Storytelling Games

[Hussar]

If people feel like they are not playing a real game it certainly isn't because I told them so and if it is why in the heck do I matter so much.

You specifically don't so much. However, after being told time and time again, over and over, by various people, it can get pretty wearisome. It's like being told endlessly that Game X is too videogamey or whatever. It's not a "real" roleplaying game. After the 300th time, people get a bit tetchy about it.

A game without an end or defined endgame conditions can continue pretty much indefinitely whether it be an rpg, story game, or any other type.

The thing is, it's pretty rare to find those games. Outside of RPG's, I'm drawing a blank on games that do not have a defined end game condition. One of the largest differences between RPG's and most games is the lack of defined end game conditions. The idea that there is no winner is a huge stumbling block for a lot of people when I try to explain RPG's to them.

What non-RPG's have no end game conditions?

 

[ExploderWizard]

What non-RPG's have no end game conditions?

Storytelling games. The story isn't over until the players decide it is.








You didn't see that one coming?

 

[pawsplay]

While some "storytelling games" are not RPGs, I think 95% of the ones you will see discussed on this site definitely are.

 

[Raven Crowking]

From the other thread:

Victory conditions in D&D (for example) relate to scenarios. Any given session of D&D might have a number of victory conditions, often selected by the players (goals) and sometimes imposed by the DM. In the original game, the victory conditions were "survive", "explore", and "get treasure". Victory was measured by XP, gp, and character level, as well as items that increase character ability to achieve the three primary goals.

It would be fair to say that any given D&D session, or any given D&D scenario (if you like, even any given D&D encounter) is a game, but the overarching and ongoing campaign is a framework for that game, rather than being a game in and of itself.​

It is, therefore, wrong (IMHO) to believe that RPGs don't have endgame conditions. They do. They just also have an overarching framework that allows for continuity of experience beyond those endgame conditions. That continuity of experience is a feature of the entertainment provided by RPGs, but is not a game feature.

This is in the same sense that a chess tournament has an overarching framework that allows for continuity of experience within the tourney, but that framework is not a feature of the actual chess games being played.


RC

 

[ExploderWizard]

While some "storytelling games" are not RPGs, I think 95% of the ones you will see discussed on this site definitely are.

The vast majority of the ones discussed do or can include some roleplaying as a component certainly, just as a football game will include some drinking of gatorade. Do we refer to these events as gatorade tasting events that by chance involve a football game?

Do we really need to go back to discussing the greatest rpg ever:
Hungry Hungry Hippos?

 

[Raven Crowking]

The vast majority of the ones discussed do or can include some roleplaying as a component certainly, just as a football game will include some drinking of gatorade. Do we refer to these events as gatorade tasting events that by chance involve a football game?

Could we bring this discussion to a specific example? Something you do not believe is a role-playing game, but which is advertised as such?


RC

 

[ExploderWizard]

Could we bring this discussion to a specific example? Something you do not believe is a role-playing game, but which is advertised as such?


RC

D&D is a good example of a game that is marketed as an rpg but can be played as either type of game depending on the wishes of the players.

If the group decide that telling a collaborative story is the main objective of the game it is a storytelling game.

If the group decides that playing the role of adventurer in the game world is the main objective it is an rpg.

Note that the first case does not exclude roleplaying (drinking gatorade) from the activity of telling a story (the football game) and that in the second case an emerging story (drinking gatorade) is not prevented by roleplaying adventurers (the football game).

When the group gathers to play, what is the primary objective? Put another way, if one element or the other HAD to be eliminated, then what would it be?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Exploder,

You are still talking in generalities. Can you give me a specific example?

I am not particularly trying to undermine your point (Hungry Hungry Hippos is not an RPG, even if one can role-play while playing HHH), but without something concrete, I can't tell if we are talking merely hypothetically or not.


RC

 

[maddman75]

I think he's being pretty clear. You can be playing D&D but if you don't play it according to the One True Exploder Wizard Way, you aren't really playing a roleplaying game. He's not talking about Capes or Baron Munchausen or other outliers that most people could make the reasonable assertation that this is falling outside the category of 'RPG'. He's saying that if you play D&D wrong, by focusing on a story rather than plain sandboxing, you are not playing roleplaying games any more.

Further, he insists that there's no reason anyone should find this objectionable.

Does this about sum it up, EW? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but this is your position as I understand it. One that I vehemently object to.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think he's being pretty clear.

Sorry, but I don't see it the way you see it.

I am not sure that I agree with his definition of terms, but there is a difference between trying to define terms and trying to tell you that something which falls outside of the definition of a particular term (however defined) is wrong.

Cats and dogs are both pets. That doesn't mean that cats are dogs, or that cats are wrong for not being dogs. Nor does it mean that, should you insist that your Manx tailess is, in fact, a dog, telling you that it is in fact a cat (rather than a dog) is somehow exclusionary.

What is in doubt, IMHO, is not whether or not EW has a right to define, but whether or not the definition is generally useful. I.e., is he claiming that a lungfish is not a fish? Or is he claiming that a salmon is not a fish? Or is he claiming that a whale is not a fish?


RC