Storytelling vs Roleplaying

[ST]

In terms of what's "real" in the imagined game world, I'm gonna take a crack at how I see this playing out.

So, everybody's imagining this fictional place where the events of the game are occurring. This might be as simple as how when you read a book you're following along with who's what, or it might be a full blown "immersion" where you're focusing on imagining your character, and only thinking about world stuff as they directly interact with it.

One school of thought might say that the "real" version of the imagined game world is in the GM's head. The GM tells you stuff, and that goes into your own version of the imagined game world, the one that's about your PC.

Another school of thought might say that the "real" version of the imagined game world is the shared one. What? A "shared imagined world"? Well, if you have a conversation with five people about a funny thing that happened yesterday, bam, that's also a shared imagined situation, so the whole idea of "this imaginary thing exists in all our heads simultaneously" isn't that weird.

The shared version basically says that the fancy, detailed version of the game world in the GM's head is the potential game world. There's all this stuff he has planned and prepped. But until it's shared, and the whole group is aware of it, none of it actually exists.

So really I think it boils down to where you think of the "game world" as residing. I personally think of it being the "shared imagined world", because that's the one everybody has access to.

 

[ST]

(double post)

 

[Scribble]

The player skill at playing a 4e "skill challenge" is different from the player skill at dealing with other kinds of challenges.

Yes... There's no difference of opinion there. It's just another part of the game players can gain proficiency at handling, and DMs can use to challenge the players.

 

[ExploderWizard]

No, I really can't. You're telling me that the appearance of a dog in the street in a fantasy town is somehow wholesale creation and far less likely than the appearance of a crowbar (thanks for the clarification Ariosto - was going by memory) in a shed?

The issue is not one about the perceived rarity of dogs or crowbars. The difference is the method of implementation for the addition of either one.

The crowbar example was a query, and one that the character might have that is voiced by the player. Asking "hey what are the odds of a crowbar being in a shed around here?" is a question posed by a player while still within the role of the character in need of a crowbar.

IIRC your dog example was not a query and there was no consideration given to possibility that there might not be a dog in the vicinity. The statement that a dog had actually eaten the diamond was true and awarded the player an in-game resource for this particular edit of the ongoing story. The event happened from the perspective of editorial control outside of the role of the poor as dirt character. The decision was made for purpose of telling an entertaining story. Because of this, such a decision is from outside the role unless the poor as dirt character knows that he/she is a character in a story and is acting accordingly.

But, in either case, the player is trying to dictate setting elements that were not there. The GM did not put a crowbar there, nor did he add in the dog. Neither examples though are beyond belief. A dog in a fantasy town? Come on, be honest here. That's easily as believable as finding a crowbar in a shed.

Again, I am not making any comparative observations about the likelihood of either occurance.

Again, you're taking this to a far extreme. I agree that if the players can dictate every single facet whenever they please, then yeah, that's probably not a role playing game. Or at the very least, it's pretty far left field. But, no game actually works like that. (or again, very few do) Most games allow you to make limited changes based on the genre (such as 007's Action Points which allow you to add in features that fit with the feel of the Bond movies) a limited number of times.

It's a resource, same as anything else.

Yes, and those resources are used for storytelling.

Why I don't buy into this:

1. It defines role playing too narrowly. It allows games like Hungry Hungry Hippos to be considered role playing games while excluding games like Spirit of the Century.

Actuality can sometimes hit like a Mack Truck.

2. It ignores the fact that almost no rpg out there does not have some mechanism for a character to affect the setting. For example, many games have Flaw mechanics of some sort. Within those Flaw mechanics, you typically have an Enemy (again of some sort) Flaw. If I take that, I, as the player, have now affected the setting by adding in an enemy that was not developed through play.

Who claimed that characters affecting the setting made it NOT an rpg?

3. There already exists perfectly good definitions of Role Playing Game which include pretty much everything that gamers consider to be rpg's. There's nothing wrong with sub-dividing the RPG into various types. That's fine. But, I do not see the value in promoting a single type of RPG over all others. It does nothing to clarify discussion.

