Storytelling vs Roleplaying

[maddman75]

They are mutually exclusive. A game can contain elements of both. An rpg may have some elements of story involved. If these elements require players to operate outside the role being played and effectively play the role of storyteller during actual play then the game has morphed into a storytelling game. This becomes even more so if the stated design of the game is to create collaborative stories instead of experiencing the game from within a chosen role.

No they're not. Creating stories is a function of roleplaying games. If everyone sits down to a game and plays their role, a story is created. A given game might not care about the quality of that story, but it still exists. Being a story creation game is a byproduct of being a roleplaying game.

Relate to me what a game session would be like that did not create a recognizable story. Here's a hint to help you, a story means 'stuff happens to possibly imaginary people. There's a start, a middle, and an end.'

Your entire idea of a division between roleplaying and story creation is fallacious. Every RPG session ever played created a story. You can just say you don't like mechanics that try to make the created story better, you don't have to categorize them as some other hobby entirely. Its okay.

 

[Thasmodious]

They are mutually exclusive.

No, they aren't. You are playing a role within a story. How that story is "written" varies a great deal. DM plot, player choice, shared creation, after the fact; but in it, the player's are playing roles. There are a number of metagame elements within any RPG. A collaborative act of creation is just one of them. It doesn't instantly change the entire nature of the game into something else, it is just one moment of metagame creation among many. Dice rolls are moments of metagame player determination, too. Savage Worlds uses a number of metagame devices to enhance the RP possibilities of the game. An optional rule is to use their Adventure Deck, where players draw a card and can play that card during the session. Cards include things like "run into old friend" or "love interest" and many other acts of player narration. Also, the PCs play allies and henchmen during combat, deciding and playing out their actions. Bennies themselves, like action points, are a seemingly retroactive response (GM: I hit you for 2 wounds. PC: Nope, I used a benny and soaked them). Of course, its not really retroactive, the result of an attack is not final until all steps (including use of bennies) have been taken.

Storytelling and roleplaying are not exclusive, but interwoven. They are both fundamental to the RPG and do not present an either/or package in any way. A game does not cease to be a roleplaying game if the player engages in anything outside of his character, those moments happen constantly in an RPG, every time dice are rolled, distances are measured, rules are consulted....

 

[Hussar]

They are mutually exclusive. A game can contain elements of both. An rpg may have some elements of story involved. If these elements require players to operate outside the role being played and effectively play the role of storyteller during actual play then the game has morphed into a storytelling game. This becomes even more so if the stated design of the game is to create collaborative stories instead of experiencing the game from within a chosen role.

No, they are not mutually exclusive and nor should they be.

After all, story is THE MOST IMPORTANT element of an RPG according to Gygax's little study. The most important. Not second, not barely registered, it's the single most important element of an RPG. If a game has no story involved, then people do not consider it to be an RPG.

If they did consider it an RPG, then Story would not be so important.

Every single session of an RPG that has ever been played is an exercise in creating collaborative stories. Every single one. You cannot play a single session of any RPG without creating a collaborative story. The point of view of the player does not change that. Whether you are forced by the mechanics to a single viewpoint or allowed multiple viewpoints doesn't change the fact that every single session of every single RPG out there is an exercise in collaborative story telling.

In every single session of every single RPG, you have character, you have plot and you have setting. In every single session of every single RPG, you have at least two players (a player and a DM) playing out the interaction between those characters. If you have character, and plot and setting, you have story. Where you have two people creating that story, you have collaborative story telling.

The story might be very basic - go to the cave and kill everything you find - but there is still a story there.

While I suppose you could argue that there is a plot in Hungry Hungry Hippos, it's pretty damn hard to find. And, again, it's pretty much pointless to have a definition of role playing game that includes HHH and not SotC.

Now here's another question for you EW. What if I play multiple characters? Am I role playing or am I story telling? What about games where roles are switched during play - Ars Magica for example - which allows different players to play the mage at different times. Is that role playing or not?

 

[Ariosto]

Then by your definition, everything is a roleplaying game because there's nothing in the rules/mechanics of any game that prevents it. ... I take great issue with you claiming that any game dubbed a role-playing game is not a role-playing game.

