Challenge the Players, Not the Characters' Stats

[howandwhy99]

Yep, I realise that, but looking again at my post I can see how I generated a mistaken implication.

I was just trying to say what I think the indie-RPG ways is of distinguishing their RPGs (which you say are not RPGs at all, but rather storytelling games) from blind-player-Monopoly, which you implied they are committed to labelling an RPG also.

They distinguish the two by appealing to different metagame priorities.

I don't think blind-player-Monopoly is a story-game or a role-playing game. I think it's a boardgame that requires a lot of narrative discourse to pull off. Neither role-playing nor storytelling is going on there. I was using it as an example to show the Storytelling game qualifier didn't hold up as those games are, as you said, narrative authority resolution games, where boardgames are not. They are modeled (usually fictional) reality games. Just as RPGs are, but with less breadth.

Playing only the DDM rules/combat rules when playing 4E one session does not make that session a wargame. But that kind of confusion was what happened back in '74. Most never think that way now. Now we have the opposite problem.


Check my edit above, meta-game priorities don't redefine games without those priorities.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I want to "retract" my last statement, or at least slightly change it:
I am interested in a little of all of it. But for me the most unique property always seems to be the idea of telling a story together with others using a game. But considering the amounts of tactical combat my group usually engages in, it is certainly not the only aspect I like...

 

[howandwhy99]

howandwhy99, this is an interesting example and makes me understand more what you understand under the term of "role-playing".

But that's just not what I understand or expect from roleplaying games like D&D, Shadowrun or Warhammer.

After 2nd Edition D&D and games like World of Darkness claiming they are "storytelling games" I can absolutely understand why there are a generation of gamers looking for stories in their games. I say things like "You cannot role-play to tell a story any more than you can live to tell a story" because I believe I am expressing the truth. I'm on board with you here to help anyone who wishes to tell a story or tell a better one. I'm not here to claim badwrongfun or "that's not an RPG". If it has role-playing in it, fine by me.

(heck, even Burning Empires which seems to call 3 hours of generating a world "role-playing" in the same breath it calls, um, acting? out a character in a scenario for the last 30 minutes "role-playing".)

If 4E's combat system isn't telling a good story for you, scratch that itch for your kind of fun, than maybe narrational story rights are the way to go? But the more the rules are something the players follow vs. rules the PCs follow to model a world, the less real successfully overcoming any challenges endeavored in that world will be. IOW, "beating" the monster is not the same fun when you can "just say" you beat the monster.

But yes, you can absolutely mix elements of storytelling and role-playing in a game as 4E Skill Challenges and 4E combat do.

Honestly, I don't have a beef with anyone who wants to do theatre acting, or story telling, or whatever. I really don't have a problem with the Indie Community either. My only issue here is the widespread repetition of false statements because of a obviously erroneous gaming theory.

I mean, really. Every "What is a Role-playing Game" website in the last 5 years has changed its' definition to: All RPGs are Collaborative Storytelling Games. If you do agree with my posts, I'd hope you see what hogwash this is.
Not the people. Just the claim.

I'll get to the rest of your post in a second.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I mean, really. Every "What is a Role-playing Game" website in the last 5 years has changed its' definition to: All RPGs are Collaborative Storytelling Games. If you do agree with my posts, I'd hope you see what hogwash this is.

But I also wouldn't agree exactly with your points, either, even if I understand you better now (finally!)

I think the big "problem" is in your critic at the above sentence is that you ignore the "Game" part. And that is important. In a way, the game is a "qualifier" changing what collaborative storytelling usually means. Collaborative storytelling alone wouldn't make an RPG, nor is an RPG just collaborative storytelling. It is a collaborative storytelling game. Roleplaying Games are not just role-playing, they are Roleplaying games.

There are certain "rules" involved in how you do this collaborative storytelling. A player might get control about the game world beyond the scope of his character or not, but he only gets control in the context of the rules.

 

[howandwhy99]

I want to "retract" my last statement, or at least slightly change it:
I am interested in a little of all of it. But for me the most unique property always seems to be the idea of telling a story together with others using a game. But considering the amounts of tactical combat my group usually engages in, it is certainly not the only aspect I like...

I seriously doubt you need rules to do this. One person can simply say "Let's not have that happen, let's have this happen". The others agree or not. You work out what you want amongst yourself and go back to playing.

This kind of thing happens during playing RPGs when making house rules or questioning the adequacy of the model to the environment all the time. (or it did) I certainly don't see why you couldn't agree amongst yourselves to "just say" what happens and skip those rules whenever desired.

 

[Hypersmurf]

After 2nd Edition D&D and games like World of Darkness claiming they are "storytelling games"...

4E does, too.

PHB p6: "The Dungeons and Dragons game is a roleplaying game. In fact, D&D invented the roleplaying game and started an industry.

A roleplaying game is a storytelling game that has elements of the games of make-believe that many of us played as children. However, a roleplaying game such as D&D provides form and structure, with robust gameplay and endless possibilities.

