Eppur si muove
Brett Evill
Well, now I'm getting hate mail over my contributions to the
'Storytelling' thread, so I guess it's past time for me to let it go. And
in case there is any doubt as to the outcome of the discussion, I suppose
that it behooves me to recant my heresies. Here goes:
(1) Roleplaying is not fundamentally narrative, is not a form of
storytelling, and does not belong is a category with writing, drama,
storytelling, raconteurship, or telling extemporary stories.
(2) Nothing in literature, drama, oral storytelling, or such artform
corresponds in any way to simulationist or gamist roleplaying, and
neither these forms nor the theory that has been distilled from them has
anything to offer any roleplayer except for an avowed dramatist.
(3) The components of the Threefold are fundamental. They are not special
cases or varieties of, nor tendencies within, anything more general, and
they cannot be reconciled in any way.
(4) 'Storytelling', 'narrative', 'literary', 'dramatic' and other
weaseling circumlocutions all refer to the 'dramatism' of the Threefold,
and can have no other meaning.
(5) No skill, insight, analysis, technique, or provision, indeed nothing
except better simulation and deeper immersion can in any way improve RP
for simulationists, nor make it more enjoyable for them, because
interest, form, sympathy, involvement and so forth only make it better
if they occur by accident.
(6) Character-players certainly have no reason to be concerned with how
to make RP more enjoyable all round, because in dramatist RP that's the
job of the GM, and in the other parts of the Threefold there is no art
to make RP more satisfying: anything artful necessarily ruins RP in those
aesthetics.
There you are.
Since the penalties for relapsed heretics are rather harsh, I guess it
would be safetest if I stopped discussing theology. And anything that
might turn out to be theology.
Goodbye.
--
Brett Evill
Creator/editor, 'Flat Black' SF comic
<http://www.dreamriders.com/FlatBlack.html>
To reply by e-mail, remove 'spamblocker.' from <b.e...@spamblocker.tyndale.apana.org.au>
John Kim
Brett Evill <b.e...@spamblocker.tyndale.apana.org.au> wrote:
>And in case there is any doubt as to the outcome of the discussion,
>I suppose that it behooves me to recant my heresies.
I guess lack of relativism is something of a "heresy" here,
but at the same time I find that discussions are more productive
without blanket statements about what is "good" and "bad" in
role-playing. In general, it works better to say that "For
X sort of games, these Y techniques work well."
I think that people reacted badly to broad statements
about "storytelling techniques". They may have misinterpretted
at times what you were saying, but it is up to you to communicate
more clearly what you mean. If I could suggest something, it would
be to make specific, well-defined suggestions if you start another
thread. For example, "step sheets" which outline the plot are a
fairly standard tool in constructing stories. It was not clear
to me until very late in the thread that you did not recommend
this for RPGs.
A while ago, I started a thread about pacing in simulationist
games. It wasn't tremendously well received, but no one particularly
jumped on me. One of the keys was to carefully define what I meant
by "pacing". For example, an extreme form of pacing is recommended
by Raymond Chandler ("If you're not sure what happens next, a man
with a gun runs into the room.") This is clearly inappropriate.
However, another pacing technique is just to vary how much real
time you spend on a given in-game action (i.e. skim over a long
boring journey, play an important conversation out minute-for-minute,
etc.).
Phil & Morgana Keast
occasions where tempers have heated and the general tone of the group,
normally quite refreshingly polite for usenet, has shifted, most
recently and typically in Brett Evill's Storytelling thread.. Perhaps,
as one who was not involved in the Storytelling thread, perhaps my
perceptions may be of some value. For the record, the following is MHO
only, and while I am responding to particular points made by Brett
Evill, the points I am making are, I believe, worthy of being
considered equally by *all* posters and lurkers on this newsgroup.
On 16 Oct 1998 16:34:30 GMT, b.e...@spamblocker.tyndale.apana.org.au
(Brett Evill) wrote:
>G'day
>
>Well, now I'm getting hate mail over my contributions to the
>'Storytelling' thread, so I guess it's past time for me to let it go. And
>in case there is any doubt as to the outcome of the discussion, I suppose
>that it behooves me to recant my heresies. Here goes:
I hope you aren't getting hate mail, since I'd hoped that this group
was above such. For the record, I agree that examining the theory and
techniques of Storytelling can be extremely useful, although you'll
note I said *can* be. Therein, I suspect lies the entire problem that
has produced the negative responses to what was otherwise an
interesting topic to discuss.
