Challenge the Players, Not the Characters' Stats

[howandwhy99]

In fact, as I just posted in my reply to Justanobody, the player's story is relevant to determining the DCs for the skill challenge - and it is a core feature of the skill challenge mechanic that a player can introduce a new skill based on his/her story of what is going on, what has gone on, and what is possible in the gameworld.

None of which changes the fact that the system is storytelling and not role-playing. For instance, my character says "To impress the king my PC goes to a specialty bakery store in the city run by elves from the Golden Forest. He studies for six months watching how they make the tastiest foods. Then he spends everything he has on purchasing a chef's kitchen and the supplies to bake a ...." ...on and on until he makes a Diplomacy check (or whatever check the DM says applies) to add +1 success or failure to the Skill Challenge total. As I said before, this is storytelling, not role-playing. The player succeeds because of his ability to tell a story, not perform an act. The entirety of the story above could be totally improvised with no relation to the actual gameworld.

I don't think I'm ignoring that preference overall (perhaps in my earlier reply to you I may have). I'm just saying that, if you are playing a game with players who have that sort of preference, you are probably better off not including non-combat encounters (including skill challenges) in the game. Skill challenges are (on the whole, making what I hope is a permissible generalisation) for players who are not equally pleased playing D&D combat or DDM.

Lets move on from this. It would seem storytelling challenges are just as undesirable to such a player as a role-playing challenge.

I agree with this. But I think for many participants in an RPG the interest in combat is the story that hangs upon the mechanical elements. And I think if this is not what an RPGer finds interesting, than the skill challenge mechanics are probably not for her/him.

I'm not sure why, but you seem to be misreading me here again. Something imagined, fictive or not, is not a story. The imagined thing is what the players are interacting with.

I think we've had this conversation in the past also. I agree that not all ideas (what I'm calling "fictions", given that they are not ideas of real things) are stories. But I don't agree that all stories are retellings. Some stories are the original tellings. I think a lot of (by no means all) RPGing is the original telling of a story. For example, when a player says "My guy swings his sword at the orc" that is the first telling of a story about some PC attacking an orc. Not a nobel-prize winning story, but a story nevertheless.

I think we've come to a cruxes of the issue. While the player is using narrative language to relate his PC swinging a sword, what is actually going on is the player is directing the GM to have his character swing his carried sword. As much as the player has a visualized idea of what is happening in the play world within his own mind, it isn't that play world that is the actuality. It's the one in the DM's head. That's the imaginary space where the reality is happening (the true ideas exist). To a storyteller it may seem like a player could make up whatever reality they so wished, but to a role-player (playing in an imagined placed) the external reality isn't possible for them to change. They can only change it through the playing of a role. Any other way and it becomes the playing of something else. As you may recall I called this "God play". Where several Olympian Gods play a game to hash out what happens and the PCs are fated to follow out their commands (without a free will of their own).

I don't think that wargamers or DDM players are telling stories - that's one typical difference, I think, between a wargame and an RPG. Likewise with respect to Magic the Gathering or Monopoly (which is why I find discussions about RPGing in 4e that begin with references to Monopoly particularly unhelpful).

I know you don't regard a lot of RPGing as storytelling. I've hypothesised above that this is because you limit the notion of "story" to retelling, and exclude the first telling. If this is wrong, then I don't know what your reason is for denying that a lot of RPGing is storytelling. (Is it because you have tighter strictures on what constitutes a story? eg a certain sort of plot, or thematic content, or tightness of authorial intention?)

As clarify what I just said above, there is no first telling. It is a doing. And just as I, putting on my shoes in the morning or taking the dog for a walk, am not "telling a story", neither is anyone role-playing.

I will admit a role-player could "act" while they are role-playing. And that that acting could tell a story through portrayal, the story of the character's personality. But that's really stretching it to include the game as a storytelling game. And role-players certainly don't have to act to play an RPG. Just as most every role-player doesn't act when role-playing non-hobby RPGs.

