Storytelling vs Roleplaying

[Thasmodious]

I read this entire thread in one sitting and now hate you all. I am going to bed.

Goodnight, sirs.





I said goodnight!

 

[tyrlaan]

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?

ST, I've been trying to get the same info, perhaps you will have more luck. So far it seems EW feels this needs to be done (I'm paraphrasing):
(a) so if a cop interrogates you, you can be appropriately descriptive when explaining what RPG was being played at the scene of a crime
(b) because there is a credible danger that the term RPG is becoming meaningless
(c) because it would be a good thing (see further, awareness)

Yes, there's a touch of snark there, but that is the answer I got, so take it as you will.

Since I know I'm being silly about (a) I'll pass over it.

As for (b), I just don't see it. Maybe if we were talking about the term "game" becoming meaningless I could see it. But the fact that this is 11 pages long, and that it's not the first thread in which this has been discussed, suggests to me that mayhaps the perceived concern just isn't there.

Regarding (c), I haven't seen the justification of it being a Good Thing (tm). Again, based on the sheer volume of argument against what's being proposed, it seems clear to me that there are plenty of individuals who either just don't care if their playing an RPG that's flavor X vs. flavor Y, or for that matter what the different flavors are OR have their own viewpoints on the delineations OR don't want to be told their not playing a RPG. Perhaps there is a group if individuals out there that isn't accurately represented in this thread that are cursing the heavens because the game they just bought wasn't carefully compartmentalized into a convenient subcategory, but somehow I doubt it.

Unless of course EW is trying to tell all of us that EW knows better than the rest of us and is doing this for our own good.

 

[Ariosto]

The "milestone" term in 4e is (to me) more evocative than the implementation in terms of number of encounters and action points. Action points themselves are pretty weak in "shared world" terms. I'm not familiar with Arcana Evolved, but a number of references suggest that it might interest me.

The RPGA turned out some cards of special powers from which players can choose at the start of a session. The scenarios are tightly structured, of course, but I wonder whether some folks in home campaigns have tried techniques more like Lion Rampant's old Whimsy Cards (iirc) or "plot points".

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I tend to think the "narrative" or "story-telling" aspects of roleplaying games exist to define the role you play.

For example, if you spend a "metagame resource" like a possibility, action point or hero point, you are basically saying "this is a situation that's important to the character." MIght it be fate or hidden reserves in himself, he gets an extra benefit.

If you can decide aspects of the game world, you do so to highlight the role you play. Introducing a dog that ate a precious gem defines your characters tendency to be "Poor as Dirt". It enables you to roleplay this character - you describe how it can be that he keeps staying poor, and enables you to roleplay through the resulting conflicts.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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 wouldn't consider that really staging. It seems like typical play to me too.

The DM was asking the player what his character is doing and where. This could be for any number of reasons: would the character be close enough to overhear a conversation going on outside? Is the character at ground zero for the purple worm that is about to burst up through the ground?

In this example the "stage" is certainly set for a possible dialogue between Jom the Red and the hot waitress. I don't really see it as a staged event because prior to the DM asking Jom's player where he was,there was no indication of Jom's whereabouts or intentions.

Staging and scene setting IMHO do not pose such questions, rather they assume the PC's will be in a given location and then event X will happen.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Unless of course EW is trying to tell all of us that EW knows better than the rest of us and is doing this for our own good.

Please re-read post #197 and let me know if I was being unclear.

 

[Hussar]

EW, is this an accurate definition of Role Playing Game as you define it?

A role playing game is one where players play a well defined role and all elements outside of that role are the sole perview of the GM/DM​

That's the definition that I'm getting. Please correct it if it's wrong.

If it's correct, please explain to me how Magic The Gathering is not a role playing game as you define it. In MtG, I play a single role that is well definied - in this case a very powerful wizard. I cannot make any changes to the setting that are outside of my pre-defined abiities (the Magic cards in my hand). I play through the scenario of being attacked by my enemies and being forced to defend myself through the use of my very powerful magics.

How does this fail to be a Role Playing Game as you define the term?

