|
Post by jazzisblues on Oct 13, 2015 11:57:45 GMT -8
I can only reiterate my premise that we are NOT writing a story when we sit down to do game prep. We are in fact creating a GAME for people to play. If what a gm wants to do is create a story they need to pour themselves a scotch and sit down and write their bloody novel and quit bothering the players with their dreck. JiB Now that's just not true. Not as you put it. Again, as I've said a few times, it's all about how married you are to it. I want, very much, to tell the story about a group of strangers who learn that they have a deep, mystical connection, through the failed quest of their ancestors. About how they learn that the universe wants them to fulfill their bloodlines destiny and kill a dark god. Now, if that story involves the players saying, "Fuck the universe and this saviour crap. We're opening a bar!" that's fine. That's the way the story unfolds. Here's the thing, a story has a proscribed ending, a game does not. We might have an ending that we expect, but it may or may not have anything to do with what actually happens. When we create a game we are not writing a story. A story is what grows out of the game play. JiB
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Oct 13, 2015 13:45:17 GMT -8
Now that's just not true. Not as you put it. Again, as I've said a few times, it's all about how married you are to it. I want, very much, to tell the story about a group of strangers who learn that they have a deep, mystical connection, through the failed quest of their ancestors. About how they learn that the universe wants them to fulfill their bloodlines destiny and kill a dark god. Now, if that story involves the players saying, "Fuck the universe and this saviour crap. We're opening a bar!" that's fine. That's the way the story unfolds. Here's the thing, a story has a proscribed ending, a game does not. We might have an ending that we expect, but it may or may not have anything to do with what actually happens. When we create a game we are not writing a story. A story is what grows out of the game play. JiB A story has a proscribed ending ONCE IT'S FINISHED. Not necessarily as it's being crafted. That doesn't mean that you aren't trying to tell a story while you're prepping, just that you shouldn't be trying to tell the WHOLE story. Building the framework is still part of telling the story.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Oct 13, 2015 14:37:38 GMT -8
Here's the thing, a story has a proscribed ending, a game does not. We might have an ending that we expect, but it may or may not have anything to do with what actually happens. When we create a game we are not writing a story. A story is what grows out of the game play. JiB A story has a proscribed ending ONCE IT'S FINISHED. Not necessarily as it's being crafted. That doesn't mean that you aren't trying to tell a story while you're prepping, just that you shouldn't be trying to tell the WHOLE story. Building the framework is still part of telling the story. I think it's a mistake to think in terms of, "telling a story," when one is setting up a game because I maintain that we're creating a game not a story. I know where the story begins, but after that I have no idea. The fundamental difference is one of control. When creating a story, an author has absolute control over everything that happens. In a game the gm does not. To my mind, thinking in terms of creating a story is inherently dangerous for the gm. As always just my 2 krupplenicks worth, your mileage may of course vary. JiB
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Oct 13, 2015 14:47:16 GMT -8
I know where the story begins, but after that I have no idea. Sounds a lot like writing.... heh... hehe... HAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh, wait... You're actually serious? Trust me, you'd (apparently) be quite surprised just how wrong about that you are about that. ^.^ I'm just as surprised at the shenanigans my characters get into, and how their stories turn out when I'm writing as I am when I GM.
|
|
maxinstuff
Supporter
Posts: 1,939
Preferred Game Systems: DCC RPG, Shadowrun 5e, Savage Worlds, GURPS 4e, HERO 6e, Mongoose Traveller
Favorite Species of Monkey: Proboscis
|
Post by maxinstuff on Oct 13, 2015 15:01:22 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2015 15:10:26 GMT -8
I think it's a mistake to think in terms of, "telling a story," when one is setting up a game because I maintain that we're creating a game not a story. I know where the story begins, but after that I have no idea. The fundamental difference is one of control. When creating a story, an author has absolute control over everything that happens. In a game the gm does not. To my mind, thinking in terms of creating a story is inherently dangerous for the gm. I'm just finishing up season 10 right now, but did your position on this subject change within the last few years? Because it's something you've said repeatedly in the past, that we're all there to tell a story, and that decisions (for the GM, but also for players) should be influenced by what fits into the story.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Oct 13, 2015 15:43:27 GMT -8
He's talking about when you sit down to prep. Not when you're at the table.
