Storytelling vs Roleplaying

[Scribble]

I don't own the game myself but if the following is the actual quote in its entirety:

By roleplaying game, we mean a story-telling game which has several players.

Then EW I think you really are reading your own thoughts into that sentence.

That sentence is indicating that a roleplaying game, is defined as a storytelling game, which has several players. They're not indicating a difference between two games (storytelling or roleplaying.) They're simply defining roleplaying games. You can surely disagree with their definition, but that's what that sentence says.

Personally I think you're attacking it incorrectly, as I think others have said.

For me, roleplaying game is the large category. Similar to the word Automobile. It describes a large collection of games that have similar aspects, but different particular styles.

By doing what you're doing, I think you're trying to essentially say something like: A Ford is an Automobile, a Toyota is... something else.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I don't own the game myself but if the following is the actual quote in its entirety:



Then EW I think you really are reading your own thoughts into that sentence.

That sentence is indicating that a roleplaying game, is defined as a storytelling game, which has several players. They're not indicating a difference between two games (storytelling or roleplaying.) They're simply defining roleplaying games. You can surely disagree with their definition, but that's what that sentence says.

Personally I think you're attacking it incorrectly, as I think others have said.

For me, roleplaying game is the large category. Similar to the word Automobile. It describes a large collection of games that have similar aspects, but different particular styles.

By doing what you're doing, I think you're trying to essentially say something like: A Ford is an Automobile, a Toyota is... something else.

So if I were to create a retro clone game and called it Hungry Hungry Crocs, and included attributes for the Croc characters and provided scenarios, I can call it an rpg and it would be true? If I then stated on page 1 of the rules that Hungry Hungry Crocs is a roleplaying game and by roleplaying game I mean an action-packed marble eating game for several players does THAT mean its true?

 

[Obryn]

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.

OK, so we're getting somewhere now. In your definition, metagame mechanics like Eberron's Action Points or SWSE's Force Points or 4e's Powers can be characteristics of an RPG, so long as it's something the character can do. A Drama Point like in Buffy which lets you add, say, a ladder in a convenient spot (or a Hero Point in Arcana Evolved which lets you do that and more) would not be.

This is a more sensible definition, but it's still idiosyncratic. Not as idiosyncratic as howandwhy99's, but if you're fine with using an irregular definition of Roleplaying Game that almost nobody else uses, more power to you, I guess. It might make conversations difficult, though. And certainly I'm not going to use a nonstandard definition like this.

-O

 

[Scribble]

So if I were to create a retro clone game and called it Hungry Hungry Crocs, and included attributes for the Croc characters and provided scenarios, I can call it an rpg and it would be true? If I then stated on page 1 of the rules that Hungry Hungry Crocs is a roleplaying game and by roleplaying game I mean an action-packed marble eating game for several players does THAT mean its true?

I wasn't trying to define any kind of trueness- I think you missed the point.

I was simply saying you're reading into that sentence something that isn't there. You keep saying they're indicating two types of game. They're not. They're defining RPGs as collaborative storytelling games. Full stop.

Again, you can disagree with that definition, and indeed, I do as well, but I also disagree with what you're saying.

I think there are several key features a game will have that indicate it will be commonly viewed as an RPG despite varying gameplay specifics. (Just like there are several key features of a car that will allow it to be seen as a car, despite the various specifics.)

 

[ST]

Okay, let me try that one from the side.

Here's a roleplaying game.

THE RULES

Create a character. You start with 10 Hit Points, no other stats. They refresh to full at the beginning of each session.

The GM will describe the world, and you roleplay your character to portray them.

If you get in a conflict, play Hungry Hungry Hippos to determine who wins the conflict. At the end of the fight, take the winner's # of marbles, subtract yours from the total. Take that much damage to your Hit Points. (If you won, you don't take any damage.)

----
There you go, is that actually a roleplaying game or not?

I'm confused because first the conversation was about what rules you could not include for something to be a roleplaying game. Now it seems to also be about what rules the game must have?

I mean, there's tons of games out there that are roleplaying games because they tell you "In this game, you roleplay a character", but then the rules are about swinging a sword or how much damage you take from falling off a cliff or whatnot. Isn't replacing all those resolution mechancis with "Play Hippos" just changing the mechanics, meaning they'd still be a roleplaying game?

How about freeform roleplaying? No mechanics, but the central rules of "You're GMing, we're the players" still apply -- so is it still a game despite having no written mechanics? How can you differentiate "freeform roleplaying game" from "freeform storytelling game" if neither have mechanics, just an agreed sense of "how we'll play"?

Finally, how does stuff in the book like "This is a roleplaying game" or GM's advice sections affect the picture? Personally, I consider that stuff to be part of the rules without being actual mechanics, because they set a default assumption as to how to play. Other people might just ignore those sections entirely and look only at the mechanics.

 

[ST]

Sorry to multipost, I just find this an interesting topic.

Okay, bang on this and tell me if I've missed something.

I believe as it's being interpreted, if you're playing a roleplaying game, this exchange would be verboten as it's got storytelling gaming all over it:

Player: "I think I remember there's a member of my thieves' guild working in this town. I pay a Fate point."
GM: "Yep, Azur the One-Legged runs a fence here, is what you've heard."

And this would be okay:
Player: "Hmm, this town seems pretty busy, I wonder if my guild's got their fingers in."
GM: "Make a streetwise check." (It succeeds) "Yep, Azur the One-Legged is the name you get."

