Storytelling vs Roleplaying

[LostSoul]

I don't think Prime Time Adventures ever uses the term "roleplaying game".

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Now, perhaps Obryn and McCrae would be so kind as to share the definition of "role-playing game" that they consider the proper one? If we are to be bound by it, then it would be nice to know what it is!

To me, the most useful definition of an RPG is anything that:

a) self-describes as an RPG in its text or promotional materials.
b) grew out of the RPG tradition without explicitly declaring itself to be a break from same.
c) or is described by representatives of its playerbase as an RPG within the discussion at hand.

c) is the most important. If one person on a thread thinks he's playing an RPG, he's goddamn playing an RPG. Simple as that. Anyone who tells him otherwise or attempts to use an exclusionary definition automatically fails to interface with the discussion, because it DOESN'T MATTER IF THE OBJECTOR IS RIGHT.

All the objector will ever accomplish is to turn discussion and debate into argument. Whereas if the objector chose to interface with the person who says he's playing an RPG, both might advance their games or peacefully conclude they would not enjoy playing at the same table or in the same system.

 

[Ariosto]

MoogleEmpMog: I can dig it.

Just for fun, here's a review originally posted by Mythmere at Knights & Knaves Alehouse:

Hungry Hippos (Hasbro) is a fantasy RPG dating from roughly the same period as AD&D, originally appearing in 1978 (the MM1, first of the AD&D hardcovers, was published in 1977). In a way, Hungry Hippos can be seen as one of the first rebellions against the trend toward "restrictive" rather than "open-ended" fantasy gaming, in that its relatively sparse ruleset harks back to OD&D, although its focus on "official," tournament-like rules is a precursor to exactly the same approach taken by TSR in the introduction of AD&D as a replacement for the free form rules of OD&D.

The game (read-as-written) follows the basic pattern of RPGs common in the 1970s, which is a group of iconic, class-specific characters pursuing treasure in, basically, a "pit." Nevertheless, the game can clearly be used for wilderness-type adventures as well. No rules are provided for aerial combat, but the game's basic resolution system is easily adapted. Some players may argue that extending the game into aerial role-playing lacks realism, but I think it is obvious (IMO) that this is a FANTASY game, people. Look, if you can accept hippos that eat marbles, there's no reason to try and import realism into the question of whether they can fly. Anybody who can't grasp the willing suspension of disbelief required in fantasy role-playing ought to stick to games like Axis & Allies, and get out of the faces of real RPG gamers like those playing Hungry Hippos.

Fans of modern RPG systems may find that the character classes and treasure types available in Hungry Hippos are relatively limited, and may also be turned off by the fact that the rules offer few guidelines or specific rules for the role-playing side of the game. Nevertheless, even though the rules tend to focus on tactics rather than role-playing, Hungry Hippos is fairly resistant to rules-lawyers. The diceless resolution system basically negates the possibility of roll-playing and opens up the full-scale vista of role-playing.

Most games such as D&D, have "modernized," from edition to edition with more and more rules and restrictions in each edition. 4e D&D may retrench in the direction of Hungry Hippos rather than 3e, but we'll have to see. If so, it will certainly be due to the influence of HASBRO over WotC. Hungry Hippos has not basically changed from its original, old-school RPG rules format of 1978.

It should be noted that you can't effectively play the game without the HASBRO miniatures provided. In this sense, HASBRO actually beat WotC into the strategy of mixing miniatures and role-playing by a good 20 years. Frankly, this might have been part of the reason for HASBRO's takeover of WotC - the synergies between HASBRO's existing miniatures-based RPG Hungry Hippos and WotC's ownership of the D&D franchise make it clear that the two companies were on a parallel track.

In summary, although the limited number of character classes and treasure types are a minor flaw in this game, it offers limitless role-playing potential if the players are creative enough to take advantage of the game's minimalist (but highly elegant) roleplaying rules. Those who began roleplaying with 3e, in particular, may have trouble making this leap. HASBRO's role in the creation of 4e may even lead to a fair degree of compatibility between the two games. We will have to see how easily 4e modules can be adapted to Hungry Hippos. I am particularly pleased, although it has little relevance to the actual rules, that Hungry Hippos has so far avoided the "Dungeonpunk" aesthetic of so many recent RPGs. That's just my bias as a crusty old 1e player.

