Storytelling vs Roleplaying

[Ariosto]

The specific play style to which EW refers has a narrow focus -- but that focus is on the element that originally distinguished RPGs from wargames, the specifically role-playing element. To exclude other elements may be unhelpful, but a game excluding that element (other than in the superficial sense that one can apply to absolutely any game) would, I think, not sensibly warrant being called an RPG.

Hungry Hungry Hippos by itself falls into that category, as did the Chainmail miniatures rules set that was a precursor to the mechanics of D&D.

Role-playing in the critical sense comes in with the scenario that puts such mechanics to use. Before Arneson first "dungeon mastered" an expedition into the mazes of Blackmoor, he had played in and moderated a number of "Braunstein" games. He combined the basic concept of those very free-form games with his innovative dungeon-exploration situation, adapted Chainmail to his needs, and added the very appealing feature of advancing characters to successively more powerful "levels" (starting, for instance, as a normal fighting man able to attain the rank of "hero" and eventually "superhero").

One could likewise take the HHH apparatus as a convenient means for resolving conflicts (or other affairs with doubtful outcomes) in a much wider-ranging Hippos game. Dice, hit points, and so on, are convenient and familiar (due to the influence of D&D) means, but hardly definitive.

By the same token, one could pick up an RPG rules-set and revert the game right back to a wargame. Combining that detachment from role-identification with "fudging" of whatever dice-rolls don't suit, one could change it firmly into a story-telling enterprise.

 

[maddman75]

You know the HHH discussion is kind of moot. There's already a game that does a similar thing - Dread. Players answer a questionnaire to define their character. There are no stats or numbers involved, nor dice or other randomizer. You want to do something, pull from the Jenga tower. Succeed, and you do it. Decline to pull and you fail. Knock the tower over, and you're toast.

EW, you're welcome to your definition, but it doesn't look like anyone else is interested in using it. So you'll have to remain confused when people refer to BtVS and InSpectres as roleplaying games, and refuse to refer to computer games and Hungry Hungry Hippos as such.

 

[Scribble]

The specific play style to which EW refers has a narrow focus -- but that focus is on the element that originally distinguished RPGs from wargames, the specifically role-playing element.

Not sure if I agree completely here (unless I misunderstand.)

The main difference was rather then the main aspect through which the player interacting with the game being a collective "Unit" the player now interacted primarily through a single entity. In and of itself this doesn't preclude effecting the game outside of that character, however.

 

[Ariosto]

It may not preclude affecting the game outside of that character, but affecting the game in character is absolutely necessary.

There is at the least a spectrum, from interacting solely through one's character (as in the Braunsteins and the early Blackmoor dungeon games, as I gather) -- to not identifying with a single character at all.

A campaign of Larry Brom's The Sword and the Flame, for instance, can fall along a point on that spectrum as one follows the fortunes of the named men in a platoon. Yet I have never known it to be billed as an "RPG"; it has always been a "wargame".

Perhaps, though, some other game really not very different in essence is advertised as an RPG.

 

[maddman75]

It may not preclude affecting the game outside of that character, but affecting the game in character is absolutely necessary.

There is at the least a spectrum, from interacting solely through one's character (as in the Braunsteins and the early Blackmoor dungeon games, as I gather) -- to not identifying with a single character at all.

A campaign of Larry Brom's The Sword and the Flame, for instance, can fall along a point on that spectrum as one follows the fortunes of the named men in a platoon. Yet I have never known it to be billed as an "RPG"; it has always been a "wargame".

Perhaps, though, some other game really not very different in essence is advertised as an RPG.

That's interesting. I think that identifying with a single character is the bit that makes RPGs what they are. Consider something like InSpectres. Its a ghostbusters like game where the PCs investigate the supernatural. Only the 'skill roles' just let the PCs dictate what happens if they are successful. For example, the group gets called by a client to investigate weird lights in their restaurant. The PC uses his scanner gadget and makes his roll. He can simply declare that the weird lights are because of a ghost that is haunting the building. The GM doesn't know this ahead of time, its all off the cuff. According to Exploder Wizard this isn't anything like an RPG.

But it is easily recognizable as such. Each player, apart from the GM, has a distinct character they identify with. They generate these characters, speak for them, declare their actions, and use the rules to resolve disputes. That the players get to determine what happens if their rolls are successful doesn't change the fact that it is sold as and accepted as an RPG by the people who play it.

 

[Scribble]

It may not preclude affecting the game outside of that character, but affecting the game in character is absolutely necessary.

There is at the least a spectrum, from interacting solely through one's character (as in the Braunsteins and the early Blackmoor dungeon games, as I gather) -- to not identifying with a single character at all.

A campaign of Larry Brom's The Sword and the Flame, for instance, can fall along a point on that spectrum as one follows the fortunes of the named men in a platoon. Yet I have never known it to be billed as an "RPG"; it has always been a "wargame".

Perhaps, though, some other game really not very different in essence is advertised as an RPG.

Sure I'll agree with that mostly.

The primary method of the players interacting with the game is through the use of a "character." What constitutes a character from game to game might vary widely though.

And again, just because the player has a few other tricks up his sleeve not attached to the character, doesn't mean the primary character is negated.

I think it's probably important to note that if we really were looking for a collection of attributes that all games considered RPGs have in common, each attribute would also have a weight attached to it. Certain aspects being "true" would lend more weight to it being accepted as an RPG then others.

Also the existence of one of these attributes wouldn't indicate it's an RPG in and of itself.

For instance just because the game has "characters" doesn't automatically make it an RPG. (IE in Super Mario Brothers, Mario is your character, however, it's not considered an RPG.)

 

[Ariosto]

There once was as well a distinction in the matter of scope. Thus, one might say of TSATF that it was clearly a wargame due to the limitations not so much of its mechanical apparatus as of its assumptions. A "role-playing" game would more clearly encompass affairs beyond the battlefield.

GDW's En Garde was an early example of a game combining strong role-identification with fairly stereotyped scope. However, it has often been taken as the starting point for far more; activities beyond those detailed in the booklet are (as with the original D&D game) treated in pretty informal fashion.

I have come across some Forge-y RPGs with much more constrained scenarios!

 

[ST]

Well, I doubt anyone's going to be portraying multiple characters at once, what with only the one larynx and all. So I'd guess playing multiple characters is a matter of how you timeshare.

I don't see any fundamental difference between "I switch characters when my old one dies or retires" and "I switch characters between scenes", in terms of what you're doing while you're actually roleplaying.

Otherwise, then it's not "really roleplaying" when the GM portrays a character, since he's just gonna switch NPCs in a bit anyway, right?

 

[Ariosto]

Otherwise, then it's not "really roleplaying" when the GM portrays a character, since he's just gonna switch NPCs in a bit anyway, right?

There are reasons the GM is called "the GM" rather than "a player".

 

[ExploderWizard]

Otherwise, then it's not "really roleplaying" when the GM portrays a character, since he's just gonna switch NPCs in a bit anyway, right?

If the players are interacting with the game through thier characters then the GM cannot be too invested in roleplaying a specific character because he/she is representing everything that is not the PC's all at once. If the DM does have the luxury to become immersed in a character then beware-the dreaded DMPC is about to strike.