Storytelling vs Roleplaying

[Ariosto]

Never mind the rather large number of games out there which rely on players taking interesting, but challenging choices in order to gain later benefits - Spirit of the Century and Sufficiently Advanced both do this. You can succeed right now, but it will cost you later, or you can take some sort of penalty now to have a really great success later. Is that still role playing in your view?

Not when it's "meta-gaming" instead!

 

[ryryguy]

The techniques mentioned above undermine role-identification and shift toward an emphasis on "acting" in the thespian sense. Preservation of the role-identification element was a key original reason for the referee's position: The players' information was limited in accordance with their roles.

That seems to me reason enough to distinguish the hybrid from the traditional RPG. It is not that it is no longer at all an RPG; the significance is in the compromise of that element for the sake of a story-telling element.

What raises red flags, especially in the context of the material in DMG1, and of experience with previous experiments in changing the concept of D&D and of the RPG, is the overall tenor.

Taken too far, the "script" assumption makes a mockery not only of D&D, or even of the RPG, but of the very basic concept of game. At (or preferably before) that point, one might step back and re-assess what is happening with this forcing of square pegs into round holes. One might decide to design a really good story-telling game instead.

Sure, those things could happen. And certainly some games do subordinate role-identification (good term!) to narrative or other mechanics as a matter of course.

Will the optional elements presented in one chapter of the DMG2 push D&D into that territory, to the point where you can no longer call it a "roleplaying game"? Of course not! IMHO, even if a group wholeheartedly embraces every element from the chapter and uses them in every game session, assuming that's not all that they use, you've still got a ways to go before you get to pure, collaborative storytelling.

Are these optional elements "square pegs" which will necessarily undermine role-identification? Obviously not, at least not each and every one of them. Indeed, many of the elements seem like they could enhance roleplaying. For example, the dream sequence example that is presented. Does it undermine role-identification in any way? I can't see how it would.

(Sorry if I'm now contaminating this thread by referring back to the specific DMG2 excerpt, but it is how this discussion got started and still seems relevant.)

 

[coyote6]

Story-telling? Yes, indeed! All the above are standard on stage, radio and screen. Their relationship to "playing the role of my character" in a "game" may pose interesting questions.

Check out Robin Laws' blog; he's posted about his D&D4e game, which has involved the use of some of those items, and he also discusses other topics that are mentioned in the excerpt. They all seem to come from playing roleplaying games.

 

[ExploderWizard]

It seems to me that EW is needlessly re-defining "storytelling" so that he is not engaged in it.

But he is.

As a matter of fact, yes. I have played and run some very story focused games. I don't look at storytelling games as unplayable and worthy of contempt.

I do like a game to represent itself as what it is in spirit. I have run both regular roleplaying and high story games with the GURPS ruleset. The mechanics are neutral with repect to playstyle. The genre, and supplemental material define the tone of a particular game.

Other games, such as D&D are not generic. The mechanics and advice in the rulebooks promote a particular flavor of play. Games with a strong flavor can be better than generic rules such as GURPS or d20 because the operation of the game is so closely tied to the feel and tone of the whole.
When a game shifts focus from a more freeform roleplaying style to a shared story creation style it should be advertised.

If you sit down at a restaurant and order a beef dish and you get served a seafood or chicken dish it's time to inform your waiter that there has been a mistake even if the other dish is also very tasty.

 

[Hussar]

Not when it's "meta-gaming" instead!

So, while players can role play, the Dungeon Master or Referee never can? After all, almost every decision he makes is from a meta-game perspective.

Why does giving players some limited editorial control over the game suddenly make it

no longer at all an RPG; the significance is in the compromise of that element for the sake of a story-telling element.

If DM's can role play, while still making numerous meta-game decisions every session, then why can't players?

Is it different than traditional D&D? Oh sure. Traditional D&D gave absolutely no power to the players, heck, even down to character creation, choosing a class was subject to the whim of the dice. About the only thing you could control as a player was your name.

So, yeah, giving editorial control to the players is different. No one will deny that. What gets people's backs up is this flat statement that anything which deviates from baseline, traditional D&D is no long role play.

 

[Ariosto]

For example, the dream sequence example that is presented. Does it undermine role-identification in any way? I can't see how it would.

Neither do I -- which is why I did not include it among the techniques to which I referred!

[edit] On a second look, I see that a play-acting shift is (in the excerpt) plainer than in the "flashback" entry. Again, it involves experience from a third-person perspective relative to the player's supposed "actual" role.