>
>(1) Roleplaying is not fundamentally narrative, is not a form of
>storytelling, and does not belong is a category with writing, drama,
>storytelling, raconteurship, or telling extemporary stories.
More correctly, Roleplaying can be fundamentally narrative, and often
is a form of storytelling. However, different people Roleplay for
different reasons and with different expecations, thus it is
impossible to place Roleplaying in general into any single category,
not even Storytelling. Roleplaying can be a form of Storytelling, or a
strategic/tactical game of resource management, or a modelling tool to
examine worlds which may or may not have the same
physical/psychological/theological/metaphysical assumptions, or an
opportunity for friends to get together, just to name a few things
Roleplaying can be. To limit Roleplaying to Storytelling only is to
ignore the vast range of other applications that people who engage in
Roleplaying actually practice, and their different goals and desires.
>(2) Nothing in literature, drama, oral storytelling, or such artform
>corresponds in any way to simulationist or gamist roleplaying, and
>neither these forms nor the theory that has been distilled from them has
>anything to offer any roleplayer except for an avowed dramatist.
Mant things from literature, drama, oral storytelling, and other such
artforms correspond to various aspects of some instantiations of
Roleplaying. Also techniques from statistical modelling, philosophy,
geography, geopolitical analysis, sociology, theology, and
anthropology (to name a few) correspond to aspects of some
instantiations of Roleplaying. While literary techniques are not
limited in their application to what is referred to on this newsgroups
as the Dramatist Aesthetic, (nor for that matter is statistical
modelling limited to the Simulationist Aesthetic), nonetheless there s
a high correlation between such techniques and aesthetics.
>
>(3) The components of the Threefold are fundamental. They are not special
>cases or varieties of, nor tendencies within, anything more general, and
>they cannot be reconciled in any way.
The components of the Threefold are nothing more than a tool which
many posters find helpful, especially as a constant reminder that
different people have different expectations and desires when
Roleplaying. While other distinctions between aesthetics and
techniques are obviously possible, the Threefold is, for many posters,
a powerful analysis tool. The usefulness of the Threefold should in no
way be taken as an indication that it is in some way a categorization
of fundamental principles, merely that it is a useful categorization.
Telling people that something they find useful isn't, is not likely to
be a successful debating technique. However, suggesting that the
poster doesn't personally find the Threefold particularly useful is no
more than acknowledging that individuals are all different.
>
>(4) 'Storytelling', 'narrative', 'literary', 'dramatic' and other
>weaseling circumlocutions all refer to the 'dramatism' of the Threefold,
>and can have no other meaning.
Since there is a high correlation between the techniques referred to
as Storytelling, narrative, literary, and dramatic and the aesthetic
described as "Dramatism", it is incumbent upon those using such terms
in reference to non-dramatist Roleplaying to clearly, and carefully
communicate the distinction, preferably with examples and a
willingness to revisit the subject from other viewpoints or with other
examples and illustrations if one seems to be failing to communicate.
>
>(5) No skill, insight, analysis, technique, or provision, indeed nothing
>except better simulation and deeper immersion can in any way improve RP
>for simulationists, nor make it more enjoyable for them, because
>interest, form, sympathy, involvement and so forth only make it better
>if they occur by accident.
Unbelievable as it may seem, the aboce statement is a trueism, for
what it translates to is: "There exist people who approach Roleplaying
with such fundamentally different expectations and desires from the
poster that they do not value the same thing as the poster". If their
is anyhting I've learned from rgfa (and I've actually learned quite a
few things), it is that there are many more approaches to Roleplaying
than I would ever have otherwise have suspected, and these different
approaches are, for those who desire them and like them, as equally
valid to my own.
>
>(6) Character-players certainly have no reason to be concerned with how
>to make RP more enjoyable all round, because in dramatist RP that's the
>job of the GM, and in the other parts of the Threefold there is no art
>to make RP more satisfying: anything artful necessarily ruins RP in those
>aesthetics.
What can make any particular instantiation of Roleplaying more
enjoyable all round is as varied and complex as the range of different
approaches to Roleplaying itself, and no single group of tools or
techniques are univerally applicable. Attempting to argue that any
particular group of tools or techniques is universally applicable will
inevitably give rise to discension, especially if such arguments are
presented with the tone that individuals not using such tools do so
without examination and with no adequate reason, as individuals who
have considered, and rejected, that particular tool set for their own
perfectly adequate reasons will inevitably object to being told that
they haven't.
