Storytelling vs Roleplaying

[Ariosto]

If one person on a thread thinks he's playing an RPG, he's goddamn playing an RPG. Simple as that.

And if a designer claims to have designed a storytelling game, then he's darned well designed a storytelling game.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Question: If an OD&D GM asks for character backgrounds, even brief ones, and uses that information to flesh out his world, is the group no longer playing RPGs, according to your definitions?

What about a wizard casting a Wish spell?

If a player makes a suggestion as to what's beyond the hill and the GM takes it, are they still playing roleplaying games? If so, what is the functional difference between this an a system of points that the player can use to define things about the setting, with GM veto (as nearly all games that use these mechanics support)?

Here's another one. I commonly use the Luck roll as a form of metagame mechanic. Player asks if there's a crowbar in the ol' toolshed. Roll luck and there is, fail and there isn't. Are you going to claim that Call of Cthulhu isn't a roleplaying game?

Would you be willing to consider less offensive terminology? I agree with Obryn that saying your style is REAL roleplaying and other people's ways are something else is inherently offensive. I'll accept 'story-game' as a subcategory of Roleplaying Game, but not a seperate category. I don't feel when I play Buffy instead of Call of Cthulhu that I'm taking part in a totally different hobby. What would you call games without metagame mechanics?

Some great questions

Character backrounds: If the DM would like character backrounds and asks for them then either the player is presented a range of options based on info from the game world or the DM gives the player a blank slate. In the latter case the DM is actually soliciting help with his world. There is no character being played and thus no role yet.

Wish Spell: This is a great example of world altering and editing that is accomplished from within an assumed role. The character has the power to make a wish come true subject to the limitations on such magic, no problems.

Luck mechanic: This is a prime example of letting the dice fall where they may in the determination of a character's fortune. The same rule applies to all and eliminates the need for the dreaded GM fiat. No impact on roleplaying one way or another.

I don't find story based games offensive. I have played games that way and probably will do so again in the future. If nothing else this discussion has made me more aware of story based indie games that I might want to check out when I get the chance.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I do believe that once the game master and the players begin to share the responsibilities of world editing the roles of both the player and GM blur to a point eventually making a GM just another player.

Like Hussar says, player power extending beyond the PC doesn't necessarily have anything to do with storytelling.

Also you seem to be worrying unnecessarily that allowing a little more player power will open the floodgates to DMs and players being equal, D&D turning into Once Upon A Time, cats and dogs living together, etc, etc. That's really not the case at all. Lots and lots of games have rules which allow the players to control fairly small and limited non-PC elements of the world without it going any further than that.

As far as I know the first game to explicitly have a rule for this is James Bond 007, published in the early 80s. I think they are called Hero Points. The example in the text is of a player whose PC (James Bond ofc) is fighting Oddjob. The player spends a Hero Point to have a gold brick be lying to hand which he can use as a club.

I understand that Spirit of the Century has quite a few rules like this allowing players to control things such as whether an old flame shows up in a bar the PCs enter.

Mutants & Masterminds has Hero Points which allow the PCs to temporarily boost their powers or avoid injury with a good ol' Marvel-style adrenalin surge or even find a clue or otherwise receive inspiration.

In my current M&M game the players have created their own nemeses and related organisations. One PC comes from a galaxy-wide space empire, which in a sense didn't exist until he made it up. One player wanted to have his PC investigate global warming so I said he could decide what caused it in this world. This might seem like a lot but really it's not a big deal, my game is very much a traditional, challenge-focused roleplaying game, I would never call it a story game.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Here's an example of player power without storytelling. A traditional D&D game, let's say it's 1e. The PCs go to the Caverns of Blood, a monster-infested hole. The DM allows the players to determine the monsters in each room. The more powerful/numerous the monsters, the more treasure they get. So it's really a gamist decision for the players. They can fight 5 orcs, or 10, or 30. Whatever they want. An ogre, a hill giant or a stone giant. An otyugh or a roper.

That seems a lot of power. It's a power the PCs definitely do not possess, though really it's not that different from the player's ability to decide what they take on in a sandbox-style game, just expressed purely in terms of player power, not PC.

Those decisions, that power, have nothing to do with story though. It's gamist player power, not narrativist.

Here's another. It's quite common in gamer groups for one player to be an acknowledged expert in some field such as medicine or medieval weapons, to whom the GM will defer. There is in fact an expert on the latter in my game group. The player is thus being allowed control over the game world. Things will change because he says so. But again, this has nothing whatever to do with story. This time the power is in the service of simulation.

It could be that the expert on the rules isn't the GM. That's also the case in my group. I often defer to Neil, our rules expert, on this issue. Again, player power without story.

 

[Ariosto]

Like Hussar says, player power extending beyond the PC doesn't necessarily have anything to do with storytelling.

