Storytelling vs Roleplaying
- Thread starter ExploderWizard
- Start date
Doug McCrae
Legend
One thing that becomes apparent from a lengthy time reading rpg messageboards is that people play roleplaying games in markedly different ways.
Some create incredibly detailed and realistic historical simulations. Some want to emulate a particular work of fiction such as Lord of the Rings. Some put the emphasis on challenging the player and this can be done in a wide variety of ways - logic puzzles, system mastery (as in 3e), tactical mastery (as in 4e), solving mysteries, political chicanery, engineering problems (may seem a weird one but many early Traveller groups played this way). Some players want the GM to tell them a story, others want to create a story through interaction with the GM and other players. Some groups spend 80% of the time in combat, other groups can go five sessions without rolling a die.
The point is, these people are all playing roleplaying games. Rpgs are a weird thing, no one has come up with an accepted definition yet. They are a very, very broad church.
Some create incredibly detailed and realistic historical simulations. Some want to emulate a particular work of fiction such as Lord of the Rings. Some put the emphasis on challenging the player and this can be done in a wide variety of ways - logic puzzles, system mastery (as in 3e), tactical mastery (as in 4e), solving mysteries, political chicanery, engineering problems (may seem a weird one but many early Traveller groups played this way). Some players want the GM to tell them a story, others want to create a story through interaction with the GM and other players. Some groups spend 80% of the time in combat, other groups can go five sessions without rolling a die.
The point is, these people are all playing roleplaying games. Rpgs are a weird thing, no one has come up with an accepted definition yet. They are a very, very broad church.
Last edited:
Doug McCrae
Legend
Here's how I know it's an insult.
It's always the 'I' who is the roleplayer. It's always the other fellow who's the storygamer or rollplayer or boardgamer or videogame or CCG player or whatever.
"Oh yes, I'm a roleplayer. Whatever you're doing, it's NOT the same as what I do. You are NOT like me. You do NOT enjoy the same things as me. Oh and, by the way, this messageboard? It's for fans of roleplaying games, NOT those other games."
Does that seem like a nice thing to say?
It's always the 'I' who is the roleplayer. It's always the other fellow who's the storygamer or rollplayer or boardgamer or videogame or CCG player or whatever.
"Oh yes, I'm a roleplayer. Whatever you're doing, it's NOT the same as what I do. You are NOT like me. You do NOT enjoy the same things as me. Oh and, by the way, this messageboard? It's for fans of roleplaying games, NOT those other games."
Does that seem like a nice thing to say?
MoogleEmpMog
First Post
Where "story games" is concerned, this is totally the opposite of my experience. I was under the impression the term originated as a slam on D&D, ELEVATING the "story games" - it began as another, somewhat nicer way of putting "roleplaying vs. rollplaying." (Possibly its origin is with either BRP and skills-based systems vs. level-based systems, or with early White Wolf) Later, it developed into a dividing line between games with strong Story-focus in their mechanics vs. those with a strong World-, Game- or Immersion-focus.
Heck, one of the premier indie RPG communities self-identifies as Story Games.
As far as I can see, it's only in trad-RPG-focused communities that Story Games would be considered a slam. Even in this milieu, I'm frankly stunned to see it used as such, much less wedged in with the usual lexicon of trad-RPG anti-Gamist slurs ("rollplayer," "like a video/board/card game," etc.).
jbear
First Post
I found one of Pirate Cat's comments very insightful, regarding campaign creation.
He said he has things in his games working at three levels.
The first level is like the biggest cog of a machine; it's what's going on at a global scale in the game world -world changing events that have no direct influence on the PCs (at least not initially)- which keeps rolling on at a steady pace independantly of the PCs.
The second level is a intermediate level between the highest and lowest level. It involves the repercussions caused by what is happening at the first level. The ripples sent out by the big splash, or the smaller cogs moved by the bigger one. Some of these also don't directly affect the PCs either although sometimes they can or as the game moves along and the PCs get more involved in whats going on in the big picture (though still not directly). These repercussions will send out further ripples, or turn even smaller cogs which brings us to the third level.
