# Storytelling vs Roleplaying



## ExploderWizard (Aug 18, 2009)

Is there a reason we're still arguing this? 

If EW hasn't conceded anything by page 5, he isn't going to concede it by page 6 or 7 or 10. And no amount of posters piling on his definition is going to change that. 

I was hoping for an actual DISCUSSION of the CONTENTS of DMG2's excerpt, but instead we get this.


OK. Forked to the side. Sorry for the derailment.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 18, 2009)

Personally, I think this is one of the lamer and more offensive lines in the sand, primarily promoted by folks who feel that they, themselves, are playing roleplaying games and everyone else is playing something else.  It's a way to kind of steal the conversation, or assume control over it - if you get to define what a roleplaying game is, then you get to define what roleplaying games _should_ be, too.

The sort of snide condescenscion that filters in is more than a little icky, IMO - "Oh, that's not an RPG.  It's a _story-game._"  Or "Don't be offended - I'm just telling it like it is.  You're not really playing an RPG, you're just playing a _story-game_.  Might as well admit it."  "No, no - there's nothing _wrong_ with story-games!  They're just _not role-playing games._"  It's offensive at its core, though, and I think it's clear to the folks promoting this POV, as well.  You're trying to tell people they aren't really doing what they think they're doing, while you know exactly what everyone's doing.

Soon after all this, the conversation usually goes off the deep end with the champion of the distinction claiming that story-games aren't really games, or don't actually need mechanics, or are little different from sitting around a campfire making up fables.

It's oldschool vs. newschool, dressed up in different clothes.  Only in this case, oldschool is trying to say that newschool doesn't even really exist.

-O


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 18, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Personally, I think this is one of the lamer and more offensive lines in the sand, primarily promoted by folks who feel that they, themselves, are playing roleplaying games and everyone else is playing something else. It's a way to kind of steal the conversation, or assume control over it - if you get to define what a roleplaying game is, then you get to define what roleplaying games _should_ be, too.
> 
> The sort of snide condescenscion that filters in is more than a little icky, IMO - "Oh, that's not an RPG. It's a _story-game._" Or "Don't be offended - I'm just telling it like it is. You're not really playing an RPG, you're just playing a _story-game_. Might as well admit it." "No, no - there's nothing _wrong_ with story-games! They're just _not role-playing games._" It's offensive at its core, though, and I think it's clear to the folks promoting this POV, as well. You're trying to tell people they aren't really doing what they think they're doing, while you know exactly what everyone's doing.
> 
> ...




The only one making such disparaging claims against story games so far is you by the way.

Not needing mechanics? The story game format has brought about new TYPES of mechanics that go beyond task resolution. If you have ever played cops and robbers as a kid then you know that you don't NEED rules to roleplay either.


----------



## ryryguy (Aug 18, 2009)

(Teleported over from old thread)

ExploderWizard -

I'm glad I was able to help tease out the distinction between roleplaying and storytelling as you see it.

Let me suggest that, using the definitions you have in mind, roleplaying and storytelling could come into conflict, but they don't have to do so. (Much like the perennial debate (seen more often on the WotC boards than here, I think) over whether character optimization and roleplaying are in conflict.) In fact, I'd say that good storytelling techniques can strengthen and support roleplaying in a game that is primarily about roleplaying.

The thing is that even roleplaying strongly conceived, as "I choose my character's actions based only on my concept of the character", does not exist in a vaccuum. You're basing choices off motivation, but the choices are still constrained and informed by the shared fiction of the game as established by the DM and the other players. Forget storytelling or narrative or plot here - by "shared fiction" I just mean the situation in the fictional game environment. Choosing whether to spend your loot on orphans or booze is still informed by whether or not you have loot, whether or not there are orphans, whether or not there is booze. Those are all things that come out of the shared fiction. 

If you're in some theocracy where booze is forbidden, your character's overwhelming desire to drink might lead you to choose to go someplace else or to set up a still. But you can't choose to go get drunk in the corner tavern, because there is no corner tavern. Your choice is constrained. But have you stopped roleplaying? Not at all. To the contrary, your response to the constraints can lead to deeper and more creative roleplaying.

So, I think that there are two levels on which storytelling techniques might also provide constraints which actually improve roleplaying.

The first might be termed a "soft" style, where the DM sets up the situation in the game world with storytelling and narrative in mind. Perhaps the DM guided the party to the booze-free theocracy, or even decided that a liquor taboo was one of the precepts of the theocratic religion, because of your character's inclination to drink. He sees that the situation will promote interesting conflicts. He introduces a character of a priest who is a reformed drunk, to serve as a foil for your character. He sets up a moment where that NPC is in danger of falling off the wagon, but you could prevent that by swearing off booze yourself. The DM is in no way telling your player what to do; you're free to decide how your character reacts. But if it's worked out well, the DM has provided you with a great opportunity to further define and develop your character, and maybe even shaped it into a narrative climax that increases the impact.

(One of the examples in the article, that of the dream sequence, is a good example of this too - the player still has total control over his character and concept, but the dream sequence puts him on the spot a little bit and dares him to sharpen that concept, offers him an opportunity to develop the character.)

The second style might be called a "hard" style, although that might have some unfair connotations. But in this style, you as the player do willingly subordinate your character concept in order to further a narrative goal. Your character loves booze, but because the group has been developing a theme around orphans, you go along with the orphan plan. (OK, this orphans and booze thing is getting really strained now.  ) Sometimes this might mean that things are somewhat predetermined (though not "scripted") - there's a fight you know you're going to lose, as in the mind flayer attack example in the article.

EW, you've made it clear that you don't consider this style to be "wrong" or evil. But let me suggest that there's no bright line here where once you've chosen story over concept, roleplaying is now dead and gone, and you can never get back again. You as the player might choose orphans over booze in the interest of the story, but that doesn't stop you from roleplaying your character grumbling about it the whole while. Also, I think that even the most purist of roleplayers does subordinate choices to other considerations at least some of the time. When you're coming up with characters and say, "The group needs a healer? OK, I'll be a cleric" you've done so. When you think your jerk rogue would definitely take the chance to kill the paladin's puppy but you decide not to do it in the interests of player harmony, you've done it. Doing it for the sake of story is not really any different from that point of view.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 18, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> The only one making such disparaging claims against story games so far is you by the way.



No, I'm stating that re-defining some roleplaying games as "story games" is disparaging, in and of itself, regardless of how value-neutral you proclaim that term to be.