That's not precisely a claim I've seen him make so far.

The writing's on the wall, though.

I propose "role-identification" as a replacement for what "role-playing" formerly meant.

"Game mastering" might serve for "storytelling" in the context at hand.

 

[Ariosto]

Those decisions, that power, have nothing to do with story though. It's gamist player power, not narrativist.

Jeffs Gameblog: I got your threefold model right here, buddy!

 

[FireLance]

Sometimes, living on the other side of the world from most of the people involved in a discussion is a real pain.

Anyhow...

If the role of storyteller/editor is distributed among the group then there really isn't a need for a player to play just one character at a game session. The DM and players can just share the actions of all the characters and contribute to the story where appropriate.

I don't think that would go over very well with some players. Part of the appeal of roleplaying is identifying with a character, making it your own, and playing that role on a semi-continual basis. Without a sense of ownership of that character the energy and interest in playing that character just wouldn't be there.

And this is where I would make the distinction: in a storytelling game, there is no need for a player to play just one character at a game session. However, if the activity is both a storytelling game AND a roleplaying game, then the player should (must?) have a character to roleplay. As mentioned in the actor/scriptwriter analogy, it is a matter of playing two distinct roles related to the same activity.

The players have good cause to complain when the DM tries to control/make decisions for thier characters. A DM should never do this.

The DM does not have a character to identify with. The world apart from the PC's is the DM's "character". Is it really fair to say that the players have a right to jump in and make decisions for the DM's "character" but take offense if the DM does likewise?

There are some grey areas, though. Who has control over the PC's friends and family? How free is the DM to introduce elements that essentially contradict the PC's background by saying that the PC only knows part of the story? (E.g. "You thought you were an only child, but you actually have two half-orc half-brothers.") How free is the player to add elements to his background after the campaign begins, or add flavor elements to the game? (E.g. "Quillain orders the vegetable stew instead of the roast beef. The elven druids of his order do not eat meat during the winter solstice.")

I personally do not see why the player cannot flesh out details of the campaign setting if it adds flavor to the game and does not detract from the challenge that the PCs face. For example, telling the DM that your PC would not have eaten the roast beef because of his elven druidic tradition after he tells you it has been poisoned is bad form, in my view.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Jeffs Gameblog: I got your threefold model right here, buddy!

I have to admit, Jeff's theories make a lot of sense.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

That definition excludes Gygaxian D&D. The player doesn't adopt the persona of another. His goal is to win against the challenges the DM presents, using all his own mental resources and abilities.

I think this is at least somewhat unfair to Gygaxian D&D. The accounts I've read from those who were actually at Gary's table, as opposed to only playing the tournament adventures inspired by his style, always mention that there was a lot more role-playing going on than you might guess. See some of Old Geezer's stories on rpg.net, for example.

Daily powers I see as being rather anti-story. Fights in fiction have a rhythm to them, they build to a climax in which the hero is in terrible peril until he wins with his biggest baddest uber-move, not an at will power. 4e's daily powers otoh tend to be used at the start of a fight for gamist reasons as they are more effective then.

4e boss fight: BOOM!!! Boom!! Boom!

Fictional fight: Boom! Boom!! BOOM!!!

EDIT: It's true the players have the power to make the fight feel more like a fictional one. Imo they probably won't though due to the competing pressures of gamism.

This is often bad tactics in 4e, in my experience. A lot of solo and elite monsters get dramatically stronger when they're Bloodied; it's often better to soften them up with at wills and 'set up' style encounter powers, and then unleash action points, dailys and spectacular, damage-dealing encounters immediately after bloodying the creature in a mad rush to drop it in one round before it can hit back.

Not necessarily the "hero pushed to the brink of death, then recovers" rhythm - more the "hero team combines their powers for a finishing move just before the enemy unleashes its own finishing move."

Of course, I've also seen that combination flub and the solo go to town on the spent adventurers, which... isn't something you find much in fiction. And if both sides survive the devastating climax, it can turn into a real slog.

 

[Hussar]

That's not precisely a claim I've seen him make so far.

The writing's on the wall, though.

I propose "role-identification" as a replacement for what "role-playing" formerly meant.

"Game mastering" might serve for "storytelling" in the context at hand.

Actually, that's precisely the claim I've made so far. Multiple times. Repeatedly even. I can provide quotes if you like.

Having a bit of free time, I came up with the following chart in response to Ariosto's request for defining RPG's. This is how I would define things. Note, this chart is not exhaustive at all. And, also note, there is blurring along all sorts of lines.

But, that's how I view RPG's. I have no problems defining story games separate from traditional RPG's. I agree with everyone there. My problem is with defining "role playing game" in such a way that it excludes story games.