Storytelling vs Roleplaying

[Ariosto]

I cannot change the world through my actions since all of my actions are limited by what the DM will allow.

Baloney, unless your DM is a Predestinarian (in which case it's not really a game). In what most of us call "the real world", all of our actions are limited by what the laws of physics (or the greatest Game Operations Director of all) will allow.

Therefore, by your definition, the DM cannot roleplay.

Not as do the players -- hence the distinction in terms! Beware the DM who slips into such strong role-identification with a monster or NPC, fusing its identity with the DM's in-game omniscience and omnipotence.

 

[Thunderfoot]

Having played RPGs for 31 years, this year - last month, I would say that the problem here is narrow thinking. The ORIGINAL RPG - OD&D - was a rules SUBSET published by TSR to a miniature WARGAME published by Avalon Hill.

So in its inception there was inbreeding betwixt the two, and in the words of EGG, the DM is a narrator, an adversary and a STORYTELLER. (All emphases are mine.)

There are co-operative story-telling games, there are war games and there are RPGs; they are all inbred now a days (to some small extent) with war games having the least significant blending of the three and RPGs having the greatest.

Frankly, if I were playing a RPG and it didn't have elements of all three I'd either switch systems or find a new DM.

 

[Ariosto]

The ORIGINAL RPG - OD&D - was a rules SUBSET published by TSR to a miniature WARGAME published by Avalon Hill.

That's factually false.

 

[Thunderfoot]

That's factually false.

- Ok, you're correct, it was Chainmail, that was written by TSR for use with the Avalon Hill minis game. OD&D was an adaptation. The point still stands.

 

[Ariosto]

Where does Avalon Hill enter the picture, pray tell?

On a more subjective matter, how do you reckon D&D a "subset" of Chainmail rather than an expansion upon it in a notably innovative direction, one wide enough to encompass Chainmail for a subset of its activities?

 

[Hussar]

Baloney, unless your DM is a Predestinarian (in which case it's not really a game). In what most of us call "the real world", all of our actions are limited by what the laws of physics (or the greatest Game Operations Director of all) will allow.

Not as do the players -- hence the distinction in terms! Beware the DM who slips into such strong role-identification with a monster or NPC, fusing its identity with the DM's in-game omniscience and omnipotence.

Really. So your players can invent gunpowder in every D&D game you run? After all, that's totally not breaking laws of physics, nor is it even anachronistic.

As to your second part, I would point out that right there, THAT'S the crux of the issue. You state that there are already two types of roleplaying even within "traditional" roleplaying - the players version and the DM's version. Right off the bat, roleplaying is wider than ExploderWizard's definition.

But, let me go back to the diamond eating dog example.

If I understand you right, if the DM declared (or did it through rolls) that the dog ate the diamond and ran away, everyone at the table would be roleplaying, INCLUDING the DM.

But, if a player declares the exact same chain of events, NO ONE is roleplaying anymore, but rather engaging in storytelling.

Do I have that right?

 

[Ariosto]

Whose role would the DM be "role-playing"? This looks like more of the "straw man" balderdash that seems your stock in trade.

 

[Ariosto]

It could be a bit disheartening that -- after the nonpareil Adventures of Baron Munchhausen -- my top three picks in the field so far are all hybrids, all from the same publisher (Chaosium), and all published some years ago:

Call of Cthulhu
Pendragon
Prince Valiant

This jury, at least, is still out on Dogs in the Vineyard, a fine game that has yet to have the time to stand the test of it.

 

[Samuel Leming]

That is a very good question.

Outside of internet forums, I've never encountered this particular brand of theorising about RPG validity. Or, for that matter, any brand of it whatsoever.

Except for one very temporary group, I've rarely encountered anybody in my 32 years of gaming experience that would disagree with EW's definition of role-playing other than guys posting on Internet forums.

 

[Samuel Leming]

But, in traditional RPG's all of your choices are presented by the GM/DM. You have absolutely no control over anything.

You have control over how your character reacts to whatever situation he finds himself in and often the dice will have more to say about the outcome than the DM.

Following your line of reasoning we have absolutely no control over anything in real life. After all, I can't just add elements to the real world. Not without doing the actual work.