Storytelling vs Roleplaying

[ExploderWizard]

You could instead feel free to address the post you dismissed with this comment.

If this is so important to you, explaining it shouldn't be that difficult. And asking for said explanation is quite a reasonable request.

Police officer: Were there any witnesses.
Mrs. Swan: On yeah, I see everything.
Police officer: What did the purse snatcher look like?
Mrs. Swan: He look...............like a man.
Police officer: Was he , tall or short, heavy or thin?
Mrs. Swan: Yeah, you know, he look like a man.

I don't know if anyone here is familiar with MAD TV but the acronym "RPG" might become "a man"

Awareness. Being aware of all the different types of games out there is a good thing. If the meaning of RPG keeps expanding to encompass a game of any type that wants to call itself rpg the term will eventually become meaningless.

You asked.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Let's introduce some new terms to hopefully keep things clear, then.

Let's call games where the players have a large amount of control over the non-PC aspects of the game Shared Worlds.

Shared worlds are not incompatible with storytelling, nor do they really require it. Second Life is a shared world that has no inherent story. Players can make their avatar, but can also construct buildings and make items and code their own terrain and all sorts of things.

Shared worlds are also not incompatible with roleplaying, nor do they require it. Again, a good example is Second Life: some people create avatars that are themselves (at least to a certain degree), others create avatars that are particular characters.

Hooray, confusion drastically reduced!

We agree. Shared worlds are awesome. Everyone should take a turn as GM and contribute.

Just because a player defines things outside of their character does not mean that they are not also playing their character.

If the character possesses the ability to define such things as opposed to just the player, then yes.

This certainly doesn't make the game "not an RPG," however.

Quite so. A 4E DM is free to exclude any elements that he/she feels detract from the RP experience.

 

[I'm A Banana]

We agree. Shared worlds are awesome. Everyone should take a turn as GM and contribute.

Dude, you're doing it again.

"Let's call games where the players have a large amount of control over the non-PC aspects of the game Shared Worlds."

If we're doing this, then you don't need to be a GM to contribute to a shared world.

You can contribute as a player.

You're still playing an RPG, and you're still role-playing.

If the character possesses the ability to define such things as opposed to just the player, then yes.

Man, I know it's going to be important to get our terms right here, so let me say:

A game where the character defines elements of the world that are not the character itself would be a game where the character has an ability like, say, Create Water, where the character defines water as existing where it wasn't before.

A player who was playing such a character would still be role-playing if their character used such an ability.

A game where the player possesses such an allowance would be a game where you could, for instance, tell your GM that your character had certain family members.

A player who was playing in such a game would still be role-playing if they did such a thing.

Quite so. A 4E DM is free to exclude any elements that he/she feels detract from the RP experience.

Sure, but since nothing that's been mentioned so far "detracts from the RP experience," I'm not sure why that's very relevant.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Police officer: Were there any witnesses.
Mrs. Swan: On yeah, I see everything.
Police officer: What did the purse snatcher look like?
Mrs. Swan: He look...............like a man.
Police officer: Was he , tall or short, heavy or thin?
Mrs. Swan: Yeah, you know, he look like a man.

I don't know if anyone here is familiar with MAD TV but the acronym "RPG" might become "a man"

Awareness. Being aware of all the different types of games out there is a good thing. If the meaning of RPG keeps expanding to encompass a game of any type that wants to call itself rpg the term will eventually become meaningless.

You asked.

You know what? The term "RPG" is already the same as "a man". It simply does not have the same kind of descriptive qualities that you want to give it. In fact, even the very idea that an RPG has to involve a player playing a role is totally false. The term RPG is used to cover everything from D&D to World of Warcraft to Final Fantasy, and the differences between these three games far exceed whatever differences are being discussed in this thread.

In of itself, the term "RPG" does not imply a tabletop game played with a group of friends. It does not imply the existence of a GM. It does not even imply the ability of the player to create his own character. It has been used in countless ways with often contradictory definitions, and is about as vague and undefined as "action game", "adventure game", or "puzzle game". Trying to give it any kind of more specific definition is a futile task.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Dude, you're doing it again.

"Let's call games where the players have a large amount of control over the non-PC aspects of the game Shared Worlds."

If we're doing this, then you don't need to be a GM to contribute to a shared world.

You can contribute as a player.

You're still playing an RPG, and you're still role-playing.

Sure. If the contribution comes from within the role. If the contribution comes from outside the role you may still be roleplaying but the role has switched to creator/writer/editor for a time.

Man, I know it's going to be important to get our terms right here, so let me say:

A game where the character defines elements of the world that are not the character itself would be a game where the character has an ability like, say, Create Water, where the character defines water as existing where it wasn't before.

A player who was playing such a character would still be role-playing if their character used such an ability.

Quite so.

A game where the player possesses such an allowance would be a game where you could, for instance, tell your GM that your character had certain family members.

A player who was playing in such a game would still be role-playing if they did such a thing.

A player is always free to suggest elements of spice and color to the game experience. The DM (unless a specific reason justifies it) should accept such suggestions if they add a positive element to the game. A player matter-of-factly manipulating aspects of the gameworld via granted player resources that have no relation (joke unintended) to the character has to step out of the character role and into the aforementioned creator/writer/editor .

Sure, but since nothing that's been mentioned so far "detracts from the RP experience," I'm not sure why that's very relevant.

Except "scenes" "staging" and so forth which are storytelling elements.

 

[Fanaelialae]

A player matter-of-factly manipulating aspects of the gameworld via granted player resources that have no relation (joke unintended) to the character has to step out of the character role and into the aforementioned creator/writer/editor .

