Challenge the Players, Not the Characters' Stats

[pemerton]

Players in D&D 4e do not have the kind of authority you're talking about, even during a Skill Challenge. Maybe the DM gives the players this authority in the game, but it's not a part of the RAW.

In 4e, a player might say, "Is there a ruined tower I can scramble up for a better view?" He doesn't have the authority to say, "I spot a ruined tower and scramble up it for a better view."

Well, the skill challenge rules don't expressly give the players that sort of authority. But page 28 has James Wyatt saying (in the sidebar) that "this is a game about imagination, about coming together to tell a story as a group . . . the players have a right to participate in telling that story—after all, they’re playing the protagonists!" So I would say the DMG is ambiguous on the point.

 

[howandwhy99]

I am not really seeing the video game similarity here. Unless you're speaking about cheat codes or editors. Narrative control is something we usually lack in scripted or "simulating" games.

Crossing the desert in a videogame usually won't allow the player deciding that there is an oasis around somewhere. But a role-playing game with narrative elements - or just a DM that reacts to player input - would allow you to "add" one. Not necessarily change the nature of the desert, but defining that it exists where this was undecided beforehand.

You're right, I wasn't very clear there. I see NAR rule games like RPG videogame rules because the frequently both require the player to stop playing the PC in order to use them. Placing a desert is not role-playing in the same way turning on PvP status isn't playing your character either.

In games that make narrative control part of the game rules, it is not "because the DM let us win". It is because you used your resources given by the game (be it character powers or narrative options for players) to "win".

I think I was mentioning this shortly above your post. Typical RPGs challenge the player to win as their character. NAR rules challenge the player to win as a storyteller (while perhaps sometimes winning as the character).

But you always win only because the DM let you win. If the DM doesn't want you to win, he will create a real death trap. Sending you against monsters you can't beat, or presenting a fiendish trap you never could have figured out.

Don't let the wargamers find out they only win because the referees allowed them to. DMs, referees, and judges of any ilk have to abide by the rules just as the players do. They aren't kings.

Definitely all have the potential for them. The DM creates a setting that the characters will interact with. Solely by choosing the actions of their characters, player will affect what will happen in the game, and by thus, you have a story that is told and created not only by the DM, but also by the players, making it a story told collaboratively.

It is not the only thing they did in this time, but it is what makes the experience of "beating challenge" so unique. You can beat challenges with Sodoku or Poker, too, but you tell a story while beating challenges when playing an RPG. It creates a unique relationship between the participants and the story. You didn't just tell some story you were interested - you "worked" to realize the story.

This is doing, not storytelling. Any kind of game may have a fictional counterpart it is modeling. Referencing that counterpart while playing the game doesn't mean playing those games is "collaboratively telling a story." The fiction of Monopoly or Chess is every bit as valid as a story as that in D&D. Even with no "referenced fiction", if referencing game elements is telling a story, Sodoku and Poker are storytelling games too. You can't pick and choose what counts.

 

[howandwhy99]

Uh... a picture is worth a thousand words? The problem with a "mental simulation" is that in order to investigate it you have to explicitly ask the person whose simulation it is. As opposed to a physical simulation where to investigate it you use the same senses you use to investigate the world. Much less turnaround time on the latter.

All of this really doesn't matter IMO. Physical mock ups are still RPGs. Whether they be in gymnasiums or in World of Warcraft online. Having to ask doesn't change the game into a storytelling game. See here again.
Specifically: "The difference is in short: Occasionally using narrative speech forms to talk about modeled fiction vs. collaboratively relating a fictional narrative."

Combat simulations are, too. It's just that everybody comes to the table with a fairly large set of actions, and if there's a battle map, they have a pretty good picture of how they can use those actions.

It's still up to people to make their mechanics make sense in the context of the gameworld, if they'd like, but there's no extra mechanical benefits.

I think we're falling back into All Simulations games are NAR games. If the only difference is having to reference the rules, then intent is all that matters. I can intend not to tell a story with no visible change in play. This is a false distinction IMO.

