Storytelling vs Roleplaying

[ExploderWizard]

But, in traditional RPG's all of your choices are presented by the GM/DM. You have absolutely no control over anything. If I choose to have my character go over that hill, it is entirely up to the DM to decide if there is anything to do on the other side of that hill. At no point, in a traditional RPG, can I have any impact on what I will find on the other side of that hill. Thus, as a player, all of my choices are passive. Or rather, at best they are reactions to whatever the DM presents me with, which is exactly the same thing.

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

Now, I do 100% agree that this is one style of roleplaying. Certainly. But, it is passive/reaction roleplay. I have no options for changing anything other than whatever levers and buttons my character can push. And every single one of those levers or buttons must be given the tacit or explicit approval of the DM.

Therefore, by your definition, the DM cannot roleplay. After all, he is doing EXACTLY what the players are doing in my scenario all the time. He is changing the scene and the setting to suit his own purposes (presumably to make the game more interesting). Exactly what the players in SotC are doing.

So, if the DM is roleplaying, why am I suddenly not roleplaying for doing the exact same thing?

In your example of roleplaying, what exactly do the actions of the characters mean to someone in thier role?

The examples you gave represented a mechanical means by which a player contributes to the group story. If the given role of the player is co-author of general world events then that role is quite different than the role of someone living in that world. This is an example of storytelling from the perspective of various players who are all co-creators of the universe.

Ariosto touched on an important part about the DM roleplaying. While portraying the persona of an NPC, the DM needs to take care to portray that persona faithfully. This means that big dumb creatures should act appropriately for thier intelligence level.

If a player feels limited by the range of available options because such options do not include influence over the world beyond what the character is personally capable of then the player is simply not satisfied with being a player.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Actually, I believe that I DID say that the only thing you could do was react, so, we're in complete agreement. However, that was my point and why I was disagreeing with Ariosto.

In traditional RPG's, you cannot even go to the privy without the DM's say so. After all, is the door locked? Is the privy clean? Is there someone inside? You don't know. Heck, you cannot even claim that there is a privy nearby since any time a player makes any sort of editorial claim on the setting, he's no longer role playing according to Ariosto and EW.

That's my point. Now, I'm not saying that that's not roleplaying. It certainly is. My point is, why is it roleplaying when the DM declares there is a privy in the courtyard, but not roleplaying when the player does it?

Ariosto - that's getting very, very tired. Just because you fail to be able to come up with a legitimate argument to back up your point, don't point at me for misunderstanding or strawmen. What role is the DM playing? Well, let's see, there would be the people in the bar who are now looking for the dog, there would still be the people the players stole the diamond from in the first place and there would be, of course, the dog itself. I'd say the DM has a rather large selection of roles to choose from.

Yet, in your claim, if the DM sets up the situation, then everyone is playing a roleplaying game. If, on the other hand, the player sets up the situation, suddenly no one is playing a roleplaying game, but rather they are playing a story game.

Never mind that the situation, the characters, the events are all exactly the same. The only difference between the two setups is who decided the dog ate the diamond. That is the single, solitary difference, but apparently, that difference is what divides a role playing game from a story game.

What I really don't understand is what is being gained here by defining the terms in such very limited scope. The entire point of defining terms is to aid understanding. But, splitting off a significant portion of RPG's from the term roleplaying simply because they include mechanics that allow the players to have editorial control seems very strange to me. It doesn't help anything. It certainly doesn't aid in understanding.

Thinking about it, how many games do have some sort of Action Point, Fate point, whatever mechanic? D&D 3.5 can if you use Unearthed Arcana. Going back in time a ways to the mid 80's, I know the 007 RPG also allowed you to burn action points to change the scene. It's been around for a very, very long time. Why divorce a significant portion of the hobby from what the hobby is about? What do you gain?

 

[ExploderWizard]

That's my point. Now, I'm not saying that that's not roleplaying. It certainly is. My point is, why is it roleplaying when the DM declares there is a privy in the courtyard, but not roleplaying when the player does it?

This is a key point. When a player decides to change the world in some way outside the means of his/her role, the role changes from that of character X to story writer/editor. Using your example if the player were playing a mage character that could create matter then yes, it would be possible to insert a privy without stepping out of the character role.

Yet, in your claim, if the DM sets up the situation, then everyone is playing a roleplaying game. If, on the other hand, the player sets up the situation, suddenly no one is playing a roleplaying game, but rather they are playing a story game.