The third level is where the PCs are normally operating at. It is what they are inolved in at that time. This may have absolutely nothing to do with what is going on at a larger scale, or it may by a seemingly small event that is somehow linked to the second level, a piece of the bigger puzzle.
The 'story' is something that is made as it goes along. Neither the DM or the PCs really know where its going. This doesn't take away from the fact that at a larger scale the world is dynamic, alive and changing... other stories are ocurring around them, which whether they are protagonist or not, can affect them.
I think the skill is letting the players weave in and out of the different levels, and in so doing create a story of their own that nobody could have predicted until they looked back at it from a distance to appreciate it as a whole... a whole story they wove themselves.
All the skills a DM can add to his quiver to aid in this process of weaving a story together with their players are invaluable IMO. To imply this has nothing to do with dnd (as per your first post on the other thread) is... strange to me, to say the least.
He said he has things in his games working at three levels.
The first level is like the biggest cog of a machine; it's what's going on at a global scale in the game world -world changing events that have no direct influence on the PCs (at least not initially)- which keeps rolling on at a steady pace independantly of the PCs.
The second level is a intermediate level between the highest and lowest level. It involves the repercussions caused by what is happening at the first level. The ripples sent out by the big splash, or the smaller cogs moved by the bigger one. Some of these also don't directly affect the PCs either although sometimes they can or as the game moves along and the PCs get more involved in whats going on in the big picture (though still not directly). These repercussions will send out further ripples, or turn even smaller cogs which brings us to the third level.
The third level is where the PCs are normally operating at. It is what they are inolved in at that time. This may have absolutely nothing to do with what is going on at a larger scale, or it may by a seemingly small event that is somehow linked to the second level, a piece of the bigger puzzle.
The 'story' is something that is made as it goes along. Neither the DM or the PCs really know where its going. This doesn't take away from the fact that at a larger scale the world is dynamic, alive and changing... other stories are ocurring around them, which whether they are protagonist or not, can affect them.
I think the skill is letting the players weave in and out of the different levels, and in so doing create a story of their own that nobody could have predicted until they looked back at it from a distance to appreciate it as a whole... a whole story they wove themselves.
All the skills a DM can add to his quiver to aid in this process of weaving a story together with their players are invaluable IMO. To imply this has nothing to do with dnd (as per your first post on the other thread) is... strange to me, to say the least.
Doug McCrae
Legend
Do they see story games as a subset of roleplaying games, ie a synonym for narrativist rpgs, or as something separate from rpgs altogether?
From the first page of the other thread:
From here:
If you want to say you're playing a "wargame" when you play D&D, then go ahead. It was originally billed as just that. If someone else says so, it's not an insult unless you look down on wargames.
So, Obryn and Doug McCrae, do you look down on story-telling games?
The "not role-playing" claim I have consistently seen is the one levied at what has hitherto been considered the very process of role-playing that defines RPGs. That claim flies like a rock chained to a bigger rock at the bottom of the ocean -- regardless of whether you want to recognize the story-telling game as a form as worthy of honorable distinction as is the RPG from the wargame.
avin (to ExploderWizard) said:
From here:
Doug McCrae said:
If you want to say you're playing a "wargame" when you play D&D, then go ahead. It was originally billed as just that. If someone else says so, it's not an insult unless you look down on wargames.
So, Obryn and Doug McCrae, do you look down on story-telling games?
The "not role-playing" claim I have consistently seen is the one levied at what has hitherto been considered the very process of role-playing that defines RPGs. That claim flies like a rock chained to a bigger rock at the bottom of the ocean -- regardless of whether you want to recognize the story-telling game as a form as worthy of honorable distinction as is the RPG from the wargame.
Sir, we don't need to hear any more about your... collaborative storytelling element...
MoogleEmpMog
First Post
The former, although usually using the "interfacing with story on a metatextual level through the rules/shared narrative control" definition of Narrativism rather than the "about Theme" definition that... pretty much only Ron Edwards uses.
Hence my referring to Story Games as an "Indie-RPG Community."Similar Threads