The dice aren't there to decide whether the tower exists. The DM does have right of first refusal if he doesn't want the tower there, but the check the player makes is to climb the tower and not pull it down on top of himself. To get a better view of the desert. To navigate it. To pass the skill challenge. Not to somehow determine whether the tower is there or not.

Actually, I believe the dice are there to determine if the tower exists. But that's my preference. The player doesn't step out of the role to declare and still get to be claimed "in character" (i.e. role-playing). I've been over this stuff before in this thread.

 

[howandwhy99]

Players in D&D 4e do not have the kind of authority you're talking about, even during a Skill Challenge. Maybe the DM gives the players this authority in the game, but it's not a part of the RAW.

In 4e, a player might say, "Is there a ruined tower I can scramble up for a better view?" He doesn't have the authority to say, "I spot a ruined tower and scramble up it for a better view."

Hey LostSoul. I was only using that example in that response because it was what was suggested to me as a Skill Challenge answer. I agree with your understanding on how it could be played as strictly skill challenges grouped with a rather weak overall difficulty goal (# of success / failures).

No... but I think a collaborative storytelling game where the players assume the parts of characters falls under the umbrella of Roleplaying Games.

I absolutely agree. Just as theatre acting probably falls under the much larger term "role-playing". However, this doesn't mean D&D is a theatre game or you are engaged in telling a story when you play it.

By "all are not", do you mean where the PCs actions are all described in the third person?

"My guy moves over here, and hits the goblin with his sword", "Regdar greets the innkeeper",
versus
"I run up to the goblin and hit him with my sword", "'Hail, good innkeeper!'"?

-Hyp.

Yep. #3, playing a role on stage - Acting.

And I think you answered this. Just because one is playing in-character (acting) doesn't make the game a theatre game. Just as in the Mickey Mantle example or for any other kind of game.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You're right, I wasn't very clear there. I see NAR rule games like RPG videogame rules because the frequently both require the player to stop playing the PC in order to use them. Placing a desert is not role-playing in the same way turning on PvP status isn't playing your character either.

That might be true, but setting a graphic details or turning PvP status on is still something very different.

I think I was mentioning this shortly above your post. Typical RPGs challenge the player to win as their character. NAR rules challenge the player to win as a storyteller (while perhaps sometimes winning as the character).
Don't let the wargamers find out they only win because the referees allowed them to. DMs, referees, and judges of any ilk have to abide by the rules just as the players do. They aren't kings.

What rules do forbid me from sending a balor against a 1st level party? What rules forbid me to create a series of save or die traps that the party can't figure out? The "RAW" doesn't constrict the DM here, he doesn't have to cheat.
He has to follow the "informal" rules, the group contract to put up only challenges the party can beat (at least if they try hard enough - and if he doesn't overestimate the players abilities or their character abilities.)
Even 3E or 4E encounter building systems doesn't tell the DM it's a "rule" to only allow certain level ranges. It just advises them to stay within certain borders for best effect.

This is doing, not storytelling. Any kind of game may have a fictional counterpart it is modeling. Referencing that counterpart while playing the game doesn't mean playing those games is "collaboratively telling a story." The fiction of Monopoly or Chess is every bit as valid as a story as that in D&D. Even with no "referenced fiction", if referencing game elements is telling a story, Sodoku and Poker are storytelling games too. You can't pick and choose what counts.

Referencing game elements is not telling the story. But linking the game elements to story elements is the story. If you're just dungeon crawling "just because", yeah, there is little story to it. But if you're doing it to stop a cult of mind flayers that try to block out the sun, then you're telling a story. If you're convincing the mayor to send some of his best guardmen with you to fight the goblins, you're not just solving a problem, you're telling a story.
And since you could have failed to convince the mayor, or decided not to ask the mayor, or decided to topple the mayor, the players decision change the story. That is what makes it collaborative storytelling. The DM might have put the mayor and the goblins in the game - but it was the players that decided how their characters would react to them.

