Storytelling vs Roleplaying

[ExploderWizard]

Is there a reason we're still arguing this?

If EW hasn't conceded anything by page 5, he isn't going to concede it by page 6 or 7 or 10. And no amount of posters piling on his definition is going to change that.

I was hoping for an actual DISCUSSION of the CONTENTS of DMG2's excerpt, but instead we get this.


OK. Forked to the side. Sorry for the derailment.

 

[Obryn]

Personally, I think this is one of the lamer and more offensive lines in the sand, primarily promoted by folks who feel that they, themselves, are playing roleplaying games and everyone else is playing something else. It's a way to kind of steal the conversation, or assume control over it - if you get to define what a roleplaying game is, then you get to define what roleplaying games should be, too.

The sort of snide condescenscion that filters in is more than a little icky, IMO - "Oh, that's not an RPG. It's a story-game." Or "Don't be offended - I'm just telling it like it is. You're not really playing an RPG, you're just playing a story-game. Might as well admit it." "No, no - there's nothing wrong with story-games! They're just not role-playing games." It's offensive at its core, though, and I think it's clear to the folks promoting this POV, as well. You're trying to tell people they aren't really doing what they think they're doing, while you know exactly what everyone's doing.

Soon after all this, the conversation usually goes off the deep end with the champion of the distinction claiming that story-games aren't really games, or don't actually need mechanics, or are little different from sitting around a campfire making up fables.

It's oldschool vs. newschool, dressed up in different clothes. Only in this case, oldschool is trying to say that newschool doesn't even really exist.

-O

 

[ExploderWizard]

Personally, I think this is one of the lamer and more offensive lines in the sand, primarily promoted by folks who feel that they, themselves, are playing roleplaying games and everyone else is playing something else. It's a way to kind of steal the conversation, or assume control over it - if you get to define what a roleplaying game is, then you get to define what roleplaying games should be, too.

The sort of snide condescenscion that filters in is more than a little icky, IMO - "Oh, that's not an RPG. It's a story-game." Or "Don't be offended - I'm just telling it like it is. You're not really playing an RPG, you're just playing a story-game. Might as well admit it." "No, no - there's nothing wrong with story-games! They're just not role-playing games." It's offensive at its core, though, and I think it's clear to the folks promoting this POV, as well. You're trying to tell people they aren't really doing what they think they're doing, while you know exactly what everyone's doing.

Soon after all this, the conversation usually goes off the deep end with the champion of the distinction claiming that story-games aren't really games, or don't actually need mechanics, or are little different from sitting around a campfire making up fables.

It's oldschool vs. newschool, dressed up in different clothes. Only in this case, oldschool is trying to say that newschool doesn't even really exist.

-O

The only one making such disparaging claims against story games so far is you by the way.

Not needing mechanics? The story game format has brought about new TYPES of mechanics that go beyond task resolution. If you have ever played cops and robbers as a kid then you know that you don't NEED rules to roleplay either.

 

[ryryguy]

(Teleported over from old thread)

ExploderWizard -

I'm glad I was able to help tease out the distinction between roleplaying and storytelling as you see it.

Let me suggest that, using the definitions you have in mind, roleplaying and storytelling could come into conflict, but they don't have to do so. (Much like the perennial debate (seen more often on the WotC boards than here, I think) over whether character optimization and roleplaying are in conflict.) In fact, I'd say that good storytelling techniques can strengthen and support roleplaying in a game that is primarily about roleplaying.

The thing is that even roleplaying strongly conceived, as "I choose my character's actions based only on my concept of the character", does not exist in a vaccuum. You're basing choices off motivation, but the choices are still constrained and informed by the shared fiction of the game as established by the DM and the other players. Forget storytelling or narrative or plot here - by "shared fiction" I just mean the situation in the fictional game environment. Choosing whether to spend your loot on orphans or booze is still informed by whether or not you have loot, whether or not there are orphans, whether or not there is booze. Those are all things that come out of the shared fiction.

If you're in some theocracy where booze is forbidden, your character's overwhelming desire to drink might lead you to choose to go someplace else or to set up a still. But you can't choose to go get drunk in the corner tavern, because there is no corner tavern. Your choice is constrained. But have you stopped roleplaying? Not at all. To the contrary, your response to the constraints can lead to deeper and more creative roleplaying.

So, I think that there are two levels on which storytelling techniques might also provide constraints which actually improve roleplaying.

The first might be termed a "soft" style, where the DM sets up the situation in the game world with storytelling and narrative in mind. Perhaps the DM guided the party to the booze-free theocracy, or even decided that a liquor taboo was one of the precepts of the theocratic religion, because of your character's inclination to drink. He sees that the situation will promote interesting conflicts. He introduces a character of a priest who is a reformed drunk, to serve as a foil for your character. He sets up a moment where that NPC is in danger of falling off the wagon, but you could prevent that by swearing off booze yourself. The DM is in no way telling your player what to do; you're free to decide how your character reacts. But if it's worked out well, the DM has provided you with a great opportunity to further define and develop your character, and maybe even shaped it into a narrative climax that increases the impact.

(One of the examples in the article, that of the dream sequence, is a good example of this too - the player still has total control over his character and concept, but the dream sequence puts him on the spot a little bit and dares him to sharpen that concept, offers him an opportunity to develop the character.)

