Storytelling vs Roleplaying

[Doug McCrae]

It really is as simple as that. Players are either playing the game from within their defined roles or not. If players are operating in the game outside of the role of adventurer and yet are still roleplaying, what role is that exactly?

When you're arguing with the GM about whether or not it's realistic that bows have an effective range of 1000 ft you're still playing a roleplaying game, even if you're not playing a role. When you're solving a logic puzzle using your own mental abilities, you're still playing a roleplaying game, even if you're not playing a role. And so on and so forth. Much of the time in rpgs, the players are not actually roleplaying.

Campaigns aren't necessarily a series of pitched battles fought to achieve an objective, either. The word campaign has developed a new meaning when it applies to rpgs.

Roleplaying isn't that good a word for all the activities that take place under the heading of roleplaying game. But it doesn't matter. It's what those activities are called. To think otherwise leads us to howandwhy99 type redefining madness.

 

[maddman75]

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.

Fair enough

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.

In the Buffy RPG, PCs have Drama Points they can use to create plot twists, remove damage, etc., exactly the kinds of things that you say make it not a roleplaying game. The number of these points the characters get, how expensive they are to buy, and the way they are rewarded are determined by the character's role - they are cheaper and easier to get for the sidekicks. How is this not world altering and editing from within an assumed role?

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.

In either a system with a random chance determining such player edits or a limited pool of points, GM Fiat is eliminated. I don't see a functional difference, just a different implementation.

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.

Again, its not that you're using the term 'story game', its that you're staying the things I most enjoy playing are not roleplaying games.

I'm not all that concerned with terminology for it's own sake. What I would like is for a game to state the prime play objectives openly. Is the game about the players assuming roles and exploring fictional worlds from within those roles or is the main objective for the playing group to collaborate on weaving a story through play. As long as one can tell the difference from reading a blurb about the game it's all good.

Having a game of each type sitting next to each other that both just say:
This is X-the RPG, isn't helpful in that regard.

I would agree that this is useful. I don't agree that the presence of metagame mechanics mean I'm not playing RPGs, and find the suggestion that I'm not to be rude and arrogant.

 

[pawsplay]

It really is as simple as that. Players are either playing the game from within their defined roles or not.

Ah, but I disagree. It is precisely for this reason that I tried to popularize the phrase "envelope of experience" to describe the immersion in a role, the acting "as-if" a character, and yet the player still being present in the game as more than the originator of a character. It is the player that makes many decisions, even in-character decisions, because their authorship does not end the moment the character comes to life.

If players are operating in the game outside of the role of adventurer and yet are still roleplaying, what role is that exactly?

Well, player, first of all. But you are having a problem with your definition. RPGs are not games which consist entirely of roleplaying games. We don't call them roleplaying-and-gamemastering games, after all. But RPGs are games, firstly, which feature roleplaying as a major distinguishing characteristic from other games. We don't say someone is "not playing football" just because a time-out has been called.

I believe the gamemaster does roleplay. They play the role of the world as a character. They play the role of the gameworld god. They roleplay NPCs. They even, at times, define actions of the PCs. Certainly the GM acts "as if" the master villain when reacting to the PC's actions, and "as if" the natural environment when introducing hazards and creatures.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I have to admit, claiming 4e isn't a roleplaying game because it has too many storytelling elements gets 10/10 for originality. Normally the 'not a roleplaying game' charge comes from the other direction - just a videogame, feels like M:tG, nothing but combat, etc. So EW is to be congratulated for that. The claim needs a lot more substantiation than we've seen so far, though. You can't just throw something like that out there and not back it up. We need specifics. Is it the action points, player's ability to choose treasure, possible interpretations of the power Come And Get It or what?

I never claimed 4E wasn't a roleplaying game. I did say that it could be played as a roleplaying game or a more story focused game depending on the RAW elements a particular group chooses to use.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I never claimed 4E wasn't a roleplaying game. I did say that it could be played as a roleplaying game or a more story focused game depending on the RAW elements a particular group chooses to use.

