Storytelling vs Roleplaying

[Ariosto]

Hussar, maybe I missed it. I saw you state that a player doing whatever the heck we're supposed to call it did not make the game not an RPG; and I have not disagreed.

I have noted that it's different from doing whatever the heck we're supposed to call that other thing. That's not the same as labeling a game. But then ...

... You also pointed out that the first thing, whatever we're supposed to call it, is not the same as what Ron Edwards means by "narrativism", and suggested that someone had claimed otherwise. Maybe, but I think it more likely that people don't happen to know, much less care, about the counter-intuitive Forge-speak.

 

[LostSoul]

I just got finished playing House of the Blooded. You play a role, but when you make rolls you get to state facts that are true in the game world. A lot of fun.

I would say that "role-playing" is a technique employed to achieve a desired result. The same goes for "storytelling".

I think both techniques are present in the actual play of almost all RPGs. Where someone wants to draw the line and say, "That's not an RPG", I don't really care.

What I'm interested in is seeing people discuss the relative merits of both techniques, employed in various forms. In that sort of discussion, what you're trying to get out of the game is an important factor. To that end, I think it's helpful to say, "At that moment you weren't roleplaying." The follow-up question is, "How did that impact the game?"

 

[Obryn]

I don't find story based games offensive. I have played games that way and probably will do so again in the future. If nothing else this discussion has made me more aware of story based indie games that I might want to check out when I get the chance.

You're side-stepping the question.

It's irrelevant whether or not you find story games offensive. The offensive part is that you're basically telling people who have every reason to believe they are playing roleplaying games that they are not - and that you know better than they do.

So, to ask again - would you be willing to use different terminology here?

-O

 

[Hussar]

Hussar, maybe I missed it. I saw you state that a player doing whatever the heck we're supposed to call it did not make the game not an RPG; and I have not disagreed.

I have noted that it's different from doing whatever the heck we're supposed to call that other thing. That's not the same as labeling a game. But then ...

... You also pointed out that the first thing, whatever we're supposed to call it, is not the same as what Ron Edwards means by "narrativism", and suggested that someone had claimed otherwise. Maybe, but I think it more likely that people don't happen to know, much less care, about the counter-intuitive Forge-speak.

Ow ow ow ow. That just made my brain hurt.

To be quite clear, I've stated my position multiple times pretty plainly. I'm not really sure how to do so more clearly. But, in the interests of understanding, this is my position:

[font color=green]The defining characteristic of a role playing game is not a player's ability to alter the setting. That a player can effect changes in the setting does not make a game "not a role playing game". Nor does editorial control (the ability of a player to effect change in the setting) have to reside entirely within the perview of the GM/DM/Referee in order to quality as a role playing game.

While there are differences between traditional RPG's and story games, those differences do not suddenly eject story games from under the umbrella of role playing games. They are both role playing games, much in the same way that hockey and golf are both sports, despite sharing pretty much nothing in common rules wise. [/font]​

Does that clear it up? I thought that my chart did the same thing, but, apparently not.

 

[Acid_crash]

I think the problem, if there is a problem at all, is the term 'roleplaying game'.... and we all kind of know what a rpg is, but it's kind of a confusing term in a way. And like alignments in D&D we all have our own views and interpretations and none of us really can agree, and yet we all can kind of agree as to what the hell we are kind of talking about.

But I think the problem, if there is one, is the term 'roleplaying' and I think that it's a horrible term to use in defining an entire style of game. Maybe for it's time it was good, but now with everything that we've seen in the last twenty five years it's time for a new paradigm of thinking but until people can step beyond what it has been and are willing to think of a new way of thinking about them... but until then, we will just have these dumb multi-thread arguments till the end of time... and we will anyways because sometimes it's just plain fun to argue.

 

[FireLance]

sometimes it's just plain fun to argue.

No, it's not.

 

[Ariosto]

Does that clear it up? I thought that my chart did the same thing, but, apparently not.

Nope. You're off about labeling games as this or that. That's why my "But then ..." led into your invocation of GNS; whatever the theory, the practice seems often to come down to such labeling, with the non-N considered "not really RPGs".

"That's not precisely a claim I've seen him make so far" was in response to:

Like Hussar says, player power extending beyond the PC doesn't necessarily have anything to do with storytelling.

In the context of this thread, "storytelling" has meant "player power extending beyond the PC". Shifting the meaning still does not change the distinction between -- on one hand -- describing component activities within the game and -- on the other -- slapping a label on the game as a whole.

 

[LostSoul]

On telling stories in RPGs:

The most important thing, in my experience, is to make sure that you have a protagonist and make sure that he faces competant adversity. But what makes a protagonist? I think it's the fact that he wants something and the story is driven by his need to get that thing and the adversity he faces. And, of course, how the adversity changes (or perhaps does not change) him.

(One of my favourite examples of a protagonist who does not change is probably "A Witch Shall Be Born"; Conan turns down a lot in order to stay free and independant.)

This, I think, is independant of the techniques used. One can role-play a driven character - Burning Wheel is a great example of this - or use storytelling techniques in order to say, "This is what I want and this is what I am willing to sacrifice for it." Spirit of the Century seems to be this type of game; I don't have much experience with it, but the economy of the game (to use a Forge term) means that you have to decide what's important to your character.

That is an interesting way to handle things, blending the choices the player makes between authorial control and role-identification.

 

[LostSoul]

In the context of this thread, "storytelling" has meant "player power extending beyond the PC". Shifting the meaning still does not change the distinction between -- on one hand -- describing component activities within the game and -- on the other -- slapping a label on the game as a whole.

I think this is a good point. One can have elements of "storytelling" and still be totally engaged in a roleplaying game. "Hey DM, gnolls are savage brutes, would they leave any survivors? They'd probably just enslave everyone they didn't want to eat."

One does not need mechanics to engage in storytelling.

The reverse is also true, of course.

 

[ExploderWizard]

You're side-stepping the question.

It's irrelevant whether or not you find story games offensive. The offensive part is that you're basically telling people who have every reason to believe they are playing roleplaying games that they are not - and that you know better than they do.

So, to ask again - would you be willing to use different terminology here?

-O

I'm not all that concerned with terminology for it's own sake. What I would like is for a game to state the prime play objectives openly. Is the game about the players assuming roles and exploring fictional worlds from within those roles or is the main objective for the playing group to collaborate on weaving a story through play. As long as one can tell the difference from reading a blurb about the game it's all good.

Having a game of each type sitting next to each other that both just say:
This is X-the RPG, isn't helpful in that regard.