D&D General DM Authority

[Jack Daniel]

That said ... I think the difference is subtler (I guess) than I read you to be saying. The novelist makes up the sequence of events, and narrates them; the TRPG table makes up (or generates) the sequence of events, and one of them types them up after-the-fact. The big differences I see are 1) in the process, the novelist typically makes up the events as they're doing the writing, whereas the gamers are generating the sequence of events, then writing them up later (making that more like, as you say, journalism or history--but there are novelists who work from outlines, which is closer to what's happening with gamer notes than the work of a novelist who free-writes); and 2) in the novel at least, there's more singularity of authorship than there is at (most? many?) TRPG tables, which plausibly makes it easier to control what happens in a novel--so things like theme and subtext are easier to manipulate/choose. (I think there was going to be at least a third difference, but it's fallen out of my head.)

That isn't quite the point I'm making. A story can be made up (novelist) or a recounting of events (journalist). A story can have a singular author (novel) or a many (writer's room TV spec). The point is that a story is in some sense a defined object, whereas a tabletop RPG campaign in actual play is more of an ongoing process.

 

[prabe]

That isn't quite the point I'm making. A story can be made up (novelist) or a recounting of events (journalist). A story can have a singular author (novel) or a many (writer's room TV spec). The point is that a story is in some sense a defined object, whereas a tabletop RPG campaign in actual play is more of an ongoing process.

That's fair. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Haffrung]

And collectively the players and the DM are going to craft a story about what happened when Ronan and Kab were faced with this choice. Yes, this is very different than the Collective Storytelling of things like "the Quiet Year" or "Yes, Dark Lord" but it is still a style of collective storytelling.

At the end of a soccer match, a sports reporter can craft the match into a story. However, the players are not deliberately collaborating in crafting a story while they’re running around the field trying to put the ball in the net. They’re just trying to score more goals than their opponent.

I look at traditional RPGs the same way. The players have a goal (loot the ruins, kill the monster, protect the village). The pursuit of that goal yields a story. But the players are not considering how cool the story will be as they’re declaring their actions.

Battling the evil wizard in a desperate battle at the summit of his tower is a dramatic climax. But if players can avoid danger by killing the wizard with a poison cloud while he sleeps, then that’s the more desirable tactic. I have yet to play a traditional RPG whose goal from the POV if the players is to collaborate on a dramatic story, where they would deliberately choose the first option over the second.

 

[happyhermit]

The point is that generally having a player associate with their character too much leads to problems.

Nope, it's just a style of play. Some people really enjoy immersive roleplay and the degree to which they associate with their character is not a cause of problems. If problems exist there are other factors. Being unable to disassociate from your character is a serious problem, like amnesia and movie style multiple personality disorder. It is certainly not caused by the way they play a game.

Bad things happening to the character is not bad things happening to the player.

Yes, this is not determined by "stance" or how a person likes to play.

Wow, so much snark so little worthwhile content.

I read a bunch of this thread, including many of your comments, hard to feel bad about mine in comparison, but I do a bit.

The point that I think you miss utterly, is that the term "Roleplaying" puts the person doing it in a very similar position as an Actor.

No. Not interested in hashing out "stances" or whatever for the umpteenth time but there are many ways to roleplay some of which are fundamentally different from being an Actor. Is this honestly still contested with people saying "that's not roleplay"?

They are playing a character, in a story, and deciding on what happens within that story.
...
And collectively the players and the DM are going to craft a story about what happened when Ronan and Kab were faced with this choice. Yes, this is very different than the Collective Storytelling of things like "the Quiet Year" or "Yes, Dark Lord" but it is still a style of collective storytelling.

Roleplay doesn't have to involve a story, unless one defines everything as a story ie; a one word conversation is a story. D&D certainly produces a story as a result of the actions within the fiction created during a game. "Crafting" a story is not necessary though, for most people it would be like saying two players having a game of chess or playing a videogame are "crafting" a story. Crafting is more deliberate in any meaningful definition I have seen.

Hm, masked murderers of like half of rpg horror stories are people who couldn't separate themselves from their characters and wanted to win the game.

Yes, this is quite an epidemic we need to address, here let me show you some Chick Tracts. Seriously though, I am sorry if I am being too snarky, all this telling people how they should actually be playing really gets my blood pressure up.

And all of the issues of bad kind of metagaming, munchkinism and things like that just can't exist if the player sees their character as, well, character.

Oh, hell no! Almsot all of the worst examples of metagaming and munchkinism I have seen and heard of involved the exact opposite, players who were basically barely viewing the game through their PC's eyes at all, instead viewing them as a game piece. Alpha players are an issue in co-operative games, spotlight hogs and are a problem in storytelling games. You are actually telling people how they should be playing, which I find extremely problematic, and to make it worse I don't think you have even thought it through.

