The man should be caned.

RPGNet: Beginning around the early 1990s, the roleplaying world experienced a "movement," the nature and definition of which is still up for furious debate, characterized by "storytelling" games of the Ars Magica, and Vampire: The Masquerade persuasion. This gaming style, which is sometimes defined as "narrativist," places more emphasis on the communal crafting of a tale than on accurate simulation of real-world physics or the gambler's thrill of dice-rolling.

Has the "storytelling game" phenomenon had any effect on your personal design philosophy? Do you have any other thoughts on the subject of this gaming style that you can share with us?

Gary: A long question, so a relatively long response:

The only impact of the "storytelling game" that seems meaningful to me is that of its application in the LARP form and forum. In such, the normal RPG systems and mechanics don't function well, so the emphasis on melodrama, acting, the loss of player direction of events in favor of a "stage director" rather than a referee-like game master, makes sense.

Otherwise, there seems no great value in placing such undue importance on story over the many other elements that comprise the RPG. The "storytelling" aspect has not moved me in the least, because I believe that the GM and players are more interested in creating their own collective lejend than re-enacting one someone else has made up, expecting them to follow. This seems to be the opinion of most RPGers too. The least story-oriented game around, likely, is the new D&D one, and it is blowing away all competition. That includes my own new Lejendary Adventure system, surely, even though it provides the where-withal for the GM to emphasize whatever aspects of the RPG are desired, mix and match across the board.


Just thought it was sweet to see EGG chime-in on the whole debate. Sorry for any interruption. Please continue.

Dav

Josh and I (I presume, right Josh?) are making loud strangled noises and pointing to the hundreds and thousands of words we have written distinguishing between "Storyteller" the trademarked label and any semblance of generating a story during play via player/GM decisions.

Please, please someone, pet us and tell us it's all OK.

Oh God, let the nightmare end ...

Best,
Ron

I didn't even find that that offensive, mainly because it was wronger than Spam on pizza. (Ars Magica and Vampire narrative games--heh.)

What I did find immensely offensive in every way, though, was this quote:

RPGNet: So where exactly would you say roleplaying games fit into the continuum of the human arts and sciences? Are they literature? Theater? Mathematical hallucinations? What do they grow out of, and what might they be growing into?

Gary: To think of the RPG as anything more than a game for entertainment- not a pastime, but entertainment form- seems pretentious to me. Writing or even playing a game might be done artfully, but it is not an art form in the strict sense of the term. A RPG isn't literature either in such terms. A game is a game, and it seems highly pretentious to assert that an RPG is anything other than that.

This lack of dedication to the form is rather evident in the man's work, though. I shouldn't be surprised.

yeah, in general i find that white wolf's use of the word "storyteller" is about as meaningful as hardee's "made from scratch" biscuits...

but for some reason, coming from gygax, i feel as if my grandpa had just made an ethnic slur--annoying, but you write it off as a mixture of coming from a different era & senility...

He's Gygax. He can say what he wants. Half the reason they interviewed him was just to tweak readers and get some response. Besides, he may have written D&D, but he also wrote Cyborg Commandoes. Feel better now?

Best,

Logan

Yeah, that "RPG's are entertainment only" was a slap in the face...but you just grimace and point the old duffer back into his room at the Springfield Retirement Castle.

He's so clueless. It wouldn't bother me except he insists on being (appearing?) ignorant of all game design within the past decade (or more!). Is Gary even aware of the indie/Narrativist games out there? I doubt it.

MAJOR oaf.

- J

According to some of the posts below the Gygax interview, he responds to every email he gets.

Perhaps some of you with Indie games should see if he'd like to take a look? (I would, but I don't have any Indie games out there ...)

I'd love to see what he'd think of it. But I can also see a polite response saying, "I don't have the time to look."

On 2001-05-18 16:47, Brian Gleichman wrote:
You know, this doesn't look like a Threefold subject to me...

Yes, Gygax is quite aware of the "Free RPG" and indie game world. And just thinks that they're niche products that won't make any impact on the market as a whole.

