General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
I have to disagree, but our disagreement may be in what we understand under the term simulation or tropes. The tropes I like in D&D are the monsters, the spells, the races and similar things.
Yeah, a lot of those things, as portrayed by D&D, don't exist in too many places outside of D&D or D&D-derived media (frex, the only place outside of D&D that D&D-like magic appears is in Jack Vance's Dying Earth short fiction, etc). So, yes, some elements of D&D do exist outside of the game, but all of them never appear in any one place (and some of them don't exist outside of D&D at all).
D&D is notable because it borrows from many sources and inspirations — some literary, others not — while also throwing a lot of original innovation into the mix. As a result, it simulates no single body of work, folkloric tradition, literary style, or even litrary genre (aside from the broad classification of Fantasy). Rather, the fusion of different tropes from different sources with original ideas created a unique construct.
So, for me, D&D is not "simulationist" in the 'models a body of written work, narrow genre, literary style, or folkloric tradition' but arguably "Simulationist" in the Forge sense of 'models a certain, specifically defined, reality' through such constant 'laws' as the ability of high level PCs to fall ridiculous distances without dying (or nearly all dragons being modeled on Smaug).
I suppose that we'll just have to agree to disagree, though
This is really easy to answer for me:
Do I enjoy a story without combat? Sure!
Do I enjoy a combat without story? Not really.
Imho, D&D is a game that is at it's best when you have stories that focus on combat. But combat for its own sake? Nah! Did I mention, I don't like extended dungeon crawls? Same reason.
For me, I play primarily for exploration of and interaction with , a shared imaginary world. I see the adventures taking place as raw footage documentaries of the character's lives. There will be many stories that can be told from that footage but the actual play is about reacting to world events rather than attempting to decisively craft a story in the game.
Some of that interaction will be violent and dangerous. The life of an adventurer is filled with peril. Always thinking with a sword tends to make an adventurer's life brutally short in most cases. To me, combat feels more natural and the character's easier to identify with if it is engaged in as a last resort. Some adventures will be more combat focused than others. Being in an area infested with hostile creatures who attack on sight leaves little choice but to fight or flee.
I can't quite put my finger on it, but there's some sort of disconnect between what goes on online and what actually happens in "real world" D&D... when I'm reading ENWorld I'm constantly bombarded with how much more awesome stories and roleplaying and getting into character are and how everybody does them and how you shouldn't focus on the combat so much.
Then I go to my local gaming store and it's the complete opposite. I don't know a single person who would ever admit to liking the playacting and the pretending part of D&D more than the combat, even though we have a pretty wide circle of gamers in our club and my group. For us the story and the characters are a thin sugar coating over the real reason for playing which is strategy, tactics and dungeon crawling combat.
I mean it's not like we run from it, sure, it's great to have a background and an actual reason to be in the adventure that everyone can get behind or crack jokes about, but anybody who takes it further than that is gong to have a bit of eye-rolling and smirking going on behind his back. Nothing mean-spirite or anything, but that's just how it is, it's seen as just a bit weird.
I guess maybe as said above people who actually get motivated to get online and go to forums are the same people who would take that kind of stuff seriously? I don't know, cause I am not one of those people and yet I'm here... so *shrug*
Say Psion where is that test (assuming you got those scores from a online quiz), be interesting to see if what I view as my gaming style matches with the numbers.
__________________ "This game requires no gameboard because the action takes place in your imagination..." - Cover of Dungeons & Dragons Basic Rules Set 1.
I can't quite put my finger on it, but there's some sort of disconnect between what goes on online and what actually happens in "real world" D&D... when I'm reading ENWorld I'm constantly bombarded with how much more awesome stories and roleplaying and getting into character are and how everybody does them and how you shouldn't focus on the combat so much.
Then I go to my local gaming store and it's the complete opposite. I don't know a single person who would ever admit to liking the playacting and the pretending part of D&D more than the combat, even though we have a pretty wide circle of gamers in our club and my group. For us the story and the characters are a thin sugar coating over the real reason for playing which is strategy, tactics and dungeon crawling combat.
