Walt will want to check this one out. Herr Costickyan gave some sort of presentation recently on story in games, and getting beyond the implicit dichotomy. The Power Point presentation for this is here:

http://www.costik.com/presentations/Where%20Stories%20End%20&%20Games%20Begin.ppt

Might be problematic to look at just the bullet points, but I thought it was thought provoking anyhow.

Thoughts? Does Narrativism accomplish what he's looking for? Or does he rightly see a continued "problem" with story and games?

If Greg is watching this space by any chance, any expansion on these ideas would be interesting to hear. Actually if a webconference could be arranged so that we could hear the whole presentation, that would be even better.

Mike

I'm reminded of an old-ish (1996-1997) article by Chris Crawford, where he suggested a mindset/method for "interactivizing" stories:

http://www.erasmatazz.com/library/Lilan/interactivizing.html

Chris Crawford wrote: Thus, an interactive Romeo and Juliet would NOT be about Romeo and Juliet; it would be about the collision between love and social obligations. This distinction is crucial to understanding the advantages -- and disadvantages -- of interactive storytelling. If you insist that an interactive Romeo and Juliet must be about "Romeo and Juliet", then you must also insist that it follow the plot of the original play. But if instead you shift your point of view and require that an interactive Romeo and Juliet be about the collision between love and social obligation, then a great many plot developments are possible which remain true to the focus of the work.

Well, his conclusion is the crux of it:

Greg Costikyan wrote: To think of games as "a storytelling medium" leads to futile attempts to straightjacket games, to make them more effective stories at the expense of gameplay. Instead, designers should use story elements to strengthen their games when appropriate--but should not be afraid to shy away from story entirely, at times. Because ultimately, what a player takes away from a game is not the story it tells (if it tells one at all), but modes of thought and ways of attacking problems, and a sense of satisfaction at mastery.

Greg Costikyan wrote: Experimental RPGs

• Sorceror, "Dice Pool" games, My Life With Master (www.the-forge.com) • Pushing tabletop away from game & simulation and toward roleplaying & story • Minimal rules set • A dichotomy between those that emphasize RP (e.g., Sorceror) and those that emphasize story (MLWM).

Mike Holmes wrote: Thoughts? Does Narrativism accomplish what he's looking for? Or does he rightly see a continued "problem" with story and games?

John Kim wrote:
So, I agree that designers should not feel limited by story elements and methods. However, he characterizes pursuing story as making things more linear -- which we don't think is true. A good game for story creates an environment and methods which allow the players to make a story -- not giving one to them. On the other hand, bear in mind that he's dealing with computer games and many other genres, not just RPGs.

I'm with Gareth; "story" in this presentation mutates between the product and the process. If we recognise that MLwM and Sorcerer are two methods of controlling and rewarding the same process (address of premise), then the supposed dichotomy disappears: actually, I see it as very similar to Ron's dissection of character-led premise, setting-led premise etc.

Giving Greg some dues, the imprecise use of "story" is pretty endemic to the computer game industry, and we all know how much trouble it causes even here.

I think Crawford's work on NPC management may well be Nar facilitating: R-maps by the back door...

Not to confuse the issue further, but I think it's interesting to note that in the boargame design community they refer to a dichotomy between "Theme" and "Mechanics." That is, some games they say focus on the theme, and try to make the mechanics fit the theme. Other games have a theme tacked on to a set of playable mechanics.

For example, in Monopoly, there's a theme of grabbing up land to have monopolies on certain real estate markets. But the mechanics only vaguely are a simulation of how this would occur in real life. So the game is more strongly gameplay oriented. From this POV, RPGs are simply very heavily theme driven games (don't conflate this term with the GNS use of it, of course, I'm using it in the boardgame jargon sense here).

I think this is a very pertinent question. Are RPGs simply games that have gone sorta overboard in the theme direction, or are they something else? Are they not-games? More importantly, are they a medium for story, making them something different from games entirely?

I'm thinking that some RPGs are still, largely, games, and some are not, and many more are somewhat confused as to what they are. Is this the Gamism/Non-Gamism boundary? Or something else that's more subtle?

I very much like this discussion, BTW, because it's breaking out of the internal dialogue here at the Forge, and forcing us to look at some of these things from the POV of wholly different communities.

Mike

Beyond theme, RPGs also require creative interpretation. In this thread, Gareth links to a speach by Raph Koster. In the speach Mr. Koster speaks to the increase in complexity of outcomes and choices provided by the actions of other human participants in a game (In this case specifically computer games).

For RPGs, the level and of complexity and interpretation this can result in is enormous. It is to my mind another defining feature of RPGs.

The difference in seeing Romeo and Juliet as individuals in a situation and seeing them as vessels for theme creation/addressment and dramatic conflict certainly sounds like the switch to Narrativism to me. At least a switch to a Narrativistic mindset.

-Chris

C. Edwards wrote: For RPGs, the level and of complexity and interpretation this can result in is enormous. It is to my mind another defining feature of RPGs.

Mike Holmes wrote: So that may be part of what we're talking about here. But there's the question of things like rising and falling action, and other conventions of drama. Things like plot. Which seem to be pretty independent of the RPG boundary here.

I'm not sure I get that last part. I don't think that a definition of RPGs is what we're looking for here. What the discussion is about is how do they, or can they, relate to the concept of "Story." Are you saying just that some RPGs are more related to story than others? Or something more profound?

Mike

Sorry about that. My mind has been working in right angles lately.

I'm trying to say that "story" in play is a matter of degree, yes. But that the very ability to produce story in an RPG is predicated on other factors that are not an issue for other media encompassing dramatic concerns that don't rely on the same combination of elements that are at the core of an RPG.

-Chris

Hi Guys,

Hi admit I may be a bit rusty around here right now, but it seems to me this is old ground.

The issue is creative agenda.

For Greg, it seems, to go for the Story is to lose sight of the game. Greg doesn't care much for Narrativist play, apparently. And that's fine.

His arguements rest on a bunch of failed (and common) assumptions. The main one being that "Story" depends on a pre-set linear plot in play of an RPG. This is of course. And, of course, to assume that even a novelist or a screenwriter works from a pre-set novelist plot when typing is in itself an odd (and common) error. Narrativist play (as Gareth pointed out) is more rightly called a "story-making" event than a "story-telling" event. Gareth is rather light on the implicatins of this switcheroo of the wording, but I think it is profound. And I think it might even lead to a lightening of the confusion of coming to terms with the understanding of Narrativist play.