 

[loverdrive]

Oh, hell no! Almsot all of the worst examples of metagaming and munchkinism I have seen and heard of involved the exact opposite, players who were basically barely viewing the game through their PC's eyes at all, instead viewing them as a game piece.

Wait. That's exactly what I'm saying.

Maybe I just suck at putting thoughts to text, though.

 

[FrogReaver]

Wait. That's exactly what I'm saying.

Maybe I just suck at putting thoughts to text, though.

Hmmm. I would have blamed the wizards dominate person

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't have an issue with viewing the result of the game being viewed as a story. I mean..

"After defeating the goblin hordes in the Caves of Despair, Dumphwith the Bard stared at the baby goblin for some time before deciding to spare its life." - written by an author.

and

"After defeating the goblin hordes in the Caves of Despair, Dumphwith the Bard stared at the baby goblin for some time before deciding to spare its life." - after actions taken by both DM and player(s).

...are functionally the same. Both can be viewed as a story.

I think it is useful to distinguish between a narrative (as understood in history) and a story. And I think they are different, but both can occur in RPGs. A narrative in history describes real events that took place (and the historian is threading it into a linear account usually, which can distort even if it they are trying to be as accurate as possible). The events in an RPG can be likened to the events in history, and they can provide details for a narrative later. But history, as it is unfolding, isn't worried about whether it meets the criteria for a good narrative. The subjects of history are trying to survive it. They are trying to get what they want, but their lives are not unfolding toward dramatic purpose. If you read a lot of history you realize just how many people die suddenly, in ways that would be anticlimactic in a story for example. A story is different though. If you are collectively trying to tell a good story, your goals are totally different from someone who is playing the game to survive history. So I think when we say these are the same, it does a bit of a disservice to several styles of play that have no interest in story. Just like if we say, RPGs are incompatible with story, it does a disservice to styles of play that are interested in crafting a good story.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Is there any actual evidence that anyone has ever thought this? I mean people use language to loosely explain themselves where they say 'I' when referring to something their character did. That doesn't mean are too dumb to realize there is a difference between their character and themselves. It's loose language. So any actual evidence anyone thinks this?

You mean like people taking it personally when their character is debuffed or attacked? Yeah, happens all the time. That is why whenever we have an in-character disagreement, we usually end up reiterating "Hey man, this isn't about you, this is all in character. We cool?" Because some people take "A thief stole my character's gear" into "The DM stole my stuff"

IMO. Telling what you do in a story is not telling a story. Overcoming obstacles real time is not telling a story.

Um... yes, it is.

"This is the shocking true story of" is used because people's actions tell a story. A story is just a recounting of events. That is why the term "History" is spelled with "story" in the word. They both come from the same root word in Ancient Greek. And the original writing of history was writing the stories of people.

I mean, I get it is your opinion, but for a lot of us, this is a type of story telling, so the snark and dismissal of storytelling as an aspect of roleplaying is just not accurate.

IMO. Having shared fiction isn't the same thing as collectively crafting a story. The goal in an RPG is different. The players view of character advocacy in an RPG is different.

Making a sculpture out of ice is different than metal is different that butter.

Just because there are differences doesn't mean there are not important similarities as well.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Everything is a story in that perspective.

Isn't it?

Everything is history, history is just the story of what happened in the world.

Plenty of people write "non-fiction stories" which are just recounting real world events that occurred.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Completely agree.

OK up to here, sort of.

Quibble: it's collective story-creating, for sure, but not collective story-telling.

Why do I say this? It's a matter of intent.

With collective story-telling, as I see the term, the specific intent going in is to tell a story which fairly clearly appears in the moment as you go along. The story is the goal of play.

With collective story-creating, the specific intent going in is just to do stuff in character and see what develops; and the created story doesn't really appear until looked at in hindsight. The story is a side-effect of play.

It's a nit-picky difference on paper but a rather huge one at the table.

EDIT: and reading on I see @Mannahnin says almost exactly the same thing just upthread.

Sure, but "telling" and "crafting" are such close cousins I'd be concerned about them kissing.

Because, lest we forget this thread is about DMs, many DMs create a plot. They create themes and intent within the game, to tell a story. The reveal of Acerak as being behind the Death Curse in Tomb of Annihilation was planned story-telling, with the ending then being chosen by the players and the dice.

And I've seen many times people do things, such as a character who was raised in an orphanage running into a burning building to save children. It is objectively not a safe thing to do, not a smart thing to do. It is dangerous to the character's survival. But, as a story, it makes perfect sense that they would do that.