response 22 of 32:

Nov 23 06:41 UTC 1999

You misinterpret the word "plot"  A plot doesn't mean that there as a GM
imposed story; or worse, a game-designer imposed story.  If you've got
crap where, as often happens in Pinnacle, WW, and AEG products (as
good as they sometimes are), large parts of the plot are
Predetermined, desgined by God and Mark Rein.Hagen, (or whoever the
designer is, let him be as good as Gred Stoltze or as bad as the worst
of the hacks) that ain't "plot", and it damned well ain't
story-oriented roleplaying; that's railroading, plain 'n simple,
the walking dead zombie evil cousin of true roleplaying.  
    Now, true story oriented gaming ain't that, never was, never shall
be, no matter how many trademark symbols Certain Parties put after
appropriate words.  Story-oriented gaming ain't about what you start
with -- it's about what you end up with.  If after playing a few
games, what you've got is a jumbled mess, close as you can get to real
life crossed with a power-mad fantasy, well, have fun, and I hope your
reading material is more sophisticated than your games.  On the other
hand, if what you end with is something that was never existent before
but is still worth retelling and reliving, giving satisfaction not
just to the players-as-gamers but to the players-as-audience, and
is possibly even worth retelling to a second-generation audience,
you've reached a state devoutly to be wished, where the players ain't
just playing a game, but performing and act of creation.
     Now, if that's not the meatballs you want on your pizza, don't
let me rain on your parade; after all, to consistently get a story
worth remembering, you've got to warp probability, giving more power
into the hands of the players and GM, and less into the ever-random
dice/cards (which end up taking on the roll of benign but balmy
advisors, looked on as a source of advice, but never unquestionable).
But it's worth it.
    At least, that's the gospel according to YT, and one true
story-telling game is worth a hundred of the other sort.  But don't
take my word on it.

response 24 of 32:

Nov 23 21:54 UTC 1999

resp:20  Yeah, Josh, I think you articulated it well, and much better 
than I had ever thought of it.  I think the distinction between a party 
and a character game is a good one, and by experience from some of the 
games I've played in, it's easy to get shut out if your GM isn't able 
to make this distinction.

response 26 of 32:

Nov 25 00:40 UTC 1999

<shrug> then why have the dice? the differnce between a game and a play
is that in a game it's possible for things not to go the way they're
supposed to.
as to you're little superiority complex, mayhaps you should look up the
definition of a hero.
the simple fact is if you want stories you might as well skip the gm, 
and the rules, and just write a group story.

response 28 of 32:

Nov 29 05:10 UTC 1999

resp:25  That's true.  There has to be a distinction between what you do 
in the storyline, and what you are planning to do.  Sometimes we have to 
remind each other when our character is speaking/acting and when we 
ourselves are speaking/acting.

resp:26 resp:27 Geez, Greg-- I think Josh is just pointing out that the
 dice are a tool.  I'll admit I'm a bit of a White Wolf fan, and so I  share
his bias of gaming as taking part in a good story.  I've noticed a  couple of
things from my experience, and my research (quite a few WW  rulebooks have
articles on the subject, even)

the dice do NOT have the final say-so.  That's totally up to the 
DM/GM/Storyteller.  If a dice roll is going to interrupt the flow of a 
story, the GM always has the right to ignore the dice and allow things 
to go for an entertaining story.

Why an entertaining story?  Your players are meant to have fun.  That's 
the purpose of the whole game, right?  That leads to other points--

A good GM will let the players run quite a bit of the story.  They make 
their actions, and the GM adjusts the story accordingly.  I know you 
can't force PCs to follow a particular storyline, and yes, that's why I 
don't favor modules (never used 'em).  I have heard horror stories of 
people doing things that just royally fuck over any direction of a 
module.  Plus, they keep you on your toes this way, and it's easier to 
learn what the PCs are about and what kinds of stories will work for 
them.

I've done diceless role-playing before with my wife and my friend who 
has been showing me the ropes to be a good Storyteller.  It's possible, 
but you have to have players who trust you well and are willing to make 
structure of their own.  We also accepted that there would be a 
considerable amount of flux in the spontaneous imagination we were 
acting out.

We have to remember that the games we play came from wargames-- fantasy 
wargames, in particular.  The only reason that dice remained in RPG's 
was there had to be *some* random element, something we would rely on 
that was unbiased.  You can argue with people, but you can't argue with 
dice so much.

I appeal to Gary Gygaxx, since he more or less marked a point in the 
evolution of wargames to RPG's with D&D.  I will admit that his was an 
era when the dice were *heavily* relied upon-- the whole existence of 
multisided dice showed that.  D&D and 1st ed. AD&D showed pretty heavy 
influences of the old wargames-- maps were used, and many people still 
used pewter figurines to show movement.  Most adventures were calculated 
with the dice-- encounters, monster hp, characteristics of valuable 
items, weapons, and artifacts, etc.

There was a big change in 2nd ed.  Yup, this was when we started moving 
towards a more storyline oriented game.  Take a look at what has come 
out since, and the trend has followed that direction.

There is NOTHING wrong with making your game from dice.  It seemed 
Gygaxx really micromanaged the D&D sometimes-- you could create 
societies, cities, etc.-- and he did get incredibly detailed.

All Josh is saying is that he likes to play with a storyline in mind.  
This doesn't mean that the dice have to be totally disregarded.  It *is* 
just a different sort of play, and it is the sort of play that is more 
or less in vogue right now.  Dice get to be a crutch for those of us who 
like to play that way-- we like the opportunity to think a lot, and to 
be free to do so without the GM cramming something down our throats that 
we don't want because "the rules/dice say so."

I mean, c'mon, I'll beat this horse way past the point that it dies 
because, DAMN it, even game manufacturers like to play this way, and 
they've said so in their rule books.

We aren't knocking you-- so stop knocking us.

response 30 of 32:

Nov 29 23:52 UTC 1999

hrm, gotcha.

Yes, you're right-- 2nd ed. was a result of an evolving trend, and I 
should have mentioned that.  I forgot to say that although dungeons had 
become the focus of 1st ed., D&D had begun more wilderness based.  I'm 
guessing there were plenty of gamers that brought this about, but the 
fact that Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms had existed in hiding about 
around this time, I'm sure the creators had it in mind, too.

Quibble #2: Right; that was what I was trying to say.  Most modules 
*don't* work, and a pre-fabricated storyline doesn't work, either.  The 
story is largely created by the session.  I'll agree with that.  But 
what I did find helpful was to have a couple of possibilities-- i.e. 
story fragments and ideas-- in mind to give the game somewhat of a 
drive.

response 32 of 32:

Jan 20 20:09 UTC 2000

Sounds cool; I do a bit of storytelling myself, on occasion, but I usually
tell more "authentic" stories, and only rarely rework on a moment's notice.