Game or Roleplaying, Which is More Important?

[mythusmage]

Hi Alan,

Thanks for some level of clarification, although I think you'll find a lot of people have been saying similar, if not identical things to what you are saying now.  Your enthusiasm is great, but a lot of what you are saying doesn't contradict, nor shed light on too much of what folks have been, or are saying.

Dang, and here I was trying to be revolutionary.:)

But, why the fixation on Game, Narrative, and Simulation when they are invalid focuses? (I don't give  a damn how the Romans pluralized the word, it's now an English word and so takes English pluralization. Deal with it.)

Story=Railroading?

No, focusing on 'story' to the exclusion of all else leads to railroading.

Nope.  Sorry.  That's just one possible way of doing things, and its definitely NOT what Narrativism is about.  Narrativism is very much against railroading, and, in fact, advocates the flexible GM game plan that you're talking about.

Unfortunately, that is not what narrative means outside of RPGs. Matter of fact, that's not what narrative means outside of the RPG 'academic' community. Narrative, a recounting of events or a presentation of information in a coherent form. In other words, story. Frankly, a far better term would be, 'story elements'. That is, the elements that make up a story.

Adventure?

We've got a word for this: Situation.  Situation is "What's going on that's interesting?"  Is a demon king taking over the land?  Has your wife turned into a vampire?  Situation.

Not the same thing. A situation can arise in the course of an adventure, or be the cause of an adventure, but it is not synonymus with adventure. Your wife turning into a vampire is a situation. Learning what you need to do to deal with the situation, and doing it, that is the adventure.  

This is a paradigm shift folks. How the world is viewed is changing. When I am done how you see RPGs, how you handle roleplaying in game and out will change, I hope for the better

I really hope that this does occur.  But...Alan, not to burst your bubble, but you haven't said anything that is "new" for folks here.  Please, please, and please, take a second and digest the GNS essay.  Yes, it is written like Ron had to explain the concepts to a lawyeristic Satan with his soul in the balance, yes, it is dry as hell.  But, everything you've said, so far, has been stated in that.  Really.

Looking forward to the paradigm shift,

Chris

But, have you seriously considered it before?

[Jeffrey Straszheim]

No, focusing on 'story' to the exclusion of all else leads to railroading.

I think I see your problem here.  Bluntly, you're wrong.  I know this from play experience, plus the various "actual play" testimonials on this site.  Alan, as long as you cling steadfastly to incorrect assumptions about how others play, and what we are capable of doing, you will continue to be wrong.

I suggest you take a few days and browse through the past articles on the actual play forum.  Focus on those that talk about "narrativism".  Also, any actual play articles on the Adept Press forum are good.  You will discover that a focus on story quite emphatically doesn't lead to railroading.

[Bankuei]

Hi Alan,

In order for us to have some sort of meaningful discourse here, we're going to have to agree to utilize some common terminology, at least for this discussion.  

You don't have to agree with the terms chosen, but clearly you haven't even taken the time to digest the concepts behind them before discussing it.  You're shooting at words, not points or concepts, and that's empty discourse.  I could likewise say that "adventure" in any sense of the word doesn't refer to sitting around a table, rolling dice and talking, which is a meaningless point given what you're talking about.  I'm going to ask that you give me, and other folks here the same courtesy of trying to meet them halfway in regards to what they're saying, and not viewing it as a giant debate of nitpicking and pissing contests.

So far, you've shot at GNS for things its not saying, and put forth "Adventure" as a substitute, which I can only read as, "Interesting stuff happens", which, to my knowledge, is Exploration, + Situation as defined in the essay, regardless of what the dictionary says(otherwise, see my adventure comment above).

I'd like to hear your ideas, but I'd like to hear them free of the patronizing tone, reactionalism, emotional baiting, and shooting at things that folks aren't saying.

So, to put in very clear terms, I'd like for you to lay out:

How does your adventure focus perspective negate, differ, or improve from Exploration?

Chris

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Allan,

Your posts are becoming increasingly weird.  Sorry to be so blunt about it, but... well, there it is.

Everything you are describing is how I ran adventures twenty years ago.  I have no idea of what this paradigm shift is you're talking about.  And yes, I really have "considered it before."  I've considered it.  I ran this way.  I wrote modules for game companies this way.  I got very frustrated with this model.  And then I stopped gaming.  Then I bumped into someone here in L.A. who pointed me to the Forge.  I considered the points on the Forge.  And now I'm gaming again.  (In fact, I'm earning my money as a game designer again.)

