D&D 5E Is D&D a Story or a Game? Discuss.

[clearstream]

Are you claiming that there is no such thing as interactive fiction?

That's literally moot

Or perhaps even more to the point, are you claiming that oral story telling is not story telling if the words are changed between retellings of the tale? If an oral story teller spontaneously improvises aspects of the tale that have never been told before, does it cease to be a story?

The story teller exercises fiat over such improvisation. In a game, the rules of the game hold fiat. A game is an objective reality, not a subjective one, at least to the extent the mechanics are involved. For me a game is a machine for telling stories - the story teller - not the story.

And when something is first written down by the author, surely it is still a story even if at that point it is not a retrospective because the author himself does not yet know all that he will write or even where the story might take them? Surely the author themselves cannot predict exactly what happens after the words, "and then the hero swung his sword at the skeleton" until he actually writes them and then ponders what will happen next.

Once it is received as a story, that no longer happens. Whereas a game can always be different on every occasion.

In the same way, the game of an RPG is collaborative story generation engine. Repeated journeys through the engine will result in different experiences and different stories, but each journey and experience is its own story.

Okay, being a story generation engine, the story is what you have in the end. Games are the evolution of narration. Old style narration perforce produced linear - one dimensional, non dynamic narratives aka "stories". New style narrations are game-assisted: they are non-linear, multi-dimensional, dynamic. They're more complex than the former and more expressive: we're still working them out. Give games another hundred years - at least - and we'll likely start getting somewhere. So... if you want to define a game as an engine for narration - I will agree with you. If you want to describe it as the product of narration - a "story" - then I will not agree. And I believe that the OP proposed the latter (a game is a narrative), not the former (a game is a device for narration).

 

[Celebrim]

That's literally moot

I don't see how. Under your definition, it would seem that there is not such a thing as interactive fiction.

The story teller exercises fiat over such improvisation. In a game, the rules of the game hold fiat.

No, they don't. The rules of the game are actually only a small part of any RPG. Equally important to how the game is actually played is the social contract, the rulings of the games moderator, how the game was prepared for, what the expectations of the players are, and of course the fact that in most RPGs the moderator is specifically given permission to not only improvise rules but overturn them at need. This is why two groups playing exactly the same rules system can be playing completely different games and have completely different game experiences, to say nothing of obviously experiencing and producing completely different stories.

A game is an objective reality, not a subjective one, at least to the extent the mechanics are involved.

What does that even mean, and how is it even relevant? A book and paper or a film and a screen are objective reality, but they are mediums for telling the story. They have mechanics and authors use them to create stories. The only real difference is that the game medium produces collaborative stories.

For me a game is a machine for telling stories - the story teller - not the story.

That's splitting the hair so fine that I don't really see how it makes a difference. If the game is a machine for telling stories, the collective framework by which the collaborative story teller's abide, then the process of playing the game is still itself a story and inseparable from experiencing a story. It would be like you arguing that a novel is not a story, because it's book and a book is a thing with paper and words on it.

Once it is received as a story, that no longer happens. Whereas a game can always be different on every occasion.

I have no idea what you are trying to say, unless that it is the game doesn't become a story unless you play it. But it doesn't by the exact same measure become a game until you play it either. Before that it is just a rulebook and some dice and other props of the game.

You keep going for a while after that, splitting the hair in even finer ways, but I think you could simplify things greatly by just saying that D&D is a game and a story. As soon as you actually play the game, it becomes both, and the story and the game interact with each other in feedback loops that are inseparable.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

The core of any game is about decision making--responding to circumstances to accomplish objectives.

In a role-playing game, objectives, situations, and responses are generated through classic narrative elements such as setting, plot, structure, and character attitudes and motivations. Individual players make decisions when creating their character, both mechanically and narratively, and then respond to situations partially based on those decisions. The gamemaster develops conflicts, locations, characters, plot, and structure to provide situations.

So, D&D is absolutely a game, but one which uses storytelling devices at every level to provide game elements.

But it's also a mechanical game. Situations and actions are constrained by a shared set of rules. This is important for decision making so that results aren't arbitrary. There are a _lot_ of decisions that are impacted by the mechanics of the game. Also, part of the game is making mechanical decisions about your character. These decisions will have an impact during play.

Now, because the game is both narratively and mechanically driven, people will differ in how much of each aspect they enjoy, and that's what drives differences in playstyle.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

It's a story, wrapped in house rules, inside a game.

 

[clearstream]

If the game is a machine for telling stories, the collective framework by which the collaborative story teller's abide, then the process of playing the game is still itself a story and inseparable from experiencing a story.

Stories can be produced, even experienced, by playing a game. But the game is not a story.