 

[howandwhy99]

For what it's worth, 4e combat resolution also has narrativist dimensions (eg the Come and Get It fighter power, which allows a 1x/enc pull of foes within a certain radius towards the PC, and which therefore in effect empowers the player to 1x/enc specify how, in the gameworld, it comes about that those foes move closer to his/her PC).

This is one of the more popular examples for disliking portions of 4E's combat system.

This is equally true in narrativist play, except that the logical relation will typically be one of consistency rather than entailment (which in any event is, in practice, unlikely to be made out given the paucity of detail about the gameworld). And the system in place to determine which of the various possibilities obtains (each consistent with the prior state of the gameworld, but all mutually inconsistent as extensions of that state) is one of game-mechanically-distributed stipulation.

Consistency under a referee or judge's discretion vs. player's gaming as Gods to the world is the difference. Entailment is intended through game design to remove referee bias wherever possible. Players who ask DMs to skip those rolls are asking for DM judgment to prevail over published game design. Players who ask to design the world on the fly while playing, and then have that authority determined via a mechanic, are stepping out of character to win a different kind of game. They are swapping storytelling for role-playing. If "game-mechanically-distributed" rules are "NAR", then no game can not be called a storygame.

Yes, for a certain value of "role-playing". Of course, in my view "roleplaying", as used to describe the activity of playing an RPG, includes the act of stipulating the state of the gameworld when this takes place during the course of play.

For all values that qualify as "playing your character". That's includes #2 & #3. Adding storytelling into RPGs where it wasn't before does not redefine all RPGs that did not include it. Removing role-playing type #2 from a game has historically made it a theatre improv game. Getting rid of both 2 & 3 means you might FLGSs selling bicycle repair manuals under the heading RPG have redefined the hobby. The act of telling a story isn't role-playing as any CRPG player can tell you.

It's interesting that you seem to agree with Ron Edwards about the inconsistency of winning and storytelling. I think the tension between the two is not as great as you (and Edwards) are suggesting. For example, provided that the mechanics place certain constraints on narrative distribution, then there can still be a challenge in taking the story to where you want it to go (eg victory for one's PC). And overcoming that challenge might still be fun.

The problem is, you are not overcoming the challenge through role-play. You are playing a narrative allocation game. And as I've shown not all rulesets equate to narrative distribution. Blind Monopoly, or any game's modeled fiction merely referenced by its players, must always become a storytelling game by that characterization.

I also think that you are wrong in suggesting that roleplaying (in your sense) and narration are inconsistent speech acts. In many cases I think they are performed simultaneously. I'm reminded of Davidson's essay on Quotation (1979), in which he says (pp 80-81 in Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation):

"I once resolved to adopt a consistent way of using quotation marks in my professional writing. My plan was to use single quotation marks when I wanted to refer to the expression a token of which was within, but double quotation marks when I wanted to use the expression in its usual meaning while at the same time indicating that the word was odd or special ('scare quotes'). I blush to admit that I struggled with this absurd and unworkable formula for a couple of years before it dawned on me that the second category contained the seeds of its own destruction. Consider . . . [my earlier remark that] Quine says that quotation '. . . has a certain anomolous feature'. Are the quoted words used or mentioned? Obviously mentioned, since the words are Quine's own, and I want to mark the fact. But eqaully obvious is the fact that the words are used".​

As Davidson notes, it is possible to both use a word and to mention it at the same time. Likewise, I think it is possible to both tell a story (ie occupy the authorial "god" role) and to play a role (ie occupy the protagonist role) at the same time - an example would be a player who says "I take a drink from my water-bottle, which of course I refilled before we left town." Here the players is both playing the role of his/her PC and occupying the authorial role.

This is why I think that Edwards is correct that no particular role (protagonist or authorial) is indicative of whether play is simulationist or narrativist. To work that out you need to look at what sorts of expectations and constraints determine what is done by any given player occupying any given role.

