Storyteller Heartbreakers

[Mike Holmes]

*shrug* Okay, I don't have much to say in response to assertions that my experience is impossible. I disagree, or I wouldn't think it was my experience, but I'm also not here to piss in other people's beer about interpretative frameworks. I note the disagreement and move on.

I don't think anybody is actually saying that. Mostly we're all talking past each other because we have different definitions of what the terms all mean. Obviously your experiences have occured just as you've related them. It's just that some here wouldn't consider what you've related to be at all contradictory to the idea that there o certain sorts is some play out there which is problematic. Not all play, just some. You're described examoples don't contradict those examples at all.

It's like we've said, "cars are not trucks", and you've replied, "ah, but I've got an El Camino," to which we'd respond, "but that's not a truck either." It's all a matter of perspective. Until you see the limited version of the definitions that we're discussing, then you will, of course, disagree. You might even continue to disagree afterwards, but you can't even possibly agree until you understand our admittedly esoteric definitions of terms like story, Narrativism, Credibility, etc.

The point is, that the phenomenon we describe may not be as pronounced or important as we think it is. We certainly don't have any empirical data to back it up. But it's a subject of some concern to some of us in general terms (not so much how it applies to WW games, but to gaming in general).

As Ron has often said of GNS, if your gaming ain't broke, then GNS isn't going to fix anything. GNS is a tool that identifies problems that occur in play.

I do agree that it makes more sense to start from scratch with fresh projects. Take inspiration, sure, but building fresh lets you avoid a lot of baggage.

Well said.

It's the most common failing of first time designers to create a game by adjusting off only one model, and accepting most of the assumptions of that model (all except those they intend to change) implicitly.

Mike

[Bruce Baugh]

I did take time to read through the available articles, on the grounds that if hosts think them important or interesting enough to put up, I as guest should go take a look. :) I suspect that a lot of it is definitions built on different assumptions (My Definition, My Enemy! written by Stan Lee, drawn by Jack Kirby), yes, and I would freely confess to having a highly idiosyncratic approach to some matters myself - constructing theories with a deliberately colloquial style is just part of it.

[greyorm]

*shrug* Okay, I don't have much to say in response to assertions that my experience is impossible.

Bruce, I think this is the heart of the problem. No one is saying your experiences are impossible or didn't happen, we are arguing with your interpretation of those experiences, mainly because many of us have been there before.

Of course the rules supported the results, or seemed to.
If you go searching to find the threads related to my D&D games, you'll note that I claimed I was playing regular-style D&D by the rules and getting Narrativist results with it. In actuality, there was some arguable Drift occuring there in regards to how I was playing.

And again, it isn't that the rules can't, which it seems to me you're hung up on as the counter-argument, but that the rules aren't suited to it, and there's a huge difference between those two ideas.

Example: someone tells you that using a saw to cut down a tree is going about things the wrong way, that it is the wrong tool for the job. You, knowing of no other tool better suited to the task, say that the tool is well-suited to the task and you can cut down trees with it, and go on to list the trees you have cut down with this saw, the friends you have who have cut down trees with their saws, and so forth.

In point of fact, you're right, but the point the other individual is trying to make is not that the tool doesn't work, but that the tool isn't well-suited to the job as compared to another tool.

Throw in the fact that goals exist for the activity: for example, the speed at which the tree is downed, the wear on the tool used, the personal effort to use the tool to get the job done, etc., and you can see how, depending on the goals of the activity, the saw might not be the best tool to use.

Same thing here: yes, you can and do get the results you describe using the rules as written -- ie: your experience isn't impossible -- but that doesn't mean they are the best rules for the job.

[Blake Hutchins]

I suggest the term we might be looking for is "optimized."  White Wolf rules - I'll focus on Vampire and Mage here - as written are not optimized to produce the kind of play the storytelling sections point toward.  They may produce that play under certain circumstances with certain groups, but they contain - and I think I read something you wrote earlier in this thread, Bruce, that essentially concedes this point - a certain amount of static.

I've had a hell of a lot of fun with WW games over the years, but at the same time, have experienced significant frustration when the rules appeared to hamper play rather than enhance it, leading to modification or jettisoning of those rules.  My experience is certainly not universal, and speaks to my own group's dynamics, but I don't think it's uncommon.  I can readily believe some groups are having great play with the rules working straight from the book.

Are we now chasing tails here, or is this topic sufficiently drained of blood?

Best,

Blake

[Jason Lee]

I'm also not here to piss in other people's beer about interpretative frameworks.

Maybe none of this doesn't needs to be stated, but...

There is a whole forum entitled 'Piss in Ron's Beer' (err...GNS Model Discussion).  Nothing wrong with leaking, it's a natural process (and easily concealed in beer).

All these Forge-brand (TM) theories and models are primarily useful for facilitating discussion - getting to the meat instead of trying to figure out what everyone is talking about.  Joe Butt can boil his experience with VtM down into a little string of jargon, and Sally Ass can counter with her own completely contradictory string of jargon.  Other uses in design and play abound, but I think that's the real point.

Sounds to me like your angle is that this incoherency doesn't exist.  Which I personally agree with on the GNS level (supports a single goal), but for many people may not be true on the Stance level (who's in control and when).

Or...

There ain't nothin' wrong with an incoherent game.  Which, has been tossed around aplenty.  Normally starting with 'incoherent games are more fun for most people' and ending with something like 'ok, you're right as long as it's a hybrid (supports multiple modes without conflicting with itself), congruent (cannot tell which mode it supports because functional play can be approached from many angles), abashed (must be drifted, but is set up to do so)'.  Arguement can certainly be made for VtM being abashed.

[Bruce Baugh]

Blake, yeah, if we're talking about a spectrum of "does this well" to "does this not so well", then that's fine. I will admit to a persistent skewing because of my commercial interests, weighing "might do this better' against "but then wouldn't do that well", but that's me.

Cruciel, I'm not so much saying incoherency doesn't exist as saying that I do not, on any very useful level, grasp the content or desirability of coherency. I mean, I can tell people want it, but like I said in an earlier post, I feel like a color-blind person listening to others discuss two colors which are similar or identical in the qualities I can detect. I am cognitively impaired in some ways thanks to auto-immune and neurological problems, so the analogy isn't a flippant one. I genuinely do recognize the existence of distinctions I cannot percieve. One of the things I'm doing is seeing how much of this sounds like stuff I want to try translating into a framework that I could work with.

[John Kim]

White Wolf rules - I'll focus on Vampire and Mage here - as written are not optimized to produce the kind of play the storytelling sections point toward.  They may produce that play under certain circumstances with certain groups, but they contain - and I think I read something you wrote earlier in this thread, Bruce, that essentially concedes this point - a certain amount of static.

I've had a hell of a lot of fun with WW games over the years, but at the same time, have experienced significant frustration when the rules appeared to hamper play rather than enhance it, leading to modification or jettisoning of those rules.  

I have limited experience with White Wolf games, but I have observed similar cases with other games.  However, my experience with "drift" (aka house rules) is that it will frequently go in different directions -- even for people who value story of the sort described.  For example, I am currently running a RuneQuest game, which is strongly focussed on story that I am quite satisfied with.  Now, I do have quite a number of house rules -- but I suspect they are pretty different from what someone else might do with the system.  

I think that because of differing styles, different people find different rules to be "hampering" to the process of story creation.  For example, one of the rules which I found hampering to story in Storyteller was the use of "scene" in mechanics.  I found this very frustrating for my storytelling style, such as the case when someone asks in-character "How long can you remain Obfuscated for?"