You are not the Director

[Celebrim]

It's really quite amazing when you think about it.

Really?

It's amazing to me that humans learn to speak at all, and its a real tribute to the amazing processing power of the human brain that we are able to communicate despite the limitations of our language.

Maybe I should spend some time thinking about natural language processing then.

 

[Fifth Element]

Did I say that? Do you actually see that anywhere in my posts?

It was a reasonable inference. The dialogue is the only part that's unscripted, and you called the scenes unscripted. Or did you mean that unless everything is scripted, it's unscripted? Partially scripted would be more precise than unscripted in that case.

 

[Fifth Element]

Really?

Maybe I should spend some time thinking about natural language processing then.

Dude, I'm agreeing with you.

 

[Hussar]

But, that isn't even the problem here. The problem isn't the imperfect fit of the anology or that we've gone from 'players are like actors' to 'modules are like a script'. The problem is that Hussar is asserting not that a module is like a script, but that it literally is a script.

Umm, no he's not?

I'm saying that scripts and adventures share a number of qualities which make them analogous. I'm questioning the assertion made up thread that "there is no script" whatsoever. I am not, however, claiming that adventure=script.

 

[Hussar]

I'm quickly realizing that there isn't really a problem with analogies per se.

The problem lies with overly picky, pedantic readings which insist that each and every point of comparison be exactly the same before a comparison can be made.

I did not say that adventures are the same as scripts. I did say that they share enough elements that, IMO, you can certainly use the concept of script to explain what an adventure is.

A series of framed scenes, complete with detailed descriptions, where the action is mostly pre-defined. To me, this describes both a script and an adventure.

If you're looking for precise language, wow, is English NOT the language for you. Then again, I'm used to speaking Korean, which has only five verb tenses. Now how's that for imprecise?

 

[Celebrim]

Umm, no he's not?

I'm saying that scripts and adventures share a number of qualities which make them analogous. I'm questioning the assertion made up thread that "there is no script" whatsoever. I am not, however, claiming that adventure=script.

Ok, now that brings us full circle to the the satire that infuriated you.

What kind of weaksauce game does not have a script? Its bad enough when real actors improv. There is no way I am letting a bunch of novice hacks come up with their own dialogue. Pure drivel. A crapload of cockney accents (or Scottish, if a dwarf) and a bunch of rehashed lines from Monte Python. Pulease!

Why, just last night I was working with one of my players at rehearsal. "Cut!!! What the heck are you doing, Ragnar? Its punch, twirl, kneel, and strike. Then your line about getting revenge for your father's death! Lets take it again from the top, and will FEELING this time!"

Amerigov is clearly satirizing the consequence of assuming that movie making makes a good analogy for RPGs. So, he comically imagines a game that has an actual script and an actual director and thereby shows that whole analogy of movie making to RPGs falls down.

And your response, stripped of its sarcasm, was this:

I suppose it's perfectly fine to sit there and claim that any scripting is akin to railroading, but, injecting things like, oh, I dunno, what actually happens at the table is a fail?

But Amerigov wasn't in fact saying that any scripting was akin to railroading. Nor was he asserting that any preparation constituted railroading. He was only asserting that a literal script constituted something other than a RPG. The various sorts of preparations a DM might make for play however don't constitute a literal script, but rather something that is analogous to a script but which differs from a script in various fashions by having features that scripts don't have and by not having features that scripts do have. Granted, the module can contain literal scripts as elements, but generally speaking, this scripts ought to represent a small fraction of the content of a module, otherwise the players probably will feel 'railroaded'. Containg a script or elements of script does not however make a module a script.

The only way I can see that you get from Amerigov's satire to your satirical response if you think of modules as literal scripts or if you didn't read what he wrote very closely at all and instead responded based on preconcieved notions of what the argument was about (namely, the 'sandboxing' versus 'railroading' flamewar that has been sweeping other threads).

 

[Hussar]

Wow, "infuriated"? Dude, it's a message board. This all sprouted from the idea that a game has no script at all. Swimming a bit upthread, that's The Shaman I believe who claims that there is no script at all.

Amerigov then goes on to do a bit of comedy that a game must have a script in order to be playable, which I interpreted to mean that any game in which you might consider having a script = complete railroad in which the DM is calling "cut" and forcing players to repeat scenes.

I continued in what I thought was a kinda funny vein replying to this idea that no game should possibly have anything resembling a script (remember that whole "there is no script thing?). And yup, I saw it as yet another smug, snide commentary on the idea that if your game is not some wide open sandbox, it's nothing but a lockstep railroad, which pretty much completely ignores the middle road that I think most of us follow.

The middle road being that adventures share a number of similarities to scripts - although not a 1:1 correlation, thus the definition of the word analogy and aanalogous.

Frankly I'm at a complete loss as to how you could write an adventure that does not share a number of points of commonality to a script.

But, hey, apparently I'm frothing at the mouth and have gone completely off the deep end. Better hold me back... I guess I'm coming out swinging.... :/

 

[Celebrim]

Wow, "infuriated"? Dude, it's a message board.

What does that mean? Do you mean, "It's the the internet; that's what it is for.", or do you mean, "It's only the internet, why would I get infuriated?"

In any event, your entire post depends on flip-flopping back and forth between the assertions "a module is like a script" and "a module is a script". If you stick to one or the other, the incoherence is removed. If you stick to "a module is like a script", the post loses all power to argue against either amerigoV or me. Allow me to demonstrate.

This all sprouted from the idea that a game has no script at all.