Yes. If a player creates a situation outside of the chosen character role then the player's role changes to story editor.

Never mind that the situation, the characters, the events are all exactly the same. The only difference between the two setups is who decided the dog ate the diamond. That is the single, solitary difference, but apparently, that difference is what divides a role playing game from a story game. ?

By George I think you've got it.

What I really don't understand is what is being gained here by defining the terms in such very limited scope. The entire point of defining terms is to aid understanding. But, splitting off a significant portion of RPG's from the term roleplaying simply because they include mechanics that allow the players to have editorial control seems very strange to me. It doesn't help anything. It certainly doesn't aid in understanding.

Thinking about it, how many games do have some sort of Action Point, Fate point, whatever mechanic? D&D 3.5 can if you use Unearthed Arcana. Going back in time a ways to the mid 80's, I know the 007 RPG also allowed you to burn action points to change the scene. It's been around for a very, very long time. Why divorce a significant portion of the hobby from what the hobby is about? What do you gain?

What is gained is clarity of purpose. To know up front what type of play experience a given game seeks to deliver is valuable knowledge.

 

[Doug McCrae]

The primary goal of a wargame is to fight, thus a wargame.
The primary goal of a roleplaying game is to roleplay, thus a roleplaying game.
The primary goal of a storytelling game is to create/tell stories.

This gets it badly wrong, imo.

Describing D&D, the 3.5 PHB says "It's part acting, part storytelling, part social interaction, part war game, and part dice rolling."

The second definition is much closer to the mark because it hits on a key aspect of rpgs - that they are a blend of elements. A group that spend 80% of the time in combat, for whom combat is a major draw, are still playing an rpg, not a wargame, because that 20% of setup and plot and roleplaying or whatever is very, very necessary.

For most, maybe all, rpgers, there isn't a "primary goal" at all. There are a variety of essential features.

 

[Doug McCrae]

"Passively consuming a plot" is most emphatically not what traditional RPGs -- especially old D&D -- are about! One effects changes in the world just as one does in playing one's real-life role: through one's choice of actions.

I don't like railroaded games either, but some people do, and they are still roleplaying games. Don't say they are not rpgs, say they are bad rpgs, or, better still, not to your taste.

How Gary ran his Greyhawk campaign is, frankly, pretty irrelevant these days.

 

[FireLance]

Now that I've had some time to think about it, I do see that there can be tension between roleplaying and storytelling (or storywriting) in D&D, just as there can be tension between roleplaying and combat effectiveness, or for that matter, between combat effectiveness and storytelling/writing. This is because a game of D&D typically involves all three (and possibly more) activities.

My main disagreement with ExploderWizard is that he seems to be saying that a player can only be a participant in the roleplaying game portion of D&D, whereas I am of the view that a player can also participate in the storytelling/writing portion of D&D. He may not necessarily be roleplaying when he is storytelling/writing (e.g. if he inserts an element into the narrative that his character would not have control over) but that does not mean he is not roleplaying when he goes back to describing his character's actions. Just as one person can take on two separate roles in a play or movie, say, both as a scriptwriter for the production and as an actor portraying one of the characters, one player can both roleplay a character and participate in the storytelling/writing portion.

And to go back to the original point of the discussion, if it is reasonable for a DMG to give the DM advice on how to manage the combat effectiveness portion of D&D, it is equally reasonable for a DMG to give the DM advice on how to manage the storytelling/writing aspect of the game.

 

[Doug McCrae]

We do need to distinguish between playing in a roleplaying game, and roleplaying. The two activities are not at all the same. Setting aside the GM's experiences for the moment and thinking purely about what one does as a player, is one actually roleplaying most of the time? I would say no. In a 'typical' rpg most of the mental effort of the players is spent on overcoming challenges. They are not really playing a role, they are using their own ingenuity, knowledge and so forth to solve problems. There are a wide variety of problems to solve of course - fast talking a guard, cracking a dungeon, finding a trap, figuring out the best spell to cast, solving a murder mystery, solving a riddle or logic puzzle, pondering where to move your mini. It doesn't really matter, though, none of that is roleplaying, because the player is thinking as a player. It is, however, all part of playing in a roleplaying game.

Then there are all the other activities - social chit chat, digressions about movies, looking up the rules, talking about the rules, debating what the rules ought to be, discussing what's 'realistic' and so forth.

