Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by RobMuadib, January 24, 2002, 08:43:16 PM
Quote from: ValamirVery interesting. Couple comments / Questions.1) There are a lot of interpretaton of the word story. I think most of them can be broken down into a couple of categories. In one, story is basically any sequence of events being related in an entertaining manner (this is what your note on story seems to fit). The other is that a "Literary Story" (my word used for distinction only) is more than just a sequence of events but adheres to some literary principals involving rising action, falling action, denouement, climax, etc. How do players who are concerned with creating a "Literary Story", not just a "plain 'ole tale" fit into your scheme?
Quote from: Valamir2) Where does the use or prohibition regarding In Character and Out of Character information fall in your Scheme?
Quote from: Valamir3) What is the Guide Stance referenced under Tinkerer?[\quote]Guide in this case, is the use of particular design subsystems to create additions to the world, with the power to see that they are implementedwithin the world. Aria, for example, is chock full of Guide stance mechanics in which all of the participants take part to create elements of the setting and such. It is Guide, because it is not exclusive to single player. . (This is largely where the theory fits in my game design ideas, which led to the inspiriation to create it.)Quote from: Valamir4) I suggest redefining your Stances as something else (say "positions") and then detailing what we think of as Stances as being a collection of these Positions. For instance "Actor Stance" is Position A from Story, Position A from Game, and Position A from Role. "Author Stance" is Position B from Story, Position B from Game, and Position A from Role (just making those up as example). In this way, the collection of "stances" as you are currently call them, become a menu of play choices (each of which indicates a particularly approach to S to G and to R) that result in a Stance.Hmm, that sounds like a good idea, would be less confusing to GNS/GDS familiar people. (I currently throw that into being Game Style, but don't say much about it.
Quote from: Valamir4) I suggest redefining your Stances as something else (say "positions") and then detailing what we think of as Stances as being a collection of these Positions. For instance "Actor Stance" is Position A from Story, Position A from Game, and Position A from Role. "Author Stance" is Position B from Story, Position B from Game, and Position A from Role (just making those up as example). In this way, the collection of "stances" as you are currently call them, become a menu of play choices (each of which indicates a particularly approach to S to G and to R) that result in a Stance.
Quote from: LoganIs your effort really an attempt to reconcile GNS and GDS? I ask because I don't see how it takes me from GDS to GNS or vice versa. It doesn't really tie up the loose ends.
Quote from: LoganI'm going to evaluate in broad terms here.I think you've done well to recognize the elements Game, Story, and Roleplaying as integral parts of an RPG. That's all to the good, though I don't really agree with your interpretation.I think, to move on, you have to go back to basics. To start, let's ask the fundamental question, "What is an RPG?" The question has been asked over and over, but you still have to ask yourself that, and maybe find your own answer. For me (after discussion with the never-here-seen Scarlet Jester), I have boiled it down to this: An RPG is a Game with aspects of Story and Roleplaying. The Game aspect is its rules, mechanics for play. The Roleplaying is all about portraying the character. The Story is all about what happens during play and why. As I see it, everything in the Big 3 theories (and all other theories that I've seen about roleplaying) is an analysis of the interplay of these elements with respect to game design, player behavior, or player goals - not necessarily in that order.
Quote from: LoganGDS and GNS both look at the act of Roleplaying and try to dissect player motive and behavior. GDS basically ignores the underlying mechanics, except to say that diceless roleplay is special. GNS acknowledges that system is important because it can support a style of play, but the overriding opinion is that GNS considerations do not extend down to the level of individual rules or rule structures. I think such considerations can and do reach that far, but that topic is separate.
Quote from: LoganStory is a more difficult subject, because an RPG isn't a novel. It's more of a living creation. A novel is static; an RPG session is dynamic. You can run the same adventure ten times with ten different groups of players and get 10 different results. Even if the GM wants it to run the same way, the players and the dice always have the means to change the way things happen. At least that is what I have found.
Quote from: LoganTo your use of stances... I see what you're trying to say, but I think the expression just doesn't work. You're trying to ascribe separate stances to each individual motive with respect to Game, Story, and Roleplaying (which, in your case, seems to be a stand-in terminology for GNS/GDS). I cull 3 useful stances from all rpg theory: Actor, Director, and Observer. Players include the GM, who traditionally spends the bulk of his time in Director stance.
Quote from: LoganGoal/Intention: I have specifically avoided talking about goal or intention with respect to a particular stance. That's because I think any stance can be used to support or attain any goal.
Quote from: LoganIt's possible that I've overwritten your intended goals with my own imperatives. If that's the case, drive on as you see fit.