This wasn't meant to be a contentious point. The 4e books distinguish three modes of play: exploration, combat encounters and non-combat encounters (PHB pp 9-10). Exploration includes "interacting with the environment" outside the context of an encounter (PHB pp 262-263). So a lot of what many people call roleplaying - eg saying (in character) "I go up to the door, calling out 'Anyone home?'" and, once the GM tells you that a gravelly voice replies "Yes", continuing "I say 'We come in peace'", etc - falls under the notion of exploration in 4e.

Exploration, in this sense, has nothing in common with what Ron Edwards/The Forge call "exploration" (ie the metagame priority of imaging/learning about the fictional world of the game).

However, the PHB goes on to say that non-combat encounters will "focus on skills, utility powers and your own (not your character's) wits", which means that some of what I was trying to get to with "roleplaying" above would also constitute a non-combat encounter (eg the example I gave above is probably on the verge of becoming a non-combat encounter, which may be resolved via skill challenge or the player's wits, depending on the way the table prefers to handle these things).

I hoped that the notion of "roleplaying" in play in the previous few paragraphs was something in the neighbourhood of what you meant by the term (my own usage is a bit broader, including what you are calling storytelling).

I wasn't trying to be contentious here, only wondering if you remembered the page number for my own reading. Thanks for that. And for recounting what they wrote about.

My own definition of role-playing is the one in the dictionaries. It's the one different from acting (theatre acting specifically). And none of which qualify as storytelling unless you equate storytelling with existing.

Just one example: no version of D&D has had full-fledged hit-location/critical rules of the Rolemaster/Runequest sort, which means that storytelling has always been required to determine what sort of injuries anyone suffers in combat, and (consequently) to describe what the healing of those injuries consists in.

Unlike in a skill challenge, however, that storytelling normally does not feed back into the mechanics (eg it does not open up or close off mechanical options like which skill is useable). I wouldn't be surprised if the game has been played in ways which allow it to feed back in, however - that would fit with the free-formish nature of action resolution in pre-3E D&D.

Like you've said before, we've already had this discussion. I don't believe a DM/Referee ever gets to tell a story. He merely relates back to those playing what is happening in the world. (I'll get back to that point in a second). As we've gone over before, the referee isn't a tyrant who makes can just say what goes. If that were the case, RPGs would never have had rules in the first place.

You point to an example where a referee needs to make a judgment call that lies outside of the rules. That judgment call extrapolates from what the world actually is the rules are modeling. And it carries over to the future when such a situation comes up again. In the specific example you cite it would seem there is no clear designation of where the PC hit. Honestly? The Referee could say "it doesn't matter" and play could continue without concern. But what happens if it does matter? When it does matter is the only time rules are needed. Personally, I feel a Player asking is what changes the focus of the game and makes things matter, so this is important to me. In this case the DM (or the whole group if they wish to participate) makes a new house rule that unbiasedly determines where hits landed on a body. If greater detailed healing is also desired by the group because of this, more house rules can be made. The rules are there to remove the Referees "just saying what happens" from the game. It's true, simulations are imperfect, but thankfully ideas exist beyond such limitations. And can allow one to model what they know is real.

You might question this and say "but isn't he creating the world at some point even if he is using the player's input?" For instance, what kind of healing does an elf need if his body is pierced? Who gets to say what it is? In my view, making up world content isn't telling a story. It would be like saying the person who made up a boardgame or the rules of a sport was telling a story and every time house rules or rule changes were made to those the story told under them was being changed.

