Storytelling or Roleplaying?

[FireLance]

James- I think the significant thing is the long descriptions, and then over-riding the player plans.

Actually, I think the DM's key failing in the task resolution stage of the game is that he was telling, not showing (there is also the possibility that he might have had only one solution in mind and was playing a game of "guess the plan", but I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt).

There is an art, or at least a skill, to prompting the players to re-think their plans through questioning (e.g. if the players want to pose as buyers, the DM could have asked them how they were going to approach the slavers) but the DM in question seemed to prefer outright telling the players why their ideas won't work.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Edit: at the point where the DM is describing your characters emotions for you (and it's not like.. a fear/charm spell situation), it's no longer roleplaying. That's almost offensive!

I think he took his cue from me. When he described the despicable acts the slavers were doing, I kind of made a scowl because I was going to say something like "We need to rescue these people. I can't let them continue like this."

But he saw my scowl and immediately said "The Revenant scowls, obviously displeased by the situation below. You see his red eyes glow with anger as he stares down at the slaves."

But he never did ask me if I was scowling in character or if it was just my own distaste for slavery and I never actually said I was angry or anything, he just embellished. I did find it a little jarring as I've never had a DM describe the emotions of my character before. Normally, I describe those.

 

[Desdichado]

I get annoyed with the use of buzzwords like storytelling vs. roleplaying and whatnot.

Then again, I'd get even more annoyed with this guy. I wouldn't have lasted an hour of listening to him. And the first time he said what my character felt or thought, I'd have interrupted him and said, "no, my character doesn't."

 

[FireLance]

Based on your experience, I would say that the lack of roleplaying going on has nothing to do with 4E and everything to do with the DM not understanding the basic concept of a roleplaying game. This guy could be doing the same annoying crap with any rules system.

Maybe he's singling out 4E for special dislike because the 4E DMG actually has advice on "Brevity", "Show, don't tell", and "Saying yes", all of which are opposed to what seems to be his DM style.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Actually, I think the DM's key failing in the task resolution stage of the game is that he was telling, not showing (there is also the possibility that he might have had only one solution in mind and was playing a game of "guess the plan", but I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt).

I got the distinct impression that he was looking for ONE right answer. He even called it "a puzzle" and that "if [we] thought hard enough, [we'd] be able to come up with the answer." He said "There is a solution, I set it up so there was one."

Speaking of task resolution. The one thing I noticed is that he once asked me to make 3 Stealth checks to get close enough to the camp a second time. I made the 3 rolls and then waited for him to ask me what they were...but he had already launched into a description of me sneaking past all the guards easily. He never did actually ask me what I rolled.

 

[Nellisir]

I just feel that roleplaying requires...you know, actually PLAYING your role. If I don't get to make choices, I'm not roleplaying. I'm just listening to a story about my character.

There are a two people that I'll let narrate a story to me for an hour plus: my daughter and Odds Bodkins. One is three, the other is a nationally renowned, award-winning professional storyteller. Listening to someone tell a story for an hour is not playing a game.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Maybe he's singling out 4E for special dislike because the 4E DMG actually has advice on "Brevity", "Show, don't tell", and "Saying yes", all of which are opposed to what seems to be his DM style.

Ironically enough, the discussion between me and this group about how bad 4e was for their game was because they had 2 new players show up a couple of weeks ago. And because those players wanted to use their powers, they attacked someone that the DM didn't expect them to.

This apparently got everyone in the group, including the DM angry because he followed the "say yes" philosophy and let them attack the guy that it made no sense for them to attack even though it hosed over the plans the rest of the players had been putting into effect for about 6 or 7 weeks. Because he said a DM can never say no to a player according to the books. And that it was their fault for allowing new players in who weren't roleplayers. And 4e's fault for giving people combat powers. If they didn't have them, they wouldn't want to get into battles all the time.

 

[Janx]

As presented, the OP's example seems rail-roady in a bad way. Ultimately, he didn't get a chance to do what he wanted to do, and the DM pretty much assigned actions to his character (by not letting him get a chance to do something, instead continuing the monologue).

A DM should never tell a PC how he feels or what he wants. In the example, the DM told the player how he feels about the slavers, and that he wanted to stop them because they were bad.

A good DM would have made the player have those feelings and desires by events that happened to the PC. I can make you hate the slavers by making things happen in game that make you hate the slavers. I should never dictate how your PC feels, however.

A DM should never fritter the game clock, unless the players are wasting time. That means that the GM should narrate the sneaking down to the pool, and stop, let the PCs ask questions, declare actions. If the PCs then spend time dithering and whatnot, then narrate that time passes. Instead, the example DM narrated THROUGH the sneaking and time passing, and forcing the PCs to miss an opportunity.

Ultimately, in the example story, the GM has removed player choice, by over-narrating everything. By simplifying the choices down to the players, like a pick-a-path-to-adventure novel. Worse, he's then blamed it on the game engine. The problem has nothing to do with the game engine.

My recommendation is this:
you will gain nothing by lambasting this group. It will only alienate them from you.

Instead, offer to run a game. Don't over-complicate it trying to show off, just run a solid normal game, where the PCs meet (or have a back-story where they all know each other), find an obvious quest, go on it, and have lots of freedom to decide things. In no case should you point out their choices, but in every case, their choices should be obvious.

I suspect you'll have a lot of converts. And when they mention, that you run your game differently, point out that the style you presented is how most games are run.

If the example given is correct, I suspect that style is abnormal. I could be wrong, but I don't think most games are run that way. I suspect even most railroady DMs don't present it in that fashion.

 

[Thunderfoot]

Until he started describing your actions, instead of allowing you to do that, I thought it was awesome...

There is a fine line between storytelling games, role playing and tactical battle simulations. The old 2e crowd had moved the OD&D and 1e crowd away from the latter and towards the other two, culminating in a game system (White Wolf's RP systems) that was nearly exclusively story telling. (kind of like what these folks are doing.)

3.x started the shift back the other way and 4e is close to what OD&D originally was, expanded description battle text with small linking sub-plot.
I think the "Say Yes" motivation of 4e is the suck...ONLY because it allows players to alter events outside the scope of DM vision for his campaign world (if things go horribly wrong.) The say yes with qualifications and the ability to say no is a little more my speed, but then I like expressive story and low magic. It's a style thing.

I have no doubt that nor illusions that my hobby is mostly populated by "hack n' slay and haul it away" style players, it's where we came from, and is going to THE integral part of the rules and play forever as far as I can tell. But, I have never had a player tell me, after playing in my games that they didn't like the more evolved story (NOT what the DM in this example was doing, mind you but a little more book-like.) or the grittiness that made the campaign "feel" more real.

I like combat, but it has it's place. I like magic, it has it's place. I think that magic items should be rare and wondrous, not on an equipment list, that armor should protect you, not make your "Avatar" look cool and that you should work for your GOLD PIECES. 4e for has setting failures that get in the way and are just too frustrating to try and write around. The rules are built in a manner that dictates a pretty much singular style of play. It's fun, for an occasional one off (at least for me) but campaigns are a lot harder to manage under the guidelines of "realistic, low fantasy".

Through all the edition wars crap (and it is crap) I have never said 4e was bad, it's a great game, but it has more "beer & pretzels" qualities than I can use for my style. A lot of folks feel the same way, BUT have a hard time coming to grips with the fact that it's THEIR problem, not the system's. I am under no such delusions.

 

[UniversalMonster]

This guy's problem isn't 4E. His problem is his primitive GMing.