Make up your mind, eh?

SOTC defines itself as a role-playing game and then specifies that it is a story-telling game. This implies that a story-telling game, at least in the mind of SOTC, is a subset of role-playing games.

Actually, the quoted sentence defines a role-playing game as a subtype of story-telling game.

And I repeat, the designers claim makes this true?

Considering what results from the "not an RPG" claim, I think that a wise course. That leaves open the more meaningful treatment of the reasons why one considers Game X less satisfying as an RPG than Game Y. Naturally, some fans will object -- but that is going to happen regardless one's reasons for not loving their beloved.

 

[Obryn]

They are mutually exclusive. A game can contain elements of both. An rpg may have some elements of story involved. If these elements require players to operate outside the role being played and effectively play the role of storyteller during actual play then the game has morphed into a storytelling game. This becomes even more so if the stated design of the game is to create collaborative stories instead of experiencing the game from within a chosen role.

So, categorically, Eberron 3.5 with metagame Action Points is categorized with the storytelling card game Once Upon A Time (as a Story Game), and not categorized with default D&D 3.5 without Action Points (as an RPG).

....You know how crazy that sounds, right?

-O

 

[ExploderWizard]

So, categorically, Eberron 3.5 with metagame Action Points is categorized with the storytelling card game Once Upon A Time (as a Story Game), and not categorized with default D&D 3.5 without Action Points (as an RPG).

....You know how crazy that sounds, right?

-O

I am not familliar with the Eberron action points and what they do so I cannot comment.

 

[tyrlaan]

@Ariosto: Neither of the sentences you plucked from my post are me taking a stance on this silly RPG/story-telling debate. Rather, they are both points I made to counter EW's argument. I am looking to poke holes, not draw lines in the sand - that's what EW and you are trying to do.

And I repeat, the designers claim makes this true?

You continue to put more behind my words than what is there. Again, I am pointing out that SOTC says one thing and you have twisted it to say another. I am illuminating the disparity because you are implying there is none in an attempt to prove your point. I have not said that I agree or disagree with SOTC's stance on the definition of it's game.

 

[ExploderWizard]

No they're not. Creating stories is a function of roleplaying games. If everyone sits down to a game and plays their role, a story is created. A given game might not care about the quality of that story, but it still exists. Being a story creation game is a byproduct of being a roleplaying game.

Relate to me what a game session would be like that did not create a recognizable story. Here's a hint to help you, a story means 'stuff happens to possibly imaginary people. There's a start, a middle, and an end.'

Your entire idea of a division between roleplaying and story creation is fallacious. Every RPG session ever played created a story. You can just say you don't like mechanics that try to make the created story better, you don't have to categorize them as some other hobby entirely. Its okay.

As characters are roleplayed, thier actions as directed by the players can be interpreted as a story. When players cease roleplaying thier characters and instead begin narrating action from a perspective outside of the role, we have story telling rather than story development that comes from the actions of the characters.

While the "story" flows from the game in both instances, the methods used to convey that story are not identical. If the differences are not relevant to you, pay them no mind.

 

[Obryn]

I am not familliar with the Eberron action points and what they do so I cannot comment.

It is a metagame construct that a player spends to give their character a better chance of success at a task, or to enhance one of their abilities. Its most common use is +1d6 on the d20 roll. These can further be enhanced by feats.

It's purely a metagame mechanic, like Force Points in SWSE or Drama Points in BtVS. Clearly, characters have no idea what action points are.

-O

 

[ExploderWizard]

It is a metagame construct that a player spends to give their character a better chance of success at a task, or to enhance one of their abilities. Its most common use is +1d6 on the d20 roll. These can further be enhanced by feats.

It's purely a metagame mechanic, like Force Points in SWSE or Drama Points in BtVS. Clearly, characters have no idea what action points are.

-O

In your example an action point is simply a temporary boost from extra effort that allows a character to perform certain tasks that he/she is already capable of a little bit better.
I don't see anything here that requires action outside of the role.