I mean it's not like we run from it, sure, it's great to have a background and an actual reason to be in the adventure that everyone can get behind or crack jokes about, but anybody who takes it further than that is gong to have a bit of eye-rolling and smirking going on behind his back. Nothing mean-spirite or anything, but that's just how it is, it's seen as just a bit weird.
I guess maybe as said above people who actually get motivated to get online and go to forums are the same people who would take that kind of stuff seriously? I don't know, cause I am not one of those people and yet I'm here... so *shrug*
Funny. . . I actually have the opposite impression.
I have the feeling that people on the boards are much more concerned with builds and combat effectiveness and magic items/treasure being appropriate to level, etc. . . While the gamers I hang with are more concerned about their character restoring honor to their once noble family, or getting revenge on the slavers who kidnapped her younger sister, evading the spurned lover/former master, or keeping the pro-democracy fifth column from undermining the monarchy!
Combat is story, or at the very least, makes some of the best stories, if you're doing it right.
Talking is not story. It's, at best, one form of exposition of the story. More often it's a soft, directionless period of floundering that takes away from the better means of conveying the story, that is, by action.
Ha, I would agree 100% with this, very well said. We fight combats and explore dungeons and adventures and then tell stories about what happened in those adventures... as opposed to talking out a story and putting it on hold every once in a while to have a combat about something inside of it. The stories are born from play, they do not engender play themselves.
Funny. . . I actually have the opposite impression.
I have the feeling that people on the boards are much more concerned with builds and combat effectiveness and magic items/treasure being appropriate to level, etc. . . While the gamers I hang with are more concerned about their character restoring honor to their once noble family, or getting revenge on the slavers who kidnapped her younger sister, evading the spurned lover/former master, or keeping the pro-democracy fifth column from undermining the monarchy!
Hm, interesting, I guess everybody's experience is different... can't generalize and so on... and I'm sure if I hung around the WotC CharOp boards more I would have a different view of what 'online' is about, but I like it over here more (the black background is nice ).
Combat is the spice in a story. It is not the story itself.
This is also why, though I started with D&D back in 1975, I drifted away from it. I came back to in around 2000 ... and have subsequently drifted away again. D&D is a tactical miniatures game with a thin overlay of roleplaying -- you need only look at the rules to see this emphasis. I prefer systems that emphasize the story first, such as World of Darkness, Ars Magica, and Over the Edge.
__________________ Jack, you have debauched my sloth.
There is a point of contention over what story is in an RPG. Story is what happens in an RPG just like it is what happens in any game. In this way the word story is something of a non-functional definition as anything that exists is creating story. Unfortunately, games that allow you to author a story (instead of any other kind of game where stories simply arise) cannot be roleplaying games.
The problem typically comes up in an RPG when players try and take control over the simulated reality in order to change the "story". What they really end up doing is changing their role. Just as you can't win a firefighting game by declaring successful firefighting is actually doing dog training, neither can you redesign a situation to be more advantageous to your character without redefining your role.
The role in roleplaying is exterior to the person. It is an exploration of a role by an actor based upon the words in the script. And it is an exploration of a sociological role like firefighter based upon the understanding of the instructor - not the student. The student is the one who roleplays, the instructor and his or her assistants act in a predetermined manner to put the roleplayer into a simulated situation. The situation is outside of the student's/roleplayer's control as they are the one being tested, learning. The student then explores what it means to be in that role by trying to achieve some goal (the object of the game) and is graded on their performance.
The easiest way to determine if someone is making an error in judgment about roleplaying and story is to ask who is the better roleplayer in an RPG. For example, in a mountain climbing RPG who would be the better roleplayer? An award-winning, professional actor? Or a Sherpa? Of course, it's the Sherpa because this is a game about the role of a mountain climber. Knowing this, players may prefer different kind of games to RPGs and I would suggest playing a theatre game where you can make up the story as you go along.
