't. I'm simply trying to avoid a trip down the path of calling other styles illegitimate.

I dunno. Is there such a thing as real life without story?

In a certain sense? No. But people don't read novels or go to see movies about real life, which is why "reality" shows aren't. They want to see a "story", in a sense far more narrow than the sense you are using it.

Certainly we can make stories out of what happens to us on a given day, or week, or month, etc. Doesn't mean those are going to be interesting stories, but they are stories nontheless.

Go to the reference section of a book store. Pick up books on writing "stories". The odds are very good that they won't tell you how to write real life. And I think that's closer to how most people understand the term. Yes, we can go down the path of rec.games.frp.advocacy or The Forge and jargonize the term "story" to mean whatever we want it to mean. But what do most normal human beings think if you say, "I'm running this game to create a story about your characters."? Do you think they'll imagine the sort of game that you are talking about?

And that's the model I strive to emulate in my games; I put together a set-up, and see what the PCs are interested in, and then I develop the game further based on the decisions and preferences that they give me. I don't write a story, because there's no plot. The plot doesn't happen until the PCs do something. How can a story not have a plot? That's the distinction I'm getting at.

And I think that if you use the word "story" in a discussion with role-players who haven't spent a lot of time on an Internet message board discussing role-playing theory and style, there is a very good chance that they will expect something very different than what you are doing, just as you'd probably be confused if you went to a movie or read a novel and rather than getting a traditional "story", you got the sort of "story", in the broad sense, that you are talking about. There is something called an authors "contract" in a lot of writing books. Basically, when people watch a movie or pick up a novel, they expect a "story". And the type of "story" they expect is a lot more narrow than what you are talking about.

To put this another way, I'm not arguing that you can't use the word "story" the way you are using it. Yeah, it can be used that way. I'm arguing that it's confusing and doesn't explain or distinguish what you are doing in any meaningful way. And given the experience I've had discussing various models of role-playing, trying to force people to use a jargonized form of a common word is just asking for trouble. The fact that so many people are reading "story" to mean "the GM guides the game to produce a certain plot" suggests that it's a bad pick as a way to describe what you are doing. It's already being used to describe a style in most people's minds.

 

[John Morrow]

Semantics warning: This thread is on the point of deteriorating into definitions.

This is my penance for advocating the term "simulationist" on rec.games.frp.advocacy. Boy was I wrong. Yes, you can jargonize a word to mean whatever you want it to mean but if your definition doesn't square with the normal people who don't read dictionaries and literary criticism books for fun, you are just asking for trouble.

 

[Darkness]

Semantics warning: This thread is on the point of deteriorating into definitions.

At this point, according to the rules of Messageboard, the only valid moves are:

1. Start extremely pedantic definitionmongering including quotes from dictionary.com;
2. Immediate and total thread derailment.

Quick! Someone mention Hitler!

There's an interesting thread in RPG.net about an alternate WW2 setting where Hitler encountered a vampire and then went on to make use of such creatures.
I'm not sure who the worst possible villains for an RPG are, but Nazi vampires are certainly up there with the worst of them.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

This is my penance for advocating the term "simulationist" on rec.games.frp.advocacy. Boy was I wrong. Yes, you can jargonize a word to mean whatever you want it to mean but if your definition doesn't square with the normal people who don't read dictionaries and literary criticism books for fun, you are just asking for trouble.

*grins*

Sounds like a painful experience...

 

[John Morrow]

I'm not sure who the worst possible villains for an RPG are, but Nazi vampires are certainly up there with the worst of them.

Perhaps WotC should publish a "Nazi" template for monsters. Everyone knows that if the bad guy is wearing a swastika, you can kill them with impunity. Useful for resolving all of those sticky moral problems and alignment issues. Just slap Nazi armbands on the bad guy monsters and let the PCs hack away like Indiana Jones or Tarzan.

 

[John Morrow]

Sounds like a painful experience...

Made all the more painful by the fact that the term "simulation" was picked up by the people at The Forge and mutated beyond all recognition. When I was on the "inside" of a model discussion, I could never understand why people got so upset over attempts to model role-playing styles and then I had the experience of being on the outside. Now I get it.