new preview DMG2

[Doug McCrae]

I think I get the picture, EW. You're using a very restricted definition of the word 'storytelling'. I don't see how that's a useful thing to do, it just causes confusion, much like howandwhy99's weird definition of roleplaying.

 

[I'm A Banana]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk"]"Storytelling"?[/ame]

 

[FireLance]

I think I get the picture, EW. You're using a very restricted definition of the word 'storytelling'. I don't see how that's a useful thing to do, it just causes confusion, much like howandwhy99's weird definition of roleplaying.

Indeed. EW appears to be taking the position that a story cannot be told as it unfolds and that storytelling must always take place after the event.

I suppose one way to reconcile EW's definition of storytelling with conventional role-playing is to slice a story down to the smallest unit of narrative that can be a story, and tell that after it has been role-played through.

So, if we tell stories after each encounter, we can tell the Story of How the Adventurers Beat Encounter #1 (or not).

If we slice it down further, after every round of combat, we can tell the Story of What the Adventurers and Monsters Did Last Round.

In fact, we can slice it down even further and the players can tell the Story of What Adventurer X Did This Turn, while the DM can tell the Story of What Monster Y Did This Turn. All this will have to take place after all the dice rolling and role-playing decisions have been made of course.

Eureka! Once again, the solution is quantum. See also: Isaac Asimov's The Dead Past.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Indeed. EW appears to be taking the position that a story cannot be told as it unfolds and that storytelling must always take place after the event.

I suppose one way to reconcile EW's definition of storytelling with conventional role-playing is to slice a story down to the smallest unit of narrative that can be a story, and tell that after it has been role-played through.

So, if we tell stories after each encounter, we can tell the Story of How the Adventurers Beat Encounter #1 (or not).

Yes you certainly can. During that encounter though, if you are roleplaying the actions of your character then you are not telling a story during THAT encounter.

It is possible to do so but that would require the player to portray the character being played to be actively aware that he/she is a character in a story who narrates his/her actions as they are performed (for the benefit of an imaginary audience)

" And so Badbob the deadly dispatches his foes" as dialogue when the encounter ends should do the trick.

 

[Rechan]

At this point, nothing new is being said. It's just "yes it is" "no it isn't". Agree to disagree folks.

 

[ryryguy]

So EW, one thing you seem to be getting at which no one else seems to be picking up on, is that you feel that roleplaying is fundamentally an individual, one-player activity. In the kind of "platonic ideal" world of roleplaying, the player has the concept of his character and his character's personality and motivations. He decides the actions of his character based on that conception, and that conception alone. (Leaving aside here tactics and dice rolling and so forth for the time being, let's just consider pure "when my character gets loot does he give it to orphans or blow it on booze" kind of stuff.)

While collaborative storytelling involves some subordination of the player's choice of action to something external, be it another player or the group or some notion of narrative or plot device. And so the two can come into conflict, if that external storytelling would cause or force the player to choose an action that runs contrary to the concept the player has over his character. So it threatens a loss of roleplaying control. I want my character to donate the loot to orphans, but I have to blow it on booze because some narrative device demands it.

Is that where you are coming from?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

As a non-4e player, if this is well written, I might just be giving it a look over myself.

You're kidding yourself if you ever think you're such a great DM that you never need to read other peoples' thoughts on how to do it.

 

[cwhs01]

This is probably one of the best ways i've seen to distinguish between the two concepts. While i personally see no reason they can't both be used in the same game, i do occasionally play with purists of either roleplay or story-games.

Maybe it has something to do with seeing roleplay and storytelling as either tools to be used or as an objective?

In the kind of "platonic ideal" world of roleplaying, the player has the concept of his character and his character's personality and motivations. He decides the actions of his character based on that conception, and that conception alone.

While collaborative storytelling involves some subordination of the player's choice of action to something external, be it another player or the group or some notion of narrative or plot device. And so the two can come into conflict, if that external storytelling would cause or force the player to choose an action that runs contrary to the concept the player has over his character.

 

[ExploderWizard]

So EW, one thing you seem to be getting at which no one else seems to be picking up on, is that you feel that roleplaying is fundamentally an individual, one-player activity. In the kind of "platonic ideal" world of roleplaying, the player has the concept of his character and his character's personality and motivations. He decides the actions of his character based on that conception, and that conception alone. (Leaving aside here tactics and dice rolling and so forth for the time being, let's just consider pure "when my character gets loot does he give it to orphans or blow it on booze" kind of stuff.)

While collaborative storytelling involves some subordination of the player's choice of action to something external, be it another player or the group or some notion of narrative or plot device. And so the two can come into conflict, if that external storytelling would cause or force the player to choose an action that runs contrary to the concept the player has over his character. So it threatens a loss of roleplaying control. I want my character to donate the loot to orphans, but I have to blow it on booze because some narrative device demands it.

Is that where you are coming from?

Pretty much right on. Also related is the "pick your own path to a defined conclusion" trap that DM's can fall into when concentrating on constructing "scenes" to play out. It seems a bit odd that players will put up with such things as a "collaborative story". We used to just call it railroading.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Pretty much right on. Also related is the "pick your own path to a defined conclusion" trap that DM's can fall into when concentrating on constructing "scenes" to play out. It seems a bit odd that players will put up with such things as a "collaborative story". We used to just call it railroading.

"pick your own path to a defined conclusion" is not necessarily what is suggested. The "Pick your own path" adventure style books did offer multiple conclusions, at least that's what I remember from the few I ever read.

Of course that is still not "collaborative story" either, since there is no collaboration.