Storytelling vs Roleplaying
- Thread starter ExploderWizard
- Start date
I'm not sure what you mean here. Please explain. In fact, type slowly...
In the meantime, let me reiterate: mechanics like Drama Points represent one method for player/DM collaboration on a scene/encounter/situation. But simple, old-school player requests for more details also represent a form of player/DM collaboration. Every time the DM says 'yes' to a detail they hadn't previous conceived of, the player is de facto the author of that detail. The DM merely stamps it with his little rubber stamp of in-game reality.
LostSoul
Adventurer
I had a post about drama points and pure viking-hat DM authority, but it was eaten by an erb.
There is a difference between spending drama points and asking the DM. Drama points in play make it so that any person who has a drama point can change the game world at any time.
It's hard to get a clear picture of what the game world is like when that's the case, when the game world is in a state of flux.
(It gets worse if the DM sometimes says, "No, don't use that drama point; your idea is cool, I like that." Much worse. It means that anything anyone says at any time could possibly be part of the game world, or not, or maybe they have to spend a drama point.)
edits: I should say this is my personal experience.
There is a difference between spending drama points and asking the DM. Drama points in play make it so that any person who has a drama point can change the game world at any time.
It's hard to get a clear picture of what the game world is like when that's the case, when the game world is in a state of flux.
(It gets worse if the DM sometimes says, "No, don't use that drama point; your idea is cool, I like that." Much worse. It means that anything anyone says at any time could possibly be part of the game world, or not, or maybe they have to spend a drama point.)
edits: I should say this is my personal experience.
Oh sure, you're right. I didn't mean to suggest there weren't only any differences. I just wanted to focus on the similarities between acts of authorship.
This sounds like a bigger problem in theory than in practice. For starters, in practical terms, there's always a paucity of information about the game environment. There simply isn't time for really thorough scene-setting/description, and this lacuna leaves a lot of room for player-authored details.
Then there's the whole interpretation-thing. Aren't our game worlds always in a bit of flux, because we aren't all imagining exactly the same thing, despite our most heroic expository efforts?
I mean, how clear a picture of the game world do we usually get?
Finally, there's good-old wild contrivance and coincidence (both lifelong friends to RPG's and the less-than-believable fictional genres that inspired them). Sure, you might ask precisely where loin-cloth clad Thud the Barbarian pulled the hidden flask of Greek fire from. But do you really want to know? Next you'll be asking why Thud decided to spend the rest of his life camping and looting with three other fellows he met in a tavern one day
.Agreed. Once you explicitly tie narrative authority to a game currency you have to more mindful of how you dole it out. I should say I don't much experience with games that do that.
LostSoul
Adventurer
For me, it sounded cool in theory, but when I tried to put it into practice that's the kind of thing I started running into.
I know that the game world is always going to be different for each player, but when one guy can say, "This is what it's like," it's easier to get a clear picture.
ExploderWizard
Hero
I'm glad this thread is back --and not so I can disagree w/howandwhy again
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.
Your first two points are at odds with each other unless the player is in fact playing a character that is aware that he/she exists in a story world and can identify his/her author.
Are these things gamers are doing at the game? I would say yes probably. Would they be doing all this while roleplaying? Probably not.
My original point wasn't about exclusivity or heavy immersionism. Our sessions are sometimes 50% or more OOC chatter and BS since we only get to play and really see each other every two weeks at best. We are not roleplaying our characters when we start rambling about movies, TV shows, and other non-game related topics but we are engaging at that activity at the table. That doesn't make what we are doing part of roleplaying any more than narration/editing during the action does.
Doug McCrae
Legend
In Spirit of the Century, the GM has right of veto over the spending of 'drama points'. I imagine that type of rule is pretty common in these new-fangled (ie since 1983) player-as-world editor games. As Mallus says, it's really just codifying the method, universal in rpgs, whereby a previously hazy universe is brought more clearly into focus.
Doug McCrae
Legend
You're too hung up on what counts as roleplaying. As you say, the vast majority of what a participant does in a typical rpg session is not, strictly speaking, roleplaying. That really doesn't matter, it's still a roleplaying game, because 'roleplaying game' is the name we give to these weird combinations of improv theatre, wargaming, dice rolling, rules discussion and general BSing sessions. In fact each player is actually an audience member rather than an 'actor' most of the time.
In many ways 'roleplaying game' was a poor name for the activity. But that's irrelevant. The name's stuck and that's what they are called now.
"Just codifying the method, universal in rpgs," glibly dismisses too much, I think.
If the "universal method" is for a player to make a declaration, then the "codification" is of a limit on how many times per session a player can do so. That the GM can reject any such attempt may lead one to wonder what pressing need the limitation on even trying serves.
If the "universal method" is for a player to make a declaration, then the "codification" is of a limit on how many times per session a player can do so. That the GM can reject any such attempt may lead one to wonder what pressing need the limitation on even trying serves.
FireLance
Legend
As I have mentioned before, just as the same person can write a script and act as one of the characters in a play, a person can exercise authorial control over the setting and roleplay a character in a role-playing game. In the case of improvisational theatre, the person may even be doing so on the fly, paying attention both to how the character should be acting, in-character, as well as the broader needs of the narrative. Of course, that is why improv theater is hard to do well, but nonetheless, it can be done.Your first two points are at odds with each other unless the player is in fact playing a character that is aware that he/she exists in a story world and can identify his/her author.
Similar Threads