My 2 cents on this wargame/RPG from the old days, which seems (unjustifiably) to have almost no representation at modern RPG conventions, even though it is, in numerical terms, a far bigger seller than D&D 3e.

 

[LostSoul]

My first hippo was named Questor. He died of starvation.

Later on we mixed the two games; we had hungry hippo overlords who feasted relentlessly on the peasants of the setting. I played an elf named Questor II. He died when a hippo ate his face. I wanted to play a hippo but my brother told me Questor was dead and I should stop being such a munchkin.

 

[lutecius]

Such as?

Most of the indie/forge stuff or just any game that allows players to affect the story/gameworld beyond their character's abilities (ie not "making decisions as if you were your avatar")

 

[Obryn]

Most of the indie/forge stuff or just any game that allows players to affect the story/gameworld beyond their character's abilities (ie not "making decisions as if you were your avatar")

That's not an exclusive criterion. I am not saying you can only make decisions from that perspective, only that you can make decisions from that perspective. Otherwise, all metagame mechanics - from TORG's cards to Eberron's Action Points - would make a game a non-RPG. That's pretty much opposite my intent.

In other words, I don't think having somewhat distinct game/narrative layers means you're no longer playing an RPG.

But, like I said, I'm not overly interested in making an exclusive sort of definition here. I don't see a benefit to it.

-O

 

[I'm A Banana]

A role-playing game is any game in which the player takes on the persona of another character (e.g.: "plays a role").

Seems pretty self-evident to me.

Now, it's probably possible to debate whether or not a given game encourages you to take on another persona (Does Hungry Hungry Hippos let your role play as Hungry Hungry Hippos, or are the hippos merely a stylized vessel for lever-mashing), but even if you're not "supposed" to, if you do, you have turned the game into an RPG.

The definition need not be systemic, categorical, or the entirety of the common meaning, but it would seem to me to be at least this much.

 

[Doug McCrae]

A role-playing game is any game in which the player takes on the persona of another character (e.g.: "plays a role").

Seems pretty self-evident to me.

That definition excludes Gygaxian D&D. The player doesn't adopt the persona of another. His goal is to win against the challenges the DM presents, using all his own mental resources and abilities.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I believe Mearls justified the encounter/daily power mechanic as "giving the player more narrative control".

I see those as being more gamist - they present players with interesting resource management or tactical decisions. One could also see them as simulationist, as in a real fight one normally doesn't see the same maneuver employed over and over. However it could be argued that they simulate fictional fights, which are interesting in the same way.

Daily powers I see as being rather anti-story. Fights in fiction have a rhythm to them, they build to a climax in which the hero is in terrible peril until he wins with his biggest baddest uber-move, not an at will power. 4e's daily powers otoh tend to be used at the start of a fight for gamist reasons as they are more effective then.

4e boss fight: BOOM!!! Boom!! Boom!

Fictional fight: Boom! Boom!! BOOM!!!

EDIT: It's true the players have the power to make the fight feel more like a fictional one. Imo they probably won't though due to the competing pressures of gamism.

 

[I'm A Banana]

That definition excludes Gygaxian D&D. The player doesn't adopt the persona of another. His goal is to win against the challenges the DM presents, using all his own mental resources and abilities.

"Gygaxian D&D" was hardly a monolithic, impenetrable playstyle. People role-play in Monopoly, Chess...heck, even Magic the Gathering is a role-playing game to a certain degree, even though it's not very focused on the role-playing aspect of it. The border between "rpg" and "not an rpg" is very porous.

I think Gygaxian D&D probably still qualifies as an RPG for the simple reason that you make and play a character.

You are playing a role: that of your character. Even if you are the one figuring out puzzles and using your own mental abilities, you are using them becuase your character needs them. You're not in a dungeon, your avatar is.