I believe this because many people, when discuss Story and RPGs, always look to movies and books and say, "But see! It's already done!" But I can guarantee you, when you're writing a book or a screenplay, it sure as hell doesn't seem that way. "Kiddo," Saul Bellow once said wearily to his editor, "don't they understand that we're making it up as we go along?" (http://slate.com/id/2116502/)

Narrativis play isn't about the final thing (which is what Greg kept pointing to at the start of his Power Point presentation to mean "Story": A final product the consumer "recieves". The "game"-like stories were still finished products that were game-like as someone read them.

But that's not what Narrativism is about. It's about the making of story. That's why it's called Story Now.

It is also why Greg can confidently, and narrowly, state that recounted tales from an RPG session are going to be dull. Well. A lot of the time, yes. When making a story wasn't the focus. But "Moose In the City" and other examples suggest that making Story Now leads to fine stories to recount afterword. Because everyone is on their game to make a story. And voila! A story worth retelling.

Greg also trips himself up when he states, "game is not the story it tells (if it tells one at all), but modes of thought and ways of attacking problems, and a sense of satisfaction at mastery," he's kind of right. But he's also missing the boat. Or, at least, another boat. The boat of Narrativism. As a guy who's just written the best script I've ever written, and know why it's the best script I've ever written, I could assure Greg that "ways of attacking a problem" and "a sense of satisfaction" are all part and parcel of focusing on Story Now as they are in good solid game play where Story isn't the focus.

It seems to me that throughout the slide show, Greg keeps working from the Dramatist notions of Story in an RPG framework... Which is great, except that Ron blew open the notion of Story can be in an RPG with Narrativism. And it seems kind of odd to keep harping on how story in an RPG is shackled by the expectations of story being like recieving a story via a novel or movie -- when Narrativist play isn't about that at all. (Again, Story Now. Story Making, not Story Telling.)

Now, of course, Greg can like, design, and advocate whatever he likes.

But when he writes, "To think of games as 'a storytelling medium' leads to futile attempts to straightjacket games, to make them more effective stories at the expense of gameplay," he's only revealing a narrow-thinking on what the medium can offer.

Watch: "To think of Story Now as 'a gaming medium' leads to futile attempts to straightjacket Story Now, to make them more effective games at the expense of Story."

I have no idea how that twist on on Greg's words will sit with other folks. I like it. Because it reflects, in my view, the radical possibilities of Story Now. I mean, folks. What if we just assumed Story Now was simply that wierd a thing?

Now, if Story Now is all Story, why the dice, why the numbers.

Because its still play. In Greg's presentation, he carves out some special place for things that involve Play -- and a different place for things that are Stories. Why? I'm going to have to point out the apparently facile, but truly important point that plays are called PLAYS. They involve actual adults walking around onstage in clothes they would otherwise never wear, often speaking with "funny accents" (that we so often loath in our RPG sessions) making pretend to be someone they are not. This might strike some as odd, many many of us enjoy this kind of goofing around, even if we get paid for it.

The same is true for writing a book or a screenplay. Yes, it can be hard work. And sometime frustrating to the point of surrender. But at its best, its play. It's pattern making, finding the best solution for what you've got so far in the moment. Like Story Now. The idea that games have no place for Story because games are about Play strikes me as something that could only have been created by someone who's spent a lot of time making games -- but not much time making stories.

Play is play. There are many ways to play without it being a "game" in the sense that so many people uncomfortable with story in their RPGs use the word.

Finally, yes, the medium of Story Now is a completely different process of making stories than one finds in the making of screenplays or novels or epic poems. So what? A point I don't rember seeing anywhere (but I'm sure it has been made) is that the needs of different literary genres will force a story to be "made" in completely different way.

Forget about the end product for a moment. The needs of each literary genre will require the creator(s) to approach the story and the act of creation in very different ways. Anyone who tries to write a screenplay with the same expectations of writing a novel is going to end up with something unfilmable. The same "story" told as a comic book, a novel, a screenplay, and an epic poem will be definition stretch out the process of the "making" of the story.

As far as I'm concerned, RPG Narratvism is simply one more lit genre, with its own needs and process of creation. Yeah, making an RPG Story Now is not like making a novel. But making a novel's not like making an epic poem. So?

While I do see Greg's points as valid from a certrain vantage point, it seems to me they completely fall apart from other vantage points. One of those vantage points is Narrativism.

Best,

Christopher

Well then, how do you explain Costickyan's embrace of games like MLWM, Chris? Have you read Paranioa XP? The redesign is based to an extent on some of the concepts of narrativism (I'm still trying to decide whether Varney and gang hit or missed there, but...).

Here's an interesting article from Ed Heil way: http://www.polytropos.org/archives/2003/09/greg_costikyan.html

Mike

Hi Mike,

I'm sure that's a good point...

But I actually, I can't explain his embrace of MLWM... cause I didn't know he did. I'm only responding to the slide show he put up -- specifically his use of definitions and ideas that I find limiting and rather retro.

For all I know he's running a Sorcerer game on the weekends full on Narrativism techniques... but I wouldn't know one way or the other from his PP presentation.

Christopher

PS I'm checking out the link now.

Hi Mike,

Okay, I clicked on the link, and read, and clicked on more links, and read....

and what I came away specifically was this:

"I have not closely followed the tabletop RPG scene in many years, and it is entirely possible that My Life with Master is less innovative than I give it credit for."

I am about to be rather cold to a very bright man. But his "embracing" of MLWM seems to me to be like a man who, having travelled far enough from shore, accidently comes to the conclusion that the world is round after all.

He seems startled that the game could work (as many people are when they play full blown Narrativist techniques for the first time). That doens't change the fact that he's still startled becuase most of his thinking, by definition, is pre-Story Now.

And that's my only point. Greg works very digilently from a certain point of view that I think is so limited in its perspective that the arguement is sort of irrelevant. Remember, I didn't claim Greg hated Narrativist games with an irrational passion. My believe he's being completely rational -- with his rational arguments resting on flawed assumpions.

Yes, he's stunned by MLWM. Because it works! Who knew?