I also don't buy that it's used as a value-neutral term in this context, but that's a different discussion.

-O


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Aug 18, 2009)

I like "storytelling gaming," sometimes.  I don't like to play D&D that way, though; I think there are better approaches and systems for heavily story-focused play.


----------



## Agamon (Aug 18, 2009)

Question: Is the following an example of a story-telling game or roleplaying game (as defined by EW):

GM: Okay, you get back to town, buy your supplies, visit family and basically get a few days rest before heading back to the dungeon.  Daroth's advances towards the innkeep's daughter he met last session are coming along, she seems quite enthralled with him.  Brennis is chastised by Head Preist Ganyon for missing the temple's recognition of one of it's holiest days, but gets away with a slap on the wrist becasue she's helping the town with a larger problem.  After a few days of rest, healling and reprovisioning you head back to the forest.  On the way, you meet up with a merchant caravan.  It's not as heavily guarded as you might expect.

Player 1: I hold my hand up and hail them.

GM: One of the guards advances uneasily, the others tense for a possible ambush.  "Hail, strangers."  He looks to be wounded, a nasty gash accross his arm that has cut through the mail, staining it with blood.

Player 1: "Are you well?  Do you need assistance?  You numbers seem small, not the best idea in these parts."

GM: The guard nods.  "Attacked by goblins, we were.  We drove them off, but they slew a number of my comrades.  The nasty creatures are growing bold."

Player 2: I tell him we're on our way to take care of some goblins that have been attacking travellers and ask if their shields had pictures of snarling wolves on them.

GM: The guard pauses, thinking.  "No, crossed spears over field of red.  They fled to the south and west of the road."

Player 3: "Spears?  To the south?  The tribe we attemping to disperse live to the north of the main road.  Could there be more of them than we thought?"

Player 4: "Are they working together or is it coincidence?  We might have to look into this.  But first, please allow me to heal your most badly wounded to the best of my ability."

And blah, blah, blah.  Anyhoo, what kinda game is that?  Especially if the GM allows a player to interject into the story to roleplay her absense from her church to try and appeal for more aid for her comrades, for example?

I guess my point is, can't a game be a somewhere between these extremes?  And in fact, aren't all RPGs somewhere in that spectrum, one way or the other?  And is it really wrong to call all of them roleplaying games?

(BTW, I agree that Once Upon A Time is not a roleplaying game, and it isn't marketed as such, and I don't really know of very many RPGs that play that way)


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 18, 2009)

Obryn said:


> No, I'm stating that re-defining some roleplaying games as "story games" is disparaging, in and of itself, regardless of how value-neutral you proclaim that term to be.




Why do you feel that way?
Just because you don't enjoy story focused games doesn't mean others feel the same way.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 18, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Personally, I think this is one of the lamer and more offensive lines in the sand, primarily promoted by folks who feel that they, themselves, are playing roleplaying games and everyone else is playing something else.  It's a way to kind of steal the conversation, or assume control over it - if you get to define what a roleplaying game is, then you get to define what roleplaying games _should_ be, too.



This.

In a way it's the opposite of rollplaying vs roleplaying. But in another it's the exact same.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Aug 18, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Is there a reason we're still arguing this?



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_.

Oh sure, you might occasionally hear things (a bit) like 'gee, this RPG sucks' or 'that is by far the worst RPG I've had the misfortune of suffering through a session of', and so on. But never is a RPG not thought of as a RPG. That would, indeed, be taking the dislike/hatred/disgust/scorn to a new, quite surreal level.

You know, that level only reached - so it seems - in the rarified air of the odd online thread here and there.

One of my favourites, seen as I've browsed one of several forums, was teh claim that the very first RPG isn't a RPG. _I kid you not_. It makes this current rehash, frankly, weak sauce by way of comparison. Even the mantras of '3e isn't a RPG' or '4e isn't a RPG' or 'GURPS isn't a RPG' or 'World of Darkness isn't a RPG' (etc.) fade into the background momentarily, faced with the might of that examplar of hilarity.


----------



## coyote6 (Aug 18, 2009)

Aus_Snow said:


> One of my favourites, seen as I've browsed one of several forums, was teh claim that the very first RPG isn't a RPG. _I kid you not_.




I think I just failed a Sanity Check.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 18, 2009)

One thing that becomes apparent from a lengthy time reading rpg messageboards is that people play roleplaying games in markedly different ways.

Some create incredibly detailed and realistic historical simulations. Some want to emulate a particular work of fiction such as Lord of the Rings. Some put the emphasis on challenging the player and this can be done in a wide variety of ways - logic puzzles, system mastery (as in 3e), tactical mastery (as in 4e), solving mysteries, political chicanery, engineering problems (may seem a weird one but many early Traveller groups played this way). Some players want the GM to tell them a story, others want to create a story through interaction with the GM and other players. Some groups spend 80% of the time in combat, other groups can go five sessions without rolling a die.

The point is, these people are all playing roleplaying games. Rpgs are a weird thing, no one has come up with an accepted definition yet. They are a very, very broad church.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 18, 2009)

Here's how I know it's an insult.

It's always the 'I' who is the roleplayer. It's always the other fellow who's the storygamer or rollplayer or boardgamer or videogame or CCG player or whatever.

"Oh yes, I'm a roleplayer. Whatever you're doing, it's NOT the same as what I do. You are NOT like me. You do NOT enjoy the same things as me. Oh and, by the way, this messageboard? It's for fans of roleplaying games, NOT those other games."

Does that seem like a nice thing to say?


----------



## Oryan77 (Aug 18, 2009)

I'm confused. You mean to tell me that all this time that my wife and I have been dressing up and pretending to be other people right before we make the sexy, we may not have actually been roleplaying? I thought my impression of Tarzan was dead on.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 18, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> Here's how I know it's an insult.
> 
> It's always the 'I' who is the roleplayer. It's always the other fellow who's the storygamer or rollplayer or boardgamer or videogame or CCG player or whatever.
> 
> ...




Where "story games" is concerned, this is totally the opposite of my experience.  I was under the impression the term originated as a slam on D&D, ELEVATING the "story games" - it began as another, somewhat nicer way of putting "roleplaying vs. rollplaying."  (Possibly its origin is with either BRP and skills-based systems vs. level-based systems, or with early White Wolf)  Later, it developed into a dividing line between games with strong Story-focus in their mechanics vs. those with a strong World-, Game- or Immersion-focus.

Heck, one of the premier indie RPG communities self-identifies as Story Games.