>
>There you are.
>
>Since the penalties for relapsed heretics are rather harsh, I guess it
>would be safetest if I stopped discussing theology. And anything that
>might turn out to be theology.
The only 'heresy', if it even warrent such a term, which I doubt, lies
in suggesting that *all* Roleplaying can be categorised under the
umbrella of Storytelling. As I said above, if this newsgroup has
demonstrated anything, it is that Roleplaying is a complex beastie
which strenously resists any unified categorisation.
>
>Goodbye.
I hope you'll be back.
Take care out there ;)
Phil K. (Melbourne, Australia)
[ke...@melb.alexia.net.au]
Tonio Loewald
This posting is long and rambles. The payoff is at the end, so feel free to
skip to it.
(I'm only looking in on aus.games.roleplay because I was trying to track down
something Sean told me you'd contributed to one or another board relating to
an as yet _unforgiven_ role-playing episode. I thought it might be fun to pile
faggots (i.e. pieces of wood -- no insult to members of the gay community
intended) around the pyre...)
> (1) Roleplaying is not fundamentally narrative, is not a form of
> storytelling, and does not belong is a category with writing, drama,
> storytelling, raconteurship, or telling extemporary stories.
The importance of writing in role-playing appears -- based on commercial
reality, etc. -- to be related in the way that artistic talent relates to
finger painting or the use of wax crayon on butchers' paper.
Many beer mats have writing on them, but that does not make them a literary genre.
> (2) Nothing in literature, drama, oral storytelling, or such artform
> corresponds in any way to simulationist or gamist roleplaying, and
> neither these forms nor the theory that has been distilled from them has
> anything to offer any roleplayer except for an avowed dramatist.
It's interesting that some old role-playing episodes make for good stories. It
is also interesting that Brett's role-playing circle, more than some others,
tends to recount (and reinvent) past episodes. I quite sure that Brett's
game-mastering attitudes are in some considerable measure influenced by "how
good a story will this make?" during play, and that this tends to impact both
the play and the story that results -- sometimes negatively.
> (3) The components of the Threefold are fundamental. They are not special
> cases or varieties of, nor tendencies within, anything more general, and
> they cannot be reconciled in any way.
> (4) 'Storytelling', 'narrative', 'literary', 'dramatic' and other
> weaseling circumlocutions all refer to the 'dramatism' of the Threefold,
> and can have no other meaning.
I do not know what this Threefold is, presumably some kind of Role-playing buddhism.
Please explain.
> (5) No skill, insight, analysis, technique, or provision, indeed nothing
> except better simulation and deeper immersion can in any way improve RP
> for simulationists, nor make it more enjoyable for them, because
> interest, form, sympathy, involvement and so forth only make it better
> if they occur by accident.
The good old theory of fun suffers from the chicken and egg principle. Is it
that GMs who have some understanding of -- or at least think about -- the
underlying theory of what makes role-play work are better (obviously, not
always true) OR that the theory itself helps make better (a) games and (b) gamemasters?
Role-playing is remarkably resistant to theoretical advancement. The key
"discoveries" of the last twenty-odd years: that character class is a bad
oversimplification (D&D, rolemaster persist with them); that playing one
character at a time usually works better; that experience should not mainly
derive from killing people and collecting treasure (D&D, rolemaster, and C&S
persist with this); that alignment is another bad oversimplification; that
rules should be BLIND-tested before publication (GURPs evidently never has
been); and that role-play is not competition between either (a) players, or
(b) the GM and the players; are sufficiently controversial that games continue
to ship that ignore some or all of these insights.
Role-players are likewise remarkably uninterested in theoretical advancement.
Magazines do not discuss it.
This should not surprise us. Role-playing as a hobby is pretty stagnant. New
rules exhibit much the same atrocious level of quality (in every respect --
from writing and editing, through rules quality and page layout, to
illustration and crass sexism) as they did ten or fifteen years ago. RPGs
haven't quite descended to the positively appalling levels of "blue book" D&D
or "Judges Guild" products, but Kevin Simbieda still illustrates his own products.
> (6) Character-players certainly have no reason to be concerned with how
> to make RP more enjoyable all round, because in dramatist RP that's the
> job of the GM, and in the other parts of the Threefold there is no art
> to make RP more satisfying: anything artful necessarily ruins RP in those
> aesthetics.
