Storytelling Games

[ExploderWizard]

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.

It seems to me that you are the only one so far to label something right or wrong, please don't attribute that opinion to me. What gave you the idea that anything other than plain sandboxing is not roleplaying anymore? There is no one true way. As long as the players are playing the game from within the role rather than from without there isn't a thing keeping backstory, dastardly plots , and other compelling reasons for adventuring as part of a roleplaying game.

To be even clearer, if the PC's are going into the cave of the Nutzbuster orc tribe to rescue the daughter of the ungrateful fat treacherous merchant who plans on selling them out to the orcs instead of for reasons of exploration and loot your roleplaying game is just fine. The players are focusing thier actions based on campaign (story) events.

If the players start using "drama points" to dictate the narrative or otherwise impact the flow of the game from outside the perspective of thier role we start venturing into storytelling territory.

The thing that is puzzling (not objectionable mind you) is why someone would proclaim to prefer a game primarily to tell a story and simultaneously become insulted that someone mentions the term "storytelling game"

It truly boggles the mind.

 

[maddman75]

Its not that you call it a storytelling game. Its that you claim it is not an RPG any more. I don't know how to take that other than 'Maddman doesn't play RPGs right.'

Would you object if I called your style of game 'Exploration games' and say that its all good and fine and its great you enjoy it but you aren't really playing roleplaying games anymore?

You are attempting to redefine commonly used terms.

In an effort to be more constructive/less confrontational, consider the following.

The heroes set off into the Nutzbuster territory to rescue the daughter of the merchant. They end up in a scene with the orc chief and the tied up daughter. One player decides that it would be awesome and make for a good ending to the tale if he charged the orc leader, giving his compatriots a chance to rescue the girl.

Game mechanically, his character is facing certain death. He's not getting any drama points or hero dice for doing this, nor are the party indebted to the merchant or anything. Further, a careful strategic plan would likely work just as well, maybe better. But the player (and the other players agree) that this would make a cool end to the tale of the kidnapped merchant's daughter.

Again, there are no mechanics supporting this. The GM is acting as 'fair arbiter'. The player is essentially throwing away his character for no reason other than he thinks it would be an awesome scene. Are these people, according to you, playing a roleplaying game? Are the GM and other players being forced to play a 'story game' because one player is making decisions based on what he thinks would be a good story, rather than fulfilling his role? If the player did it because his background included 'takes dangerous risks' as part of his personality instead of doing it because it was a fun scene, would he then be playing a roleplaying game? What if there was a rule that doing a dangerous act that the group agreed was cool and fun got a +2 bonus on a d20? Is that sufficient to render it not a roleplaying game? What if this wasn't a hard and fast rule, but something the GM just decided to do?

What I'm getting at is that you are splitting a very, very fine hair that largely involves reading the minds of the people playing. That something could be rendered 'not a roleplaying game' based on what one out of four of five players is thinking makes the difference between RPG and not-RPG says to me that this distinction is not accurate, useful, or helpful to understanding what people want out of games and why.

 

[Obryn]

Its not that you call it a storytelling game. Its that you claim it is not an RPG any more.

Yes, this.

Again.

Rather than using the commonly-accepted definition of "Role-Playing Games" as a big, open tent under which there are many different flavors and varieties (from OD&D to 3e to Buffy to Vampire), you're defining it as an exclusive night-club, where metagame mechanics and Action Points mean you're not on the guest list. And then feigning shock when anyone objects.

-O

 

[Raven Crowking]

Please note that I am not claiming EW's definition for my own.

However, EW is clearly not saying "Maddman doesn't play RPGs right." Assuming you are playing a game that EW thinks is not an RPG, he is saying "'Maddman doesn't play RPGs". Right and wrong don't enter into it.

Likewise, he is not saying "EW doesn't play storytelling games right" but rather "EW doesn't play storytelling games".

It is rather like saying EW plays with cats while Maddman plays with dogs, but both are playing with pets. EW could still be playing with cats "wrong" and Maddman still be playing with dogs "right".