Perfectly good is a relative term.

 

[Ariosto]

EW, I think there's pretty strong agreement that acting in character is necessary. Disagreement over whether it's sufficient could further muddy debates. However, anything approaching "zero tolerance" for acting out of character looks only to prolong futile argument (in the emotionally charged sense).

People will go round and round with specious comparisons and slippery slopes, often enough trying (as obviously a non-starter as it may seem) to convince you that one thing is just like another.

The issue of labeling games is so loaded that it can only get in the way of discussing the effects of different processes and experiences, and how game design and presentation shape those.

 

[ExploderWizard]

EW, I think there's pretty strong agreement that acting in character is necessary. Disagreement over whether it's sufficient could further muddy debates. However, anything approaching "zero tolerance" for acting out of character looks only to prolong futile argument (in the emotionally charged sense).

People will go round and round with specious comparisons and slippery slopes, often enough trying (as obviously a non-starter as it may seem) to convince you that one thing is just like another.

The issue of labeling games is so loaded that it can only get in the way of discussing the effects of different processes and experiences, and how game design and presentation shape those.

Yes. I am growing tired of this. It's time to discuss other topics.

 

[Doug McCrae]

The issue of labeling games is so loaded that it can only get in the way of discussing the effects of different processes and experiences, and how game design and presentation shape those.

Agreed. Especially when you use the wrong labels.

There's an interesting discussion to be had about the 'new' (ie since 1983) mechanics that allow players to control features of the game universe other than their PC. There's an interesting discussion to be had about storytelling, and whether it has any relationship to these mechanics.

ExploderWizard's emphasis on misusing accepted terminology, ironically in the interests of greater clarity, serves only to obscure such a discussion.

 

[howandwhy99]

IMO, most traditional roleplaying games have nothing to do with acting "in character" and have never been about that kind of roleplaying. Pretending to be someone you are not is well documented as being completely unnecessary for roleplaying. Nor has ever been so. Check any science book on the subject. Fire drills are roleplaying, football preseason scrimmage games are roleplaying, playing capture the flag is legitimately roleplaying. No one is saying "What would my character do?" in these games and it isn't necessary to in most hobby RPGs either.

Trying to make it necessary is a good thing. Trying to say it is a necessary condition to qualify as a roleplaying game actually excludes by definition almost every RPG ever created in the hobby.

The difficulty about defining what is an RPG comes about when trying to define the terms like Game, Story, and Roleplaying. By strict definition every game is a story game and every game is a roleplaying game. It's impossible not to tell a story in a game in a similar way to how it is impossible not to play a role in a game. Games have rules and by defining them you've defined the role for the participants to play. Not that it is any easier to define what is a game and isn't compared to other activities in life. Making up rules and following them is as fundamental an aspect of human nature as telling stories is.

I know many people's current agenda is to redefine the hobby with either character exploration or storytelling as the "one true objective" of RPGs. Neither were ever the actual focus of most designs (often whether the designers knew this or not). If the aforementioned redefinition ever were the case, then the first 30 years of RPG game design were an abject failure, populated by "the bitterest players in the world". It's pretty clear to me that is simply not the kind of roleplaying those games were meant to deliver.

Has the hobby shifted towared players desiring character exploration and "telling a story about my character"? I'd certainly say so, but any history of the hobby could never accurately claim either was the result, nor original intention, of early RPG designs.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Oh dear, it's that tmie again.

Speaking of 'agendas'. . . *snort*

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

IMO, most traditional roleplaying games have nothing to do with acting "in character" and have never been about that kind of roleplaying. Pretending to be someone you are not is well documented as being completely unnecessary for roleplaying. Nor has ever been so. Check any science book on the subject. Fire drills are roleplaying, football preseason scrimmage games are roleplaying, playing capture the flag is legitimately roleplaying. No one is saying "What would my character do?" in these games and it isn't necessary to in most hobby RPGs either.

D&D did not come from fire drills.