Close This Thread

[tetsujin28]

The DM is telling a story, unless he is presenting a series of random, unrelated events. The players have some input into which way the story goes. The players, on the other hand, are having a mainly simulation-type experience.

I don't agree. As DM, I don't 'tell a story'. I exist to facilitate the story that the players are interested in creating.

 

[mythusmage]

(Note: This entry was originally posted at my blog. It can be found here.)

In the roleplaying (RPG) hobby a common meme is that RPGs are like stories, and that playing in an RPG is like story telling. This has affected game and adventure design and game play. In this posting I hope to show that RPGs are not like stories and playing them is not like story telling.

Before we begin, this post is the result of an ongoing discussion at the ENWorld forums. The thread can be found here. If you want to join the conversation registration is required.

That said ...

Before I start I present a definition of story from Your Dictionary

1. An account or recital of an event or a series of events, either true or fictitious, as: a. An account or report regarding the facts of an event or group of events: The witness changed her story under questioning. b. An anecdote: came back from the trip with some good stories. c. A lie: told us a story about the dog eating the cookies.

By definition a story is an account of events, fictional or real, that have happened. Whether it be told in past tense, present tense, or future tense the story as about events that have happened. In an RPG the events are occurring. They are, in a sense, happening now. This makes RPGs analogous to life, and RPG play analogous to living in the real world.

Now, this does not mean RPGs are real life. RPGs contain many story like elements. Villains for example, and stock characters. RPGs are a unique combination of many things, with the addition of one feature not attempted before in this fashion, modeling life, even if in a limited form.

(N.B.: Wargames also do this, but in a more limited fashion. The same for certain other games. The distinction RPGs hold is that they allow for the modelling of life on a broader and deeper scale.)

I suspect the idea that RPGs are like stories comes from their fictional elements. The same elements that make up many stories. Since an adventure can have a big, bad, evil guy (BBEG, from <b>Buffy, The Vampire Slayer</b>) same as a story, the adventure must be like a story. A false analogy.

To show what RPGs and RPG adventures are really like we need to first look at what happens in the typical adventure.

In a typical adventure the game master (GM) presents the basic situation. Sets the scene as it were. The players, as their characters, then decide what they are going to do. Play of the adventure then continues based on the players' initial decision and the outcome of their actions. Combined with the reactions of those characters played by the GM. Much like real life.

How so?

In real life you are presented with a situation and decide on what to do about it. What happens afterwards depends on your decision, the outcome, and the reactions of those who are or might be connected in some manner. The difference between real life and RPGs is that the mechanic for task resolution in real life is so transparent RPG designers find it extremely difficult to model in their games.

Another factor that connects RPGs and life is that both are indeterminate. That is, one cannot predict with any certainty what will happen based on what is going on and one's decision regarding the event. In both case you could attempt to save a small child and have it fail. Or you could succeed only to have the child's mother come up and whack you on the head with a 2/4. Something you don't have in stories, because the story teller has set out the course of events and their results before hand.

If you ever get the chance watch an RPG being played. Note carefully what's going on with this question in mind, "What does this more closely resemble, story or life?".

I submit you'll find it more like life than story. But rely not on what I say, rely more on your observations. But be sure to allow for viewer bias. It may take a series of observations over a period of time. You may even be asked to join in. Such are the perils of research.

Now the RPGs are like stories meme has a consequence; the idea that play must go like a story, following an established plot to a predetermined end. But with the players involved things tend to go a bit astray. The players may miss a vital clue, find something before they were supposed to, or even (and this has happened) dispose of the BBEG at the start of the adventure instead of the end. In an RPG, no matter how carefully you've set things up, swords tend to break whenever they damn well feel like.

This tendency of the players to do whatever they damn well feel like can lead to the GM taking steps to put the adventure back on track. To get it going where he thinks it should go. This is often known as, "railroading".

Railroading is, at the core, any step taken by a GM to get the adventure going where it is supposed to go. It can be subtle, a rearranging of matters so the party ends up going the right way. It can be blatant. Such as by changing outcomes post facto so that the demise of the BBEG at the start never really happened at all. When railroading is really obvious it makes the players resentful and pretty much ends their enjoyment of the adventure. In my experience and those of many others railroadig is a bad thing.

But since many GMs see RPGs as like stories they see a need for railroading. For if they did not railroad the story would not turn out as it should.

That, really, is the problem I have with the RPGs are like stories meme. It leads to manipulation by the GM of the game to insure things happen as they should, instead of as they do. In extreme cases it can result in the players losing control of their characters and becoming, for all intents and purposes, a passive audience. Actors in a play.