That doesn't change the fact that he sees it as some sort of unique artifact. It isn't. I mean, it's good. And unique. But it's also part of a larger design and play philosophy worked up here at the Forge and other place he apparently doesn't visit very often. A philosophy, that, as far as I can tell from his writing, he doesn't think can exist as a functioning way to have fun. People might try it, he seems to be thinking but clearly they're missing the point of RPGs and would be much better served playing RPGs the way games were meant to be played. MLWM is this strange thing that puts all that in question. And... guess what... he's a little behind the curve.

I offer that he may or may not like more games that are often bandied about here -- but only by trying them would he even know they exist and that people have a great time playing them.

Christopher

That was what I was afraid of by linking to the presentation. He's been pretty verbal on this subject before. So check around, and don't read into anything if you can help it.

Does anyone know where we can twig Greg? Again, if he could expand on these ideas, it might help. Does anyone know of an article by him that might explain it better? That would help a lot.

Mike

Hi Mike,

You might have missed my last post on the previous page, so I'm alerting you to it now.

Also, did you catch this http://www.costik.com/weblog/2003_09_01_blogchive.html#106427832498370748
link on the page you linked to. It's his full discussion of MLWM.

He seems to lay it all out very carefully. My last post is my response to it.

Christopher

That was weird. Missing that last post, that is.

Anyhow, I think that what he may be saying, and I might be wrong, is that MLWM does play "like a game" as opposed to a lot of other RPGs which do not while seeking story. That is, I think he might say that Trollbabe, for instance might not be a game, having lost that game quality in seeking to make stories. If his point can be translated as "Trollbabe is doesn't support gamism" then I'd think that even Ron would agree.

I think he might be saying something akin to, "MLWM supports both gamism and story at the same time." Where story isn't even narrativism, but the post-hoc product that Ron talks about simulationism and gamism producing when the term story is bandied about with those games. Hence why it's Story Now, and no longer just Story.

I have to admit that I find MLWM sorta Gamist myself. I'm always trying to beat everyone else to kill the master. Or, failing being able to do that, ensuring a certain sort of end that seems to fit the character as a secondary objective.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Does anyone know where we can twig Greg? Again, if he could expand on these ideas, it might help. Does anyone know of an article by him that might explain it better? That would help a lot.

Christopher Kubasik wrote: It is also why Greg can confidently, and narrowly, state that recounted tales from an RPG session are going to be dull. Well. A lot of the time, yes. When making a story wasn't the focus. But "Moose In the City" and other examples suggest that making Story Now leads to fine stories to recount afterword. Because everyone is on their game to make a story. And voila! A story worth retelling.

Hi John,

You wrote:

"but I do agree that role-playing is fundamentally different from any storytelling, author->audience forms -- including movies, plays, and novels. Role-playing is not just a different medium or genre for storytelling, because it breaks the author->audience structure."

Cool. I agree with that, too.

But my points in my post had nothing to do with that. In fact, I tried to pull the rug out from under this kind of thinking. (And apparently failed.)

My point is that that when people compare books and movies to RPGs they ALWAYS think of it at the point of deliver to the audience. Which, as you point out, has nothing to do with the RPG experience.

But I would say that the idea of the creation of a story, with the players being in the same situation of a writer organizing his material and making choices is a fine anology. I'm trying to get people away from the concern about a seperate audience. When a writer writes, he is the first audience and responds, and makes judgements about what's going happen later in the tale, as he sees fit because of how he's reacted so far.

Yes, it's not a 1:1 translation. But neither is it alien to the process of actually creating something.

What do you think? Can we get past this idea that books and screenplays arrive Athena like from writer's head and that there's an actual process to story-making? And that RPGs can provide, in their own way, such a process?

Finally, there is "the story, and the telling of the story. I would say that the Moose in the City play produced a good story that hasn't yet been told well to anyone who wasn't there.

Translating across media is a tricky thing, but it's common. (Again, as I mentioned in my first post.) Some stories are simply not going to make good stories with almost anything you do with them. Moose in the City is a good story that has yet to be translated out of the RPG creation experience. (Whether in needs to be is another issue.)

People at film studios often by "pitches" -- verbal tellings of a tale that haven't been turned into a screenplay yet. They sometimes pay a high sum for that "story" -- a good story -- that in execution as a screenplay, turns out rather flat. We must remember that few of the actual play posts have anything to do with executing a story well. But that doesn't mean that there aren't stories "pitched" here that couldn't be crafted (playfully, with enjoyment of skill) into solid presentions as movies, novels, epic poems or comic books.

There would be several drafts, most like, of such efforts, with people trying things out on the fly. Just like a Narrativist RPG.

Christopher

Hi Mike,

Oh, I agree. I think he sees the parameters of MLWM comfortable enough for him to call it a game.

I guess I'm at a point of saying, "Okay, fuck it. Sorcerer isn't a game. Fine. Can we play now?"

Christopher

I think Mr. Costikyan (in this slide show, and in general - he's an old-time fave game designer of mine from back in the SPI days, so I've read his stuff over the years) is all over the same ground as GNS, and either disagrees with some underlying principles or hasn't yet grasped just exactly how GNS works.

I'll look at his last three slides - A "Storytelling Medium?", Story and Play are Fundamental, and Play comes First, and talk about 'em in GNS-by-my-understanding terms. I would interpret "Play" in his useage as being equivalent to Exploration. So he run's right into the common GNS-confusion that since all gameplay begins with Exploration, "pure" gameplay is therefore all about that (Sim in GNS, Play in his useage). But the real question (for GNS and RPGs, that is; it may be useless for Mr. Costikyan's electronic gameplay concerns, or not - I just don't know) is what do we do with that Play? When we "explore the functioning of the world system," what is the observable point of doing so? It certainly involves "modes of thought and ways of attacking problems", "a sense of satisfaction at mastery", and can be told as a story. But which of these is the real point of participating in the activity? That is, in a specific instance of the activity.

That's what GNS looks at, and what this slide show doesn't. He's broken the activity down to the important elements of Nar, Sim, Game and Exploration, but hasn't organized them the way GNS does. All are present in all play - a Nar player must "explore the functioning of the world system" via "modes of thought and ways of attacking problems", and can certainly have "a sense of satisfaction at mastery." But if it's Nar play, the point to it all will be learning about the nature of human beings via the mechanism of Story. That mechanism is also there (in varying degrees and varying levels of importance) in Game and Sim play, but is not the point. If the point is mastery, that seems a good equivalent to Gamism to me. His "modes of thought and ways of attacking problems" and "explore the functioning of the world system" seem like pretty good Sim descriptions to me (better than the "celebrate the source material" that seems to be common nowadays, in fact).

