Why I always use the term "Story Games" ironically
Saturday, March 07, 2009Eero said something over on the forum that really resonated with me, so I'm posting it here as a way of preserving it for myself.
"I can't get really interested in [the games] where I'm supposed to be responsible for creating a good story. As far as I'm concerned, I want the rules mechanics to take care of that part so I can focus on playing my character / throwing nasty stuff at the player characters or whatever other fun things there are in the game to be done. 'Making a story' is not on my list of fun things for roleplaying simply because when I want to make a story, I write one."
I want to take the phrase "It would make a better story if..." out behind the woodshed and shoot it. At least its use during play, anyway. During post-game debriefing it has its place. But too much story-planning during actual play just annoys the crap out of me. Who's definition of "better story" are we supposed to be using, anyway? And are we really going to hash that all out in the moment, while someone is holding dice in their hand?
Overt, explicit story-planning during play is like having an editor watching over your shoulder while you compose your novel. It kills the creative process with over-analysis and robs roleplaying of one of its core features: unplanned, dynamic, creative collaboration that can take any final shape. "Good stories" be damned.
Labels: rpg theory