Telling a Story vs. Having Fun

[Odhanan]

"Telling a Story" isn't the opposite of "having fun". You can have fun telling a story or listening to one. But Role-playing games are not about "telling a story". RPGs about playing out actual events (which means no player, including the DM, knows the outcome of such events. The DM's factions, locations, NPCs etc react to the action of the PCs, and the DM should not expect any precise outcome, else the DM will feel frustrated sooner or later,tempted to railroad, fudge and so on. RPG adventures cannot be built using solely the structures and logics of literary works and other media. That's doing a disservice to the peculiarity of RPGs).

That said, RPGs are about (i.e. I voted) having fun. If I want to tell a story, I do some (real) storytelling or I write a novel.

 

[Psion]

That said, RPGs are about (i.e. I voted) having fun. If I want to tell a story, I do some (real) storytelling or I write a novel.

Though I get where you are going here, I think you may be putting a bit too fine a point on what "telling a story" constitutes.

When I am to "tell a story" in the context of an RPG, I am not just telling the players a story. I am creating a scenario that I think will resonate with the players/characters involved and be interesting and engaging to the players. There is not really a "story" per se until the game is done, but when the Robin Laws test pegs me as a "storyteller", that's where I am coming from.

 

[Menexenus]

The OP is asking what is at the heart of a role-playing game? What is it essentially? Well, since it is a "game," it stands to reason that having fun is the point of the enterprise. However, could one have fun without telling a story and still call it a role-playing game? I guess it depends on what you mean by "story". There are one-shot role-playing games where players are handed pre-generated characters, and the goal is merely to keep your character alive while accumulating as much treasure and XP as possible. But even these most rudimentary examples of role-playing involve some being the protagonist of some story.

But if playing a game that has a backdrop counts as "telling a story" (i.e. if the one-shot tournament module counts as "telling a story"), then the definition of "telling a story" is way too broad. After all, if that counts as telling a "story", then so does playing Clue or Monopoly. (In Clue, I'm trying to solve a murder. In Monopoly, I'm trying to accumulate properties and drive my opponents out of business.)

Maybe the OP should have asked: "Is the purpose of playing a role-playing game to have fun or to create art?" That would seem to get at the distinction he wanted to make. And, of course, the answer to that question would seem to be contained within the wording of the question. As I said in the first paragraph, insofar as a role-playing game is a *game*, it's purpose is to *entertain* those who partake in it. (It's not called "improvisational theater"; it's called a "role-playing game".)

Asking this question here is likely to provide one response, asking it on the White Wolf message boards is likely to produce a different one. Still, as long as it is called a "game", I think the answer is obvious.

The next (more interesting) question is: "What is it about role-playing games that makes them fun?" This question would probably provide a more illuminating look at people's opinions about the hobby.

 

[Umbran]

The DM's factions, locations, NPCs etc react to the action of the PCs, and the DM should not expect any precise outcome...

I agree with Psion. I think there is an essential disconnect between many of the folks who say they want to tell a story, and those who think this would be bad.

Yes, occasionally you'll find a GM who wants to tell a story, where he's set the beginning, middle, and end. But from watching many conversations on the topic, that's not what most folks who say they like the game for the story are talking about. Your definition of story-telling and theirs just don't match up.

 

[FireLance]

Of course, "fun" and "story" are not mutually exclusive, but different groups can have different priorities. I think the question is better phrased,

"As a DM and/or a player, is your primary motivation to have fun or to tell a story?"

The current overwhelming support for "fun" on this board is not very suprising given that the d20 system tends to emphasize the "fun" part of gaming, so gamers that prefer "fun" to "story" are more likely to play d20. Gamers that prefer "story" to "fun" would probably use the White Wolf system instead.

 

[Nomad4life]

This is one strange poll. It would never have occurred to me to separate the two concepts. It’s like asking “So you’re going on vacation... Would you rather have gas, or a car to get there?"

 

[Odhanan]

Though I get where you are going here, I think you may be putting a bit too fine a point on what "telling a story" constitutes.

When I am to "tell a story" in the context of an RPG, I am not just telling the players a story. I am creating a scenario that I think will resonate with the players/characters involved and be interesting and engaging to the players. There is not really a "story" per se until the game is done, but when the Robin Laws test pegs me as a "storyteller", that's where I am coming from.

It's hard to not get personal on issues that shape the hobby we love so much. That's why so many such threads become flame wars.

I don't think that because Robin Laws brands your inclinations as "storytelling" you have to consider it storytelling. I rather think that the term itself shouldn't be taken so literally and does not induce that RPG games are stories themselves. I think it's useful for me to point that out, so that we have a discussion about the ideas rather than words.