Of course, this is at the heart of our original argument -- the "unforgiven" incident.
The basic issue when it comes to applying literary concepts to the
role-playing medium is to understand the limitations of the latter before
attempting to apply the rigours of the former. This is why we are more
tolerant of lapses of language, plot, character, etc. in Theatre Sports, but
less so in Hollywood action movies, and even less so in "serious" novels. Here
is where life gets complicated, because most of the folks on the "roleplaying
is not literature" side of the debate do not understand the theory or
limitations of roleplay and let alone the theory of literature.
I once categorised role-playing gamemasters as a variety of types, of which
the "frustrated novelist" was divided into several subcategories. I did not at
that time know Brett, and thus Brett did not fit perfectly into any category,
but he is certainly a frustrated novelist. He is also potentially a very good
one. I therefore suggest to Brett that he give up role-play and write some
novels. Another alternative is to continue role-playing but to write some
novels about something else -- this will be emotionally easier but in fact
more difficult. The final alternative is to write some novels about whatever
it is that you're running, but this will lead to Eddings- or Feist- quality
novels, and consequently self-hatred and suicide.
Assuming that my advice goes unheeded (and who am I to give advice?), here are
-- in my opinion of course -- the key issues as regards applying literary
practices to role-play:
AUTHORIAL CONTROL
The GM is not the "author" of the game. Even a writer who, like Elmore
Leonard, deliberately lets his/her characters "do what they want" has vastly
more control of his/her work than does the GM of his/her game. (This can be a
good thing; sometimes as GM I have no idea whatsoever what I want to happen,
and -- often -- the players do.)
IMAGINATION
In writing a book, the writer can remain focussed fairly tightly on the
imaginary world of the story. When he/she poses the question "what does Bob
really want?" to his/her imagination, the question, at least, is unambiguous.
"What does [the imaginary character] Bob want [of the imaginary setting in my
head]?" Even if Bob is based on the writer's friend Fred, the extension
question, "Well, what would Fred want in that situation?" is straightforward.
The writer's answer may be wrong, but that's a different issue.
In posing the question "So, what will you do now?" of a player, the gamemaster
is dealing with four imaginary worlds (in fact 2n+2, where n = the number of
players, but we'll ignore the other players for simplicity). These worlds are
the imagined game worlds each has in his/her own head, and the imagined real
worlds each has in his/her head.
The "don't talk to me about theory" role-player generally wants to play the
game more-or-less entirely in the imagined real world ("How can I 'win'?" or
"What would make a good story?" or "Am I being cool, or what?") or
more-or-less entirely in the imagined game world ("What would [my character]
Bob do?").
Brett wants everyone to do both (he wants the player to ask of their imagined
real worlds: "Will this make a good story?", "Will this piss other players
off?" AND of their imagined game worlds, "What would [my character] Bob
do?"). Unfortunately, I believe that most people lack sufficient (a) telepathy
or (b) homogeneity to properly role-play the way Brett would prefer we did.
FLEXIBILITY
The above can all be reconciled if -- as with a street theatre company -- the
participants and audience alike are forgiving and flexible. This is not always
the case. A consistent problem in Brett's games is that -- unlike Faulkner --
he clings to his darlings rather than being willing and able to kill them.
In general, to deal with roleplay as a writer one must be even more flexible
as the "let the characters run free" novelist, even when this means that
stories don't begin, proceed, or end as you might have preferred. Not only may
a character go off and do something to spoil your nice neat story BUT you may
not even think the character behaved correctly because the player's imagined
game world doesn't match yours (so the motives may be interpreted differently)
and the player's imagined real world doesn't match yours (so the player may
have meta reasons for doing things which escape you).
To this day, the "unforgiven" incident rankles Brett and myself. In this
incident, Brett (the GM) believes I (the player) acted out of character and
ruined the tone of his session. I believe that Brett was assuming the genre
was Jimmy Stewart western while I was assuming Glenn Ford (or Clint Eastwood).
In particular, the game system being used was realistic, so minor villains
didn't automatically clutch their thorax and die when struck by ineffectual
five-shooters. The net result was that my character -- "the hero" -- shot two
men who were lying wounded at his feet in "cold blood" (after these men had
made a determined effort on the character's life). I believe Brett may have
related this incident in more detail earlier.
