Storytelling Games

[Ariosto]

Have you seen Hero Wars (now HeroQuest)? That's roughly what I came up with back in the '80s -- not the same game, of course, but the basic framework of freely defined factors, wagers and d20 roll-offs was the same.

Here's a bit from a review of the new (and apparently non-Gloranthan) HQ "core rules":

Assuming one was Hoplite 17 and the other Ninja 17, they would be as equal as their ability scores. ... it doesn’t matter if one is clad in solid plate armor with an eight foot spear or wears only a black suit and carries a sai.

That's the heart of the matter. Tarzan fights naked with a dagger and wins versus spears and rifles because he's Tarzan. Bart Simpson ...

Well, you get the idea, I hope. In Risus, we'd give him 6 dice. Why? He's just that awesome. And Batman 6 is a match for Superman 6, insofar as the characters act in keeping with their clichés (informed by comic-book tradition).

Moreover, in a story-telling game even losing a fight with a machine-gun nest is not going to leave Tarzan dead if that's not The Story. He has Plot Protection. Maybe The Villain has as well. That's really the point of going this route instead of letting things -- and characters! -- fall as they may. The Story does not get wrecked.

But of course that means there must be The Story in the first place. That does not mean a whole script (Ask the director of the latest Star Trek movie!), but it means not just nothing. Whether it means "the right kind", "the good kind" or "the fun kind" of story, ya gotta have something just a wee bit more specific in mind. As I've stated before, someone else might have something else in mind -- or game system might indicate that some particulars don't apply in a given scene.

It is not necessary to have predetermined end conditions to a "book" or "series" or whatever, but neither is it necessary not to have them.

 

[Ariosto]

The disconnect here between player and role applies to motivation as well as powers. With greater powers than a character has comes great responsibility to exercise them other than just as the character would.

You can buck that, but in most cases the result is likely to be a really messed up story. Even Superman needs something other than pure wish fulfillment!

 

[Ariosto]

I rather like The Pool by James V. West. It takes almost a minimalist approach, which brings the fundamentals to the fore. The "Snowball" variant (iirc) uses reverse chronology.

Find RTF here: The Comics and Art of James V. West

PDF here: The Pool an inde RPG

Variants and other links here: http://www.crackmonkey.org/~nick/loyhargil/thepoolvariations.html

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

OK then, nice example- huge edit

If the player decides on an action based on story considerations then he/she is acting as a storyteller and not roleplaying.

The player could make the same choice for a number of reasons that might be relevant to the character and play it within the role. Maybe the the character sought to impress the captive with bravery in order to win her affection? Maybe the character isn't a rational thinker? The reason doesn't matter as long as it originates through the character.

If the characters themselves are aware that they are part of a story then making decisions based on the desired direction of the story would be roleplaying decisions. In this case the "story" is a known factor for the character and acknowledging it can be done from within the role.

If the group has more fun doing things just because the story would be cooler then no one is being "forced" to play a story game, it has been decided by mutual consent.

The level to which story is considered and acted upon in actual play is matter of personal taste. Knowing if one's personal taste in gaming style meshes with others in the group does have value IMHO.

 

[maddman75]

The player could make the same choice for a number of reasons that might be relevant to the character and play it within the role.

This is really the entirety of my point. A player takes an action. It might be justified for story reasons. It might be because he felt that would be 'true' to his character. It might be because its getting late and his wife is going to be on his case if he doesn't get home soon. Who knows?

All I know is that you're basing whether or not someone is playing an RPG on what is going on inside a player's head. The structure of the rules, and apparently, what the other players are doing, is totally irrelevent.

What if someone takes an action because they think "This is what my character would do AND I think it would make a cool part of the story."

Another factor is that these are not mutually exclusive at the table. One player may be making choices because of where he wants the story to go, and another is making choices because of what he thinks his character would do. The two of them in the same group is not a problem. In fact the only way you would even know why someone makes the choice they do is to ask them, and if they were lying there's no way you could tell.

So more questions. If all the players make their choice based on character, while the GM is introducing conflicts and adjucating in the interest of a good story, are they playing a roleplaying game. What if some of the players use character and some use story? And here's the real kicker, because its how the vast majority of people game IME - what if they're taking into account both character and story? They grumble and complain about going to save the orphans because their cold blooded mercenary doesn't have much reason to do so, but they go ahead and do it because, well, that's what the group's doing and they don't want to ruin the game. Or their noble paladin wouldn't really tolerate adventuring with an unrepentant theiving pickpocket, but they merely get preachy and tolerate his presence, because it would make for a bad story for the paladin to be off by himself while the rest of the group goes on the adventure. (It would still be a story, sure, but it wouldn't be very much fun for the paladin, or the GM, or the rest of the group).

