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 think I get the picture, EW. You're using a very restricted definition of the word 'storytelling'. I don't see how that's a useful thing to do, it just causes confusion, much like howandwhy99's weird definition of roleplaying.
__________________ The female tiefling's horns are not 'handlebars'.
I think I get the picture, EW. You're using a very restricted definition of the word 'storytelling'. I don't see how that's a useful thing to do, it just causes confusion, much like howandwhy99's weird definition of roleplaying.
Indeed. EW appears to be taking the position that a story cannot be told as it unfolds and that storytelling must always take place after the event.
I suppose one way to reconcile EW's definition of storytelling with conventional role-playing is to slice a story down to the smallest unit of narrative that can be a story, and tell that after it has been role-played through.
So, if we tell stories after each encounter, we can tell the Story of How the Adventurers Beat Encounter #1 (or not).
If we slice it down further, after every round of combat, we can tell the Story of What the Adventurers and Monsters Did Last Round.
In fact, we can slice it down even further and the players can tell the Story of What Adventurer X Did This Turn, while the DM can tell the Story of What Monster Y Did This Turn. All this will have to take place after all the dice rolling and role-playing decisions have been made of course.
Eureka! Once again, the solution is quantum. See also: Isaac Asimov's The Dead Past.
__________________
Last edited by FireLance; 18th August 2009 at 03:50 AM..
Indeed. EW appears to be taking the position that a story cannot be told as it unfolds and that storytelling must always take place after the event.
I suppose one way to reconcile EW's definition of storytelling with conventional role-playing is to slice a story down to the smallest unit of narrative that can be a story, and tell that after it has been role-played through.
So, if we tell stories after each encounter, we can tell the Story of How the Adventurers Beat Encounter #1 (or not).
Yes you certainly can. During that encounter though, if you are roleplaying the actions of your character then you are not telling a story during THAT encounter.
It is possible to do so but that would require the player to portray the character being played to be actively aware that he/she is a character in a story who narrates his/her actions as they are performed (for the benefit of an imaginary audience)
" And so Badbob the deadly dispatches his foes" as dialogue when the encounter ends should do the trick.
So EW, one thing you seem to be getting at which no one else seems to be picking up on, is that you feel that roleplaying is fundamentally an individual, one-player activity. In the kind of "platonic ideal" world of roleplaying, the player has the concept of his character and his character's personality and motivations. He decides the actions of his character based on that conception, and that conception alone. (Leaving aside here tactics and dice rolling and so forth for the time being, let's just consider pure "when my character gets loot does he give it to orphans or blow it on booze" kind of stuff.)
While collaborative storytelling involves some subordination of the player's choice of action to something external, be it another player or the group or some notion of narrative or plot device. And so the two can come into conflict, if that external storytelling would cause or force the player to choose an action that runs contrary to the concept the player has over his character. So it threatens a loss of roleplaying control. I want my character to donate the loot to orphans, but I have to blow it on booze because some narrative device demands it.
As a non-4e player, if this is well written, I might just be giving it a look over myself.
You're kidding yourself if you ever think you're such a great DM that you never need to read other peoples' thoughts on how to do it.
__________________ Psionics are too sci-fi, not like the traditional method of spell casting that has existed only in D&D, involves research, laboratory work, and formulas, and was cribbed directly from a series of science fiction novels. I mean, come on, calling forth the power to alter the world from your own center of will? That's not magical in the slightest! Not at all like my wizard's spell "Telepathy!"
This is probably one of the best ways i've seen to distinguish between the two concepts. While i personally see no reason they can't both be used in the same game, i do occasionally play with purists of either roleplay or story-games.
Maybe it has something to do with seeing roleplay and storytelling as either tools to be used or as an objective?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryryguy
In the kind of "platonic ideal" world of roleplaying, the player has the concept of his character and his character's personality and motivations. He decides the actions of his character based on that conception, and that conception alone.
While collaborative storytelling involves some subordination of the player's choice of action to something external, be it another player or the group or some notion of narrative or plot device. And so the two can come into conflict, if that external storytelling would cause or force the player to choose an action that runs contrary to the concept the player has over his character.
__________________ "hp evaluate the degree of script immunity of a character" - Ti-Bob
So EW, one thing you seem to be getting at which no one else seems to be picking up on, is that you feel that roleplaying is fundamentally an individual, one-player activity. In the kind of "platonic ideal" world of roleplaying, the player has the concept of his character and his character's personality and motivations. He decides the actions of his character based on that conception, and that conception alone. (Leaving aside here tactics and dice rolling and so forth for the time being, let's just consider pure "when my character gets loot does he give it to orphans or blow it on booze" kind of stuff.)
While collaborative storytelling involves some subordination of the player's choice of action to something external, be it another player or the group or some notion of narrative or plot device. And so the two can come into conflict, if that external storytelling would cause or force the player to choose an action that runs contrary to the concept the player has over his character. So it threatens a loss of roleplaying control. I want my character to donate the loot to orphans, but I have to blow it on booze because some narrative device demands it.
Is that where you are coming from?
Pretty much right on. Also related is the "pick your own path to a defined conclusion" trap that DM's can fall into when concentrating on constructing "scenes" to play out. It seems a bit odd that players will put up with such things as a "collaborative story". We used to just call it railroading.
Pretty much right on. Also related is the "pick your own path to a defined conclusion" trap that DM's can fall into when concentrating on constructing "scenes" to play out. It seems a bit odd that players will put up with such things as a "collaborative story". We used to just call it railroading.
"pick your own path to a defined conclusion" is not necessarily what is suggested. The "Pick your own path" adventure style books did offer multiple conclusions, at least that's what I remember from the few I ever read.
