Costick on Story/Games

[Gordon C. Landis]

Christopher,

Thanks for that - good stuff.  Reading it reminded me of something - the "workshop" method of writing courses/programs.  Sharing a short story with a group, getting their (brutal but insightful, hopefully) feedback, and using that to inform your revision, or your next story.  Which is paralleled by what a good editor does.  Both common "social" aspects of story creation.

I don't know if that contributes anything more than "yes, you're right," but  - though I pointed to the sterotypical lonliness of the writer as a contrast to RPGs, that's a sterotype, and the truth of the matter is - yes, you're right.

Gordon

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Mike,

Given the statements Greg made that kicked off this thread, I don't see anything I've written as an overstated arguement.

Christopher

[Mike Holmes]

Chris, I keep saying things like:

You're not wrong.

And you keep replying:

But I'm not wrong!

Which makes me very confused as to how I'm miscommunicating.

Rather, I agree with you that there are parts of the act of, say, creating a screenplay that are, in fact, similar to creating an RPG. And to that extent an argument that extends from there is correct.

All I'm saying (and I think John is saying too for the most part - he'll correct me if I'm wrong), is that sometimes the arguments get extended past those areas of equality between the forms to assume complete equality. That is, the fallacy contained in the following syllogism occurs:

1. Chris needs water,
2. Trees need water,
3. Therefore Chris is a tree.

in this form:

1. RPGs are about creation of story,
2. Scriptwirting is about creation of story,
3. Therefore anything we can assume about Scriptwriting we can assume about RPGs.

I don't think that you've made this error yourself - you've hardly made any implication outside of the one linkage that you've made (you've made statement 2). Just that some people do, and it's an error that cannot stand in arguments.

Any clearer?

The question I have for you is, given that you're correct that there is some similarity, what are the implications you see? What can be logically assumed from this conclusion? That's not a challenge, that's an honest question.

Mike

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Mike,

I'm sorry its taken me so long to get back to this.

I may not be able to offer you what your looking for right now.

My main point throughout this thread was simply this:

Whenever I've seen people comparing RPGs to other Media (usually to butress the claim they're different), people are always comparing the process of RPGs with the finished product of other media.

When John wrote: "2) If I want to get together with the exact same group of people to collectively create the best story I can, I will approach it differently. For example: in preparation, rather than only character creation, I would probably hash out an outline of the plot."

I'm not saying he's wrong to want to do that. I'm not saying he missed the boat on what I'm talking about.

I am he's making the same (to my eye) distinction of seperating out the process from play.

If I writer sits down to writer a story, he hashes out an outline of the plot. That's part of the process of writing, too. Why not allow the group to RPG out that process? Why assume that playing a story is not part of the story creation process, instead of assuming that to make a story you already need a story?

The distinction John makes is the same distinction I've seen tons of people making for years... and I just don't buy it anymore.

It's not a distinction Ron makes. And, Mike, I don't think it's a distinction you make. But John made it two posts up from my previous big post. So it sure seems to be floating around rather easily.

I posted vehemently and strenuously against this -- to my eye -- limited point of view on this matter because it makes my fucking teeth grind when I see people say, "Well, you understand, the delivery of a novel to the reader is a completely different experience than creating a narrative as a group."

Yes, it is. But that's not the point anymore.

That's it.


Christopher

[John Kim]

When John wrote: "2) If I want to get together with the exact same group of people to collectively create the best story I can, I will approach it differently. For example: in preparation, rather than only character creation, I would probably hash out an outline of the plot."

I'm not saying he's wrong to want to do that. I'm not saying he missed the boat on what I'm talking about.

I am he's making the same (to my eye) distinction of seperating out the process from play.

If I writer sits down to writer a story, he hashes out an outline of the plot. That's part of the process of writing, too. Why not allow the group to RPG out that process? Why assume that playing a story is not part of the story creation process, instead of assuming that to make a story you already need a story?

I posted vehemently and strenuously against this -- to my eye -- limited point of view on this matter because it makes my fucking teeth grind when I see people say, "Well, you understand, the delivery of a novel to the reader is a completely different experience than creating a narrative as a group."

What the heck?!?  I am not saying that at all.  I am talking 100% about process, and I am not assuming anything.  I was making a factual personal statement.  I have no idea if you create character sheets and roll dice to write stories -- maybe you do.  That's not something I can comment on.  

What I am talking about is how I personally view things.  When I approach writing collaboratively with other people, I do not approach it at all the same way as if I were planning to role-play with them.  When I approach something as role-playing, I plan on a present which steadily moves forward during the process.  However, if I am trying for the best story output, I will brainstorm and outline the plot -- moving back and forth in time over the story.  Particularly if I am collaborating with others, I will have a plan of where I am going.  Now, I may diverge from this when actually writing out.  However, that process still is very different from my process of trying to create the best roleplaying experience.

[Gordon C. Landis]

John,

To my eye, what Christopher is objecting to is when people equate "creating a narrative as a group" with "trying for the best story output" [emphasis mine].  Looking for the result of Nar roleplaying to be "the best story,"  where story is taken in the sense that novels or movies (e.g.) deliver story to their readers/viewers, is just not the right place to look.

I suspect you actually weren't talking narrowly about Nar roleplaying, but rather about storymaking in general, which maybe Nar roleplaying shares some things with.  All I see Christopher wanting to emphasize is that whatever it is they share is NOT limited to that writer/story/reader delivery.

Gordon

(P.S., because maybe it'll help: if you'll allow me all the HUGE wiggle room about what "story" actually means, I'd say that Nar roleplay is trying for "the best possible story creation and appreciation experience.")