Again, without specifics, it is difficult to determine how valuable EW's definition is when related to any particular game, or gaming as a whole. It seems to me that, because of the lack of specifics, EW's definition might be too vague to be of any practical value, even were we to grant it for the purposes of discussion.

(Of course, I would be willing to reconsider my opinion here in the light of actual specific examples.)


RC

 

[ExploderWizard]

Its not that you call it a storytelling game. Its that you claim it is not an RPG any more. I don't know how to take that other than 'Maddman doesn't play RPGs right.'

Would you object if I called your style of game 'Exploration games' and say that its all good and fine and its great you enjoy it but you aren't really playing roleplaying games anymore?

You are attempting to redefine commonly used terms.

Am I really trying to redefine anything or am I just sticking labels on what is defined? If your goal is to tell a story with your group then I would be more inclined to say that you are are playing a story based game right than an rpg wrong.

Well, my games are somewhat event/scheme heavy( I like my campaigns to be riddled with connecting plots) so I don't know if that would be accurate.

If our group decided that we would play a campaign with exploration as the main focus I wouldn't object.

 

[maddman75]

Please note that I am not claiming EW's definition for my own.

However, EW is clearly not saying "Maddman doesn't play RPGs right." Assuming you are playing a game that EW thinks is not an RPG, he is saying "'Maddman doesn't play RPGs". Right and wrong don't enter into it.

Judging from his posts above, you could be playing 4e D&D, and if your primary goal is to create a fun story, you aren't playing a roleplaying game.

I've got a player's handbook, miniatures, a d20, and a story of fantasy adventure, but somehow am not playing a roleplaying game. Because I don't think of it the same way Exploder Wizard does.

 

[Obryn]

However, EW is clearly not saying "Maddman doesn't play RPGs right." Assuming you are playing a game that EW thinks is not an RPG, he is saying "'Maddman doesn't play RPGs".

No, I think that's how I understand it, and how Maddman understands it. And it's a debate we've had with EW before. He's using a novel definition of RPGs to exclude certain games or play-styles from being RPGs, but is not telling anyone they're playing them wrong, per se.

Nevertheless, I think being told I'm not actually playing RPGs when my group and I believe we are playing RPGs, simply because they differ from the EW-approved definition, is just cause to be offended. In your example, it would be like being told I'm not playing with a pet when I'm playing with a cat, because his definition excludes cats from the "pet" category.

-O

 

[Raven Crowking]

Judging from his posts above, you could be playing 4e D&D, and if your primary goal is to create a fun story, you aren't playing a roleplaying game.

I've got a player's handbook, miniatures, a d20, and a story of fantasy adventure, but somehow am not playing a roleplaying game. Because I don't think of it the same way Exploder Wizard does.

I would agree that this seems to be what EW is saying.

If so, his definition is too narrow for any practical use AFAICT. Moreover, it is too narrow for use even if we were to grant it for purposes of discussion (which is different from accepting it for general purposes).

That still doesn't mean that "right" or "wrong" enter into it.

That does mean, however, that discussions with EW would probably be easier if he accepted a more general defintion for purposes of discussion (which is different from accepting it for general purposes).


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

In your example, it would be like being told I'm not playing with a pet when I'm playing with a cat, because his definition excludes cats from the "pet" category.

I can certainly agree that this would make conversation about pets difficult, but I disagree that it would be offensive, per se. Well, it would be more offensive in the annoying "What is this guy on, and why do I keep talking to him?" kind of way, rather than in the "Did this guy just violate the Eric's Grandmother rule?" kind of way. I think.

I often find EW to be insightful. This doesn't seem to be one of those times.


RC

 

[maddman75]

I can certainly agree that this would make conversation about pets difficult, but I disagree that it would be offensive, per se. Well, it would be more offensive in the annoying "What is this guy on, and why do I keep talking to him?" kind of way, rather than in the "Did this guy just violate the Eric's Grandmother rule?" kind of way. I think.

I often find EW to be insightful. This doesn't seem to be one of those times.


RC

Because he's trying to get everyone else on the pets forum to think you aren't a pet owner because you like cats.