Challenge the Players, Not the Characters' Stats

[pemerton]

While in the position of the DM, I never feel as though I am playing the game. I feel as though I am tossing out obstacles and story for others to enjoy.

As justanobody accurately points out, GMs/DMs/Referees/Judges - gamers were never so confused as to call them Players.

Whether or not GMs should be considered to be playing the game depends in part on the GM's role - in the sort of play the possibility of which I am defending the GM is certainly not best described as a referee or judge. But in any event, when I said that "narrating the gameworld in the course of play is playing the game" I had players (in the strict sense) in mind, not the GM. I was making the point that prep work is not playing the game, but narrating the gameworld in the course of play is playing the game, and therefore in that respect does not resemble prep work (though in other respects it may resemble prep work eg both play a role in determining the state of the gameworld).

An example from my game only today

<snip>

Now, did he role-play long enough to lean out of the rigging, stop role-playing, narrate the existence of the gunpowder, then resume roe-playing in order to shoot it?

Bollocks to that, I say. He was role-playing while his character shot a keg of gunpowder.

Agreed. People can perform two speech-acts at once - both roleplaying and narration, in this case.

Role Playing

The act of putting oneself in another person's position in an attempt to see his or her point of view in a situation.

Isn't that what we all do?

Not necessarily. Some players of RPGs use the fictional person (the PC) as a device in the course of doing other things (eg tell a certain sort of story). For such players the point of view of the PC is an effect, not a cause; an output, not an input.

What I disagree with is the claim all RPGs are storytelling games.

I don't disagree with this. What I'm asserting is that some RPGing is storytelling. And (but less emphatically) that all RPGing involves the creation of fictions in a fashion that is, in my opinion, qualitatively different from the sorts of fictions that are involved in a game of Monopoly, or even a game of Talisman or DDM.

I am as simply as possible trying to explain how certain terms are actually defined and how role-playing isn't the telling of a story, no more than living one's life is telling a story. Rules that remove one from role-playing exist because folks want a story where one can't possibly exist. (Hence we get plotline adventures, world warping DMs, and more).

I'm mostly interested in the "more" - world warping (or, as I'd rather put it, "world-determining") players!.

But I disupte the contention that no story can possible exist in an RPG. Leaving aside the question of whether or not an individual's living of his/her life can constitute a story (some philosophers of identity obviously think that it can, but I have no strong view one way or another), there is no doubt that RPGing can give rise to a story. I know this to be so because I've seen it happen. The first step do achieving this has to be to abandon the thought that roleplaying in an RPG has to invovle prentending to occupy a pre-specified role, and accept that it can be the creation of that role (ie the authorial creation of the PC) and (in some cases) can also involve the creation of other parts of the fictional world in which the PC resides.

 

[pemerton]

Simple example:
A) You are in a locked room <description here>. You have a hammer and a chipped dagger.
B) You are in a locked room <description here>. You have a blunt instrument and a small cutting tool - what exactly those are is up to you.
C) You are in a locked room <description here>. You have two tools. What they are is up to you.

In A, your goal can be fully to escape the room. In B, that's still true, with the exception of some fringe cases. In C, you could just decide that one of your tools is a key to the door - so your goal must actually be to tell an interesting story about escaping the room.

I like your simple example.

What about a more complex example (a version of which actually came up in my campaign)? A Paladin has to find a way to bind an Elder Evil, and the player has to choose what his/her PC should do. There are at least 2 options:

a) Research a spell that will do the job.

b) Start working out the resources of her monasitc order (which have never really come into play before) and explain to the GM how she is able to found a branch of her order on the earthly side of the gate, which will then oversee the gate and make sure that it is not breached.

In AD&D or 3E the rules permit virtually any magical effect to exist, and thus option (a) is fully simulationist, or (in HowandWhy's terminology) a purely roleplaying option. Option (b), however, appears to have authorial dimensions to it, as the player is specifying aspects of the gameworld that previously were indeterminate, and explaining how they are adequate to the task.

My player adopted option (b). In telling me how his PC goes about setting up the order, I think that the player is both roleplaying (ie adopting the role of his paladin PC) and participating in the telling of a story (ie about the existence of a monastic order of paladins, and the foundation by his PC of a branch of it to guard the gate behind which is locked an Elder Evil). The challenge to the player was not simply like working out how to use a hammer and chipped dagger to escape the room. But nor was it just a matter of specifying that one of the PC's previously unspecified tools is a key. It was far more intricate than that. It is in the intracacy of the narration, and it's integration with what has gone before in the game and in the gameworld that both the challenge and the satisfictioin of play reside.