I contend that you're still telling the story when you prep as well. That's your part of the contribution to the collaboration that is the RPG. You're setting up the framework, developing the NPCs.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Oct 14, 2015 6:07:44 GMT -8
Wellllll, JRR Tolkien didn't know how LOTR would develop, or even how it ended, when he started writing it . . . the basic framework was a few short lines in The Silmarillion about the end of the 3rd Age and the fact that hobbits had had a part in the ending of that cycle and bringing forth the 4th Age: The Age of Men. But there were no actual details. The final draft of LOTR was miles away from what JRRT had intended when he started it . . . it was grimmer and it's target audience was no longer the children who had read The Hobbit; rather it was for the adults who had read The Hobbit as children and then grown up through the catastrophic consequences of WW2. Now JRRT did say LOTR was NOT allegorical, in contrastb to CS Lewis' Narnia Chronicles BUT he did later clarify that it had 'applicability' ie: the events of the previous decade influenced the final direction of the story he had intend to write (the Epic Quest now encompassing the ramifications of a Continent at War vis-a-vis The War of Ring, which in itself is a separate tale relegated to the Appendices*) Aaron * I know Christopher Tolkien 'expanded' on these works but I have never considered those 'canon', rather I prefer the Disney approach . . . "apart form the core material all the rest are apocryphal legends: make of it what you will"
|
|
|
Post by savagedaddy on Dec 14, 2015 13:16:06 GMT -8
I can only reiterate my premise that we are NOT writing a story when we sit down to do game prep. We are in fact creating a GAME for people to play. If what a gm wants to do is create a story they need to pour themselves a scotch and sit down and write their bloody novel and quit bothering the players with their dreck. JiB This has come up more than once on the Savage Worlds GM Hangout. And I generally agree with the statement... as it pertains to railroading the players' actions and agency. That said, I don't think this is the issue here. For better or worse, this GM seems to me to have a very clear and precise 'vision' of his game world. From what I see posted in the original thread here, he is not a 'Closed Minded Grognard' because he has imposed very rigid restrictions on the players to "Reign in the Cheese". There is nothing wrong with Soaking wounds for NPCs, limiting Edges or Hindrances, and only allowing 'archetypes' in character creation. That is his prerogative as the Game Master, and supported by Savage Worlds Rules as written. I experienced similar situations in creating and running Dead End (my gritty zombie survival horror campaign). Players could not have more than one skill and attribute above a d8, could only take Background and Social Edges at character creation, and had to have an excellent character background reason for having Fighting or Shooting at all. This wasn't a case of me being a closed minded, adversarial Game Master hell-bent on telling a story. This was a ultra-gritty survival horror game focused on ORDINARY EVERYDAY PEOPLE thrust into the Zombie Apocalypse. And guess, what? It wasn't for everyone. I made it clear that this was a meat grinder of a campaign that made the Walking Dead look like Sesame Street, not a Bruce Willis zombie action movie. The players were told up front that they'd be dealing with thirst, hunger, exposure, sanity, and threats to survival from other NPCs trying to survive in a world gone mad. Just because the Game Master's setting doesn't match the player's prefered style doesn't make him a bad GM. It means that you may not be the right fit for the game he wants to run. Of course, that is assuming that he flows with the character's actions and doesn't railroad player decisions in the context of the game.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Dec 15, 2015 13:07:02 GMT -8
This has come up more than once on the Savage Worlds GM Hangout. And I generally agree with the statement... as it pertains to railroading the players' actions and agency. That said, I don't think this is the issue here. For better or worse, this GM seems to me to have a very clear and precise 'vision' of his game world. From what I see posted in the original thread here, he is not a 'Closed Minded Grognard' because he has imposed very rigid restrictions on the players to "Reign in the Cheese". There is nothing wrong with Soaking wounds for NPCs, limiting Edges or Hindrances, and only allowing 'archetypes' in character creation. That is his prerogative as the Game Master, and supported by Savage Worlds Rules as written. I experienced similar situations in creating and running Dead End (my gritty zombie survival horror campaign). Players could not have more than one skill and attribute above a d8, could only take Background and Social Edges at character creation, and had to have an excellent character background reason for having Fighting or Shooting at all. This wasn't a case of me being a closed minded, adversarial Game Master hell-bent on telling a story. This was a ultra-gritty survival horror game focused on ORDINARY EVERYDAY PEOPLE thrust into the Zombie Apocalypse. And guess, what? It wasn't for everyone. I made it clear that this was a meat grinder of a campaign that made the Walking Dead look like Sesame Street, not a Bruce Willis zombie action movie. The players were told up front that they'd be dealing with thirst, hunger, exposure, sanity, and threats to survival from other NPCs trying to survive in a world gone mad. Just because the Game Master's setting doesn't match the player's prefered style doesn't make him a bad GM. It means that you may not be the right fit for the game he wants to run. Of course, that is assuming that he flows with the character's actions and doesn't railroad player decisions in the context of the game. I do not intrinsically disagree, and I wildly agree that just because the way a particular gm runs games doesn't work for one player doesn't make them a bad gm. What I'm driving at is this, when I'm writing a story I have absolute control over the narrative. I control the action, I control the flow, I control the end. When I'm writing a game I have none of that. I have influence on them. I set the stage for them. I think that thinking in terms of story is (or can be) dangerous for a gm to get into. I've heard lots of gm's talking about leading the characters to their ending, but that's just the ending that I think is going to happen. I have to be open to the idea that this might go somewhere I haven't even conceived of yet, and that's ok. But if I try to flog my players towards the ending that I think is going to happen, or force them down the path that I think makes the story more compelling, then, in my opinion, I am being a bad gm. I've played in games that savagedaddy ran and he runs a more contained game than I do, but that's not a bad thing, lots of people do and they run spectacular games. We can do things differently and still have a good game. We can even think in terms of story and run a good game, I simply see a danger in going too far down that path. Cheers, JiB
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Dec 15, 2015 13:42:55 GMT -8
Two words. Collaborative Storytelling.
Even without absolute control, you're still telling a story.
|
|
|
Post by savagedaddy on Dec 15, 2015 16:25:47 GMT -8
I have to be open to the idea that this might go somewhere I haven't even conceived of yet, and that's ok. But if I try to flog my players towards the ending that I think is going to happen, or force them down the path that I think makes the story more compelling, then, in my opinion, I am being gm. I simply see a danger in going too far down that path. Cheers, JiB I agree undoubtedly.You can have a tightly controlled setting and an open" plot the players and gm can explore. At the end of the day, we've all agreed to act out a story we build scene by scene.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Dec 16, 2015 8:33:46 GMT -8
I agree undoubtedly.You can have a tightly controlled setting and an open" plot the players and gm can explore. At the end of the day, we've all agreed to act out a story we build scene by scene. All the yes!!! JiB
|
|