That is not why most people play RPGs. Most people play to have an adventure in a safe environment. Safe for them that is, not necessarily their characters.

And there you have my basic argument. Obviously it could be better stated, but it's what I could compose at this time. There is also the RPGs are like traditional games meme to address, but that's a separate topic to be adressed in a separate post. Comments are welcome, especially those asking for clarification and addressing specific points. Again, you are welcome to join in the discussion occurring on ENWorld. (Free registration and your information is kept private.)

(For ENWorlders: You can comment at my blog, but I do require registration via Typekey (a registration service for blog commentators used to cut down on commenting spam.)

 

[mythusmage]

For Fusangite, in case he drops in this thread again.

What you think you said is not what I think you said. Evidently we have a case of miscommunication. A restating of your basic position vis a vis this topic would do us both a lot of good.

 

[mythusmage]

I don't agree. As DM, I don't 'tell a story'. I exist to facilitate the story that the players are interested in creating.

I see it more as the players doing their best to get through the adventure successfully. If not successfully the best they can. What happens during the adventure and how these events are remembered can form the basis of a story. Much like, say, a real life trip from Atlanta to Indianapolis for GenCon.

I do agree that the GM is there to facilitate matters. In addition, to essay the role of those characters not run by the players. Which leads to the topic of GMing style, which belongs in a separate thread. (And likely has already been addressed.)

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Err.. okay. Thanks for presenting the rest of your argument. I agree that GM's shouldn't railroad. That's all I can get out of what you're saying.

If you'd said that a week ago when the thread started, I think we would have all nodded, gone "Yeah, of course", and gone on our way, because there was nothing to discuss. I'll confess I'm a little irritated that it took you this long to get to the point, but that was my fault for having the poor judgement to try to engage in a discussion with you. And the "How do you create story?" thread someone split off from here was worthwhile, so I guess there was some value created.

Best of luck with your theories.

 

[Odhanan]

For me it is clear, mythusmage, and I agree wholeheartedly. By the way, I have been playing Vampire the Masquerade with around 30 regular players over the course of something-like-eight years in a single chronicle. I may know a little something about what WW calls "storytelling" (this is actually in answer to someone, somewhere who posted quite condescendingly that people not agreeing with "Storytelling"(TM) don't know what it is).

I had a blast playing Vampire, and all of the players that shared the game with me too, as far as I can tell. But if something negative happened, that was this tendency of players to stay apart of the "storyline", watching passively what was going on, and the "Storyteller" to be happy with that situation while in others he would not encourage the players to take a more direct part in the "storyline". I was this "Storyteller".

I've grown tired of this. And of canon-metaplots also.

I came back to D&D and I'm glad I realized in what aspects of RPGs I was misguided: it was this conception of RPGs as "Stories" to be "played", which almost always is followed with the disappointment that "it wasn't exactly played as it should have been". The lesson I learn from this is that, as a DM/GM, you should not have any expectations about how your adventure elements should or should not turn out in the actual game. They are like sparks: they can't be compared with the actual fire.

There are lots of people running games out there and posting this or that topic reading along the lines of "I ran this module/adventure/scenario and it didn't turn out as it should have!" Simply because there isn't any particular "way" it "should" turn out (besides having everyone around the table having fun, that is). As a GM/DM you are able to influence some aspects of the game, like the comportments of NPCs, the weather, locations and so on, but you cannot ever predict how it will turn out for the PCs. If you can, then you might find a reality check about what RPGs are, what kind of fun they provide to you and your players, and how you could improve the fun of the game, very useful.

I'm pretty sure the answers will show up by themselves.

 

[mythusmage]

Err.. okay. Thanks for presenting the rest of your argument. I agree that GM's shouldn't railroad. That's all I can get out of what you're saying.

If you'd said that a week ago when the thread started, I think we would have all nodded, gone "Yeah, of course", and gone on our way, because there was nothing to discuss. I'll confess I'm a little irritated that it took you this long to get to the point, but that was my fault for having the poor judgement to try to engage in a discussion with you. And the "How do you create story?" thread someone split off from here was worthwhile, so I guess there was some value created.

Best of luck with your theories.

ST, how is it about railroading?

 

[SweeneyTodd]

How is it about railroading?