Of course that is still not "collaborative story" either, since there is no collaboration.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
Story-games most often use "framing scenes" as a tool to ensure there will be interesting choices to make and that there is something at stake, something to loose and something to gain, from choosing.
They also very often give authorial rights to the "players", allowing them to frame scenes. The players themselves therefore very often directly define what kind of choice to make and what stakes to set.
I don't think setting stakes and making difficult choices HAS to be an important aspect of a traditional roleplaying game, but imo, it most often is.
Therefore i mostly think of roleplaying and collaborative storytelling as different tools to the same end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully
"pick your own path to a defined conclusion" is not necessarily what is suggested.
Of course that is still not "collaborative story" either, since there is no collaboration.
__________________ "hp evaluate the degree of script immunity of a character" - Ti-Bob
"pick your own path to a defined conclusion" is not necessarily what is suggested. The "Pick your own path" adventure style books did offer multiple conclusions, at least that's what I remember from the few I ever read.
Of course that is still not "collaborative story" either, since there is no collaboration.
I wasn't referring to the pick-a-path adventure books (yes they did have multiple endings, most of them deadly ).
The defined conclusion I meant relates to adventure design whereby the DM determines the number fight scenes, and the number of challenge scenes leading up to the grand finale. This type of design is more suited to story based games than roleplaying games. Story games can be a lot of fun when everyone is on board with the concept. If the players are expecting a roleplaying game and find themselves in a story game there may be issues.
The defined conclusion I meant relates to adventure design whereby the DM determines the number fight scenes, and the number of challenge scenes leading up to the grand finale. This type of design is more suited to story based games than roleplaying games. Story games can be a lot of fun when everyone is on board with the concept. If the players are expecting a roleplaying game and find themselves in a story game there may be issues.
So when you say story game, what you really mean is railroaded roleplaying game.
__________________ The female tiefling's horns are not 'handlebars'.
Pretty much right on. Also related is the "pick your own path to a defined conclusion" trap that DM's can fall into when concentrating on constructing "scenes" to play out. It seems a bit odd that players will put up with such things as a "collaborative story". We used to just call it railroading.
Well, most players probably aren't using your definition of "collaborative story." The writers of the DMG2 likely aren't, either. A chapter like that will have to reach a pretty wide audience, so it's probably going to use the more general and inclusive definitions of several terms to avoid confusion.
Don't worry about other players. They aren't locking themselves into the restrictive contracts you picture. They're just playing the game a little differently, and using the terms differently than you do.
__________________ -------
Ethan Skemp
CCP NA/White Wolf Publishing
So when you say story game, what you really mean is railroaded roleplaying game.
Not really. If the players sit down with the expectation of playing a story based game there is no railroad happening. Everyone knows and expects a very plot driven game. I don't see anything wrong with that at all.
Well the big problem is that you're saying a lot of roleplaying games aren't really rpgs, that they are 'story games' (whatever those are).
There are two problems with that:
1) It really annoys people. And rightly so, as you are perceived as trying to 'force out' those who prefer more story-oriented rpgs, claiming that they're really participating in a separate hobby altogether.
2) You're using a non-standard definition of accepted terms which is, at best, confusing.
__________________ The female tiefling's horns are not 'handlebars'.
Well the big problem is that you're saying a lot of roleplaying games aren't really rpgs, that they are 'story games' (whatever those are).
There are two problems with that:
1) It really annoys people. And rightly so, as you are perceived as trying to 'force out' those who prefer more story-oriented rpgs, claiming that they're really participating in a separate hobby altogether.
2) You're using a non-standard definition of accepted terms which is, at best, confusing.
Indeed. Totally nailed it there.
I vaguely remember certain 'conversations' on this very topic, with a certain EN World member I've not seen around much - oh wait, he ended up as one of only two on my IL! heh. - and yeah, it went round and round, with me not liking some of the RPGs I choose to play and run being denied RPG status by someone who simply (evidently) strongly prefers a different style than the assumed style said games offer.
That's all it generally comes down to, IME. Again and again. . .
Well the big problem is that you're saying a lot of roleplaying games aren't really rpgs, that they are 'story games' (whatever those are).
There are two problems with that:
1) It really annoys people. And rightly so, as you are perceived as trying to 'force out' those who prefer more story-oriented rpgs, claiming that they're really participating in a separate hobby altogether.
2) You're using a non-standard definition of accepted terms which is, at best, confusing.
I just prefer to call a cow a cow and a duck a duck without making value judgements about either animal. If that's annoying so be it. Who exactly gets "forced out" by this clarification, or do you think that people don't have a right to know what they are buying or sitting down to play? False advertising is what I find annoying.
D&D is billed as the premiere roleplaying game. If that is no longer going to be true, and the brand is changing into a storytelling game then the developers/marketers should just man up and say so.
I just prefer to call a cow a cow and a duck a duck without making value judgements about either animal.
Because this is a site devoted to roleplaying games, you can't avoid making a value judgement, a negative one, if you say that something generally held to be an rpg isn't.
__________________ The female tiefling's horns are not 'handlebars'.
Because this is a site devoted to roleplaying games, you can't avoid making a value judgement, a negative one, if you say that something generally held to be an rpg isn't.
Emphasis on "generally." If most people say a Muscovy is a duck and you say it isn't because your platonic ideal of the duck is a mallard, that doesn't mean that people are buying Muscovys under false pretenses when the poultry vendor is calling them ducks.
__________________ -------
Ethan Skemp
CCP NA/White Wolf Publishing
See also: Isaac Asimov's 
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