As I see it, the ins and outs of the situation all follow from the course of
action taken not matching Brett's preferences or expectations and his response
was to [flexibly] fabricate an incident (the attempted slaying of my
character) he wasn't happy with for meta reasons (he thought I expected it,
having prepared for just such an incident -- not to have such an incident
would be a "Chekhov's gun") and then to be unhappy with the outcome (despite
being unable to point to any unreasonable action on any participant's part).
(1) "Chekhov's guns" are not an absolute evil in story-telling, less so in
role-play. (Insofar as role-play is in many ways more like life than fiction.)
Thus, Bob can buy a gun and never use it. Happens all the time. Brett's
reaction to the possibility of a "Chekhov's gun" follows from an insufficient
appreciation of literary technique, and insufficient flexibility or
imagination "in the breach".
(2) It is unfair to expect players to act with the same level of (a)
omniscience, or (b) flexibility as gamemasters, as they have more centred
viewpoints and far less control. A player can anticipate an event, but cannot
make it happen, or control its outcome or severity. If taking preparations
against eventualities ensured the eventualities, players would never do
anything, yet this was Brett's justificiation for his actions.
It follows that literary role-play places somewhat greater demands on players
and far greater demands on gamemasters. I would argue that as long as the
player has his/her character act reasonably within his/her imagined game world
(and I do not believe Brett can argue I did not), the onus is on the
gamemaster to get things right. Otherwise, there are just too many variables.
Well, I've certainly rambled. What conclusions can we draw from all this?
(1) Literary role-play is difficult. In particular, it places an onus on the
gamemaster to be flexible, imaginative, forgiving, and to have his/her
priorities right. E.g. having a good time is more important than producing
great literature (you won't anyway). Especially when our understanding of
literary theory is so imperfect: "Chekhov's gun" is by no means the worst sin
in literature. Indeed, it is debatable whether or not it is at all a sin in
general. The word "gun" carries with it all kinds of baggage that the word
"potato" doesn't. Why shouldn't a character have a potato which never gets
eaten, or a dollar that goes unspent?
(2) Players are not mind readers. Neither are gamemasters. Any useful theory
takes reality into account, and Brett's role-playing approach has always had a
lot of trouble with this point. It's a bad idea to take game actions for what
you imagine to be good "real world" reasons, since they will tend to be bad
"game world" reasons and your understanding of the "real world" will be
imperfect anyway. Thus if I do something because of what I think you expect
versus what I think ought to happen in the game world, means that my reasoning
is at least twice as likely to be faulty.
(3) Role-playing does not correspond well to any specific other literary
genre. E.g. in D&D people can fall terrific distances without being killed and
yet can't walk very fast. This is different from every form of literature I've
seen, which doesn't mean you can't have fun playing D&D or that there aren't
"good" dungeon masters. It follows that if you base your expectations of
roleplay on a literary genre, you will be disappointed.
Brian Gleichman
Brett Evill wrote in message ...
>Since the penalties for relapsed heretics are rather harsh, I guess it
>would be safetest if I stopped discussing theology. And anything that
>might turn out to be theology.
>
>Goodbye.
I really hope this isn't a notice that you're leaving the group. No matter
our disagreements, I think your absence would only leave us poorer.
Brett Evill
That Tonio doesn't like dramatist GMing, and thinks that I am bad at it, and
even that he thinks that my badness is in part the result of my failing to
learn a literary lesson from Faulkner is, of course, neither here nor there.
No more so is his opinion that I would do better to write novels instead of
GMing.
He doesn't like my GMing, I don't like his GMing or character-play. We no
longer play together, and have not done so regularly for many years. So
nothing. Astonishing though this may be, I have not been trying to argue that
everybody's tastes are or ought to be the same, or that everybody *ought* to
like the things I run and the way I run them.
Regards,
Brett.
Jeff Johnson
>
>Brett Evill wrote in message ...
>
>>Goodbye.
>
>I really hope this isn't a notice that you're leaving the group. No matter
>our disagreements, I think your absence would only leave us poorer.
From what I've seen of Brett in electronic forums, he may have useful
ideas but can't play nice. Any disagreement he is in is escalated - by
him, in all the one's I've seen - to the extreme. Like this.
Jumping tension, if you ask me.
He's not as pompous or buffoonish as Terry Austin, but I'd feel no
remorse if he has indeed left the group.
Jeff Johnson
jsjo...@islandnet.com
Jeremy: I think I've got real potential. I mean, girls go
for the athletic type, don't they ?
Mrs. Brisby: Jeremy, you're stepping on my tail.
-* Secret of NIMH *-