Coming back to why a referee relating back to the player what is happening in the world isn't a story. The relation is certainly using narrative speech, but it just isn't fictional narrative. Just as you said Monopoly isn't a storytelling game, playing Monopoly with a group of blind people doesn't turn it into a "collaborative storytelling game" (or whatever they're calling RPGs currently). Having to tell blind players what they rolled, where there pieced moved to, having them relate to you what they do - buy, pay, pick a card, etc. - none of this is collaborative storytelling. Even though it occasionally uses narrative discourse, it isn't what grammarians term "fictional narrative". To say otherwise would be like saying nearly every boardgame (or cardgame, etc.) is a storytelling game when played with the blind, but not with those who can see. It doesn't make sense because the ideas "played with" are actual. In boardgames the ideas are represented on a board, on cards, with dice. In an RPG they are represented with maps, numerical descriptors, dice, and plenty more.

If a DM could just say what happened in the world, all of this stuff would be totally unnecessary. As it's what actually models a reality vs. telling a story, it makes success in that world real. Real in the same way as telling a Monopoly winner or a Magic: the Gathering winner that they tell a good story may be taken as an insult. A RPG player doesn't win or lose because it is narratively interesting. They win or lose because they actually win or lose in the modeled world. That's why role-playing is used in educational environments to teach behavior the world round and storytelling isn't. It's a completely different kind of satisfaction from telling a good story.

 

[pemerton]

HowandWhy, I don't have time for a long reply, but I think we have different views on the metaphysics of fictional worlds. I agree that not all uses of narrative grammar are storytelling in my sense (your blind boardgamers examples is a good one for making this point in this context). But I can't agree that the imagined gameworld of an RPG is something real, in which events are occurring, and the GM is simply describing those events (perhaps using narrative grammatical forms).

If I had to identify one crucial difference between blind boardgaming and RPGing, in this respect, it would be that the events in the real world (dice rolls, position of tokens on the board, etc) more-or-less mechanically determine the state of things with respect to the boardgame. But this is not true for the RPG gameworld. To get full determinism there you would have to appeal to the ingame causal laws of the gameworld - and these are fictions, many of which are unknown to anyone (quite unlike the rules of Monopoly).

 

[howandwhy99]

HowandWhy, I don't have time for a long reply, but I think we have different views on the metaphysics of fictional worlds. I agree that not all uses of narrative grammar are storytelling in my sense (your blind boardgamers examples is a good one for making this point in this context). But I can't agree that the imagined gameworld of an RPG is something real, in which events are occurring, and the GM is simply describing those events (perhaps using narrative grammatical forms).

If I had to identify one crucial difference between blind boardgaming and RPGing, in this respect, it would be that the events in the real world (dice rolls, position of tokens on the board, etc) more-or-less mechanically determine the state of things with respect to the boardgame. But this is not true for the RPG gameworld. To get full determinism there you would have to appeal to the ingame causal laws of the gameworld - and these are fictions, many of which are unknown to anyone (quite unlike the rules of Monopoly).

No problem. It's good talking to you.

My own opinion would be almost all games are attempting to simulate some idea beyond just their own interesting rule interactions. In most cases game designers appear to be attempting to simulate real world interactions. That's not inclusive to all games, of course. But Monopoly certainly seems to be trying to simulate a place for players to be hotel tycoons.

And a Referee who acts arbitrarily instead of relating the game elements/world isn't a good Referee in my book. That's the one who tosses the rules and does whatever he or she wants. I'd say any time a Ref leaves the realm of agreed upon rules a house rule should be made and used (one that can be open for discussion with players) or they've overstepped their bounds.

Nor do I consider building a game world (i.e. designing additional game content) telling a story. It's just supplemental game materials, like expansion packs for boardgames. This is why calling game content like modules or settings "story" just comes off as so wrong in my view.

I will agree this is a different perspective then what most RPGers in 2008 have come to hold.

 

[Umbran]

I think folks discussing Skill Challenges, and trying to get at the original intent of the system, ought to look at the intro to the WotC Excerpts article by Bill Slavicsek. Having room for role play is part of the intent.

