new preview DMG2

[cwhs01]

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.

"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.

 

[ExploderWizard]

"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.

 

[Doug McCrae]

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.

 

[Barastrondo]

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.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

 

[Doug McCrae]

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.

 

[Aus_Snow]

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. . .

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

 

[Doug McCrae]

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.

 

[Barastrondo]

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.