Storytelling vs Roleplaying

[Ariosto]

The "no longer D&D" horse is dead. It may from one perspective be D&D only in the way that Paris, Texas is Paris -- but it reads Dungeons & Dragons® right there on the cover.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The "no longer D&D" horse is dead. It may from one perspective be D&D only in the way that Paris, Texas is Paris -- but it reads Dungeons & Dragons® right there on the cover.

This assumes you are speaking about a particular edition rather than a drastic change in playstyle that can be implemented in any edition.

I am currently involved in a rather gritty urban 4E campaign right now. Combat is suicide in most cases, and we have to solve most of our problems with player planning and dialogue. Really cool stuff and loads of fun.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I have played and run some very story focused games. I don't look at storytelling games as unplayable and worthy of contempt.

The thing is, a "focused" game isn't the same thing as a storytelling game. Some games can be story-focused (meaning usually that they try and maximize the "beginning, middle, end, central conflict" kind of structure) but whenever you play D&D, you're telling some sort of story, even if it's a very simple and basic one.

All the time.

Even if you have no role-playing, you're telling a story.

I do like a game to represent itself as what it is in spirit. I have run both regular roleplaying and high story games with the GURPS ruleset. The mechanics are neutral with repect to playstyle. The genre, and supplemental material define the tone of a particular game.

Other games, such as D&D are not generic. The mechanics and advice in the rulebooks promote a particular flavor of play. Games with a strong flavor can be better than generic rules such as GURPS or d20 because the operation of the game is so closely tied to the feel and tone of the whole.
When a game shifts focus from a more freeform roleplaying style to a shared story creation style it should be advertised.

I can totally understand why an unexpected shift in playstyle would be disruptive to you, but I'm not sure what that has to do with "storytelling" and "roleplaying."

You're right in that some systems are more genre-generic than others, and each has their advantages and disadvantages, but the generic-ness of a system doesn't have a whole lot of bearing on how well it tells a story or not.

D&D has a pretty strong flavor, but I'm not sure what that has to do with "freeform roleplaying" or "shared story creation," especially since everyone engages in both things whenever they play any RPG, be it D&D or GURPS or T20 or Traveller or Call of Cthulu, or even World of Warcraft. Heck, you do both at once beyond the realm of RPG's: Improv actors engage in free-form roleplaying while creating a shared story.

I get the impression you're talking about something else, and your terms are doing you more harm than good.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

It may from one perspective be D&D only in the way that Paris, Texas is Paris -- but it reads Dungeons & Dragons® right there on the cover.

Heh, yeah. I tend to think of that as the "game" vs. the "brand."

 

[Ariosto]

ExploderWizard, I can sympathize. I don't think that chapter (for all that it may be written by Robin Laws) is likely to be as truly revelatory as would be an explanation of how to play what was formerly known as D&D. However, this new game was designed to be something quite different -- and this aspect was plain enough to me from the start.

I anticipate not much more substantively than what has been done many times before, with results to my mind most unsatisfactory. One way or another, though, the experiment is likely to be of some interest to those of us unashamed to respect the story-game as a new form to be appreciated and developed on its own terms.

 

[Hussar]

Let me try it another way. Look at Spirit of the Century for a second. Characters in SotC are defined by their aspects- generally one word or short phrase descriptors that define the character - so "tough as nails", "big and dumb", "loudmouth", "strange luck", or "poor as dirt", could all be aspects. When a character's aspect causes some sort of in game complication, the character is awarded Fate points. Pretty much similar to Action points in many other games.

