Storytelling vs Roleplaying

[FireLance]

D&D did not come from fire drills.

On the other hand, "evacuate the burning inn" seems like it could make a pretty cool hot interesting skill challenge.

 

[Hussar]

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

EW. I know you're moving on, but there were two final points I just wanted to make that have been sticking in my brain. The first is related to the thread itself.

Earlier, upthread, you sounded somewhat disappointed that RPG's no longer strongly support player skill challenges (4e terminology notwithstanding ) I'm a little surprised by that to be honest. After all, unless your character knows that he is being played by a 21st century individual in our world, he couldn't actually solve a player challenge. A player challenge is a meta-game challenge. It requires player knowledge in order to be resolved. Thus, by your definition of role playing, wouldn't a game which favors player skill challenges actually not be a role playing game? Since player skill challenges require the player to step outside of his defined role, aren't they in the same category as player editorial control? And, if not, why not?

The second point has to do with an ongoing current in this thread that I'd like to address. Throughout this thread, despite the fact that we have disagreed on pretty much every point, sometimes quite strongly, you have consistently argued against my points and not against me. That is a very, very refreshing thing to be honest. It is nice to see posters who can check their ego at the door, be passionate about something they believe in, but not feel they have to rely on silly buggers semantic tricks or playing stupid games and pretending not to understand a point, over and over again.

It's a true breath of fresh air and I really thank you for that. It's a shame that more posters appear to be incapable of discussing the issue and not the person.

Well done you sir.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

After all, unless your character knows that he is being played by a 21st century individual in our world, he couldn't actually solve a player challenge.

Maybe I have the wrong idea on what a "player skill challenge" is, but solving a puzzle, looking at a trap in the right place, finding the right lever to push, or deciding not to go through the forest with the Ancient Green Wyrm don't require 21st century individuals.

On the other hand, worms that eat your brain out when you're listening at doors are clearly challenges that can't be solved by 21st century individuals if there aren't rules about knowing such monsters exist. Since they sure don't exist in our world and we'd had no clue that this could be a reasonable thing to worry about.

The less the 21st century people knows on how something in the fantasy world might work, the more you need the rules to help you resolve a situation.

 

[ExploderWizard]

EW. I know you're moving on, but there were two final points I just wanted to make that have been sticking in my brain. The first is related to the thread itself.

Earlier, upthread, you sounded somewhat disappointed that RPG's no longer strongly support player skill challenges (4e terminology notwithstanding ) I'm a little surprised by that to be honest. After all, unless your character knows that he is being played by a 21st century individual in our world, he couldn't actually solve a player challenge. A player challenge is a meta-game challenge. It requires player knowledge in order to be resolved. Thus, by your definition of role playing, wouldn't a game which favors player skill challenges actually not be a role playing game? Since player skill challenges require the player to step outside of his defined role, aren't they in the same category as player editorial control? And, if not, why not?

Player knowledge would be things that the character wouldn't know or have any frame of reference for. I prefer in-game challenges that are approachable by both the player and the character. A numerical puzzle fits the bill but a riddle requiring obscure rock song lyric knowledge would not. The general challenge for the player is in decision making and strategic resource management, both of which have a frame of reference for the character.

The second point has to do with an ongoing current in this thread that I'd like to address. Throughout this thread, despite the fact that we have disagreed on pretty much every point, sometimes quite strongly, you have consistently argued against my points and not against me. That is a very, very refreshing thing to be honest. It is nice to see posters who can check their ego at the door, be passionate about something they believe in, but not feel they have to rely on silly buggers semantic tricks or playing stupid games and pretending not to understand a point, over and over again.

It's a true breath of fresh air and I really thank you for that. It's a shame that more posters appear to be incapable of discussing the issue and not the person.

Well done you sir.

A mere disagreement on gaming terminology and classification of approaches to playing are a poor excuse for hurling insults. You are very welcome.

 

[Hussar]

Damn, I must spread points around before giving to EW again.

I was thinking more about number puzzles and the like - anachronistic puzzles, rather than something like ear seekers.

Are ear seekers in doors a player skill challenge? I suppose - knowing enough to use listening cones and the like. I wasn't actually thinking that way, but, Mustrum, you are exactly right.

I was thinking more along the lines of Chess puzzles, or inserting coins into slots to open doors (would someone really get the idea of a vending machine without modern knowledge?) - that sort of thing. BTW, I realize that chess isn't exactly anachronistic, but, there are a couple of things to think about there: first, why would chess exist in a fantasy world with modern rules? After all, 11th century chess is considerably different from what we play today.