As far as I can see, it's only in trad-RPG-focused communities that Story Games would be considered a slam.  Even in this milieu, I'm frankly stunned to see it used as such, much less wedged in with the usual lexicon of trad-RPG anti-Gamist slurs ("rollplayer," "like a video/board/card game," etc.).


----------



## jbear (Aug 18, 2009)

I found one of Pirate Cat's comments very insightful, regarding campaign creation.
He said he has things in his games working at three levels.

The first level is like the biggest cog of a machine; it's what's going on at a global scale in the game world -world changing events that have no direct influence on the PCs (at least not initially)- which keeps rolling on at a steady pace independantly of the PCs.

The second level is a intermediate level between the highest and lowest level. It involves the repercussions caused by what is happening at the first level. The ripples sent out by the big splash, or the smaller cogs moved by the bigger one. Some of these also don't directly affect the PCs either although sometimes they can or as the game moves along and the PCs get more involved in whats going on in the big picture (though still not directly). These repercussions will send out further ripples, or turn even smaller cogs which brings us to the third level.

The third level is where the PCs are normally operating at. It is what they are inolved in at that time. This may have absolutely nothing to do with what is going on at a larger scale, or it may by a seemingly small event that is somehow linked to the second level, a piece of the bigger puzzle.

The 'story' is something that is made as it goes along. Neither the DM or the PCs really know where its going. This doesn't take away from the fact that at a larger scale the world is dynamic, alive and changing... other stories are ocurring around them, which whether they are protagonist or not, can affect them. 

I think the skill is letting the players weave in and out of the different levels, and in so doing create a story of their own that nobody could have predicted until they looked back at it from a distance to appreciate it as a whole... a whole story they wove themselves.

All the skills a DM can add to his quiver to aid in this process of weaving a story together with their players are invaluable IMO. To imply this has nothing to do with dnd (as per your first post on the other thread) is... strange to me, to say the least.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 18, 2009)

MoogleEmpMog said:


> Later, it developed into a dividing line between games with strong Story-focus in their mechanics vs. those with a strong World-, Game- or Immersion-focus.
> 
> Heck, one of the premier indie RPG communities self-identifies as Story Games.



Do they see story games as a subset of roleplaying games, ie a synonym for narrativist rpgs, or as something separate from rpgs altogether?


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 18, 2009)

From the first page of the other thread:


			
				avin (to ExploderWizard) said:
			
		

> Just curious (seriously): you don't like roleplaying?




From here:


			
				Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Here's how I know it's an insult. It's always the 'I' who is the roleplayer.




If you _want_ to say you're playing a "wargame" when you play D&D, then go ahead. It was originally billed as just that. If someone else says so, it's not an insult unless you look down on wargames.

So, Obryn and Doug McCrae, do you look down on story-telling games?

The "not role-playing" claim I have consistently seen is the one levied at what has hitherto been considered the very process of role-playing that defines RPGs. *That* claim flies like a rock chained to a bigger rock at the bottom of the ocean -- _regardless_ of whether you want to recognize the story-telling game as a form as worthy of honorable distinction as is the RPG from the wargame.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 18, 2009)

Oryan77 said:


> I'm confused. You mean to tell me that all this time that my wife and I have been dressing up and pretending to be other people right before we make the sexy, we may not have actually been roleplaying? I thought my impression of Tarzan was dead on.




Sir, we don't need to hear any more about your... collaborative storytelling element...


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 18, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> Do they see story games as a subset of roleplaying games, ie a synonym for narrativist rpgs, or as something separate from rpgs altogether?




The former, although usually using the "interfacing with story on a metatextual level through the rules/shared narrative control" definition of Narrativism rather than the "about Theme" definition that... pretty much only Ron Edwards uses.   Hence my referring to Story Games as an "Indie-RPG Community."


----------



## Campbell (Aug 18, 2009)

I can see the point behind treating treating story games as a seperate category of game, especially when you're talking about the likes of Prime Time Adventures or Dread. Still, when you treat Story Games as some other thing completely unrelated to tabletop roleplaying games and refuse to call traditional RPGs that have some story game elements roleplaying games you deny the common roots and similarities between both types of games.

Story Games are an outgrowth of roleplaying games. The first story games were designed by folks who were trying to create a different type of roleplaying game. 

Plus, it's like a sliding scale man. On one end you have traditional RPGs with simple narrative mechanics like M&M's hero points, WHFRPG fate points, Shadowrun's player-defined contacts, WoD scene durations and arguably D&D 4e's hp system. In the middle of the pack you have games like Mouse Guard which still involve themselves in game world concerns, but focus more on conflict resolution than task resolution. Finally at the far end you have games like Primetime Adventures that describe characters in purely narrative terms. By making it all about storytelling vs. roleplaying you dismiss the richness and variety of games all across the spectrum.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 18, 2009)

MoogleEmpMog said:


> The former



There's a big difference there then. The self proclaimed story gamers say what they are doing is playing a form of roleplaying game whereas Exploder Wizard's claim is that story games cannot be roleplaying games and vice versa.

My problem is much more with someone saying "What you are doing is not a roleplaying game" than with whatever name they then put on it - rollplaying game, story game, whatever, it doesn't matter.


----------



## Oryan77 (Aug 18, 2009)

Umbran said:


> Sir, we don't need to hear any more about your... collaborative storytelling element...




Well that's ok, we usually end up turning it into a wargame anyway 

But really guys, why's everyone trying to segregate each player into their own category all of a sudden? Seems like for 2 weeks now people have been discussing each gaming style and trying to sort out who should be classified as what. Aren't we all RPG gamers? It doesn't matter how you play it as long as you're playing in a good group. No need to get bent out of shape because some guy from another group doesn't like how you play D&D 

Do what I do...roll up a character and name him the same name as the poster that really pissed you off. Then quickly kill that character with your favorite PC or NPC. Since he won't know about the death, there ain't nuthin he can do about that...now you know, and knowing is half the battle!


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 19, 2009)

Looking at the topics from Chapter 1 of DMG2, I see it very plainly stated that they are about "story structure", "your cast of characters", "narrative storytelling", "the narrative", "the plot", "directed scenes", "your story", etc..

Flashbacks: "Flashback sequences move the character’s background story into the spotlight for the entire group to imagine." 

Transitions: "Ask the players to describe a conflict that occupied them during the elapsed time period. Together, choose a dramatic moment, and frame a vignette around it. You might construct one vignette per character, or cast vignettes together into a scene of combined struggle."