Would this be legit?

Player: "Hmm, I can't remember if the guild set up shop here or not..."
GM: (Spends 1 Fate point from the PC's total, without telling them) "Actually you're in luck -- Azur the One-Legged seems to be operating here. You recognize his mark from back in the day."

In that last example, the PCs have Fate point totals but the GM never told the players they exist, and he decides to spend them based on when he thinks the player's musing or idea would be interesting. It's still a metagame mechanic, but the players aren't aware of it. Is the fact that the mechanic is removed from player use enough to turn this back into a roleplaying game?

The thing is, I feel like you can turn any of those exchanges from one case to another based on how your group operates, independent of the rules or definitions. Okay, it's not okay for a player to say that something is true in the game world... can they muse that they sure wonder if it was true OOC? Or investigate whether or not it's true IC? At that point, it's the GM's decision in a "strict roleplaying game" whether or not that's true... so it seems like "Player affecting something outside of their PC's skin" is a pretty nebulous category.

 

[Scribble]

There you go, is that actually a roleplaying game or not?

The problem with this is you can go on endlessly with "Is this a roleplaying game?" and that's because RPG is the higher level description. As such, even though the answer might be "Yes" to both games, two different games that are both RPGs might be wildly different in many ways. (A semi and a sports car are wildly different but are both automobiles.)

My issue with EW isn't that he's trying to define RPGs. but that he's taking a specific play style and saying THAT is the definition of RPGs. It's not, it's just a style of RPGs (and one that he evidently prefers.)

The trick is finding what all games people commonly accept as RPGS (regardless of specific style) tend to have in common, and go from there.

You'll also find that not every game accepted as an RPG will have ALL of the common attributes, but as long as they have an acceptable number, they will be accepted as an RPG. I don't know what that acceptable number would be, nor have I gone through and thought about all the various elements RPGS have in common.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Okay, let me try that one from the side.

Here's a roleplaying game.

THE RULES

Create a character. You start with 10 Hit Points, no other stats. They refresh to full at the beginning of each session.

The GM will describe the world, and you roleplay your character to portray them.

If you get in a conflict, play Hungry Hungry Hippos to determine who wins the conflict. At the end of the fight, take the winner's # of marbles, subtract yours from the total. Take that much damage to your Hit Points. (If you won, you don't take any damage.)

----
There you go, is that actually a roleplaying game or not?

It certainly could be, and a darn fun one to play to boot!

I'm confused because first the conversation was about what rules you could not include for something to be a roleplaying game. Now it seems to also be about what rules the game must have?

I mean, there's tons of games out there that are roleplaying games because they tell you "In this game, you roleplay a character", but then the rules are about swinging a sword or how much damage you take from falling off a cliff or whatnot. Isn't replacing all those resolution mechancis with "Play Hippos" just changing the mechanics, meaning they'd still be a roleplaying game?

Certainly. Using hippos instead of dice means little to the roleplay/storytelling divide.

How about freeform roleplaying? No mechanics, but the central rules of "You're GMing, we're the players" still apply -- so is it still a game despite having no written mechanics? How can you differentiate "freeform roleplaying game" from "freeform storytelling game" if neither have mechanics, just an agreed sense of "how we'll play"?

Mechanics are optional in order to bring a sense of fairness to the game. Players could certainly agree to freeform all the action with success determined by the quality of description for thier actions. As long as the action of the game is focused on from with the roles, mechanics can be whatever.

Finally, how does stuff in the book like "This is a roleplaying game" or GM's advice sections affect the picture? Personally, I consider that stuff to be part of the rules without being actual mechanics, because they set a default assumption as to how to play. Other people might just ignore those sections entirely and look only at the mechanics.

"This is a roleplaying game" in the introduction tells me that the players will interact with the game through the role of thier characters. Mechanics are simply for resolution. They can be roleplay focused or story focused (for mechanics that require player actions outside thier role)

 

[LostSoul]

It tells us that one of the main design goals of the game is creating collaborative fiction. The value of this information depends on the individual. To those that believe cooperative storytelling and roleplaying are one and the same, the information is meaningless.

I'm with you on how you define storytelling vs. roleplaying (though I wouldn't attempt to classify games in one way or another, only what people do at specific points during play), but I don't think that's a good definition.

"What's your marching order?"
"Morgan and Sister Rebecca in the front, with Silverleaf and Black Dougal in the rear."

That's creating collaborative fiction! "Creating collaborative fiction" is fundamental to roleplaying. Stepping outside of your role to do it means, in my opinion, that you are not employing the roleplaying technique at that moment.

There you go, is that actually a roleplaying game or not?

I'd say that during combat you're not employing the technique I'm calling "roleplaying".


There is a discussion on story-games talking about one guy's definition of what makes a roleplaying game. You might find it interesting.

 

[Scribble]

"This is a roleplaying game" in the introduction tells me that the players will interact with the game through the role of thier characters. Mechanics are simply for resolution. They can be roleplay focused or story focused (for mechanics that require player actions outside thier role)

I think I agree with somewhat of this part. I think "players will interact with the game through the role of thier characters." IS an important starting point to listing what makes a game an RPG, but I don't think it's as hard fast a line as you seem to.

I don't think the addition of some rules/methods that players can use to effect the game outside of their character takes it out of the realm of RPGs.