Storytelling vs Roleplaying

[ExploderWizard]

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.

A player can be kind, show respect for others , and engage in tactics all from within the role. The tactics part can be more difficult if the best tactical options have no meaning to the character.

Playing in character should never be used as an excuse to be a turd towards other people.

 

[maddman75]

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.

You make the assumption that Buffy tries to simulate some kind of reality. It does not. It simulates a TV show, and TV show characters have plot immunity. The Drama Point usage is very much 'in-character'.

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

I'd say your intent is less relevent than your results. Do you really not understand what is pissing people off?

Fine, I'm going to say that my kind of gaming is a roleplaying game, and if you're playing a game without any kind of story or metagame mechanic you're playing a world simulation games. I have nothing against world simulation games, and even think they're fun from time to time. But they aren't Roleplaying Games like I play.

Are you okay with that definition?

 

[tyrlaan]

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

Okay, but to what end?

You said before that it was basically so you could discern a product by (effectively) reading it's back cover text. I countered by recommending doing product research, to which you replied that you do just that.

So if that's the case, clearly you can discern for yourself how you would categorize a certain product based on your research and/or experience.

I am just not seeing the ultimate purpose behind this.

 

[ExploderWizard]

You make the assumption that Buffy tries to simulate some kind of reality. It does not. It simulates a TV show, and TV show characters have plot immunity. The Drama Point usage is very much 'in-character'.



I'd say your intent is less relevent than your results. Do you really not understand what is pissing people off?

Fine, I'm going to say that my kind of gaming is a roleplaying game, and if you're playing a game without any kind of story or metagame mechanic you're playing a world simulation games. I have nothing against world simulation games, and even think they're fun from time to time. But they aren't Roleplaying Games like I play.

Are you okay with that definition?

The relevance of a given thing within a role is not dependent on any type of reality other than the reality of the fictional universe. If the characters are actually aware that they are on a tv show then yes drama points would be used within the role.

A world simulation game could have just as little to do with roleplaying as a pure storytelling game.

 

[pawsplay]

You make the assumption that Buffy tries to simulate some kind of reality. It does not. It simulates a TV show, and TV show characters have plot immunity. The Drama Point usage is very much 'in-character'.

I disagree. Drama Points are clearly meta.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I am just not seeing the ultimate purpose behind this.

Then feel free to stop reading the thread.

 

[maddman75]

The relevance of a given thing within a role is not dependent on any type of reality other than the reality of the fictional universe. If the characters are actually aware that they are on a tv show then yes drama points would be used within the role.

A world simulation game could have just as little to do with roleplaying as a pure storytelling game.

So characters in your game are aware of classes, levels, attribute scores, skills, and other game constructs that are clearly visible to the player and used to make changes in the game?

 

[darjr]

Did I miss something?

How is a game that has player control over the game and setting but also has people playing a role with a character not a role playing game?

I think I started with EW, then saw the example of Spirit of the Century and now I think I'm absolutely not with EW. I get the difference in type of game. I also think that there is a blurring that makes a very fine line of difference impossible. The SC example was a good example of an RPG session. I even recall playing D&D a little like this, even in the deep dark past.

There comes a time when I as DM would just let things slide and the players would define things. I had a player with a disarmed character. He had his character pick up rocks and throw them. I didn't nit pick about the types of rocks or if there were any. I had a player whose character would drink his mead and eat a meal and he had that character get up, find and thank the proprietor for a good meal, I didn't step in and define if it was a good meal or not, I didn't even know the proprietor was on the premises. I could go on and on.

SC just seems to have rules to codify this, expand the scope and tie it to characters stats.

 

[darjr]

I forgot to add.

I don't think you can play a traditional RPG without players defining things in the game or setting. Especially as you get to larger groups and some of those players get to roleplaying as subsets of folks at the table.

Two players interacting with each other outside of the main event are going to define things outside of their role.

Edit to ask, is there a game that codifies players outside the main event doing things?

 

[Ariosto]

It's just going to confuse things and start threads like this!

It in fact started this thread -- See the title! -- and it looked to me as if most of the participants agreed on the usage enough to carry on the discussion. I may have been mistaken, though.