Storytelling vs Roleplaying

[Hussar]

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.

But, you see, there's a problem of timing. Action Points are applied AFTER the die roll, not before. There is no "extra effort" possible because, well, the effort is already done.

I would also point out that Action Points, at least in Unearthed Arcana also allow you to retain a cast spell. If you spend the AP, you don't lose a memorized spell (or spell slot) after casting. What kind of effort allows that?

In addition, I can spend an Action Point to gain the benefit of a feat that I don't actually have:

Emulate Feat

At the beginning of a character’s turn, he may spend 1 action point as a free action to gain the benefit of a feat he doesn’t have. He must meet the prerequisites of the feat. He gains the benefit until the beginning of his next turn.

What kind of efforts allow me to spontaneously gain a feat?

And, what kind of effort can allow me to produce a ladder? After all, you allowed that Call of Cthulu is a role playing game, and not a story game. Using CoC rules allows me to change the setting through what are effectively action points. I'm thinking that the effort that would allow me to produce a ladder would really, really hurt.

 

[Hussar]

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.

I find it interesting that you would argue that a DM should not be too invested in an NPC, but, you also argued that allowing PC's to change the setting is equivalent to the DM choosing feats for characters.

If the DM is not too invested into the setting, then he shouldn't care if the player alters the NPC in some way that fits within the context of what's happening currently (ie. Adding a dog that eats the diamond). But, if the DM is so invested in the setting that any alteration by the players is seen as a violation of his vision, then shouldn't he be very invested into the NPC's?

 

[Ariosto]

And, what kind of effort can allow me to produce a ladder? After all, you allowed that Call of Cthulu is a role playing game, and not a story game. Using CoC rules allows me to change the setting through what are effectively action points. I'm thinking that the effort that would allow me to produce a ladder would really, really hurt.

I take it you're referring to post #137 on page 7:

Here's another one. I commonly use the Luck roll as a form of metagame mechanic. Player asks if there's a crowbar in the ol' toolshed. Roll luck and there is, fail and there isn't. Are you going to claim that Call of Cthulhu isn't a roleplaying game?

... and the reply in post #142 on page 8:

This is a prime example of letting the dice fall where they may in the determination of a character's fortune. The same rule applies to all and eliminates the need for the dreaded GM fiat. No impact on roleplaying one way or another.

First, that is maddman75's custom, not a rule of CoC entitling a player to declare anything. There are no "action points". The Keeper is not required to use any sort of roll, much less one based on a character's Power score -- and would have no compulsion to answer in the affirmative. It might well be that there in fact is no crowbar. Barring magic, the player has no power to make something appear.

Second, the player in the example in fact did not declare a crowbar's existence but simply asked a question indicating that the character was taking a closer look at the environment. There's a fair chance that a crowbar might be in a tool shed. It would be extraordinary to come across a penguin in the Arctic, or lobster Thermidor in the Gobi Desert.

Keeper's Lore from CoC:

When the keeper sets a scene, his or her most important ally is invisible, one which no scenario-writer ever puts on paper. 'Reasonable deduction' consists of all which is in the room or cavern or aircraft or other physical setting which is not described as being there, but which can logically be inferred as being there.
For instance, the investigators are in the library of the mansion. Specifically mentioned are the many massive bookcases lining the walls, two leather chairs, a desk and chair, and a billiards table. What else might be there?
Books, certainly, and lots of them. Cues, chalk, and billiard balls. Writing material. Paintings on the walls. Lamps and light switches. Windows, maybe lots of windows. Rugs on the floor. A fireplace, and fireplace tools. Lots of odd things in the desk drawers, including scissors, a letter opener, glue, stamps, twine, tape (if it's the right era), and an address book. Matches for the fireplace. Cigars in the humidor. Brandy on the side table.

The night gaunts are not wearing sombreros or galoshes; they are neither skipping rope nor turning cartwheels; they are not carrying kumquats or bananas.

 

[ExploderWizard]

In addition, I can spend an Action Point to gain the benefit of a feat that I don't actually have:



What kind of efforts allow me to spontaneously gain a feat?

Storytelling ones.

And, what kind of effort can allow me to produce a ladder? After all, you allowed that Call of Cthulu is a role playing game, and not a story game. Using CoC rules allows me to change the setting through what are effectively action points. I'm thinking that the effort that would allow me to produce a ladder would really, really hurt.