Ok fine, but you agrued not against that, but against the claim that a module is not like a script at. Amerigov asserted that a module wasn't a script. He did not comment one way or the other one whether it was like a script.

Swimming a bit upthread, that's The Shaman I believe who claims that there is no script at all.

Certainly, and I agree. There is no script at all. However, whether or not a module is like a script is a different (and to me rather subjective) question. Personally, I feel that a script is a bad analogy for a module that sets the would be module writer off on the wrong path, but I agree that there can be certain common features between a script and a module so if you want to make that analogy then (though I object) I at least can see where you are coming from. But, just because an adventure is at a stretch like a script, doesn't mean it is a script.

Amerigov then goes on to do a bit of comedy that a game must have a script in order to be playable...

I assume you mean 'must not have a script', and I agree with Amerigov. If it has a script it might be a play but it isn't playable.

which I interpreted to mean that any game in which you might consider having a script = complete railroad in which the DM is calling "cut" and forcing players to repeat scenes.

But, if as you insist you think of modules as only being analogous to a script, why would you insist on that? Any game which for which there is a script is a complete railroad, but that doesn't necessarily imply that prepared adventures are complete railroads because, you assert that adventures are only like scripts. A game for which there is something like a script, but which lacks certain traits scripts have - like telling the players what to do and say - doesn't necessarily make for a complete railroad.

I continued in what I thought was a kinda funny vein replying to this idea that no game should possibly have anything resembling a script...

See what you did there? You went from the idea 'is a script' in the prior sentence ('having a script') to 'like a script' ('resembling a script'). This is a bait and switch argument. You've argued against one thing and then gone off to prove something else. You need the 'is a script' sentenses to set up this strawman for you to knock down with your vague 'like a script' sentenses. If you make your argument coherent by getting rid of one or the other, it exposes either how unfair you are being to amerigov - who never said what you accuse him of - or else how ridiculous you own argument is since it would then depend on proving that a module is in fact a script.

And yup, I saw it as yet another smug, snide commentary on the idea that if your game is not some wide open sandbox, it's nothing but a lockstep railroad, which pretty much completely ignores the middle road that I think most of us follow.

Glad to see you honest about it. Meanwhile, this thread was largely about the suitability of a particular analogy.

Frankly I'm at a complete loss as to how you could write an adventure that does not share a number of points of commonality to a script.

Both are written documents. That's at least one point of commality. But I don't really think a module has any more in common with a screenplay that it has in common with a legal brief, a tax filing, or a novel. If I want to know how to write a module, and you tell me, "It's like a screenplay.", you haven't told me much of anything useful and my first efforts based on that description are likely to be dismally lacking in gameplay or interest to the players. No player has ever told me, "Heh DM, that was a really good script!"

 

[Hussar]

Glad to see you honest about it. Meanwhile, this thread was largely about the suitability of a particular analogy.

Yup it was until someone decided to threadcrap and claim that there is nothing resembling a script at all.

Both are written documents. That's at least one point of commality. But I don't really think a module has any more in common with a screenplay that it has in common with a legal brief, a tax filing, or a novel. If I want to know how to write a module, and you tell me, "It's like a screenplay.", you haven't told me much of anything useful and my first efforts based on that description are likely to be dismally lacking in gameplay or interest to the players. No player has ever told me, "Heh DM, that was a really good script!"

Well, of course not. It's like a script, not it is a script. It would not make any sense to say it was a good script when it's not.

However, if the only point of commonality between a written adventure and a script that you can see is the fact that they're both written documents, then we cannot possibly have a conversation here. I mean, look at any Shakespeare play. Those are scripts, yet they do not have a blow by blow account of every single detail. But, they include directions for location, where people should enter and when.

I've already stated that there is a major difference in that the actual spoken words will be different. That's fine. But, a number of other things will be similar. Narrator voiceovers are very similar to boxed text; the flow of the action is pretty much the same as a mapped dungeon, with the difference that in a dungeon the order of the scenes are not laid out beforehand (necessarily - depending on how linear your map is). Any lighting or mood effects are the same in both a writting adventure and a manuscript. I'm sure there are a number of other points of commonality.

You've made a big point that you cannot hand a movie director a module and tell him to make a movie from it. Of course you can't. A script is not an adventure. I never said they were the same. If they were the same, then you wouldn't need two words. Then again, you cannot hand a movie director a novel and tell him to make the movie either. Different media have different requirements.

But that doesn't mean that a novel and a script have no points of commonality either. A novel is not a script, but, does that mean a novel and a script have no shared points?

The claim on the table is that there is no script in an RPG. To me, this means that an RPG can have no points of commonality with a script. After all, the claim is no script. I'm saying that there most certainly is some script in an rpg.

 

[Celebrim]

The claim on the table is that there is no script in an RPG. To me, this means that an RPG can have no points of commonality with a script. After all, the claim is no script. I'm saying that there most certainly is some script in an rpg.

There are no bears in my pig pen. To say this can only mean that a pig can have no points of commonality with a bear. After all, you can claim is that there is no bear; but look, pigs and bears are mammals, omnivores, and quadrapeds so there is most certainly some bear in the pig pen because pigs are like bears and there are the pigs.

I have a set which does not contain the number 5. This claim must certainly imply that none of the numbers in the set which are divisible by 5. After all, one can claim is that there is no 5's, but look, I see a 10 and a 215, which means that there are lots of 5's in the set.

Do you see any trouble with this sort of reasoning? In particular, do you see how the claim 'does not contain the number 5' is true even if the set contains the number '215'?