Storytelling vs Roleplaying

[ExploderWizard]

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.



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.

Thanks for finding this, good research

If you will make note of the part that you bolded for emphasis you will notice Gary's explanation never mentions anything that needs to occur from the player outside of the adopted role. For instance:

most participants want a more direct involvemnt of the players' characters in the shaping of events.

The players' characters. Shaping events. How do the players' characters shape events? They shape events through thier actions within the game and within the limitations the role of thier characters permit.

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.

Characters interacting meaningfully with the environment. What does this mean? It means that when players have thier characters take actions and make decisions, those actions and decisions should matter in the game's milieu and should not be rendered meaningless by plot device constructs fabricated by the DM.

Nowhere do I see anything indicating that all of the above cannot be achieved without player only metagame resources utilized from outside the adopted role.

 

[Ariosto]

Yes, note the contrast with "merely perform". To "shape the story as well as have the capacity to affect its conclusion" requires no more than the emergent story of what characters do, as opposed to depending "on the DM to furnish" a plot-line.

How many of the players surveyed wanted something more is not indicated. The emphasis on acting via role-identification -- "the players' characters", "their characters" -- is consistent with other Gygaxian works.

(I'm not sure, but Dangerous Journeys and/or Lejendary Adventures might include some sort of "hero point" resource for optional expenditure, along the lines of the compulsory expenditure of hit points in D&D. I don't think either design shifts focus to a "shared-world", out-of-character role for players.)

 

[Obryn]

(I'm not sure, but Dangerous Journeys and/or Lejendary Adventures might include some sort of "hero point" resource for optional expenditure, along the lines of the compulsory expenditure of hit points in D&D. I don't think either design shifts focus to a "shared-world", out-of-character role for players.)

I know that Dangerous Journeys/Mythus does - it has "Joss Factors" (not related to Whedon), a metagame mechanic that allows you to turn success into failure.

It's in that middle step on the ladder, too, that I mentioned earlier - A roleplaying game where you have metagame resources to affect your character's success or failure.

-O

 

[ST]

Then of course you have the ability for casters to make massive changes to the game world, in some ways far more profound than "Action Points" or "Fate Points" or player narration would allow.

But it's not metagaming, right? Because it's maaaagic.

It's just amusing to me that "I scry the evil overlord, summon a horde of demons, and then teleport in" isn't using "metagame resources" in D&D, while "My PC has an uncle who lives in this town" is. Detect evil? Detect lies? Those things look to me exactly like metagame resources, dressed up in magical paint so as not to be "metagame".

 

[Ariosto]

It's just amusing to me that "I scry the evil overlord, summon a horde of demons, and then teleport in" isn't using "metagame resources" in D&D, while "My PC has an uncle who lives in this town" is.

There is a simple reason, but one is unlikely to understand it if one is determined not to do so.

 

[maddman75]

There is a simple reason, but one is unlikely to understand it if one is determined not to do so.

Nonsense. The D&D magic system can certainly be seen as a metagame resource.

The system doesn't even copy Vance's work very accurately, where IIRC even the most powerful wizards could cast, maybe, half a dozen spells. You can go the preparation route, but its just as easy to reskin that as all manner of happenings. Maybe the mystic energies have to be just right to cast a spell. Maybe the mage can do certain spells during certain astrological instances. Whatever, you can do a fireball X times a day for a totally non-narrative reason. Because its a game mechanic that happens to work.

Really, all mechanics IMO are at least a little meta. Some more blatent than others.

 

[darjr]

If somebody is looking for a meta game way that characters in old school games like AD&D affect the world out of character, look to saving throws.

In the DMG Gary Gygax has a couple of explanations for saving throws because of the sharp criticism saving throws received. He invokes magic, quickness, divine intervention and sheer determination of a fighter... to withstand a full on dragon breath.

To me this is a meta tool to change the world and was sharply criticized as making no sense. However, Gary Gygax found a way.

'Whatever the rationale the character is saved to go on.'
-- Gary Gygax DMG pg 81.

Or not, if the half damage was still enough to kill the character. But the point was that these characters were hero's in an epic story.

In my mind it's pretty much settled. Spirit of the Centry is a role playing game. AD&D is a role playing game. I get the difference between the two, in the rules and in the style that you would play AD&D vs SoC. I do think there is an extreme on the SoC side of games that are not rpgs, but I'd probably include any game where players play a characters role, it just makes sense.

What I'm not clear on is why make the distinction? I don't mean the review reasons or clear labeling reasons, i get that. What I mean is why make the distinction in your games? What is wrong with a little bit of action point in AD&D? How does blurring the line spoil the game?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Nonsense. The D&D magic system can certainly be seen as a metagame resource.

The system doesn't even copy Vance's work very accurately, where IIRC even the most powerful wizards could cast, maybe, half a dozen spells. You can go the preparation route, but its just as easy to reskin that as all manner of happenings. Maybe the mystic energies have to be just right to cast a spell. Maybe the mage can do certain spells during certain astrological instances. Whatever, you can do a fireball X times a day for a totally non-narrative reason. Because its a game mechanic that happens to work.

Really, all mechanics IMO are at least a little meta. Some more blatent than others.

The D&D magic system was Vancian influenced but not completely transposed. Magic doesn't qualify as metagame because the character in the gameworld understands and accepts its existence. The rules that govern magic use may not make any common sense but if the users of the magic know and accept them its not metagame.

If a sidekick in the Buffyverse understood what a drama point was and how it influenced the world then it would no longer be a metagame device either.

 

[Scribble]

The D&D magic system was Vancian influenced but not completely transposed. Magic doesn't qualify as metagame because the character in the gameworld understands and accepts its existence. The rules that govern magic use may not make any common sense but if the users of the magic know and accept them its not metagame.

If a sidekick in the Buffyverse understood what a drama point was and how it influenced the world then it would no longer be a metagame device either.

Game characters don't really exist. They're just a collection of predefined "limitations" each player has when interacting with the game. (IE if you have an 18 marked as your strength score, you can't do something requiring a 20 strength.)

I don't see any issue with having other rules that exist outside of the "collection of rules known as a character" that the players can access to achieve whatever end they wish.

In fact RPGs are commonly heralded for their ability to be modified/expanded on the fly. If an action seems reasonable the GM is encouraged to allow it (or give it a chance to succeed) even when there are no specified rules for said action.

I see no real difference between:

"I pick up a rock and toss it at him."

- "Ok, roll a ranged attack -2 to see if you hit"

and

"I have a cousin in the next town over."

- "Ok, roll to see if he's home when you get there."

 

[ExploderWizard]

I see no real difference between:

"I pick up a rock and toss it at him."

- "Ok, roll a ranged attack -2 to see if you hit"

and

"I have a cousin in the next town over."

- "Ok, roll to see if he's home when you get there."

Me either. If the guy has a cousin in the next town over a random chance of being home seems perfectly reasonable to me.