 

[Mallus]

I'm glad this thread is back --and not so I can disagree w/howandwhy again . I kept meaning to post my every-so-pithy description of role-playing.

While role-playing, you...

... are your character.

... are the author of your character.

... are a moving a playing piece around a game board.

These three things make up role-playing. Which is to say, these are the three things that I've noticed role-playing gamers doing over the past 25 years or so. Sure, some people enjoy and emphasize one aspect over another, but rarely to the exclusion of the other two.

Most role-playing gamers fluidly shift between these stances --forgive me Father, for I have used a Forge term-- during the course of a session. So you could say D&D is a game about role-identification, role-authorship (ie storytelling), and a wargame. Seeing as that's something of a mouthful, it's probably simpler just to call D&D a role-playing game, and leave terms like 'storygame' for things like the Baron Munchhausen game, where the premise of game involves your in-game avatars literally sitting around telling stories, rather than guiding avatars through the events that make up the story in more-or-less real time.

 

[Ariosto]

It was formerly quite common to bring in players' knowledge. Anagram names suggest the relationship between player and persona, and puns and literary references obviously depend on players' familiarity to "get".

The key distinction here is that between what's in the player's mind and what's in the character's shoes. The player might know about something, but that doesn't necessarily mean the character can just make it appear -- any more than could the player.

Writing up a program that effectively "plays" the character certainly yields more theatrical consistency. The further one codifies things, reducing the players' role in deciding them to that of dice-rollers, the less they are really playing a game and the more they are doing the job of actors.

The game aspect once was more favored, role-playing having more to do with imagining oneself in the place of one's elf. Nowadays, the vogue is more for imagining oneself as the character; the "story-telling" shift puts the emphasis on portraying the character. These are not absolutes but points on a spectrum.

 

[ST]

I don't think anybody can hassle you for using the Stance terms, Mallus, you're right that they actually do describe real things that real people do during games. That alone means they're not just theory.

I agree that most play has a mix of those stances, and in most of our campaigns I've seen a pretty wide mix in how they get used without it seeming jarring or incompatible. Although if a "full immersionist" or whatnot was sitting in, they'd probably label a large portion of our gameplay as OOC chatter because we end up pretty seamlessly moving from "playing out the scene" to "talking about the scene".

 

[Mallus]

It was formerly quite common to bring in players' knowledge. Anagram names suggest the relationship between player and persona, and puns and literary references obviously depend on players' familiarity to "get".

It still is common in my games. For example, I named an NPC 'Mephisophocles' and a group of Hawaiian-Viking hybrids the 'Polynietzschians' . My players find things like that pretty amusing.

The player might know about something, but that doesn't necessarily mean the character can just make it appear -- any more than could the player.

re: making stuff appear.

Let's say a player asks the DM if there's a ladder in a room (or a wagon in the town square, or a voluptuous trollop in an alleyway, etc.) Any request for more detail works. Prior, the DM hadn't considered it. But once the player asks, the DM decides 'yes there is'.

Did the player make the ladder/wagon/voluptuous trollop appear? After all, it was the player's idea, which was then ratified into fictional existence by the DM. This sure as hell looks like collaborative storytelling to me. It also looks like an integral part of every role-playing game I've ever encountered.

I guess I don't really see the significant difference between:

[player] "Is there a ladder?"
[DM] "Hmm, now that you mention it, yes"

and

[player]"I spend a Drama Point to make a ladder."
[DM]"OK, there's a ladder".

The former is a pure negotiation between player and DM, the latter occurs under a mechanical framework, like D&D combat. The result, however, is the same; the collaboration on a fictional event.

 

[Mallus]

I agree that most play has a mix of those stances, and in most of our campaigns I've seen a pretty wide mix in how they get used without it seeming jarring or incompatible. Although if a "full immersionist" or whatnot was sitting in, they'd probably label a large portion of our gameplay as OOC chatter because we end up pretty seamlessly moving from "playing out the scene" to "talking about the scene".

This sounds exactly like how my group plays. Come to think of it, it's how the majority of groups I've been in played. And by 'majority' I mean 'all'.

And on the subject of 'full immersionists', much like the proverbial atheist-in-a-foxhole, no-one's a 'full immersionist' when they roll a natural 20! At that point the gamers I know look more like gamblers who just won at the craps table.