I haven't read more than a few snippets of Donald Davidson's work, but I have read a good bit of WVO Quine's which he is referencing here.. The issue that I have (relating to our discussion) is not Davidson's attempt to assign phrase attribution or his attempts at signifying either the performance or not of said phrase in a work referencing both. My dispute is over specifically taking common sense language usage, like "telling a story" and attributing it to "taking action", while claiming it doesn't fall under theatre acting. Yes, if you really want to claim all action includes expression, then you can start claiming all existence is telling a story. If you want to claim all games including a player-directed avatar (thereby falling into Davidson's language logic problem) are role-playing games, you can do that too. Yes, the difference between role-playing and playing a single avatar boardgame is a matter of degrees when it comes to defining RPGs in the english-speaking, language-creating community. Does determining what is an RPG get confusing, as in computer RPGs? Of course. Everyone probably has a difficult time categorizing between Action, Adventure, and RPG computer games. But no one would be so confused that using a cheat program to give your PC "God-Mode" is still "playing the role of the PC". Cheating at role-playing games is cheating at playing the role, whether the rules allow include it or not. Difficulties at attributing referenced expressions doesn't change that. It's because we all have a very strong idea of what it means to be a person. We know what taking on the role of another person means too. And that surpassing the abilities of that person is no longer taking on their role.

The best exposition of this playstyle that I know is by Lewis Pulsipher in an article collated into the Best of White Dwarf vol 1. The discussion in the 1st ed AD&D PHB of how to go about preparing for an adventure is located in the same paradigm, but is less explicit than Pulsipher. (Interestingly, the 1st ed DMG doesn't say all that much about what is involved in GMing this sort of play - I think Pulsipher is better in that respect.)

What is noteworthy is that, when Pulsipher published an article located within the same paradigm in 1983 (Dragon 79) it already seems to have been a more controversial presupposition about the aim of play (Forum response published in Dragon 81).

I'm personally not persuaded that most people play D&D (or other RPGs) in order to test themselves in the way that you suggest.

I bought the 1-90 White Dwarf CD a couple of years ago for Christmas. I don't agree with a lot of Pulsipher's writings, but he does understand role-play by its' fundamental attribute: learning in a role by taking it on one's self. For the Forum response in question: (spoilered for length)

[sblock]I really must protest the general philosophy of the article "Be aware and take care" (DRAGON #79). The level of caution and precaution advised in that article may be conducive to efficient game-playing, but can only hinder good role-playing. For one thing, if I were to believe that the guidelines Mr. Pulsipher offers were of value, then they should be followed for every character. But these suggestions are so activity restrictive (You should always . . ., etc.) that I would end up playing the same character over and over. Worse yet, that character would be a paranoid, neurotically cautious, pessimistic cretin with a reputation
for irrational behavior.

The "Whom do you trust?" section shows not only the paranoia of Mr. Pulsipher's characters, but a flagrant display of illogic. What happens when a character drinks holy water of the opposite alignment? Nothing, unless the character (or drinker) is somehow endowed with the power of an Outer Plane, or the Positive or Negative Material Plane. It's just not powerful enough to detect the subtle energies of Prime Material alignments. And since they'd probably taste the same to everybody (though evils might find good holy water too sickly sweet, and goods might be a little more revulsed at the taste of evil holy water), you couldn't really tell by their facial expressions. And putting those manacles on that farmer would be more likely to make him distrust you. Or at least wonder whether or not he was better off in the dungeons of the Evil Count What's-his-face.

Magical sleeping bags? If it weren't for that, the section on camps wouldn't be too bad for a specific character. If this form of caution is in character for the fighter or whatever that you've created, then by all means go ahead. Otherwise, it's a bit too much like work. Besides, you could probably sleep in your armor, it'd just be incredibly uncomfortable. If your character will put up with this sort of self-abuse, fine. I believe most fighters would, unless they were in plate mail or weren't very adventurous anyway.

The section on "playing" the DM, while falling just short of cheating, is hardly in the spirit of the game. Using the tactics outlined here would cripple any chance of roleplaying on the players' parts. If the characters had a hard time with a given monster, they would probably comment on it to one another afterwards. If they had an easy time, they would be grateful to their gods.

