Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 4508515" data-attributes="member: 3192">In the Skill Challenge system, if I tell a story that the DM judges to overstep my &quot;narrational authority&quot;, he doesn't allow it.&nbsp; This doesn't mean I do not dictate reality beyond what my PC is capable of.&nbsp; The system practically asks me to do so.&nbsp; And, of course, whenever you do so, you are stepping outside the role of your character.&nbsp; Whether you are role-playing the character or improvisationally acting the character, you the player are still stopping to tell the story.&nbsp; You cannot do both.&nbsp; The only thing that even comes close is when a PC casts a Wish spell, but even then the Referee must keep that action within the bounds of what is possible in the Wish spell rules.&nbsp; That's what modeling reality means.&nbsp; The character is doing this thing as directed by the Player (role-playing).&nbsp; You cannot &quot;just say&quot; the world is the way it is without playing God with it.&nbsp; True, but I like to believe that for the sake of sanity we use speech forms which don't include all things as storytelling.&nbsp; Storytelling is almost always done after the fact.&nbsp; All other ways it can only be when one is portraying (acting) - telling the story of a character's personality.&nbsp; To think otherwise would be to accept &quot;Wait a second, he was just acting!&quot; is in every way identical to &quot;Wait a second, he was just being!&quot;I believe what you're talking about here is a lot of what passes for &quot;Narrative Role-play&quot; in the Indie circles.&nbsp; Of course, what you are really talking about is improvisational theatre acting.&nbsp; That the Indie community does not wish to make a distinction between improvisational acting and role-playing does not mean real world definitions get to changes because of their preferences.&nbsp; &quot;Disputation resolution mechanisms&quot; are not the same as modeling a fictional reality.&nbsp; To confuse the two would be to say 1. the rules used for round robin storytelling are the same kinds of rules as 2. D&amp;D's rules, whatever edition.&nbsp; Even if you go to bare bones TWERPS, what you have in RPGs are mechanics for modeling reality not ones for resolving narrative disputations between speakers.&nbsp; Seriously, go back to the blind people playing Monopoly.&nbsp; The game is modeling a kind of reality (but one not broad enough to count as role-play).&nbsp; Do you really believe the rules of that game are narrative disputation resolution rules?&nbsp; Wouldn't all games' rules count as such then?&nbsp; This gets back to the inaccurate &quot;not story-like enough&quot; objection where stories have to be about &quot;people&quot; and &quot;worlds&quot; to count as collaborative storytelling.That's funny.&nbsp; You made a character named &quot;narrator&quot; and put him in your story.&nbsp; Isn't it odd how that &quot;narrator&quot; character hasn't kept on posting the story without your help?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="howandwhy99, post: 4508515, member: 3192"] In the Skill Challenge system, if I tell a story that the DM judges to overstep my "narrational authority", he doesn't allow it. This doesn't mean I do not dictate reality beyond what my PC is capable of. The system practically asks me to do so. And, of course, whenever you do so, you are stepping outside the role of your character. Whether you are role-playing the character or improvisationally acting the character, you the player are still stopping to tell the story. You cannot do both. The only thing that even comes close is when a PC casts a Wish spell, but even then the Referee must keep that action within the bounds of what is possible in the Wish spell rules. That's what modeling reality means. The character is doing this thing as directed by the Player (role-playing). You cannot "just say" the world is the way it is without playing God with it. True, but I like to believe that for the sake of sanity we use speech forms which don't include all things as storytelling. Storytelling is almost always done after the fact. All other ways it can only be when one is portraying (acting) - telling the story of a character's personality. To think otherwise would be to accept "Wait a second, he was just [I]acting![/I]" is in every way identical to "Wait a second, he was just [I]being![/I]" I believe what you're talking about here is a lot of what passes for "Narrative Role-play" in the Indie circles. Of course, what you are really talking about is improvisational theatre acting. That the Indie community does not wish to make a distinction between improvisational acting and role-playing does not mean real world definitions get to changes because of their preferences. "Disputation resolution mechanisms" are not the same as modeling a fictional reality. To confuse the two would be to say 1. the rules used for round robin storytelling are the same kinds of rules as 2. D&D's rules, whatever edition. Even if you go to bare bones TWERPS, what you have in RPGs are mechanics for modeling reality not ones for resolving narrative disputations between speakers. Seriously, go back to the blind people playing Monopoly. The game is modeling a kind of reality (but one not broad enough to count as role-play). Do you really believe the rules of that game are narrative disputation resolution rules? Wouldn't all games' rules count as such then? This gets back to the inaccurate "not story-like enough" objection where stories have to be about "people" and "worlds" to count as collaborative storytelling. That's funny. You made a character named "narrator" and put him in your story. Isn't it odd how that "narrator" character hasn't kept on posting the story without your help? [/QUOTE]

Verification