So let's recap.  You're saying nothing new.  I've done and considered everything you're suggesting I consider and do.  And I've decided to pass on it.

Now what?

Well, let's try this. While I don't think I'll be able to knock a dent in your firm conviction that you're going to save all us "theoretical" people by teaching us how to do what many already have done and passed on, I'll at least try to offer up something to you about how people use Narrative around here.  (Yes, yes, other people use it differently "outside" of this community.  Fine.  Please, for the purpose of this post, consider the definitions and concepts I'm offering, and don't pay too much attention to the box that holds them.  I had to put them in something, after all, and the word Narrative is what we've got at hand.)

So, two things.

1) If a GM tries to "write" the story beforehand (which, I think, is how you're defining "story at the exclusion of all else,") then yes, there will be railroading.  But no one here is suggesting that.

This is a trick point, because most people, when they think of stories think of movies and books and think of them in terms of being delivered to an audience or a reader.  That is, when I go to the movies or read a book, the work is all done. Thus, narrative seems to suggest complete.  And so some people confuse a focus on story in RPGs with railroading, or the GM having the "story" and the players are the characters or whatnot.  But around here, this isn't the process at all.

An RPG during play is a work in process.  It is, in fact, if we use the "writing" analogy, not a finished project delivered to the players.  It is, in fact, the active process of creation.  So: just as the writer makes out outline or stumbles through several scenes just to get them down on paper; or just as the cast and crew gather to make a film and, to a degree, discover the scene in the act of making it, so a group of people sitting around a table in Narrativist play are hammering out the 'first draft' of the tale.  It's not "done" before play begins.  It's created in play.

Now, you suggest as much when you point out that it's the telling of the tale after playing that story is created.  But that doesn’t change the fact that one can focus on "story" during play as well.

So, how does one focus on story in play without railroading?

There are many ways.  Here are some things to consider:

2) You write: "Your wife turning into a vampire is a situation. Learning what you need to do to deal with the situation, and doing it, that is the adventure."

No.  You are wrong.

Learning what you need to do to deal with the situation is railroading. Learning what your character chooses to do with the situation is an adventure.

In the first case, the GM, one must assume, already knows what the player must do to deal with the situation.  (Who else would know?) Even with the elastic qualities you attribute to the GM's planning truth is, one way or the other, the players are on that road to doing what they need to do to deal with the situation.

Now, in the second case, the GM doesn't know what the players are going to do.  And neither do the players.  This is active creation of the story in the moment.  It's fun.  And it works.  And it is not, simply not based on the players knowing what they need to do to deal with the situation.  It is based on the PCs (via the players) making choices to how they will deal with the situation.

(I’m going to use some examples from movies here.  For some reason, this flips some people out, because, as noted above, movies are already "done," while RPGs are created in the moment.  Please allow me, for the sake of sanity and to revel in the power of the human imagination, that in the instances I'm about to refer to from films, the characters don't know all their choices are already made, the characters don't now the end of the movie.  For the characters in a movie, we suspend disbelief and pretend they are actually making decisions at the moment they are making them.  Narrativist RPG play is like that – like any given instant within the fictional context of a movie where neither the audience nor the characters know where things are going.)

Now.  Choices in how to deal with the situation.

In the movie the Godfather, Michael's father is gunned down by a rival family.  That's the situation.  What does Michael have to do?  Do you know?  Do you know at that instant when Michael sees the newspaper recounting his father's attack what Michael must do to deal with the situation?  Did you say he had to wipe out the heads of the other families?  If you said, "I don't know," you would be right.  If you said, "He has to wipe out the heads of the other families," you would be wrong.  Because Michael doesn't do that for another hour.

Between hearing about the attacking and wiping out the heads of the other families, this is what Michael, the war hero and "good" member of his family who has assured his girlfriend he is not like his father, does: he goes to his father's bedside and protects him from another hit; he volunteers to assassinate police captain and a gangster in a crowded restaurant; he carries out the assassinations; he starts running the family "business" when Sonny (the heir apparent) is assassinated; he orders the assassinations of his sister's husband when he discovers he set Sonny up; he order the death of a lifelong friend when he discovers they were plotting to take Michael out; he threatens the life of Mo Greene when the man refuses to sell him his casino; once he's figured out who put the hit on his father, he kills Mo Greene and all the heads of the other families.  An hour ago he was just protecting his father. Now he is his father.