They would not be constantly complaining about their lot to the all-powerful deity known only as .DM.. Anyway, it's fairly obvious to the DM whether or not the characters are having a hard time, based on damage taken, length of melees, etc. Carping about imagined hardships would put me off fudging in a minute, and if it kept up they might find themselves up against more than they can handle, so they can tell the difference in the future. I usually only kill people when they do something stupid and that fits the bill.

Lastly, and most importantly, the really good role-player is self-limiting. This means that if a certain action seems in character or simply the logical outcome of a given situation, then even if that action might hurt the character.s chances for survival slightly (I don.t expect ultimate sacrifices from anyone), the player will take that course of action. For example, if I was playing a fighter of near-barbarian temperament, and I thought this guy would be proud of and like to show off his battle-scars, I might have this character disdain clerical healing for all but the most grievous of injuries, so that he has natural scars to show off. Another example might be a Champions- style martial artist, who after a failed kick is struck by an attack. If it seems likely that the attack hit in the leg, the player might assume that using the legs for kicking would be quite painful and therefore inaccurate. The character might refrain from using his martial kick at least for the duration of the battle or until it can be tended to, settling instead for the lower-damage martial punch.

Let me make it clear that I am not completely opposed to Mr. Pulsipher.s article, lest people think that I prefer characters who charge blindly into danger with no precautions and as many limitations as humanly possible. Many of the ideas in the article were good ideas, but all of them should not be used by any one character or group. Adventurers should be as varied as any other group. Some will be cautious, maybe in the extreme, and others will be equally careless. The important thing is that they should be individuals, and their players should be concerned with role-playing, not milking any given situation for every last copper, while pursuing a paranoid obsession with minimizing damage.

[I'm leaving off the name][/sblock]If you read that carefully, I bet you'd agree that much of the writer's actions could be called tyrannical. I don't think he understands what being an objective Referee in a fair gaming environment means. I would never hire him to judge at a tournament convention like the very popular Goodman's Games tournament, not to mention WotC's annual GenCon D&D tournament.

I understand you believe role-player's don't want Pulsipher's kind of RPG. Which is fine as I feel he talks far more about a particular style of play relevant mostly under his own GMing. But to deny that RPGers do not want to test themselves in-character vs. "just saying" a good story for them to face? I think you need to look at the behaviors of the 10's of millions of players of computer-simulated RPGs. How many of those players engage in (the oft-misnomered) "RP" sections? Do I understand many players do want to go through great adventures? Yes, of course. But the degree of challenge one wants to overcome to achieve it is a preference. To claim it's all just telling a story or that all their games are "NAR" challenges is insulting to most RPGers IMO.

I believe, what we have now is a schism similar to what D&D faced with wargamers in the 70's. Is D&D a wargame? Yes, if you don't mind it being so broad in scope. Do we call D&D, World of Darkness, GURPs, or Shadowrun Wargames? No, because we are a separate community branched off of it. RPGs didn't get to redefine wargaming because it didn't fit in the box anymore. Indie Gamers and the Big Model believers don't get to redefine the tabletop RPG community because their games don't fit in it's box anymore. I call them hybrids. Distorting the actual, commonly used terminology of RPGs for over 3 decades doesn't change that fact. It actually requires one to deny 10 million WoW players are role-players. How on earth are you going to change people's use of the term outside the TTRPG hobby in the face of that? What's happening instead is a line of ridiculous phrasings as I mentioned early in this thread (I believe it was this thread). Things like "D&D is a form of literature" - Wikipedia. "RPGs are a type of media" - another forum. It's not rocket science, it's comical.

 

[howandwhy99]

That might be true, but setting a graphic details or turning PvP status on is still something very different.

I don't think we're going anywhere here as the difference you are referencing is only makes sense outside of role-play. We both agree this isn't role-playing a character.

What rules do forbid me from sending a balor against a 1st level party? What rules forbid me to create a series of save or die traps that the party can't figure out? The "RAW" doesn't constrict the DM here, he doesn't have to cheat.