Yet that's exactly what players do when they create their character's background (something that I find an important element for good role playing). If the player does so during play, does it really matter so long as it acts to enhance the game? He's merely developing his background, which then (presumably) can be used to role play. There's no need to be excessively bureaucratic about backgrounds since they belong to the player along with his character. Obviously the DM is there to act as a sanity check (no, you can't suddenly be the king's long-lost twin brother with free access to the kingdom treasury) but that hopefully isn't necessary.

Except "scenes" "staging" and so forth which are storytelling elements.

All of these elements can act to enhance role play when used properly. They aren't there to detract from the role play experience, they are there to better it. They might not work for you EW, but I can say from personal experience that they do work.

 

[LostSoul]

Except "scenes" "staging" and so forth which are storytelling elements.

What do you think about this:

DM: Where is Jom the Red right now?
Player: In the bar, having a drink.
DM: What's he doing there?
Player: Trying to pick up the hot waitress.

I'd call that staging a scene. I'd also call it pretty typical play.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Hey, cool, we're getting down to the basic point of contention between us!

We mostly agree, so let's just tease out where we disagree:

A player is always free to suggest elements of spice and color to the game experience. The DM (unless a specific reason justifies it) should accept such suggestions if they add a positive element to the game. A player matter-of-factly manipulating aspects of the gameworld via granted player resources that have no relation (joke unintended) to the character has to step out of the character role and into the aforementioned creator/writer/editor .

I think you misapprehend exactly what playing a role entails.

There's an interview in this week's AV club with BJ Novak that I think is helpful here.

Specifically, this part, in response to the question "What other backstory do you have for your character?"

...the character’s name was Smithson Utivich, which I thought was an odd name for a Jewish soldier. So I thought “Well, all right, I bet he came from a very assimilated family that didn’t want to focus on being Jewish, and so they tried to give him what they thought was a WASPy name, Smithson, which is a name I never heard. And maybe this was his way to reclaim being Jewish. He was a journalist who had been mistreated in England when Brad Pitt drafted all these soldiers for this renegade unit.”

So BJ Novak's character is Smithson Utivich, and he essentially created a backstory for his character -- a family with a personality, a motive for participating in this mercenary squad, a history, a career, all of it.

This is part and parcel of any role-playing: you create a history. You manifest parts of a fictional world that underpin your character's desires and motives. The director didn't create them -- the director didn't ask you to create them, or permit their existence. You created them. For you, for the purposes of playing your role, there is a world outside of your character that has shaped your character.

If I tell the DM I went on this adventure because my character is a little greedy, always looking for a way to raise himself out of the ghetto in the big city where he was born, trying to strike it rich, and since the death of the grandmother who raised him, he has nothing left to loose, I have created:

a) A city. A big city. This city has particularly harsh socio-economics. This city has a ghetto.
b) A grandmother. A grandmother who raised my character.
c) Presumably, a mother and father, who are absent from my character's childhood for some reason.
d) A historical event of my grandmother's death.

These are all aspects of a shared world that I have added to the game, in order to play my role as a gold-seeking adventurer.

In doing that, I am still playing a role.

In creating a family and history for Smithson, BJ Novak is still playing the role of Smithson Utivich. He is, actually, probably playing it better than someone who didn't think of it. The dude is a pretty decent actor.

I have not stopped playing a role just because I have also crafted a world element. Building a world element does not mean I am not also playing a role.

 

[ST]

A player is always free to suggest elements of spice and color to the game experience. The DM (unless a specific reason justifies it) should accept such suggestions if they add a positive element to the game. A player matter-of-factly manipulating aspects of the gameworld via granted player resources that have no relation (joke unintended) to the character has to step out of the character role and into the aforementioned creator/writer/editor .

You're entitled to your opinion, no doubt, but you do get that it's just your own? Your justification for why certain types of activities aren't "roleplaying" seems to be "Because I think so."

It's totally cool if you want to define roleplaying however you want, for yourself. it's only if you want other people to adopt your terminology that you need to provide a reason for it. Could you maybe summarize that reason? What is the purpose of labeling certain activities that (other) people routinely engage in while roleplaying as something other than roleplaying? What purpose or benefit is involved with the relabeling?

Or if it's just a matter of opinion for you, obviously that's cool too; it just means this is more of an abstract discussion, in which case people can adjust how they engage with the conversation.

 

[Obryn]

I think that any classification system that says the Buffy RPG is closer to the card game Once Upon A Time than it is to D&D is flawed at the outset. Or, for that matter, any classification system which has Arcana Evolved - which has metagame Hero Point mechanics - as somehow not being an RPG is missing something.

People know what Roleplaying Games are. Very few people playing Buffy would say it's not an RPG, or say it's a completely different kind of game than D&D. I think EW is a lot more interested in appropriating the term than discussing the issue, so I don't know how much further that can go.

I think it is reasonable, though, to talk about a continuum of player involvement in RPGs. AD&D has essentially zero metagame mechanics, as does a default 3.5. Eberron 3.5, Marvel Superheroes, Star Wars Saga Edition, and so on involve metagame mechanics wherein the player can influence their character's success, but never influence the world outside their own character except through action of their character. RPGs like BtVS, Spirit of the Century, and FATE have metagame mechanics wherein the player can influence the game's setting and narrative by, say, adding a ladder in a convenient place. It's still a mechanic, though, and the player's narrative control is much less than the GM's, which in my mind makes it a very different beast from freeform group storytelling. Arcana Evolved is an odd duck in that its Hero Points are insanely powerful, but also quite rare in most cases.

Saying RPGs with metagame mechanics aren't actually RPGs strikes me as unusually argumentative. With that said, I think there's a useful distinction to be made within the umbrella category of RPGs.

-O