Now if this were an RPG, would we have to go this way?  No.  Not if we were playing a narrativist style game.  Michael could try to ignore what was happening with his family.  He could move to another state.  Gangsters, suspicious of what he was up to, might come to kill him.  He might be injured.  His wife might die.  Anything could happen.  The GM would keep prodding the player based on the players actions.  But for all we know, Michael might end up meeting some kids heading for a life of crime in a small town and get them to change their ways.  It could go a million different directions.

The situation tells us the first thing the player must deal with.  How he chooses to deal with it makes it a story.  Knowing what he has to do makes it a railroaded event.

Take care,
Christopher

[M. J. Young]

Gee, Alan, you've been busy stirring up all kinds of trouble. I hope you've already read my points on your other thread, http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=7096">Understanding Roleplaying Games.

You recognize that this site is a home for "academic discussion". I'm a theologian and a philosopher and a lawyer, and so I know quite a bit about academic discussion. It always uses its own terms of art, its own jargon, if you like. That means that within the academic community, if someone says "narrativism" it means something very specific that others in that academic community understand it to mean. If you come along and say, "narrativism doesn't mean that, because the dictionary says it means this; and by this meaning, it has nothing to do with games", then you've missed the point entirely. You might as well walk into court and say that it isn't civil court because the plaintiff is not being at all civil in filing suit against you. You've missed the meaning of the words. You're talking French in a Greek restaurant.

I think you'll have seen in that other thread that even if your word "adventure" is accepted as a term for what is done in a game, there are still "narrativist" adventures, "gamist" adventures, and "simulationist" adventures. But you'll only see this if you take the time to understand what those words mean when used in academic discussion. As long as you keep trying to tell us that they mean something other than what we mean when we use them, you're on the wrong page. Tell an equestrian that a bit is a piece of information instead of a piece of steel. Tell a priest that mass is not a holy ritual but a property of matter. Tell a pig farmer that a pen is something with which you write, not a fenced containment. If you want to discuss this with us, stop trying to tell us that you're using our words wrong and start using them right. Once you understand what gamism, narrativism, and simulationism are (something of which you have in several threads demonstrated complete ignorance) then you can start to explain to us why they're irrelevant. As long as you're telling us "Narrativism means apple pie, and apple pie is irrelevant to role playing games", all we can say is, "Narrativism doesn't mean apple pie, so what are you trying to say?"

You're a smart guy. This isn't genetic engineering (I was going to say rocket science, but that hasn't been cutting edge since I was in grade school, so I'd be dating myself). It's game theory. You can certainly understand what it's saying if you take the time.

If you find Ron's excellent articles too academic, let me humbly suggest that you take a stab at my own http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/23/">Applied Theory, which while it doesn't go into as much detail in defining gamism, narrativism, and simulationism, may provide some practical examples of what they are.

--M. J. Young

[John Kim]

Methinks you're using too narrow a definition of adventure. (So was I, so thanks for the opportunity to expand.)

Adventure: What occurs when interesting things happen to people, and those people take steps to correct the consequeces of said interesting things, forestall their occurence in the first place, and/or work out things.

By this description of adventure you do run them. Not the traditional adventure where a villain gets his, but adventures.

Young mother to small child at a closed down Heathrow Airport (bad weather): Dear, we're having an adventure.  

OK, I'm failing to see how this is useful.  Your definition of "adventure" is now encompassing of such a wide range that it doesn't seem to distinguish much.  It makes your position almost a tautology:  i.e. "Adventure is what makes the game interesting."  "When does adventure happen?"  "When interesting things happen to people."  

To be useful, it needs to be able to distinguish between games which you like and games which you didn't like.  Could you, say, describe a game which you played in that you disliked because it lacked adventure?  

However, one thing which I do get from this is that the PCs are inherently reactive.  i.e. By this definition, adventure is about people reacting to things which just happen to them.   It does not include when people go and do interesting things without a directly stimulus.  

For example, compare a superhero campaign with a supervillian campaign.  In a traditional superhero campaign, the PCs find out about some villian's plan to take over the world and then go stop them.  This is reactive.  In contrast, the villians traditionally are pro-active.  Faced with a dull, law-abiding society, they will break the status quo and do something ambitious (usually immoral, mind you, but still ambitious and pro-active).

[simon_hibbs]

No, focusing on 'story' to the exclusion of all else leads to railroading.

Nope.  Sorry.  That's just one possible way of doing things, and its definitely NOT what Narrativism is about.  Narrativism is very much against railroading, and, in fact, advocates the flexible GM game plan that you're talking about.

Unfortunately, that is not what narrative means outside of RPGs. Matter of fact, that's not what narrative means outside of the RPG 'academic' community. Narrative, a recounting of events or a presentation of information in a coherent form. In other words, story. Frankly, a far better term would be, 'story elements'. That is, the elements that make up a story.

