Theory: Coming to the Table

[bert1000]

But that is not to say that the world dictates it, only that the world permits it. And permission is a much weaker concept than dictation ]

The above is what I hold to as being the mark of good rpg gaming, consistency with previously agreed to norms. That doesn't rule out either DM worldbuilding within a session (players go off map), or even occassional player worldbuilding in session like some systems and GMs allow (4e D&D, character roles a successful streetwise check to find some info, player describes the previously undetailed contact he uses to get info). Consistent and permited, not dictated.

Let me see if I get your argument howandwhy. An rpg for you is:
1) a world is created by GM and player authority outside the actual game playing session and establishes certain logic/truths/laws/objects/etc
2) once you step into a game session, players should think and act as if they were their character -- "roleplay". This should be consistent with their prestated background, abilities, and the game world. If a player wants to introduce a truth/object/etc into the game world it should be done out of session
3) the GM is the narrator of the world, and describes interactions based on the agreed parameters in 1)
4) it is better/easier if the players' have no more knowledge of the rules/game world that their character would. This helps in playing the role and experiencing the world as the character would (pity the GM in many heavy rules based systems...)

A lot of posters' points seem to argue that even if the GM or players' are given some worldbuilding authority in session, if it is permitted and consitent with the world, it adds to the fun and should still be called a rpg.

That is my point of view as well. If most of the time you are in 2) mode, and sometimes for the sake of fun you collectively allow some 1) to happen during a session it is still an rpg to me. Maybe for that very moment, you are not "roleplaying". Hopefully, howandwhy, that is not your argument -- purely definitional?

Roleplaying does mean taking on a role, but roleplaying games involve more than roleplaying -- rpgs include worldbuilding, roleplaying, and narration.

 

[apoptosis]

Roleplaying does mean taking on a role, but roleplaying games involve more than roleplaying -- rpgs include worldbuilding, roleplaying, and narration.

bert1000 very concise and perfect point, this is probably the ideal point. RPGs and roleplaying are not the same; RPGs involve roleplaying but also other stuff.

 

[Mallus]

Roleplaying does mean taking on a role, but roleplaying games involve more than roleplaying -- rpgs include worldbuilding, roleplaying, and narration.

Damn fine summary, bert.

 

[howandwhy99]

The above is what I hold to as being the mark of good rpg gaming, consistency with previously agreed to norms. That doesn't rule out either DM worldbuilding within a session (players go off map), or even occassional player worldbuilding in session like some systems and GMs allow (4e D&D, character roles a successful streetwise check to find some info, player describes the previously undetailed contact he uses to get info). Consistent and permited, not dictated.

That would be a definition of an RPG 99% of the world disagrees with.

Let me see if I get your argument howandwhy. An rpg for you is:
1) a world is created by GM and player authority outside the actual game playing session and establishes certain logic/truths/laws/objects/etc
2) once you step into a game session, players should think and act as if they were their character -- "roleplay". This should be consistent with their prestated background, abilities, and the game world. If a player wants to introduce a truth/object/etc into the game world it should be done out of session
3) the GM is the narrator of the world, and describes interactions based on the agreed parameters in 1)
4) it is better/easier if the players' have no more knowledge of the rules/game world that their character would. This helps in playing the role and experiencing the world as the character would (pity the GM in many heavy rules based systems...)

An RPG for me is the same as what it is for 99% of roleplayers on the planet. I'm not saying anything new here.

#3, the GM "narrating" the world doesn't exist. No one is narrating anything. The GM is merely progressing the world along according to its' own design in consequence to the PC's actions.

And yes, overwrought rule systems are really the bane of any DMs existence. Does anyone disagree with this?

A lot of posters' points seem to argue that even if the GM or players' are given some worldbuilding authority in session, if it is permitted and consitent with the world, it adds to the fun and should still be called a rpg.