 

[ST]

Good faith in this case meaning the world at large doesn't universally share my opinion so it should be changed?
How does one discuss an opinion in good faith without changing it. Like any other topic, we are not all going to agree on it.

My opinion is just that, no more. If someone wants to give it more weight than that it's none of my business. You are free to disagree and have done so, and I am not offended by that.

Quoting this post since it was mentioned on this page. Fair enough. I can understand wanting a definition that excludes, say, kinds of play or techniques you don't personally enjoy. I still don't get what purpose there is binding that to a strict definition, since everyone has kinds of play and techniques they don't like. It seems more useful to me to discuss those techniques individually, since they're the heart of the issue.

I don't really think roleplaying has ever had much of a useful definition besides "Here is what roleplaying means to me", and that a group of people deciding to play together have to go beyond "Let's play a roleplaying game", just like you can't get a bunch of people together and say "Let's play some ball" without at least a cursory discussion of what that means *here and now*, rather than in the abstract. Heck, even specify the game system and setting, and two groups are still going to have a totally different experience.

So i guess that's the main reason why I don't see what a more specific definition would make -- it doesn't do away with the need for further discussion. You could say, "Today I'm interested in playing a RPG where all the players but the GM only offer input into the game about things their characters physically do or say." or you could say "Today I'd like to play a RPG instead of a storygame", or even "Today let's play an immersion-heavy RPG", but I don't see how the definition of RPG being changed helps that discussion at all.

 

[Hussar]

I was tootling around this evening and was cleaning up my shelves. Took a moment to read some old Dragon issues on a whim. Surprisingly enough, happened across an article, or series of articles actually, that specifically talk about this. In Dragon 283 (so this is 3e, WOTC Dragon just to be clear), Gary is continuing a series on "What the Heck is an RPG?!" in his Up on a Soapbox column. From my understanding, he had polled a number of gamers, over 200 is mentioned in the article I have, and outlined 16 elements of a roleplaying game. He then ranked the elements based on the poll.

This is from the final four, and, appropriately enough, contains the element of Story.

((Disclaimer - any typos here are mine))

Story (backstory and in play): The reason for what is about to happen, or is happening, is a paramount consideration in roleplaying games. One needs to understand, be moved so as to suspend disbelief, and actually "believe" through the medium of the story. Some reasonable backstory needs to be presented for this purpose as well as some elements of the current and continuing tale about to be played out. While some participants place the most emphasis on the material leading up to the current time, and then depend on the DM to furnish the remainder, most participants want a more direct involvemnt of the players' characters in the shaping of events. They desire that their characters not merely perform but also interact meaningfully with the environment as their players direct so as to actually shape the story as well as have the capacity to affect its conclusion. In all cases though, the element is generally recognized as a major one to the game form, so it has been rated at 7.6 - the highest score for any of the critical portions of the game.

So, even back then, and this is May, 2001, so not so long after the release of 3e, people identified the ability to have direct impact upon the story to be of paramount importance. Gygax even identifies Exploder Wizard's position almost word for word and says that while some people do promote this concept, the majority take it much further.

 

[ExploderWizard]

EW, is this an accurate definition of Role Playing Game as you define it?

A role playing game is one where players play a well defined role and all elements outside of that role are the sole perview of the GM/DM
​

That's the definition that I'm getting. Please correct it if it's wrong.

If it's correct, please explain to me how Magic The Gathering is not a role playing game as you define it. In MtG, I play a single role that is well definied - in this case a very powerful wizard. I cannot make any changes to the setting that are outside of my pre-defined abiities (the Magic cards in my hand). I play through the scenario of being attacked by my enemies and being forced to defend myself through the use of my very powerful magics.

How does this fail to be a Role Playing Game as you define the term?

A role playing game is one in which the participants experience play from within a given role.

MtG could very well be a roleplaying game. The scope of the game is rather limited (combat with other wizards) with a small almost non-existent game world (there is no one playing any role apart from the wizards) but sure it could certainly be played like that. It would serve as well as Hungry Hungry Hippos I suppose but I like the Hippos game mechanics better because they are simpler and less fiddly.