Third-Person Teasers: "Scenes featuring a cast of player-controlled NPCs foreshadow events for their PCs. ... You might not tell the PCs what characters they’re playing. ... Third-person vignettes require players who can separate their knowledge of the events portrayed from what their characters know." (And players not scarred by the horrors of _Vecna Lives!_)

Story-telling? Yes, indeed! All the above are standard on stage, radio and screen. Their relationship to "playing the role of my character" in a "game" may pose interesting questions.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 19, 2009)

Let's define our terms.

Role-playing is pretending to be a character (in some context).

Storytelling involves, er, telling stories. Stories frequently have characters in them. Stories also have other elements, like conflict, resolution, setting, etc. (a basic narrative structure, avant garde stuff aside). You can be creating the story as you tell it, or the story can be created before you tell it, and then remembered by you. 

Role-playing can thus be an element of storytelling (though it doesn't always have to be - you can play a role without any story, really). 

This is, essentially, what an actor does: plays a role in a story. An individual monologue, however, isn't a story, but is still role-playing.

You can also tell a story without any role-playing by not involving anyone else who is pretending to be a character. A written story, or a verbalized epic poem, or even a completely computer-programmed movie, has no role-playing.

Of course, if you have a voice actor, they're playing a role, so then it is.  

In the context of RPG's, it is hard to play a role without simultaneously telling some story. RPG's, by their nature as games, have conflict, so they have a basic 3-act structure: establish, conflict, resolve. In this way, *every game is also a story*. Most of the time, the story is about the players themselves: a game of poker is a story about one person at the table cleverly out-smarting and out-lucking the other players at the table. This is exactly what happens later, when, after the game, the winner talks about how he won: he tells the story of the game. 

In an RPG, the story is about the characters that the players role-play as. Even a game of D&D that is only combat is still a story with role-playing: it has players pretending to be characters who are fighting for their life against things that want to kill them. You can't effectively make a game without the basic elements of a story, so while you can role-play without a story in general, you can't play an RPG without also telling some kind of story (even if it is a simple or shallow one). You could play a game without any role-playing (like Poker), but then you wouldn't be playing an RPG. 

Thus, there is no dichotomy between "storytelling" and "roleplaying" in an RPG. Playing an RPG is automatically doing both. D&D, as an RPG, is doing both. Every time. Even if you don't specifically label it, you are going through both of these activities. Later, when the guy is telling you about the session, it's probably only storytelling, but if the guy acts out the session with his friends, it's both again, and if the guy dresses up like his character for sexy times with the missus, it's probably only role-playing.

When you play D&D, you do both.

If you don't want to call what you're doing "storytelling," that's needlessly re-defining what storytelling is. The timing doesn't matter: you're telling the story of D&D as it happens. 

If you don't want to call what you're doing "role-playing," then unless you're really just adding up numbers, you're probably re-defining that, too. Even if you're yourself, but transported to a strange fantasy world, you're playing a role that you don't actually have (you're pretending to be something you are not; a poker player just is what it is, even if they're telling a story). 

It seems to me that EW is needlessly re-defining "storytelling" so that he is not engaged in it. 

But he is. 

When my scrappy local little league team goes up against the rich kids from suburbia, it's a story.

When I play a game of Chutes and Ladders with the kiddies, it's a story.

When a team of adventurers goes into a dungeon, it's a story.

A story is not a codified, strict, structural thing. Essentially, anything with a beginning, middle, and end (and ideally a conflict) is a story. Anything that moves through the fourth dimension. The _entire universe_ can be seen as a story, as can an individual life. Heck, in a strict definition, even sexy times and monolgues can be stories (though they don't have to be seen that way, and usually aren't).


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 19, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> even sexy times... can be stories



So that's why it's called the climax!


----------



## korjik (Aug 19, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Let's define our terms.
> 
> Role-playing is pretending to be a character (in some context).
> 
> ...




Too True. Good Post.

To amplify on Kamikaze's post: What is roleplaying/ a roleplaying game is highly dependent on how you play.

Freakin' 40K can be a role playing game if you want it to.

Arguing about who is role playing and who is story telling is like arguing if the sky is azure or cerulean.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 19, 2009)

> So that's why it's called the climax!




Also why pr0n doesn't need a plot.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 19, 2009)

The techniques mentioned above undermine role-identification and shift toward an emphasis on "acting" in the thespian sense. Preservation of the role-identification element was a key original reason for the referee's position: The players' information was limited in accordance with their roles.

That seems to me reason enough to distinguish the hybrid from the traditional RPG. It is not that it is no longer _at all_ an RPG; the significance is in the compromise of that element for the sake of a story-telling element.

What raises red flags, especially in the context of the material in DMG1, and of experience with previous experiments in changing the concept of D&D and of the RPG, is the overall tenor.

Taken too far, the "script" assumption makes a mockery not only of D&D, or even of the RPG, but of the very basic concept of _game_. At (or preferably before) that point, one might step back and re-assess what is happening with this forcing of square pegs into round holes. One might decide to design a really good story-telling game instead.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 19, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Why do you feel that way?
> Just because you don't enjoy story focused games doesn't mean others feel the same way.






Ariosto said:


> So, Obryn and Doug McCrae, do you look down on story-telling games?



There's really no sigh big enough for these comments.

My objection, pure and simple, is to one group of roleplaying gamers trying to lay claim to the name "roleplaying game" and telling other roleplaying gamers that what they are playing is not a roleplaying game, but a story game.

And that's how I know it's a dig.  As Doug McCrae said, it's always the writer or speaker who's the real roleplaying gamer, and the person they're talking to as "other."  You could substitute just about any other term for "story gamer" in this context, and it would still be an insult.

Saying, "What, you think story games suck?" is not a real response to my objection.

-O


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 19, 2009)

> Never mind the rather large number of games out there which rely on players taking interesting, but challenging choices in order to gain later benefits - Spirit of the Century and Sufficiently Advanced both do this. You can succeed right now, but it will cost you later, or you can take some sort of penalty now to have a really great success later. Is that still role playing in your view?



Not when it's "meta-gaming" instead!


----------



## ryryguy (Aug 19, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> The techniques mentioned above undermine role-identification and shift toward an emphasis on "acting" in the thespian sense. Preservation of the role-identification element was a key original reason for the referee's position: The players' information was limited in accordance with their roles.
> 
> That seems to me reason enough to distinguish the hybrid from the traditional RPG. It is not that it is no longer _at all_ an RPG; the significance is in the compromise of that element for the sake of a story-telling element.
> 
> ...