 

[justanobody]

~CRAP! I cannot figure out how to do this with so many internal quotes, so please refer to the original post by pemerton - signed: justanobody~

1- The players should at most, and I am not saying they should, but at most narrate their own character not the world.

The east river will not change directions because a player deems it so.

2- Role playing definition...

What?

You have to look at things form the character perspective in order to see what the character could do in the situation. You could go grab a chainsaw to cut down a tree, but the character has to do it the old fashioned way with ax or hand saw. So roleplaying is both the input of the perspective form the character's POV, and the output in what the player does to act in the manner the PC would, either by speaking for him, or narrating the actions that the player cannot perform for the character.

Francis the Fighter: "So while you guys finish up here I am going to go to the tavern and have a few drinks."
Player of Francis the Fighter: "Francis walks off to the barracks to question the local militia."

There shouldn't be one without the other at all times, but work best together when the opportunity is present. In character is letting the story develop, and out of character is letting the players know what is going on, namely the DM to know what the player is wanting or attempting to do.

In the above example you get a full picture, while one or the other would leave out something of the "story".

Had the player narrated it all it might have worked, but not had the same effect on the story being told.

 

[Raven Crowking]

What about a more complex example (a version of which actually came up in my campaign)? A Paladin has to find a way to bind an Elder Evil, and the player has to choose what his/her PC should do.

Nice.

 

[Raven Crowking]

1- The players should at most, and I am not saying they should, but at most narrate their own character not the world.

The east river will not change directions because a player deems it so.

I agree with this, but....

In pemerton's example, IMHO, the paladin isn't simply deciding to change the course of the east river, but is deciding that he will work with what tools he has within the campaign world to create a specific change. This is, IMHO, no different than a character saying "I'd like to open an inn on the King's Highway, where I can rest between adventures and maybe make a little profit. It would give me some respectability in these parts, I think. My henchman, Rusty, can run the place when I'm away."

The DM then either handwaves the difficulties of setting up the inn/order ("Two years have passed, and the fledgling Order of Gateguards....") or plays through the complications as a new series of adventures. Either way is A-Okay in my book.


RC

 

[Lord Mhoram]

IMO, at least, there's quite a bit of difference between narrating how something happens, and that something happens.

My way of looking at it, looking at what is there in the world and changes to it...

Are the changes in the world made by the player or the character.

Narrating in the "drama edit" approach allows the player to change the world by description.

Narrating in the "goes up the stairs" is more traditional - it isn't changing the world, just the character.

I prefer games/campaigns where the only changes that I, as a player, can have an effect on is through the actions of my character. If I, as a player, want things changed in the world outside of that, I talk with the GM outside of the sessions and explain what I am after, and if that fits with his world, and find out if that allowable, then allow him to set the specifics.

 

[justanobody]

I agree with this, but....

In pemerton's example, IMHO, the paladin isn't simply deciding to change the course of the east river, but is deciding that he will work with what tools he has within the campaign world to create a specific change. This is, IMHO, no different than a character saying "I'd like to open an inn on the King's Highway, where I can rest between adventures and maybe make a little profit. It would give me some respectability in these parts, I think. My henchman, Rusty, can run the place when I'm away."

The DM then either handwaves the difficulties of setting up the inn/order ("Two years have passed, and the fledgling Order of Gateguards....") or plays through the complications as a new series of adventures. Either way is A-Okay in my book.


RC

I surely would not handwave setting up the inn, but wouldn't require the player to babysit it once operational. The inn would become a part of the world, but the player had to work to change it just like overthrowing the local regent to bring in a new lord that is more fair.

Even that east river can be made to move directions, but it needs depth into how it will happen rather than just saying that it happens because a player wants it to.

This inn requires funds to build, people to build, etc. So changes to the world can be made by the players, but through actions, not just words.

 

[howandwhy99]

But I don't agree that your dictionary definition of 'roleplaying' encompasses what is meant by the term within the hobby of 'roleplaying games'.

The definition you are using is a lot more restrictive than the one used by roleplayers. Over the last thirty years, they've taken the term, made it their own, and it now covers a lot more than your dictionary realises.

Consider, for example, dictionary.com's definitions of Martial Art:

1. any of the traditional forms of Oriental self-defense or combat that utilize physical skill and coordination without weapons, as karate, aikido, judo, or kung fu, often practiced as sport.

2. Any of several Asian arts of combat or self-defense, such as aikido, karate, judo, or tae kwon do, usually practiced as sport. Often used in the plural.

3. any of several Oriental arts of weaponless self-defense; usually practiced as a sport; "he had a black belt in the martial arts"

So, is Kendo a martial art? It's not weaponless. Is Savate a martial art? It's not Asian or Oriental.

Or is the definition found at dictionary.com less inclusive than that used by people within the martial arts community?