As I think ExploderWizard observed, though, this is still playing a role of a sort (albeit a very tenuous one, the imagining of an already imaginary character). It is not as if compromising role-identification is utterly unprecedented for other reasons, either. Again, it is the trend of things that raises hairs among those who have already seen what happens when "a story-telling game but not really" goes bad.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Question: Is the following an example of a story-telling game or roleplaying game (as defined by EW):

GM: Okay, you get back to town, buy your supplies, visit family and basically get a few days rest before heading back to the dungeon. Daroth's advances towards the innkeep's daughter he met last session are coming along, she seems quite enthralled with him. Brennis is chastised by Head Preist Ganyon for missing the temple's recognition of one of it's holiest days, but gets away with a slap on the wrist becasue she's helping the town with a larger problem. After a few days of rest, healling and reprovisioning you head back to the forest. On the way, you meet up with a merchant caravan. It's not as heavily guarded as you might expect.

Player 1: I hold my hand up and hail them.

GM: One of the guards advances uneasily, the others tense for a possible ambush. "Hail, strangers." He looks to be wounded, a nasty gash accross his arm that has cut through the mail, staining it with blood.

Player 1: "Are you well? Do you need assistance? You numbers seem small, not the best idea in these parts."

GM: The guard nods. "Attacked by goblins, we were. We drove them off, but they slew a number of my comrades. The nasty creatures are growing bold."

Player 2: I tell him we're on our way to take care of some goblins that have been attacking travellers and ask if their shields had pictures of snarling wolves on them.

GM: The guard pauses, thinking. "No, crossed spears over field of red. They fled to the south and west of the road."

Player 3: "Spears? To the south? The tribe we attemping to disperse live to the north of the main road. Could there be more of them than we thought?"

Player 4: "Are they working together or is it coincidence? We might have to look into this. But first, please allow me to heal your most badly wounded to the best of my ability."

And blah, blah, blah. Anyhoo, what kinda game is that? Especially if the GM allows a player to interject into the story to roleplay her absense from her church to try and appeal for more aid for her comrades, for example?

I guess my point is, can't a game be a somewhere between these extremes? And in fact, aren't all RPGs somewhere in that spectrum, one way or the other? And is it really wrong to call all of them roleplaying games?

(BTW, I agree that Once Upon A Time is not a roleplaying game, and it isn't marketed as such, and I don't really know of very many RPGs that play that way)

Sounds like a fairly typical game session. Does player 2 have some impediment to speaking in the 1st person?

As far as catagorizing roleplaying and story based games the easiest measure is the amount of roleplaying/interaction advice and material vs the amount of staging, scene setting, shared narrative material. Overall beyond having a good time, what is the most prominent feature/play experience presented in both rules and tone? Is it roleplaying a created character in a fictional world or creating shared stories?

 

[Scribble]

Sounds like a fairly typical game session. Does player 2 have some impediment to speaking in the 1st person?

As far as catagorizing roleplaying and story based games the easiest measure is the amount of roleplaying/interaction advice and material vs the amount of staging, scene setting, shared narrative material. Overall beyond having a good time, what is the most prominent feature/play experience presented in both rules and tone? Is it roleplaying a created character in a fictional world or creating shared stories?

Who cares?

I think it's all the same in that statement. Just like a book has both "overall narrative moments," and "real time" moments, so too can a good game session.

Personally I like to make use of just about any method I can to help everyone in my games have fun. If you don't care to use one or another method of playing the game... great that's all you. But you can't really claim one is roleplaying while the other isn't.

I think you're being overly argumentative, and trying to put too specific a name to things that don't need them for the sake of what? Being contrary? I don't know.

It's like when people try to put films or music into genres... at some point you just need to relax a bit.

 

[ExploderWizard]

So, while players can role play, the Dungeon Master or Referee never can? After all, almost every decision he makes is from a meta-game perspective.

Who says the DM can never roleplay? If the DM didn't get to roleplay NPC's and monsters the fun would be sucked right out of the job.

Why does giving players some limited editorial control over the game suddenly make it .

Hold it right there. You just nailed it. Any reference to editorial control from anyone over anything and we are in story territory. In a story game, shared editorial control is fine and works great. In a roleplaying game there is nothing to edit and thus nothing to share.

If DM's can role play, while still making numerous meta-game decisions every session, then why can't players?

They can and do make such decisions, no problem.

Is it different than traditional D&D? Oh sure. Traditional D&D gave absolutely no power to the players, heck, even down to character creation, choosing a class was subject to the whim of the dice. About the only thing you could control as a player was your name.

The complexities of character design over generation is more a matter of desired complexity vs simplicity than any roleplaying concern.

So, yeah, giving editorial control to the players is different. No one will deny that. What gets people's backs up is this flat statement that anything which deviates from baseline, traditional D&D is no long role play.

A statement that isn't being made. A game more concerned with shared stories than roleplaying is no longer D&D no matter what that system might be.

 

[Ariosto]

But you can't really claim one is roleplaying while the other isn't.

One most certainly can! Otherwise, the term is meaningless.