Such "authority" isn't roleplaying. And if it adds to the "fun" then that fun is the fun of getting to play God as I've illustrated previously. These may still qualify as RPGs, they're just lesser roleplaying games. I personally don't include any games as RPGs which put roleplaying as less than the #1 priority. Then those games are about whatever their #1 priority is about. Want to create an RPG? Make roleplaying the point of the game.

That is my point of view as well. If most of the time you are in 2) mode, and sometimes for the sake of fun you collectively allow some 1) to happen during a session it is still an rpg to me. Maybe for that very moment, you are not "roleplaying". Hopefully, howandwhy, that is not your argument -- purely definitional?

I've defined RPGs twice in this thread. Here it is again:

The games you are describing are at best minimally roleplaying games. They have roleplaying secondary to their main goal. That would be narration as my guess. It's the Mt. Olympus thing again. You're not your character, so no need to think about what your character wants. These may be games. And they may require narration. But neither aspects as you've defined them require roleplaying or winning or losing through roleplay. Those are the two essential elements for being an RPG.

Roleplaying is playing a character. Yes, by definition. RPGs are games that allow for winning or losing when playing a character. It has nothing to do with playing God. That only weakens the game.

EDIT: To put it another way, Storygames are RPGs in the same way that D&D is a wargame. Neither are. Those are peripheral elements.

Roleplaying does mean taking on a role, but roleplaying games involve more than roleplaying -- rpgs include worldbuilding, roleplaying, and narration.

As any one who knows the parlance of RPGs can tell you, "playing the game" happens once you sit down and start acting in character. That other stuff is peripheral to RPGs as well. And Narration is nothing to do with RPGs other than as a bad style of GMing - railroading.

 

[apoptosis]

that D&D is a wargame. Neither are. Those are peripheral elements.

As any one who knows the parlance of RPGs can tell you, "playing the game" happens once you sit down and start acting in character. That other stuff is peripheral to RPGs as well. And Narration is nothing to do with RPGs other than as a bad style of GMing - railroading.

This is the disconnect and where everyone is disagreeing with you.

While sitting down and playing the game involves acting in character (character immersion) and roleplaying, for everyone else in the thread who has spoken up (i believe this is true..could be wrong) it also involves numerous other activities.

You believe differently and you think these other activities make a bad RPG. While people like myself believe that they make the RPG much better; for me it is just an added layer of benefits as you have both the ability to roleplay and have authorial power in the world so that it is less of a DM dictatorship (what you call the World) but a shared narrative.

Honestly, what you describe was the idea of RPGs in the eighties. The entire field of RPG design has grown beyond the simple DM controls world, PCs just control actions of characters. This is not to say that the simple way is bad (really depends on the group and individual) but it is far from the only way for good games to run (for my groups it is definitely a less rewarding game design than games that have rules that allow players to both roleplay and to share some narrative control)

 

[howandwhy99]

This is the disconnect and where everyone is disagreeing with you.

While sitting down and playing the game involves acting in character (character immersion) and roleplaying, for everyone else in the thread who has spoken up (i believe this is true..could be wrong) it also involves numerous other activities.

You believe differently and you think these other activities make a bad RPG. While people like myself believe that they make the RPG much better; for me it is just an added layer of benefits as you have both the ability to roleplay and have authorial power in the world so that it is less of a DM dictatorship (what you call the World) but a shared narrative.

Honestly, what you describe was the idea of RPGs in the eighties. The entire field of RPG design has grown beyond the simple DM controls world, PCs just control actions of characters. This is not to say that the simple way is bad (really depends on the group and individual) but it is far from the only way for good games to run (for my groups it is definitely a less rewarding game design than games that have rules that allow players to both roleplay and to share some narrative control)

Just because 1% of the market is now Storygames does not invalidate everything that came before. Thank you for trying to explain yourself and others in this thread, but as you can see by my previous responses I clearly understand you. People here just don't like RPGs where they don't get to "Play God" too. That's a head trip, not something that makes the experience or roleplaying "better". How is roleplaying "better" if you are forced to stop doing it every so often?