So - any of those could be "ultimately [...] what a player takes away from a game." Or more properly, a player will always take 'em ALL away from the game, and the question is which one is "ultimately" the point in the case at hand. Can "good gameplay" enhance the Story? Yup. Are there compromises involved? Yup. Mr. Costikyan (I suspect he'd say "call me Greg", but . . .) has got a lot of the important stuff down pat. All that's missing is the organizational structure - which I'm certain makes sense for RPGs, but maybe isn't exactly right for electronic play.

So if the slide presentation is NOT about directly interpersonal RPG play, the organizational gap with GNS might not even be a problem. But if it is . . . I'm with Christopher that Mr. Costikyan seems to be missing something about Nar play, and maybe Game/Sim as well.

Gordon

This form of computer-game-focused game criticism, complete with its intractable terminology problems and long tradition of comparing apple cheeks with the color orange, is one of the two worlds other than tabletop RPGs I came out of (the other being LARPs). With the exception of the "Experimental RPGs" slide, the slideshow (along with the related article cited in later links) is a boilerplate overview of a perpetual computer game design topic. Keep that in mind when evaluating Greg's treatment of MLWM: the context here isn't some new thesis or an overview of the newest thinking. It's rather more like Bill Gates presenting an article on "How PCs Work," updated to include newly developed or currently popular hardware. In other words, MLWM is being fit, rightly or wrongly, into an already well-developed conceptural framework (the gameplay/story-quality "continuum") that hasn't changed much in many years. That's why, despite the acknowledgement that MLWM refutes certain notions, the overall conclusions of the more recent slide show haven't changed from those of the 2000 article.

I find myself completely unequal to the task of sorting out the multifaceted muddle that is "the interactive storytelling problem" as understood in computer game design circles. But I'll try to make a start here. The central question is something like this:

Is it possible to construct, out of something other than human brains, a system capable of meaningfully incorporating decisions made by a human participant into an evolving sequence of events such that the outcome is guaranteed to be (or at least is very likely to be) a quality story?

Since at least some humans have the capability described, the task is assumed to be possible given an AI that mimics human mental cabilitites. Also, simple branching text fills the requirements except that either the decisions the player/audience can make are severely limited in number and/or in scope, or the number of segments required is impractically (that is, astronomically) large. So attention focuses on how to shrink the problem from either of those two brute-force extremes, such as by creating libraries of "paragraphs" or other story pieces along with rules for concatenating them (Erasamatron as Crawford describes it, Dramaton [King of Chicago], Tales of the Arabian Nights, and my own in-progress nestable substories approach); by incorporating setting-specific rules and knowledge just sufficient for the task using existing AI technology (Facade, Oz/Zoesis, and the "soap opera plot generator" that every second-year computer science student thinks he can write, but can't); or by somehow grafting "narrative sensibility" or the ability to "guide" a plot onto a cause-and-effect simulator (Erasmatron as it actually is, and many Media Lab installation projects).

The latter approach is analogous to typical Illusionism, and also to no-myth play, in tabletop role playing.

A lot of discussion of the interactive storytelling problem bogs down in two areas: attempts to prove the stated task impossible on general principles (usually, some taken-for-granted ineffable or perfect quality of stories that would necessarily be instantly destroyed by allowing any input whatsoever from any source besides the author) along with attempts to refute such proofs; and voicing doubts about whether such systems would actually be desirable to users (often starting by assuming that "improving" stories with interactivity must be the goal of the exercise, and since there's little evidence that stories need improving, there's no need for interactive stories; this overlooks that the desire for interactive stories in computer games actually arises, most often, from a desire to improve the framing of game play).

Putting human brains into the system changes the whole nature of the "problem." From the "interactive storytelling problem" point of view, MLWM is reasonably comparable to a romance writer's style guide, or to using Dramatica. That is, they all provide a structure that gives the human author(s) specific constraints or goals on what should happen next, while requiring the human(s) to do the hard work of instantiating events that fit the described constraints and/or achieve the goal(s). Even if we disregard, or somehow automate, the creative aesthetics involved, instantiating still requires the author to apply common sense rules of how things work. This is second nature for tabletop role players (though not without the potential for disagreement), but beyond the capabilities of computer programs because general rules ("pets can run away") keep breaking down. (Pet fish...)

It may be hard to fathom, but a system like MLWM ends up looking like a kind of cheat from the interactive-storytelling-problem point of view. Or perhaps like a solution to some entirely different problem. It's as if you set out to invent an automatic universal meal-cooking machine, and ended up "inventing" a chef in a kitchen.

But, taking that thought too far leads to "system doesn't matter." More specifically, the fallacy is, "I know how role players do it, but I'm trying to do it with a solo system or computer program." Chances are the person saying that doesn't know how role players do it. "Humans do the authoring" isn't an instant automatic solution to the problem of how to make interactive creation of quality stories in role playing (that is, Narrativism) work. It's the beginning of a solution, a fact that makes the goal achievable, but the goal is far from always achieved. Because system does matter.

That means functional Narrativist principles and example systems might be useful to those working on the "interactive storytelling problem" as applied to computer games. Two areas in particular come to mind: the benefits of giving the player more credibility (particularly with regard to "statements" that a player can make through play actions alone, which a game program is more likely to be able to parse), and paying more attention to the kinds of decisions the player is called upon to make.

Yes, the Lumpley Principle does get in the way here, because it appears to vest all credibility in a solo computer RPG with the player, leaving nothing for the program to do. This could either be an indication that despite superficial similarities, tabletop role playing is not usefully related to any solo computer games; or it could be a shortcoming in the LP as currently stated. I believe the latter, but that's another topic.

- Walt

Thanks Walt,

Given that Costikyan is a tabletop RPG author (amongst other things), why do you claim that this comes from the narrow CRPG perspective? I mean, the presentation does deal with the subject, but not exclusively. Why are you so sure that his argument comes from this perspective? Just your experience with the dialog?