I also think Keith Baker's got a relevant LJ blog entry. Specifically:

"Rewarding Flavor and Creativity. In running a challenge, I'm not looking for the PC to say "I'm using Diplomacy." I want him to roleplay the scene. How's he making his case? Is he drawing on anything specifically relevant to his target? While I like this for color, it's called out as something that SHOULD be rewarded. In providing advice to the DM, page 74 of the DMG specifically notes that you can choose to reward creative action (or penalize the opposite) by applying a -2 to +2 modifier to the check. In some cases, I've specifically set up encounters where the player can get an even higher bonus if he brings up the right thing - but more on that later."

Which is not to say you must use it a particular way, but that such use is pretty darned easy to work in.

I think far too much attention is being given to what the system "is", instead of what you can do with the system. I've seen more than one admission that the Skill Challenge system is written a bit... stiffly, so that folks read it too strictly.

 

[GlaziusF]

None of which changes the fact that the system is storytelling and not role-playing. For instance, my character says "To impress the king my PC goes to a specialty bakery store in the city run by elves from the Golden Forest. He studies for six months watching how they make the tastiest foods. Then he spends everything he has on purchasing a chef's kitchen and the supplies to bake a ...." ...on and on until he makes a Diplomacy check (or whatever check the DM says applies) to add +1 success or failure to the Skill Challenge total. As I said before, this is storytelling, not role-playing. The player succeeds because of his ability to tell a story, not perform an act. The entirety of the story above could be totally improvised with no relation to the actual gameworld.

Because the DM isn't allowed to object to you doing things that contradict him, or for example taking SIX FREAKING MONTHS to make a single check in a skill challenge?

I call shenanigans.

 

[justanobody]

Ah! Now we're getting somewhere. You're no longer saying "I use Diplomacy"; now you're saying "I attempt to use Diplomacy in order to achieve this result in this fashion."

In similar fashion, consider a bottomless chasm in the middle of a dungeon.

DM: "How do you intend to cross?"
Player: "I use Athletics!"

This is not describing your actions; this is simply naming a skill.

"I use Athletics to try and jump over it!"
"I use Athletics to try and climb along the wall around it."
"It there anywhere I might attach a grappling hook, so I can use Athletics to swing over it on a rope?"

Now we have some - very basic, perhaps, but present nonetheless - descriptions of ways you are using your skill.

There's a difference between "I use Diplomacy!" and "I use Diplomacy to try and talk him into going along with our plan."

You don't necessarily have to stand on your chair and make an impassioned speech in a French accent. But you do, at the least, have to say what action you are undertaking, not just name a skill.

-Hyp.

The thing is I wouldn't want to just roll the dice to get through it, so cannot grasp what someone who would would say. I would go into much more depth personally, but am sure that people will exist and get pissed when they are asked for more than to just roll the dice, because they may not like that part of the game. I know one personally that just wants to do things that take dice rolls, and sure he would take the easiest route.

Do you penalize those players by forcing them into trying something they don't feel comfortable with?

I would prefer them to not just roll the dice through and have other players help solve the answer, but given the option this person would just roll the dice and be done with it if given the chance so that others wouldn't even have a chance to solve it otherwise.

1. Did the player actively get involved in the game? A player who does nothing but tell one funny joke during the course of the game isn't really participating. The DM should be careful, however, not to penalize players who are naturally shy. Involvement should be measured against a player's personality.

 

[Mallus]

As I said before, this is storytelling, not role-playing. The player succeeds because of his ability to tell a story, not perform an act.

How... I'm not sure I see the point in trying to draw a distinction between these two things (a distinction that you admit is lost on a lot of people). Both are role-playing, in the context of an RPG. Performing an act in a fictional space is the same as telling a story about the performance of that act.

(Ouch, now my head hurts)

The entirety of the story above could be totally improvised with no relation to the actual gameworld.

If the DM and player agree that the event happens, then it de facto relates to the gameworld. "Relation to the gameworld" established through participant consent.

Something imagined, fictive or not, is not a story

Which doesn't change the fact that the events occurring inside the shared imaginative space of a role-playing game are best understood as being story-like ie, the actions of fictional, person-like characters in an imaginary, life-life place.