Our use of the terms narative and 'narativist' here may seem unusual, but in fact they are largely compatible with it's general use. The difference is in how the narative is created.

In narativist play, the narative is the _product_ of play.

Narative gamers do not impose a pre-concieved narative on play events. Rather we create a roleplaying environment, and employ game mechanical and social rules and devices which we hope encourage the creation of an orriginal and spontanious in-game narative.

The neares equivalent outside the world of roleplaying is spontaneous theatre, in which there is no pre-concieved script, but rather the dialogue is created spontaneously by the participating actors.


Simon Hibbs

[epweissengruber]

The theatre -- RPG analogy has often been made in RPG texts

The nearest equivalent outside the world of roleplaying is spontaneous theatre, in which there is no pre-concieved script, but rather the dialogue is created spontaneously by the participating actors.

It's too bad that specific examples from improv theatre have not been used in the past.  It was assumed that RPGing would generate a polished script like radio theatre.  But there has been a 50 year tradition of story- creating games for the theatre.

I would encourage anyone who wanted to draw on improv theatre to look at books by:

- Viola Spolin
- Keith Johnstone
- Paul Sils

Greg Costikyan made a preliminary attempt to create a premised-based improv theatre game that should be checked out.
http://www.costik.com/brecht.html

[DarkKingdoms]

Hmm, I just thought the whole idea of role-playing, as with any game was to have fun. In any manner necessary for the individual, just have fun.

Hi everyone, by the way!

[Bankuei]

Hi DK,

I agree with you in principle 100%, but if you ask around a good deal of gamers, everyone has "horror stories".  You'll notice that these sort of stories don't crop up with the same frequency or level of dysfunction in other hobbies, say, sports, sewing, music, etc.  

Much of the GNS theory is about being able to communicate about "what you, personally, think is fun" and matching it up with what other people think is fun at the same time.  That is, if one person's playing basketball, and someone else is playing soccer, and a third person playing hockey, at the same time, and not able to understand WHY they're not having fun, you need to have a means of communicating and getting on the same page.

Chris

[pete_darby]

The theatre -- RPG analogy has often been made in RPG texts

The nearest equivalent outside the world of roleplaying is spontaneous theatre, in which there is no pre-concieved script, but rather the dialogue is created spontaneously by the participating actors.

It's too bad that specific examples from improv theatre have not been used in the past.  It was assumed that RPGing would generate a polished script like radio theatre.  But there has been a 50 year tradition of story- creating games for the theatre.

I would encourage anyone who wanted to draw on improv theatre to look at books by:

- Viola Spolin
- Keith Johnstone
- Paul Sils

Greg Costikyan made a preliminary attempt to create a premised-based improv theatre game that should be checked out.
http://www.costik.com/brecht.html

I thought the Costikyan Brecht game was a joke... but then , i thought Dogme gaming was a joke till I saw nicotine girls.

But I definitely owe more in my gaming (and writing, and pretty much most other things) to Keith Johnstone's IMPRO. A real life changer of a book, and I swear that's not hyperbole.

Improv theatre has been used as an example in the past, but it tends to be swamped in the mainstream of RPG's by the wagaming tradition.

This is the point where I make my annual promise to write the definitve article on using IMPRO for RPG's...

[Bruce Baugh]

This is the point where I make my annual promise to write the definitve article on using IMPRO for RPG's...

Write it, and I'll read it and refer to it regularly.

[Paul Czege]

Hey Pete,

... but then , i thought Dogme gaming was a joke till I saw nicotine girls.

I would call Nicotine Girls http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4223">mainstream.

Paul

[Ian Charvill]

I agree with you in principle 100%, but if you ask around a good deal of gamers, everyone has "horror stories".  You'll notice that these sort of stories don't crop up with the same frequency or level of dysfunction in other hobbies, say, sports, sewing, music, etc.  

YMMV, and it may be the hobbies I've chosen, but I've seen plenty of dysfunction in martial arts and the arts scene (amdram, writing groups, amateur filmmaking to be precise).

And possibly more damaging: I've never seen a roleplayer who needed a shot of vodka laced with a chinese herbal concoction before every take, frex.

[Marco]

I agree with Ivan. I don't think RPGing is *more* dysfunctional than other hobbies that involve personal interaction (there's plenty of rivaly rand petty dysfunction in *professional* sports ... not even going to fist-fights over parkinglot basketball games).

-Marco