How much 'roleplaying' really goes on in the average roleplaying game?

 

[nightwyrm]

If a player exerting editorial control over the game world is not roleplaying, then I guess the player writing up a background for his character isn't roleplaying either. Coz, you know, that's editorial/narrative control in a sense too.

I DM a tactical wargame tied together by story elements and PC input. Call it what you will, but we're having fun.

 

[ExploderWizard]

For most, maybe all, rpgers, there isn't a "primary goal" at all. There are a variety of essential features.

The primary goal is what (besides a good time) the participants want most out of the game.

Now that I've had some time to think about it, I do see that there can be tension between roleplaying and storytelling (or storywriting) in D&D, just as there can be tension between roleplaying and combat effectiveness, or for that matter, between combat effectiveness and storytelling/writing. This is because a game of D&D typically involves all three (and possibly more) activities.

My main disagreement with ExploderWizard is that he seems to be saying that a player can only be a participant in the roleplaying game portion of D&D, whereas I am of the view that a player can also participate in the storytelling/writing portion of D&D. He may not necessarily be roleplaying when he is storytelling/writing (e.g. if he inserts an element into the narrative that his character would not have control over) but that does not mean he is not roleplaying when he goes back to describing his character's actions. Just as one person can take on two separate roles in a play or movie, say, both as a scriptwriter for the production and as an actor portraying one of the characters, one player can both roleplay a character and participate in the storytelling/writing portion.

And to go back to the original point of the discussion, if it is reasonable for a DMG to give the DM advice on how to manage the combat effectiveness portion of D&D, it is equally reasonable for a DMG to give the DM advice on how to manage the storytelling/writing aspect of the game.

If the role of storyteller/editor is distributed among the group then there really isn't a need for a player to play just one character at a game session. The DM and players can just share the actions of all the characters and contribute to the story where appropriate.

I don't think that would go over very well with some players. Part of the appeal of roleplaying is identifying with a character, making it your own, and playing that role on a semi-continual basis. Without a sense of ownership of that character the energy and interest in playing that character just wouldn't be there.

The players have good cause to complain when the DM tries to control/make decisions for thier characters. A DM should never do this.

The DM does not have a character to identify with. The world apart from the PC's is the DM's "character". Is it really fair to say that the players have a right to jump in and make decisions for the DM's "character" but take offense if the DM does likewise?

 

[Hussar]

I don't like railroaded games either, but some people do, and they are still roleplaying games. Don't say they are not rpgs, say they are bad rpgs, or, better still, not to your taste.

How Gary ran his Greyhawk campaign is, frankly, pretty irrelevant these days.

But, that's not what I said.

When you are a player, if you cannot, at any point in time, exert any editorial control over the setting without the game stopping being a role playing game and turning into a story telling game, then you are forced to be a passive consumer. You can't be anything else.

If you cannot even go to the bathroom without the DM's explicit consent, then how can you possibly have any real freedom of actions? In EW and Ariosto's definition of a role playing game, where the player may not, at any time, change the setting, the player cannot perform any action without the DM's say so.

Try this as a thought experiment. Can a player in EW's definition of a role playing game enter a room without a DM present? I don't think so. He cannot say whether the door is locked or not. He cannot even determine that the room is there in the first place.

Even the wizard who can create matter can only do so with the DM's explicit approval. After all, how did I get spell components? How did I get the spell in the first place?

Now, in EW's view, so long as the DM has absolute control over everything in the game world, and the players can only react to his descriptions, then we are all playing a role playing game.

To me, that's a tad restrictive.

While it's true I may not be actively role playing when exercising editorial control (although, if you look back at my diamond eating dog example, that's a REALLY fine hair to split - I'm switching back and forth in the same lines sometimes), I would not say that any game that allows players to have editorial control over the game is no longer a role playing game.

Heck, like I said, 3e as Action Points. Exploder Wizard, is it your contention that anyone playing in Eberron in 3e is no longer engaging in a role playing game? That Eberron turns 3e D&D into a story writing game? After all Eberron explicitly allows players to have some editorial control through Action Points. They can decide not to fail a roll at almost any time, they can jump farther, attack more, retain cast spells, and IIRC even effect small changes in the scene. Does that mean if I'm playing in Eberron I'm no longer playing a role playing game?

This is why I'm having such a hard time with EW's definition. It's far and away too restrictive.