Now the RPGs are like stories meme has a consequence; the idea that play must go like a story, following an established plot to a predetermined end. But with the players involved things tend to go a bit astray. The players may miss a vital clue, find something before they were supposed to, or even (and this has happened) dispose of the BBEG at the start of the adventure instead of the end. In an RPG, no matter how carefully you've set things up, swords tend to break whenever they damn well feel like.

This tendency of the players to do whatever they damn well feel like can lead to the GM taking steps to put the adventure back on track. To get it going where he thinks it should go. This is often known as, "railroading".

Railroading is, at the core, any step taken by a GM to get the adventure going where it is supposed to go. It can be subtle, a rearranging of matters so the party ends up going the right way. It can be blatant. Such as by changing outcomes post facto so that the demise of the BBEG at the start never really happened at all. When railroading is really obvious it makes the players resentful and pretty much ends their enjoyment of the adventure. In my experience and those of many others railroadig is a bad thing.

But since many GMs see RPGs as like stories they see a need for railroading. For if they did not railroad the story would not turn out as it should.

That, really, is the problem I have with the RPGs are like stories meme. It leads to manipulation by the GM of the game to insure things happen as they should, instead of as they do. In extreme cases it can result in the players losing control of their characters and becoming, for all intents and purposes, a passive audience. Actors in a play.

That portion of your post sounds like it's about railroading. It's the most concrete reason you've given as to why roleplaying shouldn't be storytelling.

Okay. Great. GMs shouldn't railroad. And? We already knew that. It was brought up by someone else very early in the thread. Some of us went "Well, yeah, that's obvious, he must be talking about something more complex than that." We discussed that "storytelling" or "story creation" or whatever could apply to collaborative efforts without a predetermined outcome, and that such efforts aren't subject to railroading.

Then a few days later, you expand on your original point, and it's the same stuff we hammered out on the first few pages.

If you theoretically were doing this to troll, to get people frustrated, then count me as a victim. I hope that's not the case. Either way, I'm setting away from this thread because I feel it's not especially productive. I'm sure the people who stay are getting value from it, so I don't want to be disruptive.

 

[Umbran]

In short, a story must be put together. Until the events to be included are put together into a story they are not a story.

Seems to me that the events in the game are put together as they happen. It may not be the optimal arrangement for a particular type of story, nor will it be exactly the same arrangement as those involved might present later. But it is still an arrangement.

Dictionaries are nice, but by their nature they give limited information on a given topic. In this case, the one definition you've chosen to latch on to leads you to an (imho) artificial division between the story, the story's creation, and the relating of the story to others. Absolutes are for mathematics, not for analysis of art forms. Relax a bit from the position of "this is not at all X", and drift into "I feel folks might get more out of the game if they took it as more X than Y", and you'll probably hit the mark much more closely.

However, you have not, in any way, provided any evidence to support your conclusions. You have made assertions, but you have not backed them up. On the other hand, I have asked people to observe an RPG in play and to take note of what is going on. What goes on during play? People deal with events as they happen (my emphasis). When did that become story.

Now, sir, you are asking others to stand to a higher level of proof than you do yourself. You're big on showing,rather than telling, but then you yourself tell (proclaim, even) rather than show.

You speak here as if each and every one of us has not already observed countless gaming sessions, as if somehow you're the only one who has ever thought on and analyzed the topic. Give that one a rest right now, please.

 

[fusangite]

Now, sir, you are asking others to stand to a higher level of proof than you do yourself. You're big on showing,rather than telling, but then you yourself tell (proclaim, even) rather than show.

You speak here as if each and every one of us has not already observed countless gaming sessions, as if somehow you're the only one who has ever thought on and analyzed the topic. Give that one a rest right now, please.

Umbran, the post that explains this attitude was written in response to one of my messages:

Studies: My statements re RPGs is based on first hand experience. I have found that relying on what someone else says about a phenomenon leads to error and misunderstanding. And that the conclusion arrived at very often depends on the author's starting assumptions.

Have the conclusions reached by those stuidies on story telling and RPG theory been tested? Or is it a case of, "That sounds good, we'll go with it."? Are they, in other words, good science?

As you can see here, mythusmage has set up a set of evidentiary criteria that will consistently validate his own conclusions and dismiss whatever we say. His observations about his activities are the objective truth whereas other people's observations are the result of other people's starting assumptions and can therefore only be correct insofar as they resemble his own observations.

Furthermore, you have to deal with his tendency to ignore big swaths of text that make a case against his.

I've observed your style of arguing people into the ground in these threads and very much enjoy it but I don't think even you can win the argument here given your opponent's data handling practices. If it were possible, I would still be sparring with mythusmage.