Storytelling vs Roleplaying

[LostSoul]

Something like Circles from Burning Wheel straddles the line, I think.

Circles: You have a rating called Circles. It represents your character's circle of contacts, people he might know, or people he might know how to get in touch with. The reach of your Circles is determined by the character's history; if your PC is a peasant from a village who joined up with a mercenary army, nobles and clergy (except the local village abbot) are outside of his Circles.

In the game, a player can make a Circles test to get in touch with an NPC. The NPC is defined by the player: "I want to find a blacksmith who can repair my armour," for example, or "I need to find a witch to remove this curse." The difficulty of the test is based on a number of things, like how common that NPC might be, when the PC will be able to find the NPC, the attitude of the NPC, etc.

If the test succeeds, the NPC is brought into play at the appropriate time. If the test is failed, the NPC can be brought into play at the DM's discretion, though the NPC is considered an enemy. (The blacksmith might be a bigot who hate the PC's nationality, or just not like the look of the PC; the witch might be upset at the PC's intrusion and turn him into a toad.)

While the Circles test is based on the PC's connections in the game world, there's a lot of "meta" stuff going on with it as well.

 

[Scribble]

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

Sure, but like a lot of things in the game, it sprouted from a player suggesting something that isn't specifically spelled out in the character rules combined with DM interjection. (And to me this is one of the things tabletop RPGs have over computer RPGs.)

The amount and intensity of DM interjection will vary with each DM.

One DM might say you have to make a back story and tell me where everyone on your family tree lived pre-game, or they don't exist. Another might say, eh, tell me where you want your family to be living as the game goes. Othrs might be somewhere in between.

In any case all of it is just ways in which the players interact with the game system.

 

[Ariosto]

What I'm not clear on is why make the distinction?

Different kinds of experience appeal more or less to different people. I think it's a strength of D&D that it easily provides various kinds within one session. However, when the mix tilts far in one direction, then its appeal is likely to become more limited.

The trend today is away from role-identification. Powers and skill challenges (as they work in 4e) cater to other interests. Apparently, ExploderWizard can take those in stride -- but is ready to draw a line. Hussar has drawn a line at a point at which he sees too little of the shared-world aspect. Someone else might prefer to downplay both, if that facilitates free exploration of a detailed milieu (such as getting tons of Forgotten Realms "canon" not by reading books but in a game). Yet another might be all for concentrating on the war-game aspect ... and so on.

 

[LostSoul]

Following up on Ariosto's post, I think it's useful to discuss what techniques provide results that they play group wants, and which techniques don't.

Labelling games is a little too contentious. I say we put all that behind us and focus on what people are doing at the table, and why.

 

[ST]

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.

I think that hits the nail on the head. (Although I've seen long, heated threads disputing "character's don't really exist" in the past, which I find interesting.)

I get that some people's enjoyment hinges on immersion. I still don't really "get" it myself. My understanding of it is that there's some sensation of the inhabiting the character's persona, so that interacting with game mechanics outside that persona take away from that sense. I dunno, I feel for my characters and totally go "Oh I know what he'd do now", but that's just engagement with the character, and it's something I do with a novel or movie I get really into, as well.

So I know what techniques tend to be disfavored by immersion players, since they've said so, but I don't personally understand how those techniques detract from the experience they want. Eh, no biggie, it's the same situation as how I don't understand why people eat fish, but it's still useful to know what not to do if I'm cooking it for my friends.

 

[Ariosto]

The "immersion" game is a game of limited information and immediacy. Here's what you perceive; what will you do? By analogy with video games, it's like a "first person" view rather than a side or bird's-eye view. An even closer analogy might be the text-driven adventure game, because old-style RPGs are mainly verbal in medium of play (but human parsing is much better).

The combination of role-appropriate limits and (with human moderation) great flexibility in implementation facilitates challenges engaging different creative faculties than other approaches do. It resembles more the playing of real-world roles for which evolution and personal experience equip us.