That's the imaginary space where the reality is happening (the true ideas exist). To a storyteller it may seem like a player could make up whatever reality they so wished, but to a role-player (playing in an imagined placed) the external reality isn't possible for them to change.

Seeing as the 'external reality' in question is a fictional construct being sustained by mutual consent and is often, in practical situations, rather fluid, I'd say this isn't a particularly helpful assertion.

They can only change it through the playing of a role.

Unless, of course, the DM says otherwise. Are you really saying that anytime a DM gives (limited, localized) narrative rights to a player, it ceases to be a role-playing game?

Any other way and it becomes the playing of something else.

OK, that's exactly what you're saying. Where's the threshold? If the DM allows a player to shop for items without actually playing out the purchases, essentially letting the player narrate the event, does the game stop being an RPG?

And just as I, putting on my shoes in the morning or taking the dog for a walk, am not "telling a story", neither is anyone role-playing.

If you actually go for the walk, you're existing. If, instead, you create a representation of the dog-walk, say in conversation or text, then your storytelling. Extending this, seeing as gamers are never actually doing the things they're characters are doing, they are never existing as their characters, and can be said, in the interest of brevity, to be telling stories about them.

And none of which qualify as storytelling unless you equate storytelling with existing.

If the existence(s) in question are fictional, then yes, I equate trafficking in them w/storytelling.

I don't believe a DM/Referee ever gets to tell a story. He merely relates back to those playing what is happening in the world.

And how is that not storytelling, using the plainest, most theory-free definition of the word?

Just as you said Monopoly isn't a storytelling game, playing Monopoly with a group of blind people doesn't turn it into a "collaborative storytelling game" (or whatever they're calling RPGs currently). Having to tell blind players what they rolled, where there pieced moved to, having them relate to you what they do - buy, pay, pick a card, etc. - none of this is collaborative storytelling.

Monopoly isn't a storytelling game because the action in Monopoly isn't sufficiently story-like. RPG's are story-like because they deal with person-like characters acting in life-like imaginary spaces.

Now if these blind players were playing D&D, it most certainly would be a storytelling game.

That's why role-playing is used in educational environments to teach behavior the world round and storytelling isn't.

And that kind of role-playing isn't what's going on in most D&D campaigns (well, at least in any of the ones I've seen, read or heard of).

 

[Delta]

Originally Posted by AD&D DMG

In your citation, you should include edition and page number. Most people interpret "AD&D" by itself as meaning 1E... and I'm pretty certain that quote is not 1E. See my sig for an example.

 

[justanobody]

In your citation, you should include edition and page number. Most people interpret "AD&D" by itself as meaning 1E... and I'm pretty certain that quote is not 1E. See my sig for an example.

AD&D Core Rules 2.0 Expansion WEBHelp folder.

How is that? I can go dig the book out and find the page if really needed after food has been depleted. The keyboard is crumb protected, but the book and closet is not.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The thing is I wouldn't want to just roll the dice to get through it, so cannot grasp what someone who would would say. I would go into much more depth personally, but am sure that people will exist and get pissed when they are asked for more than to just roll the dice, because they may not like that part of the game. I know one personally that just wants to do things that take dice rolls, and sure he would take the easiest route.

Do you penalize those players by forcing them into trying something they don't feel comfortable with?

I would personally say more than "I use Diplomacy to talk him around to my way of thinking"... but from an uncomfortable player, I'd probably accept it. I wouldn't accept "I use Diplomacy". I'd need to know what it is he's using Diplomacy to do.

Involvement should be measured against a player's personality.

Sure. And I see a standoffish, third-person, "My guy does X - I rolled 13" to be a bare minimum involvement in the game. I don't need them to describe their argument, points, and counterpoints in loving detail. But "I rolled 13" by itself is meaningless; it needs to be a 13 in an attempt to achieve X in the game world.

X is important.

-Hyp.