So, let's look at a possible situation. I have a character with the aspect, "poor as dirt". During play, the party steals a honking big diamond and needs to fence it. They give it to my character to hold because the guy they stole the diamond from has never seen me and won't suspect that I have it. Play begins with the party returning from meeting a fence:

Player 1 - So, Hussar, where's the diamond? We're gonna be rich!
Hussar - Well, here's the thing. See, I was outside in the alleyway feeding a stray dog, when the diamond slipped out of my pocket and the dog snatched it up and ate it. It ran away.
Player 1 - WHAT!
GM - Ok, Hussar, that's worth a Fate point. Nice.
Player 2 - Well, what did the dog look like and which way did it run off?
Hussar - ((extemporizing)) Well, it was a black dog. Kinda big. It had a white patch on its chest.
Player 2 - ((To the GM)) Can we track this dog somehow? Let's look in the alleyway.
Player 3 - ((Looks at his character sheet and sees "Loudmouth")) *Very loudly* You mean to tell me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that a large dog has run off with our very expensive, very hard to get diamond? Is that what you are trying to tell me?!?!
GM - ((Grins)) Several of the patrons of the bar hit the exit at speed. Player 3, here's a Fate point for you.

Now, the entire scenario - find the dog before the locals do, while trying not to run into the people who they stole the diamond from in the first place - is entirely generated by the players. The GM is running with it because it's fun for everyone. Yet, the GM had no hand whatsoever in this plot line. Every decision that was made was based in mechanics in the system and not from what would be in the character's or group's best interests.

To me, this is 100% role playing. If it's not roleplaying, then, to be honest, I have no interest in roleplaying whatsoever. If the only way I can roleplay is to passively consume whatever plot the GM/DM decides to create this week, then bugger that for a game of soldiers. I have no interest. I want to be able to effect changes in the campaign.

And, as a GM, I want my players to be so into the campaign that I can sit back and let them do all my work for me.

So, did I roleplay or not? Did my editorial control over the campaign somehow impede my ability to roleplay?

 

[Hussar]

From the other thread which I read out of order:

So the general concensus is that anything can be called an RPG.

If a tabletop combat game were produced that included a few pages about giving a name and some traits to your leader figure and was released as an RPG that it would be fine because there is nothing preventing it from being used as an RPG?

Thats a bit broad to be of any use IMHO.

Ahem, I suggest you read OD&D before you say that. Or Basic/Expert D&D for that matter. The first decade of our hobby was exactly that - a wargame with a bit of role play added in. Yet most people call OD&D a roleplaying game.

 

[Glyfair]

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 disagree, somewhat. One thing a good friend of mine taught me is that before you have an argument you have to agree on definitions.

In this case, if you can't agree on a definition for "roleplaying game" than you can't agree on what qualifies since you are really using different things that happen to use the same word.

It's like arguing whether certain fruits are apples or not when one person's definition of "apple" is a orange citrus fruit. That's not really arguing, it's talking to no purpose.

Still, going with a "new" definition of roleplaying game when you are in a roleplaying discussion forum is just asking for trouble.

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

Maybe. I didn't see the original discussion.

If it isn't clear though...One thing they teach you in anger management courses is to never be a "mind reader." Don't try to get into someone's head about their reasons for something, you'll just drive your self nuts and be wrong a good part of the time.

 

[Hussar]

Glyfair - now don't go getting all reasonable. Heh.

Let's be honest though. People never, EVER say, "I don't roleplay, I play X". It's ALWAYS "I roleplay, I play X. You don't roleplay, you play Y". It's typical geek dominance games all over again.

Trying to paint it as "I'm just speaking the truth as I see it" doesn't really change that.

Telling people that their chosen thing just doesn't live up to what it's supposed to be, is going to be insulting. "It's not really roleplaying, it's something else. Not that that something else is bad mind you, it just isn't quite what I do." is the basic message here.

It's pretty hard not to see that as condescending. I mean, if I were to say that AD&D isn't really a roleplaying game, it's just a combat simulator, most people would take me to task for that. And rightfully so. It's no different than any of the other walls people start putting up. "It's not really roleplaying, it's too boardgamey", "It's just a tabletop MMO", etc. etc.

It's just another way that one geek can try to claim dominance over playstyles that he or she doesn't share.

 

[I'm A Banana]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y"]This isn't Storytelling, it's Roleplaying![/ame]