Okay. So when you say:

What I would like is for a game to state the prime play objectives openly. Is the game about the players assuming roles and exploring fictional worlds from within those roles or is the main objective for the playing group to collaborate on weaving a story through play. As long as one can tell the difference from reading a blurb about the game it's all good.

Having a game of each type sitting next to each other that both just say:
This is X-the RPG, isn't helpful in that regard.

What are you talking about? What are these non-roleplaying games which are deceitfully masquerading as such to cheat poor helpless rpg fans out of their hard-earned cash?

EDIT: Or are you saying that because 4e contains a lot of story-focused elements (I don't agree that it does btw), it should make it clear on the back cover or somewhere near the start that it's not a traditional rpg?

The thing is rpgs have had these player-as-mini-GM rules for a long time now. James Bond 007 in 1983, Warhammer's (1986) fate points, WEG Star Wars (1987) force points. They are quite common and, as Hussar says, seem to be getting more and more common these days. They are not a big deal. People are not going to be surprised by these mechanics, given they've been around for almost 30 years now.

 

[Umbran]

Granted, not at the same time, but, certainly performing both activities.

Unless we are going to try to split hairs to the sub-second, people are capable of multitasking. Humans are capable of multidimensional analysis and decision making - I can have one decision in game, and take my character role and the needs of story into account at the same time. Or I can have multiple decisions, and switch between the concerns so quickly as to make them effectively simultaneous.

The idea that these activities are mutually exclusive seems to me like trying to tell gamers they are fundamentally incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. We are capable of far more complicated cognitive gymnastics than some seem willing to give us credit for.

 

[ExploderWizard]

In the Buffy RPG, PCs have Drama Points they can use to create plot twists, remove damage, etc., exactly the kinds of things that you say make it not a roleplaying game. The number of these points the characters get, how expensive they are to buy, and the way they are rewarded are determined by the character's role - they are cheaper and easier to get for the sidekicks. How is this not world altering and editing from within an assumed role?

When a PC uses a wish spell that use is not only a resource for the player but for the character as well. When a player uses a drama point in Buffy, they do so outside of their role because a drama point has no concept or meaning to the sidekick. So actually, the world alteration does not come from the assumed role, instead the amount of editorial control given to the player stems from a choice of assumed role.

I would agree that this is useful. I don't agree that the presence of metagame mechanics mean I'm not playing RPGs, and find the suggestion that I'm not to be rude and arrogant.

It is not my intent to insult, merely to identify and define.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Unless we are going to try to split hairs to the sub-second, people are capable of multitasking. Humans are capable of multidimensional analysis and decision making - I can have one decision in game, and take my character role and the needs of story into account at the same time. Or I can have multiple decisions, and switch between the concerns so quickly as to make them effectively simultaneous.

If you are taking the needs of the story into consideration when making decisions for your character then such decisions are either made from outside the role or the character is actually aware that that he/she is part of a story and acting accordingly.

 

[Campbell]

If you are taking the needs of the story into consideration when making decisions for your character then such decisions are either made from outside the role or the character is actually aware that that he/she is part of a story and acting accordingly.

Here's the thing - most of the time in actual play the character's role is fairly loosely defined and there are often multiple decisions that make sense for a character in a given situation. I'd also argue that barring story concerns we're still concerned with stuff outside of a character's role like beating tactical challenges, giving other players a chance to shine, not being a dick, etc.

 

[GrimGent]

Another question then. To qualify as a role playing game, do you have to role play in character 100% of the time?

And can you give me an example of a game where that happens?

Well... There's Puppetland by John Tynes, in which staying in character for the one hour that a single session of the game always lasts is mandatory according to the rules. Furthermore, the players are only allowed to talk in character during that time, and if they wish to make OOC comments they must first stand up or leave the table: "What you say is what you say." But I rather suspect that some folks wouldn't consider it a "real" RPG, and even the booklet actually calls itself "a storytelling game with strings attached."