I have no idea what you are trying to say, unless that it is the game doesn't become a story unless you play it. But it doesn't by the exact same measure become a game until you play it either. Before that it is just a rulebook and some dice and other props of the game.

I'm writing a paper on this question. It's complex. I doubt very much we can adequately unpack it in this thread.

You keep going for a while after that, splitting the hair in even finer ways, but I think you could simplify things greatly by just saying that D&D is a game and a story. As soon as you actually play the game, it becomes both, and the story and the game interact with each other in feedback loops that are inseparable.

A story cannot interact with anything. It is inert. Various machines can create stories, including human brains and groups of brains. Stories do not create stories. A story might inspire a story, it might be fed into a machine for creating stories (of whatever type) and be parsed and transformed into new stories. A game is not and can never be a story. A game can contain stories. It can tell stories. It can continuously support the experience of stories, but for any worthwhile distinction that admits any difference between games and stories (which to be frank are manifest!) a game is not a story.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I was honestly going to stay out of this discussion other then my joke about hydrogen and oxygen, but this comment prompted me to respond.

A story cannot interact with anything.

I know you went on to elaborate a bit, but wow do I disagree with this one statement in almost every way. Especially since you go on to describe several ways a story can interact with things.

It is inert. Various machines can create stories, including human brains and groups of brains. Stories do not create stories. A story might inspire a story, it might be fed into a machine for creating stories (of whatever type) and be parsed and transformed into new stories. A game is not and can never be a story. A game can contain stories. It can tell stories. It can continuously support the experience of stories, but for any worthwhile distinction that admits any difference between games and stories (which to be frank are manifest!) a game is not a story.

So let's remove the game aspect a bit. Let's say kids are playing pretend. They are playing make believe....that they're space rangers, let's say. What are they doing? Playing a game? There are no mechanics in the sense we tend to attribute to games.

Now, think of the same group, except instead of kids, it's a bunch of adults and they're being paid to pretend so that they can create a play, or a film. Does this mean that the film is a game? Most folks would say a film is a story. A work of art. Is crafting a film or play a game, but the end product is a story?

Now bring this back to players in an RPG. Aren't they all kind of doing the same thing as the kids playing make believe, or the actors making a film? Sure, there are mechanical expressions or dice rolls and so on that determine the outcomes, but is that the important element?

Ultimately, I don't think there really is an answer....other than that an RPG is both a game and a story. But I don't think that the logic you've used to support your choice really holds up.

 

[Celebrim]

Stories can be produced, even experienced, by playing a game. But the game is not a story.

Yes, but the question has never been whether we can distinguish between games and stories; the question is whether D&D itself is a story or a game.

Embrace the healing power of "and".

I'm writing a paper on this question.

Oh dear.

It's complex. I doubt very much we can adequately unpack it in this thread.

Seriously, you are dealing with a whole website filled with some of the foremost experts in role playing games many or most of whom have IQ's over 140. I doubt there is a scholarly treatise that can match even a fraction of the brainpower available on EnWorld. I certainly know that the literature on this subject and the textbooks tend to be.... lacking, by comparison.

And if amateur enthusiasts like myself don't have enough credentials for you, then there are certainly many EnWorld posters that are giants in the field.

A story cannot interact with anything. It is inert.

I don't know what you are trying to say there, but going by the literal meaning of what you wrote, that's nonsense. In fact, I'd say that since a story is inherently a form of communication, until it interacts with something (a reader, for example) it isn't even a story. Though, I suppose that's a 'sound of one hand clapping' sort of assertion. Still, stories inherently interact, and once again, your definition of story seems to preclude the possibility of interactive fiction. Yet, you keep telling me that point is moot.

A game is not and can never be a story. A game can contain stories. It can tell stories. It can continuously support the experience of stories, but for any worthwhile distinction that admits any difference between games and stories (which to be frank are manifest!) a game is not a story.

You keep trying to argue that games and stories are distinguishable. That's not really any thing you need to bother with, since no one to my knowledge has claimed otherwise. What's being asked is whether a RPG game is a game or a story, and I feel the question is misguided. It's both, or it wouldn't be a role-playing game.

 

[Caliban]

D&D is a set of game rules. DM's and players turn it into a story...or they can.

Frustrated DM: "It was a perfectly good story until the players got involved and turn it into a series of muggings and murders. "

 

[Celebrim]

I was honestly going to stay out of this discussion other then my joke

Your 'joke' was far and away the best post of the thread.

 

[Celebrim]

D&D is a set of game rules. DM's and players turn it into a story...or they can.

Frustrated DM: "It was a perfectly good story until the players got involved and turn it into a series of muggings and murders. "

That's still a story; it's just a different story.