...

What makes the D&D game unique is the Dungeon Master. The DM is a person who takes on the role of lead storyteller and game referee. The DM creates adventures for the characters and narrates the action for the players..."

If you say that D&D is not a roleplaying game because the way it is played does not match the definition of 'roleplaying' in the dictionary, I disagree... D&D is a roleplaying game, and if your dictionary contradicts that, your dictionary is in need of updating.

-Hyp.

 

[howandwhy99]

But I also wouldn't agree exactly with your points, either, even if I understand you better now (finally!)

I think the big "problem" is in your critic at the above sentence is that you ignore the "Game" part. And that is important. In a way, the game is a "qualifier" changing what collaborative storytelling usually means. Collaborative storytelling alone wouldn't make an RPG, nor is an RPG just collaborative storytelling. It is a collaborative storytelling game. Roleplaying Games are not just role-playing, they are Roleplaying games.

There are certain "rules" involved in how you do this collaborative storytelling. A player might get control about the game world beyond the scope of his character or not, but he only gets control in the context of the rules.

That would be a reality creating game that you role-played within (presumably). To me, that is mixing storytelling rights with role-playing. A hybrid. The game may be mixing storytelling in your book and therefore qualify. But games that do not do this (almost every game ever published) wouldn't qualify as collaborative storytelling game then. Just the one's mixing storytelling and role-playing (or not having the role-playing at all).

Non-hybrid RPGs as I've called them earlier are games just as the "Grey's Anatomy" doctor role-playing scenario is a game. The students are being graded on their role-played performance (not character performance). Therefore, they succeed or fail based on their awarded grade. Think XP.

Some DMs don't even give XP and just raise levels "when they feel like it". That's DM fiat in my book and the removal of world modeling rules. But the reasons they give for their games still being games probably holds up: that their players succeed or failure through play. Honestly, this makes any endeavor of skill a "game". But "game" is broadly defined as to put "story" to shame. I'm avoiding making any distinction there.

To say hybrid storytelling / RPG games are not hybrid RPGs is to think judging one's "portrayal of their character" is not also a hybrid. It's two activities. If it were baseball or Monopoly or Chess, it would be more easily distinguished.

 

[howandwhy99]

4E does, too.

PHB p6: "The Dungeons and Dragons game is a roleplaying game. In fact, D&D invented the roleplaying game and started an industry.

A roleplaying game is a storytelling game that has elements of the games of make-believe that many of us played as children. However, a roleplaying game such as D&D provides form and structure, with robust gameplay and endless possibilities.

...

What makes the D&D game unique is the Dungeon Master. The DM is a person who takes on the role of lead storyteller and game referee. The DM creates adventures for the characters and narrates the action for the players..."

If you say that D&D is not a roleplaying game because the way it is played does not match the definition of 'roleplaying' in the dictionary, I disagree... D&D is a roleplaying game, and if your dictionary contradicts that, your dictionary is in need of updating.

-Hyp.

EDIT TOTAL POST.

Yes, this is a total misunderstanding of role-playing on whoever wrote this portion of the book calling it a storygame, DM's storytellers, and narrators of action. The Big Model does not get to redefine "role-playing" just because D&D designers agree with it too.

I like you Hyp, but to agree with you is to say all the dictionaries in the world are currently wrong.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I like you Hyp, but to agree with you is to say all the dictionaries in the world are currently wrong.

I'm cool with that.

I think the term 'role-playing game' was coined as a way to describe a hobby that was evolving; the directions that evolution took the hobby may have taken it beyond the literal definition of the words that make up that term, but the hobby still falls under the umbrella of the term. If the dictionary has not kept up with the way that umbrella has expanded, it is the dictionary that has fallen behind.

-Hyp.

 

[howandwhy99]

I'm cool with that.

I think the term 'role-playing game' was coined as a way to describe a hobby that was evolving; the directions that evolution took the hobby may have taken it beyond the literal definition of the words that make up that term, but the hobby still falls under the umbrella of the term. If the dictionary has not kept up with the way that umbrella has expanded, it is the dictionary that has fallen behind.

-Hyp.

That's cool. I'm actually a bit surprised no one has found at least one of the references I have online, which claims role-playing is a kind of theatre play. I'm well on board that improvisational acting is one kind of role-play, but it certainly isn't every kind. (as being able to play "in-character" vs. "out-of-character" nicely demonstrates)

The thing is, I play D&D (I assume you know which version) and we don't "tell stories". I mean, I know we are role-playing, so does our game no longer count as an RPG because we're not storytelling (as all RPGs are storytelling)? I can't imagine why not.

Apparently, 4E's using the Big Model definition, "evolved" or not, is leaving us out of the hobby. Oh well.

At least when we play our games I'm confident we're succeeding because we Players succeeded and the improv'd characters just came along for the ride. And that's the way I like it.