__________________ Apparently Reagan never played RPGs ...but he liked to watch.
Spoiler:
Participants in the Pentagon simulations were sometimes of very high rank, including members of Congress and White House insiders as well as senior military officers. The identity of many of the participants remains secret even today. It is a tradition in US simulations (and those run by many other nations) that participants are guaranteed anonymity. The main reason for this is that occasionally they may take on a role or express an opinion that is at odds with their professional or public stance (for example portraying a fundamentalist terrorist or advocating hawkish military action), and thus could harm their reputation or career if their in-game persona became widely known.
(cut)
...former US president Ronald Reagan was a keen visitor to simulations conducted in the 1980s, but as an observer only. An official explained: "No president should ever disclose his hand, not even in a war game". Para,6
Last edited by howandwhy99; 3rd December 2008 at 05:19 PM..
Then I go to my local gaming store and it's the complete opposite. I don't know a single person who would ever admit to liking the playacting and the pretending part of D&D more than the combat, even though we have a pretty wide circle of gamers in our club and my group. For us the story and the characters are a thin sugar coating over the real reason for playing which is strategy, tactics and dungeon crawling combat.
Out of the 12 to 15 groups that I have known, only one has not been about the story first. That is also the only one that I know regularly ran dungeon crawls on a regular basis and focused on tactics and strategy.
Just different experiences.
__________________ "The designers of the newest edition built so much reliance on rules right into the game, to make it easier to play. As one of those designers, I occasionally think to myself, 'What have we wrought?' " -Monte Cook
" If the DM has to make a lot of judgment calls, the game is more difficult to learn. However, it's my belief that it's also more satisfying." -Monte Cook
"Don't let rules replace good DMing skills"- Monte Cook
By which I mean: the meaningful choices that I (as a player) make and their consequences. Whether these choices happen in combat or out of it, they are the game.
__________________ "I gave her an egg, and some flowers, but she still won't marry me!"
The Inclusion Hypothesis: For every x, the statement "x does not belong in D&D" is false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonely Tylenol
I didn't sign up to play this game so that I could spend all my time doing clerical work.
Do you play D&D for the story,
Or for sword-swinging fights oh so gory?
A dungeon to crawl,
Or plot above all,
Which of these brings you honor and glory?
Or perhaps you prefer exploration,
To a random-rolled altercation,
A brand new horizon,
You're first to lay eyes on,
And your name on the map's new location.
Some enjoy combats dramatic,
And others roleplay diplomatic,
It's not black or white,
Whether story or fight,
There's no need to be so dogmatic!
For me it's story. I think that's why I'm not as invested in the edition war aspect as other people. A good campaign with well thought-out story and hooks can work in any edition, and has for me. Combat can be fun, but I need a reason to be there fighting.
There is a point of contention over what story is in an RPG.
Not among the people I've played with.
Quote:
Story is what happens in an RPG just like it is what happens in any game.
But the course of play in an RPG more closely resembles what occurs in fiction than the course of play in traditional boardgames such as Monopoly or Chess, which I'm sure you were about to bring up..
They're are similarities between RPG's and fiction; in RPG's we talk abou "characters" with proper names, not playing pieces, we refer to the "setting and the "world" in the same way we'd discuss Tolkien's Middle Earth (or Joyce's Dublin for that matter), not the game board, we talk about sequence of in-game events as the "plot", because they're often most easily recognized as fictional plots.
The similarities between RPG's and fiction are numerous, hence the use of words like "story" when referring to the course of in-game events. The fact that you can tell a story about virtually any game doesn't alter that.
Quote:
In this way the word story is something of a non-functional definition as anything that exists is creating story.
Only if you ignore the common definitions/connotations of "story" so as to strip it of any usefulness. Any term can be generalized into meaninglessness with enough effort.
Quote:
Unfortunately, games that allow you to author a story (instead of any other kind of game where stories simply arise) cannot be roleplaying games.
We've been through this before. If a game ceases to be an RPG the minute a player is granted narrative control outside the direct control of his character, then there are no role-playing games. The simple act of a player saying "I bought a flask of lamp oil" without playing out the scene would disqualify a campaign from RPG status.
Quote:
For example, in a mountain climbing RPG who would be the better roleplayer? An award-winning, professional actor? Or a Sherpa? Of course, it's the Sherpa because this is a game about the role of a mountain climber.