Sure, those things _could_ happen.  And certainly some games do subordinate role-identification (good term!) to narrative or other mechanics as a matter of course.

Will the optional elements presented in one chapter of the DMG2 push D&D into that territory, to the point where you can no longer call it a "roleplaying game"?  Of course not!  IMHO, even if a group wholeheartedly embraces every element from the chapter and uses them in every game session, assuming that's not _all_ that they use, you've still got a ways to go before you get to pure, collaborative storytelling.

Are these optional elements "square pegs" which will necessarily undermine role-identification?  Obviously not, at least not each and every one of them.  Indeed, many of the elements seem like they could enhance roleplaying.  For example, the dream sequence example that is presented.  Does it undermine role-identification in any way?  I can't see how it would.

(Sorry if I'm now contaminating _this_ thread by referring back to the specific DMG2 excerpt, but it is how this discussion got started and still seems relevant.)


----------



## coyote6 (Aug 19, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Story-telling? Yes, indeed! All the above are standard on stage, radio and screen. Their relationship to "playing the role of my character" in a "game" may pose interesting questions.




Check out Robin Laws' blog; he's posted about his D&D4e game, which has involved the use of some of those items, and he also discusses other topics that are mentioned in the excerpt. They all seem to come from playing roleplaying games.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 19, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> It seems to me that EW is needlessly re-defining "storytelling" so that he is not engaged in it.
> 
> But he is.




As a matter of fact, yes. I have played and run some very story focused games. I don't look at storytelling games as unplayable and worthy of contempt. 

I do like a game to represent itself as what it is in spirit. I have run both regular roleplaying and high story games with the GURPS  ruleset.  The mechanics are neutral with repect to playstyle. The genre, and supplemental material define the tone of a particular game. 

Other games, such as D&D are not generic. The mechanics and advice in the rulebooks promote a particular flavor of play. Games with a strong flavor can be better than generic rules such as GURPS or d20 because the operation of the game is so closely tied to the feel and tone of the whole. 
When a game shifts focus from a more freeform roleplaying style to a shared story creation style it should be advertised. 

If you sit down at a restaurant and order a beef dish and you get served a seafood or chicken dish it's time to inform your waiter that there has been a mistake even if the other dish is also very tasty.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 19, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Not when it's "meta-gaming" instead!




So, while players can role play, the Dungeon Master or Referee never can?  After all, almost every decision he makes is from a meta-game perspective.  

Why does giving players some limited editorial control over the game suddenly make it 



			
				Ariosto said:
			
		

> no longer at all an RPG; the significance is in the compromise of that element for the sake of a story-telling element.




If DM's can role play, while still making numerous meta-game decisions every session, then why can't players?

Is it different than traditional D&D?  Oh sure.  Traditional D&D gave absolutely no power to the players, heck, even down to character creation, choosing a class was subject to the whim of the dice.  About the only thing you could control as a player was your name.

So, yeah, giving editorial control to the players is different.  No one will deny that.  What gets people's backs up is this flat statement that anything which deviates from baseline, traditional D&D is no long role play.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 19, 2009)

> For example, the dream sequence example that is presented. Does it undermine role-identification in any way? I can't see how it would.



Neither do I -- which is why I did not include it among the techniques to which I referred!

[edit] On a second look, I see that a play-acting shift is (in the excerpt) plainer than in the "flashback" entry. Again, it involves experience from a third-person perspective relative to the player's supposed "actual" role.

As I think ExploderWizard observed, though, this is still playing a role of a sort (albeit a very tenuous one, the imagining of an already imaginary character). It is not as if compromising role-identification is utterly unprecedented for other reasons, either. Again, it is the trend of things that raises hairs among those who have already seen what happens when "a story-telling game but not really" goes bad.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 19, 2009)

Agamon said:


> Question: Is the following an example of a story-telling game or roleplaying game (as defined by EW):
> 
> GM: Okay, you get back to town, buy your supplies, visit family and basically get a few days rest before heading back to the dungeon. Daroth's advances towards the innkeep's daughter he met last session are coming along, she seems quite enthralled with him. Brennis is chastised by Head Preist Ganyon for missing the temple's recognition of one of it's holiest days, but gets away with a slap on the wrist becasue she's helping the town with a larger problem. After a few days of rest, healling and reprovisioning you head back to the forest. On the way, you meet up with a merchant caravan. It's not as heavily guarded as you might expect.
> 
> ...




Sounds like a fairly typical game session. Does player 2 have some impediment to speaking in the 1st person? 

As far as catagorizing roleplaying and story based games the easiest measure is the amount of roleplaying/interaction advice and material vs the amount of staging, scene setting, shared narrative material. Overall beyond having a good time, what is the most prominent feature/play experience presented in both rules and tone? Is it roleplaying a created character in a fictional world or creating shared stories?


----------



## Scribble (Aug 19, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Sounds like a fairly typical game session. Does player 2 have some impediment to speaking in the 1st person?
> 
> As far as catagorizing roleplaying and story based games the easiest measure is the amount of roleplaying/interaction advice and material vs the amount of staging, scene setting, shared narrative material. Overall beyond having a good time, what is the most prominent feature/play experience presented in both rules and tone? Is it roleplaying a created character in a fictional world or creating shared stories?




Who cares?

I think it's all the same in that statement. Just like a book has both "overall narrative moments," and "real time" moments, so too can a good game session.

Personally I like to make use of just about any method I can to help everyone in my games have fun. If you don't care to use one or another method of playing the game... great that's all you. But you can't really claim one is roleplaying while  the other isn't. 

I think you're being overly argumentative, and trying to put too specific a name to things that don't need them for the sake of what? Being contrary? I don't know.

It's like when people try to put films or music into genres... at some point you just need to relax a bit.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 19, 2009)

Hussar said:


> So, while players can role play, the Dungeon Master or Referee never can? After all, almost every decision he makes is from a meta-game perspective.




Who says the DM can never roleplay? If the DM didn't get to roleplay NPC's and monsters the fun would be sucked right out of the job.



Hussar said:


> Why does giving players some limited editorial control over the game suddenly make it .




Hold it right there. You just nailed it. Any reference to editorial control from anyone over anything and we are in story territory. In a story game, shared editorial control is fine and works great. In a roleplaying game there is nothing to edit and thus nothing to share.