Gordon, Chris, again, what I'm think that he's saying is possibly, effectively, that narrativism is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That is, in getting to the better story you lose the game. The presentation is all about getting beyond this dichotomy. That is, either he's saying that one can bridge the nar-game gap and play a fully hybrid RPG, or he's saying that one can play gamism, and still get good story as a result - if not story now.

It seems to me that he's either promoting gamism, or gam/nar hybrid. Saying that narrativism is abandoning the game end without having to do so (just as games without story are unneccessary). Does that make sense with your reading of him? Do you agree or disagree?

Oh, and I agree with John, that Story Now does not require good output stories to be created. The process is so personal that any story that happens to have broad appeal will be accidental. Could happen, but it just isn't a goal of the form. The story only has to appeal to the people playing, and only as they create it. Which can be a far cry from what they'd accept from an external author. That is, I think that the same story for the same person might be "good" for them if they create it, and not good enough if they do not. It's like cooking the fish you caught - they always taste the best. But even more personal, because some of you is caught up in the creation.

Mike

Mike,

The sense that I get is that he's not exactly in-synch with GNS, and so it's actually really hard to put what he IS saying into those terms. By not understanding/accepting the divisions and prioritization inherent in GNS, he does seem to be saying "If you go all story, you lose the game - best you can do is compromise." When in fact GNS would say "Both can - in fact [I'd say, anyway], must be present. The question is, where's your priority? And then, how do you handle the stuff that might be important (Game, say) but is NOT your priority?"

Gordon

I agree, Gordon, but that's my point. I agree that he probably doesn't know about GNS or give a hoot about it.

Are you saying that makes him wrong automatically? That is, can't his idea be correct without him knowing about GNS? In fact, can't his idea be correct even if it cannot co-exist with GNS? That is, are you saying that he's wrong because GNS is right?

Mike

Mike,

Hmm. I'm saying that, for his world of Computer games, I've got no clue. If GNS applies there at all, I suspect it doesn't apply in the way he SEEMS to be using it, but his conclusions may be useful there anyway.

But if we're trying to apply what he's got there back to RPGs via GNS/Big Model - I don't think it works. We have to re-write what he's got so much that it probably ain't his stuff anymore. Parts of it are wrong, parts of it are right , and I like the way he phrases some of it - but it doesn't look like it holds together in THIS context. Maybe it does in the computer stuff.

Gordon

Mike Holmes wrote: I agree, Gordon, but that's my point. I agree that he probably doesn't know about GNS or give a hoot about it.

Are you saying that makes him wrong automatically? That is, can't his idea be correct without him knowing about GNS? In fact, can't his idea be correct even if it cannot co-exist with GNS? That is, are you saying that he's wrong because GNS is right?

Greg Costikyan wrote: The point is that with a large population, you can slice and dice the data just about any way you want, particularly if your objective is to invent a taxonomy that conforms with your own pre-existing notions (or simply to invent a novel and different one). And while it's undoubtedly true that tastes differ, and different games (and game styles) appeal to different tastes, beyond a certain point it's hard to slot people permanently into particular categories, particularly since a player's motivation may differ a great deal, depending on mood.

So while the effort has some merit, it's also important not to read too much into any set of taxonomies; a different set may well be more useful or important, depending on what you're trying to achieve. Beyond a certain point, your reaction to a new taxonomy has to be more like "Oh, that's interesting" than like "ohmigod! now I understand!."

Gordon, again, like my question to Walt, why is his argument local to CRPGs? He addresses the other forms from what I can tell, and he's designed tabletop RPGs like Paranoia. So I'm not seeing this computer bias that's making his arguments irellevant. I think he is talking about "interpersonal play" amongst all of the other possible forms. Games here including just about anything that fits the title.

As John points out, Greg's concepts here are likely not meant to be thought of in terms of our taxonomy. But that doesn't mean that they aren't very relevant to RPGs. The only question is how, and whether or not he's correct.

In any case, when he says "game" and you say that's just exploration, I think your mapping is all wrong. If there is a mapping, I'd say that when he says "game" the best approximation that we could put on it in our dialectic is "gamism." Or rather those same elements in a game that promote gamism and make the game feel like, well, a game.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Oh, and I agree with John, that Story Now does not require good output stories to be created. The process is so personal that any story that happens to have broad appeal will be accidental. Could happen, but it just isn't a goal of the form. The story only has to appeal to the people playing, and only as they create it. Which can be a far cry from what they'd accept from an external author. That is, I think that the same story for the same person might be "good" for them if they create it, and not good enough if they do not. It's like cooking the fish you caught - they always taste the best. But even more personal, because some of you is caught up in the creation.

To explain a bit... The presentation was somewhat hastily cobbled together on the basis, originally, of a Game Developer magazine article I wrote years ago (at www.costik.com/gamnstry.html--which I tried to modify to incorporate some of the game styles that have evolved (or that I've encountered) since then.

As a result, the original thesis of the article (smooth variation between Cortazar and the tabletop RPG) now seems not entirely so neat, since we go beyond tabletop to LARPs, narrativist games, etc., and there the original thesis starts to break down.

So I think most of what people are detecting here is a bit of incoherence, to which I'll agree; my thinking on the subject is somewhat in transition, although I do think that the nature of theater (and in particular improv), and how it interrelates to more narrativist games is important. And I'm sure I'll revisit the subject, at some future time, hopefully with a more coherent framework for doing so.

I should also note that the "story-telling hostility" some seem to have detected in my presentation is real, in a sense, but also not, in another sense. Whenever I meet someone who comes from outside the industry and wants to develop a computer game, he or she almost invariably starts by talking about character, story, or world-background--which makes me tear my hair out. All of that crap can be retrofitted--first, tell me what the player does, what "the verbs" are, to use Crawford's terminology (with whom I am indeed still in touch... Though I think he's wrong on a lot of things, and vice versa.) Since I was writing for Game Developer, what I was trying to get across was that story is -not- essential to games--but also to avoid the trap of saying "games have nothing to do with story," which is patently false, at least for many game styles. Instead, I wanted to make the point that there are tradeoffs involved. My audience, in other words, was people like Chris, Hal Barwood, and Mark Barrett--all of whom are very articulate on the nature of story in digital games, but who, I often feel, give short shrift to non-narrative games (which, not incidentally, have considerable virtues, like, say, replayability). If I'd been writing for the audience here, I'm sure the tack would have been somewhat different.