 

[apoptosis]

Just because 1% of the market is now Storygames does not invalidate everything that came before. Thank you for trying to explain yourself and others in this thread, but as you can see by my previous responses I clearly understand you. People here just don't like RPGs where they don't get to "Play God" too. That's a head trip, not something that makes the experience or roleplaying "better". How is roleplaying "better" if you are forced to stop doing it every so often?

For my group it makes the overall game better and roleplaying more interesting.

Just like hand waving unimportant events (like laborious irrelevant travel), training, buying supplies (for people who dont enjoy it). Lets players decide to have events focus on what their characters like, it avoids Zilch-play. Allows players recourse to prevent DM dictatorship..etc... I could go on.

There are many reason why, it has less to do with playing god and more to do with making the roleplaying much more interesting and exciting in the same way that roleplaying makes the game more interesting and exciting.

 

[howandwhy99]

For my group it makes the overall game better and roleplaying more interesting.

Just like hand waving unimportant events (like laborious irrelevant travel), training, buying supplies (for people who dont enjoy it). Lets players decide to have events focus on what their characters like, it avoids Zilch-play. Allows players recourse to prevent DM dictatorship..etc... I could go on.

There are many reason why, it has less to do with playing god and more to do with making the roleplaying much more interesting and exciting in the same way that roleplaying makes the game more interesting and exciting.

You don't roleplay those elements? What are you doing? How are the players supposed to learn how to play the game?

And if more interesting means I get to say, "I swing my sword and a meteor falls on him", then count me out. The whole point is to play a character I can recognize as a real person. Personally, I cannot call down meteors on people in real life. Magic? Sure, but magic works for a reason. Otherwise it's just pretty worthless.

 

[apoptosis]

You don't roleplay those elements? What are you doing? How are the players supposed to learn how to play the game?

And if more interesting means I get to say, "I swing my sword and a meteor falls on him", then count me out. The whole point is to play a character I can recognize as a real person. Personally, I cannot call down meteors on people in real life. Magic? Sure, but magic works for a reason. Otherwise it's just pretty worthless.

We play them if we feel it is interesting. We dont play defecating, cutting our fingernails, eating every meal, picking noses, every time they sleep.

heck we have rules that allow players to cut scene so they can do something interesting if the current event has played out and is boring.

immersion is nice, boredom is fatal.

 

[Mallus]

That would be a definition of an RPG 99% of the world disagrees with.

Well, the other %110 agree with me. See, I can make up baseless statistics too.

#3, the GM "narrating" the world doesn't exist. No one is narrating anything.

What do you call all those words coming out of the DM's mouth, the ones describing the homey warmth of the inn's fire or the blood jetting out of an orc's smashed cranium?

And if it adds to the "fun" then that fun is the fun of getting to play God as I've illustrated previously.

So the way around 'playing God' is to simply deny the agency of both the players and the DM and claim that they're merely objective chroniclers and judges of the stuff they are in the process of making up?

So this is a muse thing?

These may still qualify as RPGs, they're just lesser roleplaying games.

Just for kicks, try describing your personal likes without denigrating others. It's refreshing, like grapefruit soda on a hot day.

Make roleplaying the point of the game.

There are more things in Heaven and Middle Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your poor definitions of an RPG.

It has nothing to do with playing God. That only weakens the game.

Define 'playing god'. Does that include action/fate point systems, the ability to add to the character's backstory during play. We know you don't like it, but is it exactly that you don't like?

Storygames are RPGs

D&D is a 'storygame' as far as I'm concerned. It's a game with significant story-like elements. How is it not?

And Narration is nothing to do with RPGs other than as a bad style of GMing - railroading.

Narrations is simply a way of describing the talking part of the game, ie, most of the game. It's the bulk of RPG play, in the same way that running up and down a grass field is the bulk of football/soccer. Why does that word bother you so much?