He has to follow the "informal" rules, the group contract to put up only challenges the party can beat (at least if they try hard enough - and if he doesn't overestimate the players abilities or their character abilities.)
Even 3E or 4E encounter building systems doesn't tell the DM it's a "rule" to only allow certain level ranges. It just advises them to stay within certain borders for best effect.

Game prep is not the same as running a game. This is one of the biggest leaps of logic the Big Model makes. Storytellers have to claim that designing a module is the act of role-playing because it's the specific element they must distort and redefine to qualify as RP. "Creating the world" is not an in-character action. Nor is it necessarily a desirable action for a GM. Do some improvisationally create the world on the fly? Yes, but I'd hope they were designing as playable a world as any module writer. Do Players during a role-playing session get to create the world too? Not if they want to consider that action "playing in the role". Rather, they are gaming the world to win. Their successes are that less meaningful. More "NAR" rules means less meaningful in-character success. It amounts to "just saying" you did something.

Referencing game elements is not telling the story. But linking the game elements to story elements is the story. If you're just dungeon crawling "just because", yeah, there is little story to it. But if you're doing it to stop a cult of mind flayers that try to block out the sun, then you're telling a story. If you're convincing the mayor to send some of his best guardmen with you to fight the goblins, you're not just solving a problem, you're telling a story.
And since you could have failed to convince the mayor, or decided not to ask the mayor, or decided to topple the mayor, the players decision change the story. That is what makes it collaborative storytelling. The DM might have put the mayor and the goblins in the game - but it was the players that decided how their characters would react to them.

You're still making the basic mistake that #2 role-playing is #3 acting "in character". Again, if I play Chess not by calling out the "big piece to A4" but, "My King takes your Bishop" I am telling a story by your above definition. But rationally, even that's too narrow for the "what counts as NAR rules design" designation. "Referenced fiction" is not needed to tell a story by any of these qualifiers. Doing qualifies.

 

[justanobody]

Don't forget Role Assumption: taking the role of the character and making decisions as that character, though not actually role-playing/acting out the persona in speech.

Cheers!

Sure that isn't narrative?

"Francis the Fighter jumps over the pit to cling to the ledge on the other side."

While it isn't stated that Francis has succeed, but is the attempt, it is a bit more narrative that roleplaying.

I would say to bring it more to roleplaying it should be said like this:

"I have Francis the Fighter jump over the pit to cling to the ledge on the other side."

While they are both odd and hard to classify, it seems the second version is assuming the persona as an avatar at least, rather than the first where it assumes Francis is merely an object.

Again, totally unrelated and off-topic for challenging the players vs the character stats. Maybe a split or fork, or whatever for this can be made? I don't have the slightest idea how, but this is interesting side discussion that had gone way off track for the initial topic.

 

[GlaziusF]

I'm going to get to a longer response going when I get home but I thought I should note this now.

I bought the 1-90 White Dwarf CD a couple of years ago for Christmas. I don't agree with a lot of Pulsipher's writings, but he does understand role-play by its' fundamental attribute: learning in a role by taking it on one's self. For the Forum response in question: (spoilered for length)

...

If you read that carefully, I bet you'd agree that much of the writer's actions could be called tyrannical. I don't think he understands what being an objective Referee in a fair gaming environment means. I would never hire him to judge at a tournament convention like the very popular Goodman's Games tournament, not to mention WotC's annual GenCon D&D tournament.

So, wait. Wait.

The guy who's all "trust no one, drench all princesses with holy water, bind and gag all captives, THEY ARE OUT TO GET YOU" is the one with the fundamental understanding, and the guy who's all "dude, comprehensive paranoia isn't any fun and might send your DM the signal that you crave the very betrayal you're trying to avoid" is the one who doesn't get it?

If that's what you're saying, then color me the antithesis to your thesis.

 

[pemerton]

Game prep is not the same as running a game.

True. But narrating the gameworld in the course of play is playing the game.