The second style might be called a "hard" style, although that might have some unfair connotations. But in this style, you as the player do willingly subordinate your character concept in order to further a narrative goal. Your character loves booze, but because the group has been developing a theme around orphans, you go along with the orphan plan. (OK, this orphans and booze thing is getting really strained now. ) Sometimes this might mean that things are somewhat predetermined (though not "scripted") - there's a fight you know you're going to lose, as in the mind flayer attack example in the article.

EW, you've made it clear that you don't consider this style to be "wrong" or evil. But let me suggest that there's no bright line here where once you've chosen story over concept, roleplaying is now dead and gone, and you can never get back again. You as the player might choose orphans over booze in the interest of the story, but that doesn't stop you from roleplaying your character grumbling about it the whole while. Also, I think that even the most purist of roleplayers does subordinate choices to other considerations at least some of the time. When you're coming up with characters and say, "The group needs a healer? OK, I'll be a cleric" you've done so. When you think your jerk rogue would definitely take the chance to kill the paladin's puppy but you decide not to do it in the interests of player harmony, you've done it. Doing it for the sake of story is not really any different from that point of view.

 

[Obryn]

The only one making such disparaging claims against story games so far is you by the way.

No, I'm stating that re-defining some roleplaying games as "story games" is disparaging, in and of itself, regardless of how value-neutral you proclaim that term to be.

I also don't buy that it's used as a value-neutral term in this context, but that's a different discussion.

-O

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I like "storytelling gaming," sometimes. I don't like to play D&D that way, though; I think there are better approaches and systems for heavily story-focused play.

 

[Agamon]

Question: Is the following an example of a story-telling game or roleplaying game (as defined by EW):

GM: Okay, you get back to town, buy your supplies, visit family and basically get a few days rest before heading back to the dungeon. Daroth's advances towards the innkeep's daughter he met last session are coming along, she seems quite enthralled with him. Brennis is chastised by Head Preist Ganyon for missing the temple's recognition of one of it's holiest days, but gets away with a slap on the wrist becasue she's helping the town with a larger problem. After a few days of rest, healling and reprovisioning you head back to the forest. On the way, you meet up with a merchant caravan. It's not as heavily guarded as you might expect.

Player 1: I hold my hand up and hail them.

GM: One of the guards advances uneasily, the others tense for a possible ambush. "Hail, strangers." He looks to be wounded, a nasty gash accross his arm that has cut through the mail, staining it with blood.

Player 1: "Are you well? Do you need assistance? You numbers seem small, not the best idea in these parts."

GM: The guard nods. "Attacked by goblins, we were. We drove them off, but they slew a number of my comrades. The nasty creatures are growing bold."

Player 2: I tell him we're on our way to take care of some goblins that have been attacking travellers and ask if their shields had pictures of snarling wolves on them.

GM: The guard pauses, thinking. "No, crossed spears over field of red. They fled to the south and west of the road."

Player 3: "Spears? To the south? The tribe we attemping to disperse live to the north of the main road. Could there be more of them than we thought?"

Player 4: "Are they working together or is it coincidence? We might have to look into this. But first, please allow me to heal your most badly wounded to the best of my ability."

And blah, blah, blah. Anyhoo, what kinda game is that? Especially if the GM allows a player to interject into the story to roleplay her absense from her church to try and appeal for more aid for her comrades, for example?

I guess my point is, can't a game be a somewhere between these extremes? And in fact, aren't all RPGs somewhere in that spectrum, one way or the other? And is it really wrong to call all of them roleplaying games?

(BTW, I agree that Once Upon A Time is not a roleplaying game, and it isn't marketed as such, and I don't really know of very many RPGs that play that way)

 

[ExploderWizard]

No, I'm stating that re-defining some roleplaying games as "story games" is disparaging, in and of itself, regardless of how value-neutral you proclaim that term to be.

Why do you feel that way?
Just because you don't enjoy story focused games doesn't mean others feel the same way.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Personally, I think this is one of the lamer and more offensive lines in the sand, primarily promoted by folks who feel that they, themselves, are playing roleplaying games and everyone else is playing something else. It's a way to kind of steal the conversation, or assume control over it - if you get to define what a roleplaying game is, then you get to define what roleplaying games should be, too.

This.

In a way it's the opposite of rollplaying vs roleplaying. But in another it's the exact same.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Is there a reason we're still arguing this?

That is a very good question.

Outside of internet forums, I've never encountered this particular brand of theorising about RPG validity. Or, for that matter, any brand of it whatsoever.

Oh sure, you might occasionally hear things (a bit) like 'gee, this RPG sucks' or 'that is by far the worst RPG I've had the misfortune of suffering through a session of', and so on. But never is a RPG not thought of as a RPG. That would, indeed, be taking the dislike/hatred/disgust/scorn to a new, quite surreal level.

You know, that level only reached - so it seems - in the rarified air of the odd online thread here and there.

One of my favourites, seen as I've browsed one of several forums, was teh claim that the very first RPG isn't a RPG. I kid you not. It makes this current rehash, frankly, weak sauce by way of comparison. Even the mantras of '3e isn't a RPG' or '4e isn't a RPG' or 'GURPS isn't a RPG' or 'World of Darkness isn't a RPG' (etc.) fade into the background momentarily, faced with the might of that examplar of hilarity.