I've found far more disruptive behavior justified with the cry 'But its what my character would do!' than anything else. Having players that 'pay attention to story' really means players that consider how much fun everyone at the table is having. Because that's what us story guys really mean - everyone at the table doing what they can to make sure everyone has a fun time.

 

[pawsplay]

OK then, nice example- huge edit

If the player decides on an action based on story considerations then he/she is acting as a storyteller and not roleplaying.

In that case, I'll have to argue that by your definition, no player is roleplaying, ever. Starting from the time you say, "I'm going to name my fighter Bob," you are engaging in meta-gaming and storytelling. Considering that an RPG is, among other things, a narrative experience, how does this distinction even make sense? And however immersed a player is in his character, how do you expect him to dissolve, in his mind, the very purpose of playing, to play as-if an imaginary character?

 

[pawsplay]

All I know is that you're basing whether or not someone is playing an RPG on what is going on inside a player's head. The structure of the rules, and apparently, what the other players are doing, is totally irrelevent.

Further, to agree with this line of thinking, we would have to agree that what is inside someone's head is a thing and not simply events that are expressed in a certain way. I might call this premise "roleplaying mentalism." Two people might be having a very similarly roleplaying experience, yet describe their experience in different terms because language is representative of experience. Unless a player is delusional and cannot tell imaginary stories from reality, whether they are acting in-character or "telling a story" largely depends on their sense of being associated with a character, which is a perception and not motivation.

Sometimes people they are spaced out or things seem "not real" under stress... that doesn't mean they are engaged in a different kind of living, or that they don't have a life. It just means they are experiencing something differently.

 

[ExploderWizard]

So more questions. If all the players make their choice based on character, while the GM is introducing conflicts and adjucating in the interest of a good story, are they playing a roleplaying game.

The players would be roleplaying. The nature of the game as a whole would depend on the DM. Do the actions of the players matter or does the DM decide outcomes based on where he/she wants the story to go?
If the latter then there isn't much of a game happening at all.

What if some of the players use character and some use story? And here's the real kicker, because its how the vast majority of people game IME - what if they're taking into account both character and story? They grumble and complain about going to save the orphans because their cold blooded mercenary doesn't have much reason to do so, but they go ahead and do it because, well, that's what the group's doing and they don't want to ruin the game. Or their noble paladin wouldn't really tolerate adventuring with an unrepentant theiving pickpocket, but they merely get preachy and tolerate his presence, because it would make for a bad story for the paladin to be off by himself while the rest of the group goes on the adventure. (It would still be a story, sure, but it wouldn't be very much fun for the paladin, or the GM, or the rest of the group).

In this case if no one voices any concerns then the group has mutually agreed to a story based game and all is well.

I've found far more disruptive behavior justified with the cry 'But its what my character would do!' than anything else. Having players that 'pay attention to story' really means players that consider how much fun everyone at the table is having. Because that's what us story guys really mean - everyone at the table doing what they can to make sure everyone has a fun time.

Being disrepectful to other players or the DM can never be justified. Paying atention to campaign events benefits everyone but the occasional inner party debate or conflict over a choice is a good thing because it shows that the players are interested and care about that choice.

Having a table full of players who just nod and accept what I tell them for fear of rocking the boat would bore me to tears. YMMV.

 

[Nifft]

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)

1/ I like big tents.

2/ I don't think any tent is big enough to save Vampire from Buffy.

3/ Human intentionality is... problematic.

Cheers, -- N

 

[ExploderWizard]

In that case, I'll have to argue that by your definition, no player is roleplaying, ever. Starting from the time you say, "I'm going to name my fighter Bob," you are engaging in meta-gaming and storytelling. Considering that an RPG is, among other things, a narrative experience, how does this distinction even make sense? And however immersed a player is in his character, how do you expect him to dissolve, in his mind, the very purpose of playing, to play as-if an imaginary character?

Deep immersion/method acting is fine for those who enjoy going that far but it is hardly required to merely roleplay. An imaginary character is also optional. You can roleplay yourself in a variety of scenarios, no character required. When you pause to narrate, roleplaying is paused and storytelling begins.

There is certainly narrative involved in rpgs it just won't be happening while roleplaying. The DM while describing something will be narrating but he/she cannot simultaneously roleplay an NPC. The NPC is either being roleplayed in the moment or included in the narrative.