Hussar said:


> If DM's can role play, while still making numerous meta-game decisions every session, then why can't players?




They can and do make such decisions, no problem.


Hussar said:


> Is it different than traditional D&D? Oh sure. Traditional D&D gave absolutely no power to the players, heck, even down to character creation, choosing a class was subject to the whim of the dice. About the only thing you could control as a player was your name.




The complexities of character design over generation is more a matter of desired complexity vs simplicity than any roleplaying concern.



Hussar said:


> So, yeah, giving editorial control to the players is different. No one will deny that. What gets people's backs up is this flat statement that anything which deviates from baseline, traditional D&D is no long role play.



A statement that isn't being made. A game more concerned with shared stories than roleplaying is no longer D&D no matter what that system might be.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 19, 2009)

> But you can't really claim one is roleplaying while  the other isn't.



One most certainly can! Otherwise, the term is meaningless.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 19, 2009)

The "no longer D&D" horse is dead. It may from one perspective be D&D only in the way that Paris, Texas is Paris -- but it reads _Dungeons & Dragons_® right there on the cover.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 19, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> The "no longer D&D" horse is dead. It may from one perspective be D&D only in the way that Paris, Texas is Paris -- but it reads _Dungeons & Dragons_® right there on the cover.




This assumes you are speaking about a particular edition rather than a drastic change in playstyle that can be implemented in any edition. 

I am currently involved in a rather gritty urban 4E campaign right now. Combat is suicide in most cases, and we have to solve most of our problems with player planning and dialogue. Really cool stuff and loads of fun.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 19, 2009)

> I have played and run some very story focused games. I don't look at storytelling games as unplayable and worthy of contempt.




The thing is, a "focused" game isn't the same thing as a storytelling game. Some games can be story-focused (meaning usually that they try and maximize the "beginning, middle, end, central conflict" kind of structure) but whenever you play D&D, you're telling some sort of story, even if it's a very simple and basic one.

All the time.

Even if you have no role-playing, you're telling a story. 



> I do like a game to represent itself as what it is in spirit. I have run both regular roleplaying and high story games with the GURPS ruleset. The mechanics are neutral with repect to playstyle. The genre, and supplemental material define the tone of a particular game.
> 
> Other games, such as D&D are not generic. The mechanics and advice in the rulebooks promote a particular flavor of play. Games with a strong flavor can be better than generic rules such as GURPS or d20 because the operation of the game is so closely tied to the feel and tone of the whole.
> When a game shifts focus from a more freeform roleplaying style to a shared story creation style it should be advertised.




I can totally understand why an unexpected shift in playstyle would be disruptive to you, but I'm not sure what that has to do with "storytelling" and "roleplaying."

You're right in that some systems are more genre-generic than others, and each has their advantages and disadvantages, but the generic-ness of a system doesn't have a whole lot of bearing on how well it tells a story or not. 

D&D has a pretty strong flavor, but I'm not sure what that has to do with "freeform roleplaying" or "shared story creation," especially since everyone engages in both things whenever they play any RPG, be it D&D or GURPS or T20 or Traveller or Call of Cthulu, or even World of Warcraft. Heck, you do both at once beyond the realm of RPG's: Improv actors engage in free-form roleplaying while creating a shared story. 

I get the impression you're talking about something else, and your terms are doing you more harm than good.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Aug 19, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> It may from one perspective be D&D only in the way that Paris, Texas is Paris -- but it reads _Dungeons & Dragons_® right there on the cover.



Heh, yeah.  I tend to think of that as the "game" vs. the "brand."


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 19, 2009)

ExploderWizard, I can sympathize. I don't think that chapter (for all that it may be written by Robin Laws) is likely to be as truly revelatory as would be an explanation of how to play what was formerly known as D&D. However, this new game was designed to be something quite different -- and this aspect was plain enough to me from the start.

I anticipate not much more substantively than what has been done many times before, with results to my mind most unsatisfactory. One way or another, though, the experiment is likely to be of some interest to those of us unashamed to respect the story-game as a new form to be appreciated and developed on its own terms.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 19, 2009)

Let me try it another way.  Look at Spirit of the Century for a second.  Characters in SotC are defined by their aspects- generally one word or short phrase descriptors that define the character - so "tough as nails", "big and dumb", "loudmouth", "strange luck", or "poor as dirt", could all be aspects.  When a character's aspect causes some sort of in game complication, the character is awarded Fate points.  Pretty much similar to Action points in many other games.

So, let's look at a possible situation.  I have a character with the aspect, "poor as dirt".  During play, the party steals a honking big diamond and needs to fence it.  They give it to my character to hold because the guy they stole the diamond from has never seen me and won't suspect that I have it.  Play begins with the party returning from meeting a fence:

Player 1 - So, Hussar, where's the diamond?  We're gonna be rich!
Hussar - Well, here's the thing.  See, I was outside in the alleyway feeding a stray dog, when the diamond slipped out of my pocket and the dog snatched it up and ate it.  It ran away.
Player 1 - WHAT!
GM - Ok, Hussar, that's worth a Fate point.  Nice.
Player 2 - Well, what did the dog look like and which way did it run off?
Hussar - ((extemporizing)) Well, it was a black dog.  Kinda big.  It had a white patch on its chest.
Player 2 - ((To the GM)) Can we track this dog somehow?  Let's look in the alleyway.
Player 3 - ((Looks at his character sheet and sees "Loudmouth"))  *Very loudly* You mean to tell me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that a large dog has run off with our very expensive, very hard to get diamond?  Is that what you are trying to tell me?!?!
GM - ((Grins)) Several of the patrons of the bar hit the exit at speed.  Player 3, here's a Fate point for you.  

Now, the entire scenario - find the dog before the locals do, while trying not to run into the people who they stole the diamond from in the first place - is entirely generated by the players.  The GM is running with it because it's fun for everyone.  Yet, the GM had no hand whatsoever in this plot line.  Every decision that was made was based in mechanics in the system and not from what would be in the character's or group's best interests.

To me, this is 100% role playing.  If it's not roleplaying, then, to be honest, I have no interest in roleplaying whatsoever.  If the only way I can roleplay is to passively consume whatever plot the GM/DM decides to create this week, then bugger that for a game of soldiers.  I have no interest.  I want to be able to effect changes in the campaign.

And, as a GM, I want my players to be so into the campaign that I can sit back and let them do all my work for me.

So, did I roleplay or not?  Did my editorial control over the campaign somehow impede my ability to roleplay?