Already answered but can you not see the difference between wholesale creation and speculation based on the logical environment?

I find it interesting that you would argue that a DM should not be too invested in an NPC, but, you also argued that allowing PC's to change the setting is equivalent to the DM choosing feats for characters.

I was merely pointing out that a DM who becomes too invested in an NPC can easily turn such a character into an annoying DMPC, not that the DM cannot roleplay NPC's.

If the DM is not too invested into the setting, then he shouldn't care if the player alters the NPC in some way that fits within the context of what's happening currently (ie. Adding a dog that eats the diamond). But, if the DM is so invested in the setting that any alteration by the players is seen as a violation of his vision, then shouldn't he be very invested into the NPC's?

The DM should be very invested in the setting. You are confusing fixation on a single NPC with "setting" in this case.

 

[maddman75]

First, that is maddman75's custom, not a rule of CoC entitling a player to declare anything. There are no "action points". The Keeper is not required to use any sort of roll, much less one based on a character's Power score -- and would have no compulsion to answer in the affirmative. It might well be that there in fact is no crowbar. Barring magic, the player has no power to make something appear.

I find it works in practice in a very similar manner. A crowbar is something that might or might not appear in the toolshed, it would be a reasonable thing to appear, but there are no assurances of such. I don't have my books in front of me, but the Luck score is used IIRC to see if something goes the PC's way.

In play, in a Buffy game the player asks if there's a crowbar handy. I'm within my power to say no, there most certainly is not. Normally, I'll say 'there can be for a Drama Point.' In CoC, same thing. I could plainly say no. In practice, I'll say 'I don't know, roll Luck.' This is a common occurance judging from the people I've played CoC with, but of course YMMV.

I still would love to hear a description of a game session that did not involve the creation of a story.

As another point, the presence or absence of metagame mechanics does not encourage or discourage the game to create a better story, it just slightly alters the player's narrative ability. Game with no metagame mechanics at all create just as much of a story as games that are full of them.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I still would love to hear a description of a game session that did not involve the creation of a story.

Creation or narration? I can give you plenty examples of the latter.

 

[maddman75]

Creation or narration? I can give you plenty examples of the latter.

Creation. Are we in agreement that all RPGs create stories?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Creation. Are we in agreement that all RPGs create stories?

I am comfortable with that. Creation of story occurs as a result of play rather than play being driven by the creation of story.

 

[Ariosto]

As another point, the presence or absence of metagame mechanics does not encourage or discourage the game to create a better story, it just slightly alters the player's narrative ability.

This depends, I think, on one's definition of "better". The designers (and many fans) of 4e pretty clearly consider "stories" with as much misfortune (especially sudden PC death) in them as in old D&D unsatisfactory. Reducing the probability of dying from a failed save versus poison from so many chances in 20 to so many in 1000 may make the outcome seem only the more arbitrary.

Mechanisms explicitly directed at "authorial control" can enable participants to avoid such derailing of whatever stories they have in mind. Heroes and villains alike can have "plot protection" to preserve dramatic structure when the dice are heedless of such niceties.

That is simply not a consideration in most games. There is no plot to preserve in Chess, Backgammon or Parcheesi! A historical wargame may constrain players from departing too much from history (using anachronistic tactics, making implausible alliances, refusing the very battle that is the scenario's subject, etc.) -- but it is central to the game concept that the course and outcome are dependent on a combination of player skill and luck.

D&D -- and thereby the whole RPG field -- originated with that same expectation. Finding out not merely how but whether the characters survive and succeed, fail or perish was rather the point of the game! If Ulrica the Unready met a quick and ignominious end, one rolled up a successor and the game continued: an endless game, an ever-emerging story.

The assumption a priori that Ulrica is the heroine of a great saga is a marked departure.

Socialite: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!
Churchill: Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.

We have already established what kind of character Ulrica is, although we may haggle over the scope of her entitlement to survival and success.

In the old game, Ulrica's story was simply whatever happened in play. That might turn out to be an epic tale, a cautionary anecdote, or a mere footnote in the rolls of the dead ("eaten by owls"; "set on fire and drowned"; "petrified and sold as an objet d'art").

 

[Scribble]

The assumption a priori that Ulrica is the heroine of a great saga is a marked departure.

I wouldn't call it a departure from anything- rather more vocal support for a play style that has always existed.