I think there are two ways you can look at "story" (and I'm going to start with standard lit and then try to apply it to RPGs).

1. Structure.
2. Meaning.

In the first case, one can analyze the structure of a story and make some sort of commentary on the craft of the author.

In the second, one can make a judgment as to the impact of the piece on a personal basis (and it's usually extrapolated to some degree to everyone: "Amercian Beauty has a powerful message.")

Structure, for an RPG, is going to be tricky--even for something like Sorcerer. In real time, real authors change their minds frequently (see the editing and re-write phase of writing). There are very few people who would claim that not-re-writing or a story without editing will be as strong as one that has been worked on.

As such, RPG's are, actually more linear than finished static fiction. The RPG action (usually) continues on no matter what. The author of a book can go back and loop around and work on things until he or she is satisfied with what happens and how it happens.

Meaning, OTOH, can (and certainly does) exist across all art. In a play there is no "going back" (yes, the script has been crafted--but the performance is always live). And yet it can move us as well as a movie (which involves multiple takes and lots of editing).

Now: I think there clearly are ways to get good, tight structures out of games from a GM perspective (for example, the GM's control of pacing) but you will never (in most games, anyway) achieve the refining step that traditional fiction has.

And, indeed, going back and "doing it over" would detract from the meaning element for most of us, I think.

By the standard of Structure, more structure at a certain point (the refining step) will mean less meaning (IMO, mostly, anyway).

But if you judge based only on meaning as your measure of 'story' then, no, you can max that out without any difficulty.

-Marco

Mike (and all),

My point regarding "local to CRPGs" was just that nothing in my earlier, long post was meant to challenge that EXACTLY what was in the slide presentation might be useful there. I just wasn't finding it applicable to RPGs in GNS/Big Model terms.

I think you're mistaking my claim about the use of "Play" to be a claim about the use of "game" - I claim that his "But play is fundamental to what it means to be a mammal/We play to explore the functioning of the world-system" [emphasis added] and " [...] play comes first" could be a restatement of Exploration. Taking us all the way back to Sim as prioritized Exploration and all the confusions that misunderstanding that can lead to.

Because he's right, play does come first (Exploration is the foundation, Sim prioritizes it, but Nar/Game also need it, etc. etc.). I also think he's bang-on (thanks for posting, Mr. Costikyan!) with this:

[...] story is -not- essential to games--but also to avoid the trap of saying "games have nothing to do with story," which is patently false, at least for many game styles

Well, Gordon, I'd say that we're sorta spinning at this point. I think we understand each other, but I don't know that we've gotten anywhere.

Thanks, Greg, for posting. Sorry about the extra "c" in your name; got no idea where that comes from. :-)

But, am I right, generally? Is the message that one should shoot for both story and game quality? Or just that you can't avoid it?

Mike

Greg,

I don't know if you'll be back to read this, but I wanted to say thanks and breaking out your points. I understand exactly what you're talking about now.

I spent a few months at a video game company a little over a year ago. Strangely, I, the outsider and the writer, was the one surprised that the very thick design document for the game was filled character, story and world background. Because of my experience here at The Forge, I was the one who was really concerned about "what the player does, what ithe verbsi are". And fought like hell to get us to focus on that.

I think I was seen as uppity.

Anyway, what threw me off about your presentation were the almost haphazard references to Sorcerer, MLWM, and other Table Top RPGs. I truly believe they offer a range of play options and design strategies that are a world apart from the concerns of CRPGs. Though, as you point out rightly, CRPGs can have their fair share what are thought of as story elements.

Christopher

John Kim wrote:

Mike Holmes wrote: Oh, and I agree with John, that Story Now does not require good output stories to be created. The process is so personal that any story that happens to have broad appeal will be accidental. Could happen, but it just isn't a goal of the form. The story only has to appeal to the people playing, and only as they create it. Which can be a far cry from what they'd accept from an external author. That is, I think that the same story for the same person might be "good" for them if they create it, and not good enough if they do not. It's like cooking the fish you caught - they always taste the best. But even more personal, because some of you is caught up in the creation.

Exactly. In Greg's terminology (which I think matches many people's usage), it's not the story which they're enjoying. Now, we use that in the term "Story Now" -- but it is arguably a deceptive label. There is another quality which is the core: perhaps the creative mode of thought, or perhaps the sense of satisfaction at having created the story (which is different than enjoying the story itself). I think that's what Greg is trying to get at.

I think you're right, Chris, in that, basically, the recounts of RPG play that people give are, as Ron has put it, "breathless and then" tellings. They're basically done pretty poorly. If, in fact, a person did take the time to craft it into a work of literature, then I think that the stories created could resonate with others.

It's just that this has nothing to do with the act of playing an RPG. That is, there is no intent in a RPG to create the story in any way other than it appeals to the group making it (in part because they are making it). I've sometimes said that RPGs are a "degenerate" art form, but I now take that back. I think that they merely are improvisational, and intended to produce something that does not resemble other forms of art.

Right now I'm kicking around the idea that Nar-made stories are like "little myths" for the very small tribe of players at the table.

Hi Mike,

You wrote, "It's just that this has nothing to do with the act of playing an RPG. That is, there is no intent in a RPG to create the story in any way other than it appeals to the group making it (in part because they are making it). I've sometimes said that RPGs are a "degenerate" art form, but I now take that back. I think that they merely are improvisational, and intended to produce something that does not resemble other forms of art."

Perhaps. But as I've suggested twice already (though nobody seems particularly interested in the notion and I'll stop after this third time), perhaps the emphasis on and "end product" is the wrong emphasis.

If we forget about books or finished movies, and instead look at the act of creating... We see that every writer goes through a process that shares similiarities than a Nar group does:

Spinning things around on the fly, building on what's come already (based off elements that were happily frontloaded (such as Kickers), testing what's a pleasing response to oneself in terms of the story's forward motion or ideas.

Sure, in a novel or a screenplay the writer will go back and pave over a draft... But that doens't mean the draft on the way to the final draft wasn't a story. It was worth writing out. It was fun, challenging part of the process. Generated ideas and shape needed for the next draft.

I'm still confounded why people, when saying Nar isn't like finished products like books are plays, are even insisting on comparing them to books or finished plays. It's nothing like books or finished plays.