----------



## Hussar (Aug 19, 2009)

From the other thread which I read out of order:



ExploderWizard said:


> So the general concensus is that anything can be called an RPG.
> 
> If a tabletop combat game were produced that included a few pages about giving a name and some traits to your leader figure and was released as an RPG that it would be fine because there is nothing preventing it from being used as an RPG?
> 
> Thats a bit broad to be of any use IMHO.





Ahem, I suggest you read OD&D before you say that.  Or Basic/Expert D&D for that matter.  The first decade of our hobby was exactly that - a wargame with a bit of role play added in.  Yet most people call OD&D a roleplaying game.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 19, 2009)

Obryn said:


> No, I'm stating that re-defining some roleplaying games as "story games" is disparaging, in and of itself, regardless of how value-neutral you proclaim that term to be.



I disagree, somewhat.  One thing a good friend of mine taught me is that before you have an argument you have to agree on definitions. 

In this case, if you can't agree on a definition for "roleplaying game" than you can't agree on what qualifies since you are really using different things that happen to use the same word.

It's like arguing whether certain fruits are apples or not when one person's definition of "apple" is a orange citrus fruit.  That's not really arguing, it's talking to no purpose.

Still, going with a "new" definition of roleplaying game when you are in a roleplaying discussion forum is just asking for trouble.


> I also don't buy that it's used as a value-neutral term in this context, but that's a different discussion.



Maybe. I didn't see the original discussion.

If it isn't clear though...One thing they teach you in anger management courses is to never be a "mind reader."  Don't try to get into someone's head about their reasons for something, you'll just drive your self nuts and be wrong a good part of the time.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 19, 2009)

Glyfair - now don't go getting all reasonable.  Heh.

Let's be honest though.  People never, EVER say, "I don't roleplay, I play X".  It's ALWAYS "I roleplay, I play X.  You don't roleplay, you play Y".  It's typical geek dominance games all over again.

Trying to paint it as "I'm just speaking the truth as I see it" doesn't really change that.

Telling people that their chosen thing just doesn't live up to what it's supposed to be, is going to be insulting.  "It's not really roleplaying, it's something else.  Not that that something else is bad mind you, it just isn't quite what _I_ do." is the basic message here.

It's pretty hard not to see that as condescending.  I mean, if I were to say that AD&D isn't really a roleplaying game, it's just a combat simulator, most people would take me to task for that.  And rightfully so.  It's no different than any of the other walls people start putting up.  "It's not really roleplaying, it's too boardgamey", "It's just a tabletop MMO", etc. etc.  

It's just another way that one geek can try to claim dominance over playstyles that he or she doesn't share.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 19, 2009)

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y"]This isn't Storytelling, it's Roleplaying![/ame]


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 19, 2009)

> To me, this is 100% role playing. If it's not roleplaying, then, to be honest, I have no interest in roleplaying whatsoever. If the only way I can roleplay is to passively consume whatever plot the GM/DM decides to create this week, then bugger that for a game of soldiers. I have no interest. I want to be able to effect changes in the campaign.



To me, that is not role-playing in the traditional RPG sense; it is story-telling. While I am not wild about FATE, I think it better suited to the purpose than 4E. 

"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.

The distinction is really as simple as that. A role has limits to its perception and powers, and role-playing is working within those limits.

As the Author of a world via narration, one is not bound by the limits of a persona. Indeed, I wonder to what end one would incorporate a Game Master into such a game!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 19, 2009)

> To me, that is not role-playing in the traditional RPG sense; it is story-telling.




But they were playing roles! Hussar's character was the poor guy and there was a character who was a loud guy, and those were their characters, and those were their roles, and they were acting as if they were in their roles, so thus they were role-playing.

I think any definition of "role-playing" that doesn't include Hussar's example is a functionally arbitrary definition. If role-playing doesn't mean playing a role, then everything I know about the English language has just been hit upside the face with a truck. It is almost worse than the "what is anime?" or "what is fantasy?" discussions.


----------



## Agamon (Aug 19, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Sounds like a fairly typical game session. Does player 2 have some impediment to speaking in the 1st person?




It was an example that not all players speak in character (thus, he's kinda telling a story about what his PC is doing).



ExploderWizard said:


> As far as catagorizing roleplaying and story based games the easiest measure is the amount of roleplaying/interaction advice and material vs the amount of staging, scene setting, shared narrative material. Overall beyond having a good time, what is the most prominent feature/play experience presented in both rules and tone? Is it roleplaying a created character in a fictional world or creating shared stories?




Whatever crumbles your cookies, I say.  Let's not forget that 4e has been played for over a year by the rules (or dare I say suggestions, as much of the book is) of the DMG 1.  Suggesting options in the DMG 2 to perhaps change up the style of play doesn't illegitimize the game as an RPG.

Once again, as I and KM have said, roleplaying and story telling are not mutually exclusive.  Through roleplay, you are indeed telling a story, and you can weave a story in which one can roleplay.  To say that one chapter in the DMG2 has turned D&D into a story-telling game the likes of Once Upon A Time (the only example you've given of such a game that I can recall) seems odd to me.

Edit: whoa, I came back in after the apropos MP sketch.  My bad.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Aug 19, 2009)

You guys are going to be reinventing GNS theory in this thread before long.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 19, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget, it is the extension to doing _more than_ playing a role, and the end necessitating that means, that is key.

From that other thread: 







			
				ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> 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.




That seems to me an eminently sensible basis for taxonomy.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 19, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Telling people that their chosen thing just doesn't live up to what it's supposed to be, is going to be insulting.  "It's not really roleplaying, it's something else.  Not that that something else is bad mind you, it just isn't quite what _I_ do." is the basic message here.



But you are missing the first point.  The first thing you need to do in this sort of discussion is agree on a meaning for the term "roleplaying game."

In fact, I think the most argument laden term in such discussions is the term "roleplaying."  To some, you are roleplaying if you are sitting down playing an RPG.  It doesn't matter if you playing D&D and only treating your character as a combat game piece, they consider that "roleplaying."

On the other hand, there is the "role assumption" definition of roleplaying.  When you are speaking and acting (and sometimes thinking) as if you are your character.  

In fact, both definitions are correct.  However, if you try to use them interchangably in the same conversation you are going to have misunderstandings and disagreements.

Of course, most such discussions tend to quickly get into arguing how much "role assumption/roleplaying" is the proper amount, and then you can end up with some voracious arguments.  At least you will both agree on what you are arguing about then


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 19, 2009)

Philotomy Jurament said:


> You guys are going to be reinventing GNS theory in this thread before long.