This assumes RPG's have a very narrow set of goals --and that they're best viewed as training exercises, which is silly given that the most popular RPG on the market is about pretending to be a dragon-slaying elf.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
Mallus,
I don't always agree wtih you, but this time I do whole heartedly.
Now, how do I give you XP? (Edit: I found it. Hopefully, it added it).
__________________ "The designers of the newest edition built so much reliance on rules right into the game, to make it easier to play. As one of those designers, I occasionally think to myself, 'What have we wrought?' " -Monte Cook
" If the DM has to make a lot of judgment calls, the game is more difficult to learn. However, it's my belief that it's also more satisfying." -Monte Cook
"Don't let rules replace good DMing skills"- Monte Cook
But the course of play in an RPG more closely resembles what occurs in fiction than the course of play in traditional boardgames such as Monopoly or Chess, which I'm sure you were about to bring up..
They're are similarities between RPG's and fiction; in RPG's we talk abou "characters" with proper names, not playing pieces, we refer to the "setting and the "world" in the same way we'd discuss Tolkien's Middle Earth (or Joyce's Dublin for that matter), not the game board, we talk about sequence of in-game events as the "plot", because they're often most easily recognized as fictional plots.
The similarities between RPG's and fiction are numerous, hence the use of words like "story" when referring to the course of in-game events. The fact that you can tell a story about virtually any game doesn't alter that.
RPGs resemble any kind of simulation because simulation is designed to resemble something else. No one is really killing elves in D&D the same way they are not really buying property in Monopoly. That we use fictional terms like "King" and "Queen" to designate things in the game world doesn't mean we are actually dealing with kings and queens. All simulation is fiction.
The problem with plot and story is they refer to something that has already happened. When we tell a story we are relating events. When roleplaying no actions are predetermined for the roleplayer so no story is related. The character exists outside of the roleplayer. (EDITED)
Quote:
Only if you ignore the common definitions/connotations of "story" so as to strip it of any usefulness. Any term can be generalized into meaninglessness with enough effort.
Story is the RE-telling of events. Roleplaying is the directing of your character to explore the role. You cannot retell things your character has not done yet.
Quote:
We've been through this before. If a game ceases to be an RPG the minute a player is granted narrative control outside the direct control of his character, then there are no role-playing games. The simple act of a player saying "I bought a flask of lamp oil" without playing out the scene would disqualify a campaign from RPG status.
No, that doesn't make it not a role-playing game. But roleplaying exercises go out of their way to ensure you don't have to stop roleplaying when playing them. In your example, a DM would have to assent to your PCs declared action or it would never occur. Not to mention you are directing in the past tense, which is a mix up about what is happening.
Quote:
This assumes RPG's have a very narrow set of goals --and that they're best viewed as training exercises, which is silly given that the most popular RPG on the market is about pretending to be a dragon-slaying elf.
Playing a role is the point of roleplaying. What role you play determines the object of the game.
And if you go read a book about roleplaying you will see roleplaying = training. For professional actors it is rehearsing for a role and in almost other cases it is training for a real life role. In RPGs with fictional roles like World of Warcraft as you mention and D&D it is practicing to be a fighter in a fantasy world. Or a spellcaster. Or a cleric. etc.
__________________ Apparently Reagan never played RPGs ...but he liked to watch.
Spoiler:
Participants in the Pentagon simulations were sometimes of very high rank, including members of Congress and White House insiders as well as senior military officers. The identity of many of the participants remains secret even today. It is a tradition in US simulations (and those run by many other nations) that participants are guaranteed anonymity. The main reason for this is that occasionally they may take on a role or express an opinion that is at odds with their professional or public stance (for example portraying a fundamentalist terrorist or advocating hawkish military action), and thus could harm their reputation or career if their in-game persona became widely known.
(cut)
...former US president Ronald Reagan was a keen visitor to simulations conducted in the 1980s, but as an observer only. An official explained: "No president should ever disclose his hand, not even in a war game". Para,6
Last edited by howandwhy99; 3rd December 2008 at 07:26 PM..
Reason: The character exists outside of the roleplayer, Role does not.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