Logan -

Um, I'm new here and all, but . . .

Let's wait for the man to hang himself, doncha think? It's not like the site's only open to 3fold "true believers", and while Brian's been in the middle of some hairballs over at rpg.net . . . well, it IS rpg.net. This isn't.

(Now I'm all paranoid that I've gone and fed someone or started somethin' when I shoulda just kept my mouth shut. I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin', ya know?)

Gordon C. Landis

Oh, on the subject of Gygax - there's a thread 'round here somewhere concerning what it is you're disatisfied about in your games. If you're NOT (and it would seem that Gary and his buddies aren't), then all this G/N/S and Art and stuff probably does look silly. Thery're having fun with their game, and that's the end of it.

Now, the dismissive attitude . . . eh, I'm told "Pretentious" is one of Mr. Gygaxs' major Descriptors. If he didn't burn it from time to time, he wouldn't be playing the character now, would he? Someday, his comments may look uber-silly, but at the moment he's right in market terms - indie rpgs (and the ideas/game design philosophies they embody) are a niche of a niche.

Since I AM disatisfied, and I AM interested in the ideas here, *I* find his easy dismissal (of many things) short-sighted, offensive, and absurd. If you confine his context to the DD3e-scale world . . .

Gordon C. Landis

Gary: A game is a game, and it seems highly pretentious to assert that an RPG is anything other than that.

Thank you. I'm having a very nice day. :wink:

Best,

Logan

Logan -
may I congratulate you on a *singularly* moronic post which effortlessly straddles both personal attacks and cowardice? Git.

Everyone else -
I've done my share of Gygax-bashing in the past (my position that he's right 1/4 of the time, out of touch half the time, and a muppet for the remainder is unchanged), but I'm getting tired of seeing it everywhere, and I'm going to stop.

Gary: A game is a game, and it seems highly pretentious to assert that an RPG is anything other than that.

Although I don't agree with Gary entirely, because I think the notion of a game as an entertainment where you push tokens around short-changes the creative awesomeness of RPG's, I have to say that I wish some of my friends had an attitude closer to this than the one they have. I've been developing a scenario for Prince Valiant, and had a conversation with one of my potential players about the game. (This is the same player who dropped out of my Everway game after chargen, but before play, for those of you who've seen my post on G.O. about that.) I asked if he was interested in playing Prince Valiant, and described the system to him a bit. He was very disinterested. He said, "Paul, you know how I feel about not enough rules."

I've written before about the dysfunctional dynamic of my group during the past ten years. We talked endlessly about games, planned campaigns, and each of us advocated his personal perspective on what the game should be. But we hardly ever played.

When one of us started planning something, it was like the others pinned all our personal hopes on that game. We behaved like we thought if we could just advocate and elucidate our perspective, our hopes for the game would be realized. It killed every game, most before character creation; of the two or three we actually played in the last seven years, not one survived five game sessions.

I think the position Gary advocates of not attaching too much of a literary mentality to games is probably psychologically healthier and more rewarding to the player than the pursuit of the "one true game". A writer becomes creatively blocked when he starts to scrutinize his work, when he starts to have aspirations about its impact on the social canvas. The analytical mind will cripple the creative mind.

If you worry too much about your approach to heaven, you never have any fun.

Paul

On 2001-05-18 21:01, Mytholder wrote:
Logan -
may I congratulate you on a *singularly* moronic post which effortlessly straddles both personal attacks and cowardice? Git.

On 2001-05-18 21:08, Paul Czege wrote:
If you worry too much about your approach to heaven, you never have any fun.

Logan -
yes, if someone barges in and starts flaming, then yeah, they deserve to have little ants crawl up their nose and eat their brain cells one by one. Brian didn't do that, though. While he can be argumentative, I don't think he's a troll...and if our ideas about gaming can't stand up to harsh criticism, there's possibly something wrong with 'em.

I'm sorry for snapping, though. It's nearly 3am here, and I think I may possibly be tired. We cool?

On 2001-05-18 21:47, Mytholder wrote:
We cool?