About the ideas: you say "I am creating a scenario that I think will resonate with the players/characters involved and be interesting and engaging to the players. There is not really a "story" per se until the game is done."

The problem with that kind of stance here is that some points of a "scenario" will necessitate some kind of immunity. Some elements will have to appear a certain way for you to create the "tapestry" desired when the game is done. Not necessarily in the same order or conditions, but there are lines that will have to be said, elements of background that will have to be discovered, some moods that will have to be conveyed one way and not another, and whenever the players go against that tapestry you want to create, you will put yourself at odds between what you want and what the other players want out of your game. No "ifs" or "buts". It will happen, sooner or later. From this comes the contempt towards players who "aren't serious", "aren't playing the game properly" and so on, so forth (I'm not saying you personally think that. I'm saying that's what's at the root of such opinions).

I chose some years ago to step out of that kind of game mastering. Instead, I prefer to present a base situation, have all my game elements (locations, NPCs, factions and whatnot) determined, and let the game begin. I just don't know how the game will end, or where the PCs will go next (doesn't mean I'm not preparing for some eventualities or probabilities, but when doing that I know full well that's probably not what will end up happening). So I take the campaign a few games at a time, and don't hesistate to modify my notes as we go. This creates a game where you actually play events, not "storylines".

The point may seem fine to many, but sometimes the finer points have the biggest consequences. My point is actually part of a much larger debate that involves such misleading concepts as what a "powergamer/munchkin" is, what you've got to do to keep "your players in control", what's "the right way to play the game", that "if you like Vampire The Requiem then you ought to loathe Wizards and D&D" and so on so forth.

 

[Crothian]

The game is the story. Whatever the player characters do even if it is sit around is the story, it just might not be a good one. Fun is important to, but just becasue you have one doesn't mean you don't have the other. This is not a well done poll.

 

[Mark Hope]

When I am to "tell a story" in the context of an RPG, I am not just telling the players a story. I am creating a scenario that I think will resonate with the players/characters involved and be interesting and engaging to the players. There is not really a "story" per se until the game is done...

Totally. This is my approach to the game, in the hope that it engenders unchecked, quivering fun in myself and the other players.

I prefer to present a base situation, have all my game elements (locations, NPCs, factions and whatnot) determined, and let the game begin. I just don't know how the game will end, or where the PCs will go next (doesn't mean I'm not preparing for some eventualities or probabilities, but when doing that I know full well that's probably not what will end up happening). So I take the campaign a few games at a time, and don't hesistate to modify my notes as we go. This creates a game where you actually play events, not "storylines".

I think that you and Psion are saying the same thing. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but where you say "base situation" and Psion (and myself) say "scenario", I think that we are describing the same concept - ie. that you turn the players loose in a series of circumstances of your own devising. You might have some idea how things may turn out (especially if you know your players and their characters well) but once play starts, all bets are off and the game goes where it will. Smack me if I have it wrong .

 

[Psion]

I don't think that because Robin Laws brands your inclinations as "storytelling" you have to consider it storytelling. I rather think that the term itself shouldn't be taken so literally and does not induce that RPG games are stories themselves. I think it's useful for me to point that out, so that we have a discussion about the ideas rather than words.

That's part of why I was responding the way I did. Story telling =/= "telling the players a story." I thought it a bit of a misconstrual. And judging from the discussion that follows, it still may be true...

About the ideas: you say "I am creating a scenario that I think will resonate with the players/characters involved and be interesting and engaging to the players. There is not really a "story" per se until the game is done."

The problem with that kind of stance here is that some points of a "scenario" will necessitate some kind of immunity. Some elements will have to appear a certain way for you to create the "tapestry" desired when the game is done.

That's not exactly where I am coming from. I think I make some pretty reasonable assumptions on the ability of PCs to affect the world around them; I don't engineer things so that they can't alter things that their characters would reasonably be able to alter. What you seem to describe above sounds more like a plot than a scenario.

(This is, incidentally, one reason why I strongly prefer well defined rulesets. Though I am free to move beyond the RAW, they form a reasonable set of assumptions that most players will accept as their limits and capabilities, and it's easier to come to concurrance on what players will accept. It's a diplomatic tool, really.)

A scenario is an evolving situation that gets the players attention and compels them to act in some way. What happens from then on is determined by the complex ballet of roleplaying. Do I fight unexpected twists and turns? No! I relish in them! It's why I don't just read a book.

I prefer to present a base situation, have all my game elements (locations, NPCs, factions and whatnot) determined, and let the game begin.

We are not so very far apart here. The one thing I do do here is take the next step. Given the locales and factions, I consider which conflicts and events can arise that can pique the players interest and compel them to act.