It very much like, though, the process one goes through to getting to a finished book or play. Right? Is this such a transgressive idea? Am I accidently posting in invisible letters? Could someone please respond to this?

In my view the idea of whether or not Nar play is a "degenerate" art form is nonsensicle. It's like saying the fourth draft of the screenplay I wrote is part of a degenerative tradition. It isn't. It's an act of creation that's in process. It's a good part of the process, playful, full skill, but not what I'd show to the world as is.

Christopher

Hello,

For the record, all of Christopher's posts in this thread are 100% in accord with my position on this topic. I've felt no need to post because of his contributions, and I also think that other folks are being discourteous in failing at least to indicate whether they understand what he is saying.

Best,
Ron

Christopher Kubasik wrote:
Spinning things around on the fly, building on what's come already (based off elements that were happily frontloaded (such as Kickers), testing what's a pleasing response to oneself in terms of the story's forward motion or ideas.

Hi James,

Bingo. And I've only put this together the last few weeks. I'm sort of kicking myself about it now.

Final point that I should have made in the previous post:

Writing a "draft" often doesn't feel like writing a draft. If you're on your game, it feels like "This is is it, here we go, this is the one!"

Only afterward do you realize, "Nope."

And do it again.

In another anology for this purpose: a portrait painting teacher of mine said to my class one night, "It is time for you all to decide, before you put down your first brushstroke, that you are going to make a kick ass painting."

Not that we would. Not by far. But he was getting us to understand there's a big difference between showing up to "learn" and showing up to "paint" and it was time for us to start painting.

I bring this up to clarify that in no way am I suggesting Nar play can be played as a lazy version of storytelling because it's a "draft" of a story.

To play Nar is to play a full court press. You know this one is it. You put everything into it. You show up to "story". "Story" as a verb -- it's wrong, I know, work with me. Like "a painting" (noun) and "painting" (verb).

You commit fully -- to yourself, to your fellow players -- bringing to bear whatever is most important and alive to you, what matters most, what is most receptive and responsive to the others you're working with.

Whether you make a kick ass story or not is not the point. The point is, for it to work, you and your fellow players are playfully playing as if this just gonna be great by the time its done: making choices, sifting through options, recalling patterns and motifs, creating new high and low points, forcing the characters into choices (that spark creative actions on the part of the players) and so on.

Draft, in short, is not a "warm up." And what I said about Nar play being a draft in the process of perhaps (but perhaps not) creating what could be a "finished" telling of a story should not be taken to mean that Nar play isn't really committing to the creation of a story. It's all about that committment. That's the point. Whether it pans out of not is the risk you take with the commencement of any creative effort.

Christopher

Christopher Kubasik wrote: And what I said about Nar play being a draft in the process of perhaps (but perhaps not) creating what could be a "finished" telling of a story should not be taken to mean that Nar play isn't really committing to the creation of a story. It's all about that committment. That's the point. Whether it pans out of not is the risk you take with the commencement of any creative effort.

Christopher Kubasik wrote: As far as I'm concerned, RPG Narratvism is simply one more lit genre, with its own needs and process of creation. Yeah, making an RPG Story Now is not like making a novel. But making a novel's not like making an epic poem. So?

"When you write a story, you're telling yourself the story" he said. "When you rewrite, your main job is taking out all the things that are not the story.

Gould said something else that was interesting on the day I turned in my first two pieces: write with the door closed, rewrite with the door open. Your stuff starts out being just for you, in other words, but then it goes out. Once you know what the story is and get it right -- as right as you can, anyway -- it belongs to anyone who wants to read it.

Christopher Kubasik wrote: But when he (Greg) writes, "To think of games as 'a storytelling medium' leads to futile attempts to straightjacket games, to make them more effective stories at the expense of gameplay," he's only revealing a narrow-thinking on what the medium can offer.

Watch: "To think of Story Now as 'a gaming medium' leads to futile attempts to straightjacket Story Now, to make them more effective games at the expense of Story."

Christopher (and all),

I certainly agree that the creation of a novel (or etc.) is a better place to look for Nar-parallels than the "end product." I think the end product is seductive to talk about because there is another important aspect of Nar play that isn't about the creation, but rather about the (and I'm making up terminology here) effects of the end product. When Nar players get together to "do story," they are not just doing story-creation, they are also doing story . . . appreciation?

I've both heard about and experienced the "loneliness" of story creation, and how wonderful it is for a writer to learn that his or her work actually communicated to someone - to know that a connection was made with a reader. In Nar play, that happens (or fails to happen) right alongside the process of creation. We kinda skip over the end-product and go right to the effect of the end product. Maybe calling specific attention to that as well as the creation aspect is helpful? In the context of CRPGs, that effect of the end product portion is easier (it seems to me) to acheive than the creation portion, though still no easy task.

Gordon

It took a while for this to percolate.

As I mentioned elsewhere, I learned as much about the process of wrting screenplays from learning to paint as I did from discussions about screenwriting. That shouldn't make any sense if one looks at the two forms one way (in a kind of academic one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-other distinction making way), but makes perfect sense if one is trying to master the creative business of making things. In that case, the applicable metaphores and cross-pollination of the understanding of process and new perspectives on technique and craft come fucking flying out at you.

People in RPGland seem to me to be particularly twitchy about comparing different forms of creativity with others, using big broad distinctions so we remember that RPGs are "special" -- "They're not movies!" "They're not books!"

Okay. But movie acting isn't stage acting. But I can still learn to be a better screen actor by studying on the stage. (Oddly, the reverse is not particularly true.)

"But books and movies have finished products!" Well, yes -- no. Epic poems originally did not. The process of rehearsing a play is all about the script -- and a gazillion other things that actually make a play a play and are all the stuff people bring to the production independent of the script -- gestures and actions which wed the text to flesh and blood and make a production distinctly more than the text at hand. It makes it a play -- which, aside from the concerns Harold Blood and David Mamet -- is exactly how it should be.

When I'm testing out my screenplay stories, I have what I call the 'party pitch'. At a party or gallery opening or anywhere I find someone who might be interested, I tell my movie's story in five minutes are less. When I feel my tongue getting caught up in my mouth I know I'm discussing a plot point that either needs to be hammered out or dropped -- because as an intuitive storyteller, I'm not buying it. And when the person listening is leaning in, I know the story is working, and when they're leaning back -- I know my story is off track and I've accidently made a matter of minutia to the story far too important for the broad plot. Yes, I'm going to have a "product" eventually -- but part of my process is intensely oral. Just like a solid RPG session where people are responding with cues to where the interest is and so on.