 

[Ariosto]

In my experience, those first entering the hobby tend to be most comfortable with either almost pure role-identification or almost pure story-telling of the Once Upon a Time sort.

From accounts of people who played in it, I gather that the early Blackmoor campaign was role-identification of a purity seldom encountered since. Only Arneson really knew the mathematics "behind the scenes", players seeing not even their characters' stats.

As I understand it, that changed when the group started play-testing the D&D rules set developed in Lake Geneva. Many modern players might be startled by a feature of the original campaign retained in that set: It instructed that the DM was to do the "rolling up" of characters! A new player could simply be handed an index card drawn from a pile, with the ability scores already noted.

(There is a procedure that, interpreted one way, gives players limited options for "swapping" points to boost prime requisites after choosing a class. By another interpretation, the scores themselves remain as rolled.)

Rationally, it should not matter whose hand tosses the dice unless there's some form of cheating involved. I'm not sure how much to chalk it up to the influence of AD&D, but that rational consideration seems pretty generally trumped by the visceral appeal of rolling dice. Most players (who will accept even semi-random generation in the first place) seem to consider it very important to "throw the bones" themselves.

The choices of race, sex, and name -- apparently taken for granted from Day One -- are a marked departure from our real-world experience of identity, a catering to interest in other aspects of the game. Choice of character class (occupation) departs a bit from the medieval model, reflecting the fantastic element (especially the examples of "self-made" men and women in sword-and-sorcery fiction).

What I am getting at is that, even among those with a strong interest in "putting themselves in the shoes of" their characters, a complex of other concerns may be involved. Also, this eclecticism may be more evident when it comes to preparations for play -- and in "between-session" game activities -- than in play itself.

 

[Hussar]

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.

See, and this is why I have a problem with your definition. Your definition excludes something like Spirit of the Century as a role playing game, but does not exclude Magic the Gathering.

Wouldn't a more useful definition be one which actually reflects reality?

Hussar has drawn a line at a point at which he sees too little of the shared-world aspect.

Hang on a tick. I have drawn no such line at all. I am saying that both traditional role playing games where there is little or no shared-world aspect and games in which players have greater degrees of editiorial control are both role playing games.

I am saying that the umbrella of role playing game should be more inclusive, not less.

Again, going back to the graphic I posted a ways back, Magic the Gathering would not be a Role Playing Game because it is not focussed on collaborative play. It's competitive. It also fails my criteria in that play is not assumed to carry on between sessions. It fails in a third way in that there are win conditions as a goal of the game.

To me, a role playing game has none of those conditions. Thus, MtG and Hungry, Hungry Hippos both fail to be a role playing game, while Spirit of the Century or Sufficiently Advanced (in which players have a MUCH greater degree of editorial control over the game) are both role playing games.

Different from traditional rpg's? Oh sure. But, I'm certainly not claiming that traditional rpg's are not role playing games.

 

[Ariosto]

DMG2 Excerpts: Ch. 2 Advanced Encounters

 

[Hussar]

DMG2 Excerpts: Ch. 2 Advanced Encounters

Your point?

Actually, had an additional thought as well, Exploder Wizard. Your definition also does not exclude CRPG's like Diablo. After all, my character in Diablo is always played in character. I have no editorial control over the game (barring cheats I suppose). I can only interact with the game world through my avatar.

At the end of the day, this is why I don't buy your definition of a role playing game. Any definition which excludes games like Burning Wheel and Dogs in the Vineyard, while fails to exclude games which are pretty obviously not role playing games to any reasonable observer is not a terribly useful definition.

Just to be absolutely clear though - I'm not saying that all games must have editorial control. Nor am I saying that one version is better than the other. I've certainly played traditional RPG's and really liked them. My bone of contention is that your definition doesn't actually help communication.

Like I said, I'd prefer to have "Role Playing Game" be a pretty big umbrella for a large number of games (ie, how the term is pretty much currently understood by the majority of gamers out there) with sub-genres existing within that larger umbrella.