Storytelling vs Roleplaying

[FireLance]

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 .

Plus, there's the time-honored RPG tradition of random tables. Most human DMs would not generate all the monsters in the world beforehand and then constantly monitor their locations relative to the PCs; they would just use random encounter tables or simply decide when the PCs have an encounter. Similarly, most DMs would not create all the NPCs present at a local fair and determine what they have in their pockets in advance just in case a PC thief decides that he wants to go on a pick pocketing spree.

 

[Hussar]

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.

But, typically, it is still only one person who gets to say "This is what it's like" at any given time. It's pretty rare for dueling Drama Points to come up in game. For one thing, it's a limited resource and most people aren't going to waste the points retconning someone else's idea. They might, but, IME, it's not that common.

"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.

There's a few reasons why having a codified method is a good thing. Not that it's necessarily better than not having a codified method mind you. Groups can work perfectly well without it. However, having a codified method does a few things:

• Brings the idea of player authorial control into the forefront. Instead of players passively taking in whatever the GM presents to them, possibly asking for clarification from time to time, it makes the players active participants.
• It allows a new element of gameplay and resource management that many gamers enjoy. Do I spend my Drama Point now or later? How important is this situation to me right now? Again, it can serve to further draw the players into the game.
• It allows the GM far more flexibility as well. The GM is no longer solely responsible for the game. Because the players have the option of altering the game at any given time, the responsiblity for making sure everyone is having a good time gets spread around a bit more.

Again, let me reiterate, none of these things are exclusive to having mechanics in place. The same effects can be gotten without the mechanics, and I don't want anyone to think that I'm claiming that they cannot be. However, having the mechanics in place puts a giant sign out for the players of the game that "this is something you can do, DO IT". It simply emphasizes an element of the game that is present in almost every RPG.

 

[LostSoul]

But, typically, it is still only one person who gets to say "This is what it's like" at any given time. It's pretty rare for dueling Drama Points to come up in game. For one thing, it's a limited resource and most people aren't going to waste the points retconning someone else's idea. They might, but, IME, it's not that common.

We really should talk about experiences with actual play instead of referencing some vague "Drama Point" mechanic.

I'll give you one:

Playing Burning Wheel. BW has -wises, skills which, by some readings, allow players to introduce facts into the fiction outside of their character.

There's also an idea, not supported by the game's text (by my reading), that the DM can "Say yes" to any action a PC takes; this means the PC just succeeds.

Anyway. We end up in this orcish cave. All at once everyone is trying to describe it. "It's big and open." "There's a waterfall." "Sigils of the Red Raven clan are on the walls, showing their history." "This is a sacred cave, where they do their sacrificial orcish rituals."

I'm sitting there having no idea where the hell my PC is, unable to make any decisions because I don't know what's going on.

The reason this came about is because you say something, and if the DM doesn't object he just says "Yes". Since this applies to facts about the game world, anything anyone said had just as much weight as anyone else.

After that session I made sure that we would have to ask the DM about the game world, and frame any attempt at using a -wise skill as an in-character action.

We could have rolled the dice to resolve who gets to say what, but - since it's a player level thing, a social thing, how can the dice resolve that? I'm saying "Dude, I don't like that." He says, "Well, let's roll and see who gets it." That has nothing to do with in-character stuff, it's just two people rolling dice to see who gets their way.

I don't think that's good for any game.

Check out story-games for more about this. Here's a link: Story Games for Everybody - Role-playing Characters vs. Authoring Characters

 

[Hussar]

Honestly LS, I would peg that more as a table issue than a game issue. If everyone is constantly trying to sort of "one-up" the next guy, then this is perhaps not the game for them. I would suggest sitting down and working out how this sort of thing is expected to go, at least at a basic level, before play even starts.

But, yes, I can see how this could be an issue in a game.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

You are correct that such a thing can be done. The one condition that makes this possible is that the character is aware of his/her status as an element in a story and makes use of such knowledge when exercising editorial control. While this can be workable, it would make the roleplaying experience less appealing for some.

 

[FireLance]

You are correct that such a thing can be done. The one condition that makes this possible is that the character is aware of his/her status as an element in a story and makes use of such knowledge when exercising editorial control. While this can be workable, it would make the roleplaying experience less appealing for some.

No, the character does not have to be aware, although the player may have to work harder at separating what he knows as the character from what he knows as a scriptwriter. It is similar to how an author can write about a character in a novel and describe his thoughts and actions from his limited viewpoint without needing to make him aware of his status as an element in a story.

 

[ExploderWizard]

No, the character does not have to be aware, although the player may have to work harder at separating what he knows as the character from what he knows as a scriptwriter. It is similar to how an author can write about a character in a novel and describe his thoughts and actions from his limited viewpoint without needing to make him aware of his status as an element in a story.

If the character is unaware of the scriptwriting taking place then the player has stepped outside the character role to assume the role of author and has stopped roleplaying the character. If the player is still roleplaying the character while this takes place then the character would in fact be aware of it.

 

[FireLance]

If the character is unaware of the scriptwriting taking place then the player has stepped outside the character role to assume the role of author and has stopped roleplaying the character. If the player is still roleplaying the character while this takes place then the character would in fact be aware of it.

Well, as long as we agree that even though the player as scriptwriter has declared that a dog wanders onto the scene, he is still roleplaying when he describes how his character is surprised by the dog, I'm happy.

 

[Ariosto]

Well, as long as we agree that even though the player as scriptwriter has declared that a dog wanders onto the scene, he is still roleplaying when he describes how his character is surprised by the dog, I'm happy.

That's not role-playing in the sense that was important enough to identify "role-playing games" in the first place. It's an affectation of the sort one could adopt in any game.

There's a problem with a happiness dependent on others' conformance with such redefinition. It's one thing to allow that an RPG can include things other than role-playing in the critical sense. To call some other ingredient actually the same -- like calling oil "milk" in an alleged dairy product -- opens the way for complete replacement.

That is too much.

 

[Mallus]

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.

Not at all. Writers both create and inhabit their characters all the time. That in no way requires their characters to have an awareness of the author. So too with role-playing gamers.

There's really no need for "Six Characters in Search of a Dungeon Master".

Are these things gamers are doing at the game? I would say yes probably.

Go out a limb and say 'yes' !

Would they be doing all this while roleplaying? Probably not.

To be honest, I'm just not interested in a definition of role-playing that forces me to discount a significant amount of character-related activity at the table. Though I will grant you Dorito comsumption and Python references aren't role-playing.