Some people say, (as Gordan did), that writers are a lonely lot... and RPG is social. Well, writer's are a lonely lot now. Before the novel and the printing press, stories tellers told their stories socially. Playwrites were not sitting in garrets slipping manuscripts out under the door for the actors to go have a good time. Moliere wrote -- and was a stage manager and director. Shakespeare (depending on who's biography you believe), acted alongside the people he wrote for. The Master Painters of centuries past had whole schools of apprentices helping them out on their masterpices.

Creativity used to be a very communal practice. The Enlightenment (in my view) turned all creativity into an odd burden on the individual. The 'genius' of the creator had to reveal the true meaning of his soul instead of doing what artists had done in the past -- tell a tale that engaged the audience or make a painting that held the viewers gaze. (No easy task mind you -- and success depend on bringing to bear thematic elements and more that made the work "mean" something to people). 'Writer's Block' is a relatively new concept apparently. I read an article discussing how it realy didn't come about until.... The Enlightenment.

When I refer to works above, and in other threads point that there's no shame of thinking of RPGs sessions that want to be about the process of making stories, I'm not talking about the finished products. I'm talking about the action and process and techniques and craft that any group should happily borrow and steal if if jazzes them up.

Yes, movies are their own form. And it's a good thing they stopped being filmed version of stage craft. But to deny that theater is something films stole from would be weird.

"But RPGs have dice! They're a game!" people say.

Well, as I've said before, I'm not concerned about the term game anymore -- not when it comes to Narrativist play. I am, however, very delighted by the word, "play". Writing (for me) is a form a play. Tiring and frustrating on occassion, but play nonetheless. Shooting a movie, rehearsing a play, painting a still life are all forms of play. And so are sports -- for example, and we can clearly call sports a game.

And I borrow from sports all the time. When I meet a would-be screenwriter who's written his painful, personal story about how the world wronged him (and there are a lot of these!), I always suggest its time to put the fact aside and figure out what the protagonist wants. So that the world that's out to crush him isn't the only thing that's active.

Then I bring in sports anologies: boxing. Opposing sides moving toward one another, searching for weakness in the opponent, trying to win. Football -- two teams racing against a clock as the events of the game cause physical and psychological tear. Who will stay focused? We watch their efforts move the ball up and down the field. Who's going to get it to the goal first.

Same with Macbeth. Same with Aliens. Is it all Macbeth or Aliens is? No. But we can learn from it. (Just as sport franchise make a "story" for their teams and borrow the other way!)

The "game" thing... sorry... but these days I say bah! Different activities will have their own proportions of game and story. But if you want to play in the realm of narrative process I say fucking go to town. No apologies.

But this means to stop focusing on end product and start looking at how people (writers, directors, actors, painters) actually work.

Look. I'm weird. I've acted professionally. I've written several novels. Write screenplays. I make no claim for the quality of the work. But I damned well slogged through the work. When I see Story Now as a clear cousin to these activities, it's because I see the parallel in process. Cause, honestly, that's what you have to learn to do. The day something is done is the rare day. Most of it is process. RPG sessions, to me, are process.

Now John brought up a couple of good points... But I see them in a completely different light.

When King says write the first draft with the door closed, for yourself -- I see that as clearly being group's shared "little myth" idea I kicked out earlier. The narrated events are ready for the world yet. It's what the group came up with for themselves. To present it to the world, one would have to work on it further -- the other drafts King refers to where you strip out anything but the story.

I also see the first draft King referse to differently than John. I don't assume that King writes 9,500,000,000 word manuscript that's full of anything in his mind during the writing process and then winnows that down to "'Salem's Lot." I'm assuming he's telling the tale, with lots of curley cues and bits and pieces that make a lot of sense at the time -- becuase they make sense to him. And then he goes back and hacks out the bits that simply -- in retrospect -- don't fit into what he's decided is the story. (Another author or editor, after getting the same first draft to finish, might find a different story.)

That's why I don't see scene framing as contrary to the idea of "draft". Only King could tell us if he simply rambles five hours a day while tyiping, and then edits it into a story after the fact. But my guess is he's probably picking points to start scenes, putting his characters in situations, writing the scenese as best he can -- and then getting onto the next one... He'll tie up a lot of the work later.

Also, in a Story Now session thing that are "not story" might be discussions about a moral issue and so forth. There's a whole lot of stuff going on at the table that isn't the story. And a lot of that would have to be cut (or translated into an active scene) to hand this off to the world as a story.

"On Writing" is a good book, by the way. One of the things he says is along the lines that he doesn't "write" the story, so much as "find it" like an "artifact" that's out there, waiting to be found, he has to clean up and present to the world. Not a bad attitude for Story Now players. When they sit down to play their like a group of writers who've front loaded details of character and situation -- and are about to find the story that's already there, waiting for them to reveal it.

But these are my perespectives on King's work from my experience.

I don't think the bugaboo about the difference between RPGs and other forms is that big a deal once you move from concerns of presenting finished work to that of creative process. I think different creative forms have plenty to teach each other about process.

I think dice are simply a kind of "creative rail" that the story follows -- the same way the text in a play is a "creative rail" that an actor's peformance follows. (A good actor wil always surprise you -- but follow the dialogue... the same way dice in Story Now force players to write with surprise while following the results of the dice. A 1:1 analogy? No. But I hope by now I've made the point that's not my point.)

If people don't care about all this stuff, that's fine, too. But to build these walls between different forms and say they're impermeable makes a little sense as not learning what makes each form distinctive and unique.

Christopher

Is pointing out differences in form the same as saying that they have no relation at all?

I think the easiest thing to say about comparisons between RPGs and other forms is that, yes you can learn things about one from another form, but that doesn't make them identical by any means.

Basically, Chris, you're not saying that they're identical, and we're not saying that they're totally unrelated. I think we all agree that it's somewhere in between. Basically we have to look at the individual elements and consider which apply and which do not. And realize that the analysis is going to be somewhat subjective.

Mike

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

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

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

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

Christopher Kubasik wrote: 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?

Christopher Kubasik wrote: 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."

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.")