-Hyp.

As I answered to Mustrum_Ridcully, I think I'm defining role-playing by a larger definition than currently used. The act of "role-playing your character" is often referring solely to in-character or improvisational acting play. I'm sure there are many definitions of role-playing, I simply disagree with both swamping the term as "collaborative storytelling" or redefining it to include out-of-role actions.

In the definition of martial arts, are all of them arts for being martial? I don't believe Tai chi chuan is, but I cannot think of any other. Here we could say is a change of intent. The forms are still somewhat martial, but performed for health reasons. But could Tai Chi practitioners use those forms for combat? Probably not nearly as well as most other schools. I've never heard of Tai Chi combat competitions. What do you think other martial artists would say, if the dictionary definition became: "Martial Arts are exercises for health and longevity" and then used as examples: aerobics, yoga, and jazzercise along with Ju-jitsu and Tae kwon-do?

Whether or not GMs should be considered to be playing the game depends in part on the GM's role - in the sort of play the possibility of which I am defending the GM is certainly not best described as a referee or judge. But in any event, when I said that "narrating the gameworld in the course of play is playing the game" I had players (in the strict sense) in mind, not the GM. I was making the point that prep work is not playing the game, but narrating the gameworld in the course of play is playing the game, and therefore in that respect does not resemble prep work (though in other respects it may resemble prep work eg both play a role in determining the state of the gameworld).

I know we've gone over this as Playing God or Playing a Role in the world. You believe you can narrate (determine) the world by saying what it is alone, but all the while stay in-character. I don't believe so. I believe the term role-playing pretty much defines itself.

Not necessarily. Some players of RPGs use the fictional person (the PC) as a device in the course of doing other things (eg tell a certain sort of story). For such players the point of view of the PC is an effect, not a cause; an output, not an input.

Yep, I don't see role-playing as a novelist attempting to see things through the eyes of his characters and then writing a believable story. The success can only be a success of portrayal.

I don't disagree with this. What I'm asserting is that some RPGing is storytelling. And (but less emphatically) that all RPGing involves the creation of fictions in a fashion that is, in my opinion, qualitatively different from the sorts of fictions that are involved in a game of Monopoly, or even a game of Talisman or DDM.

I'm pleased we agree, but as you know I disagree role-playing can be the telling a story unless it becomes theater. It's the reason why D&D and most other RPG hobby games aren't called theatre or acting games in the first place.

I'm mostly interested in the "more" - world warping (or, as I'd rather put it, "world-determining") players!.

But I disupte the contention that no story can possible exist in an RPG. Leaving aside the question of whether or not an individual's living of his/her life can constitute a story (some philosophers of identity obviously think that it can, but I have no strong view one way or another),
snip

I used the world warping examples as they allow Players to remain solely role-playing.

The definitions of philosophical story-telling intent in life, if true, would mean "story" as a label would become non-functional. It wouldn't differentiate anything really.

there is no doubt that RPGing can give rise to a story. I know this to be so because I've seen it happen. The first step do achieving this has to be to abandon the thought that roleplaying in an RPG has to invovle prentending to occupy a pre-specified role, and accept that it can be the creation of that role (ie the authorial creation of the PC) and (in some cases) can also involve the creation of other parts of the fictional world in which the PC resides.

Which all means, of course, you have to stop role-playing to tell stories. I don't think we're disagreeing on this. I think we're defining role-playing differently. I am in the "Play your character/role" crowd. And I believe you are more in the "any kind of make believe is role-playing" crowd. But correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm not sure where else I can go in this thread and still stay on topic, but if you have anything, I'll check back.

 

[pemerton]

Nice.

Thanks.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I'm sure there are many definitions of role-playing, I simply disagree with both swamping the term as "collaborative storytelling" or redefining it to include out-of-role actions.

Someone goes fishing.

After an hour of standing by the riverbank, his line in the water, he goes to his cooler, grabs a beer, returns to his rod, and continues standing by the riverbank for another hour.

Then he goes home.

Was he fishing for two hours? Or was he fishing for an hour, at which point he ceased fishing, did something else, and then resumed fishing for another hour?

I'd say that the act of grabbing a beer, while perhaps outside the literal definition of fishing, was something that occurred during the greater context of the activity of 'fishing'.

Similarly, if someone, while participating in the activity of 'role-playing', performs an out-of-role action, it doesn't necessitate them ceasing to engage in 'role-playing', performing the action, and then resuming 'role-playing'. In similar fashion to walking and chewing gum at the same time, the out-of-role action occurs in conjunction with the role-playing, and if someone says "So you were role-playing all day?", he can in all honesty say "Yes", because he didn't cease the role-playing activity just to perform the out-of-role action.

-Hyp.