So long as we don't get into such preciousness as GNS jargon, in which none of the terms mean what they conventionally mean. Bet your chicken nuggets I'm not about to call a play style "pervy"!


----------



## Hussar (Aug 19, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> To me, that is not role-playing in the traditional RPG sense; it is story-telling. While I am not wild about FATE, I think it better suited to the purpose than 4E.
> 
> "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.
> 
> ...




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?


----------



## Thunderfoot (Aug 19, 2009)

Oryan77 said:


> I'm confused. You mean to tell me that all this time that my wife and I have been dressing up and pretending to be other people right before we make the sexy, we may not have actually been roleplaying? I thought my impression of Tarzan was dead on.




For The WIN!!!!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 19, 2009)

> 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 is creating a false dichotomy.

More than that: it's also making up terns and definitions.

I've heard of minis games that basically revolve around combat, sure. And in that case the role-playing is basically out just as it is in a game of RISK or Poker. But I haven't heard them called War-Games, and the primary goal isn't to fight, but to have fun and win against the other player through strategy. 

I've heard of role-playing games, but they've run the gamut from WoW to Final Fantasy to D&D to T20 to GURPS to, heck, Magic the Gathering in some instances. Some of them have you playing against a computer or other players, others feature a GM to give you obstacles, but that you're not playing "against," in the competitive sense.

I've heard of RPG's that focus on narrative elements like plot, scenes, character development, etc., but these are not an entirely different species of game as much as they are a refinement of role-playing to a specific end. Mostly these are like other RPG's, but they have a special kind of focus.

I've also heard of games that are about storytelling: things like a "pass the baton" kind of game where one person writes a sentence, the second person writes the next sentence, etc. These games don't concern themselves with playing a role, but they are about telling a story. They don't go around identifying as "storytelling games" as far as I know, they're just "games." Games in which you happen to tell a story, like Hungry Hungry Hippos is a game in which you happen to slam a lever as fast as possible (which actually skirts kind of close to an RPG what with your little plastic avatar and his inferred hunger). 



> Kamikaze Midget, it is the extension to doing more than playing a role, and the end necessitating that means, that is key.




No, what is key is that a role-playing game involves playing a role.

Anything that is beyond that, anything that is MORE than that, isn't about whether or not someone is "role playing" anymore. Clearly, they are. Your concern is with whatever that "more" is, so define _that thing_, and maybe we can all be on the same page. 

Don't call it role-playing, 'cuz it really doesn't seem like it is.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 19, 2009)

> 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 (Aug 19, 2009)

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 (Aug 19, 2009)

> 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 (Aug 19, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> 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 (Aug 19, 2009)

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 (Aug 19, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> 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 (Aug 19, 2009)

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


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 19, 2009)

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 (Aug 19, 2009)

Aus_Snow said:


> 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 (Aug 19, 2009)

Hussar said:


> 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.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 19, 2009)

Hussar said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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 (Aug 19, 2009)

Samuel Leming said:


> 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 (Aug 19, 2009)

Hussar said:


> 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._



Hussar said:


> 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.


Hussar said:


> 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.



Hussar said:


> 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 (Aug 19, 2009)

> 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 (Aug 19, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> "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 (Aug 19, 2009)

Now that I've had some time to think about it, I do see that there can be tension between roleplaying and storytelling (or story_writing_) 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 (Aug 19, 2009)

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 (Aug 19, 2009)

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 (Aug 19, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> 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. 



FireLance said:


> Now that I've had some time to think about it, I do see that there can be tension between roleplaying and storytelling (or story_writing_) 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 (Aug 19, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> 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.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 19, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


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




While this is a possible way of doing it, it is certainly not a usual way of role playing.  Having editorial control over the setting does not give me editorial control over other player characters.



> 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.




Agreed. 



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




Agreed as well.  Although I would ammend that to "almost never" just because there probably are times when DM's do take control of characters - charm spells being the most obvious example.  But, yes, you point is well taken. 



> 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?




So now you're saying that I can no longer effect ANY changes in the game world for fear of making decisions for the DM's character?  What if I want to build a castle?  Don't I make changes in the DM's character simply by adventuring?  

Or is it I can only make prescribed changes, those allowed by the DM?  

I'm not sure you really want to go down this line EW.  You are making traditional roleplay sound like the worst kind of railroading.  The players not only can only react to what the DM sends their way, but also can only react in certain ways for fearing of making decisions for the DM's character?

Note, btw, in my diamond dog example, I actually never changed the DM's setting at all.  Well, that's not entirely true.  I added a dog.  That is the full extent of the changes I made to the DM's setting.  A dog.

If the DM is taking offense at my adding a dog to his setting, then perhaps that DM should be having a bit of a lie down and rest.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 19, 2009)

Hussar said:


> 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.




Are you willing, as a player to permit the DM to have editorial control over your character from time to time? Lets say the DM gets to choose every other feat and every third power you get. In return you get to edit aspects of the game world. Sounds fair to me.

If, as a DM I cannot exert editorial control over PC choices from time to time it would be a tad restrictive to me.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 19, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Are you willing, as a player to permit the DM to have editorial control over your character from time to time? Lets say the DM gets to choose every other feat and every third power you get. In return you get to edit aspects of the game world. Sounds fair to me.
> 
> If, as a DM I cannot exert editorial control over PC choices from time to time it would be a tad restrictive to me.




So, you think that adding a dog to a setting is the same as changing every other feat and every third power?  That these are on the same level?

And, I noticed you ignored the question.  Is someone who plays Eberron in 3.5 edition D&D playing a role playing game or a story telling game?  Please explain your answer.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 19, 2009)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Why is it roleplaying when the DM declares there is a privy in the courtyard, but not roleplaying when the player does it?



It's *not* role-playing; it's game-mastering.



			
				Doug McCrae said:
			
		

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



That hardly seems to me to void the usefulness of a taxonomy that can distinguish among _D-Day_, _D&D_ and _Dark Cults_.



			
				Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I don't like railroaded games either, but some people do, and they are still roleplaying games.



I did not say that they were not. I disagreed with Hussar's depiction of _all_ RPGs as railroads.


----------



## Cadfan (Aug 19, 2009)

I don't accept the analogy between the gameworld and the PCs such that the gameworld is the DM's PC and therefore the DM is entitled to absolute control over it.  

1. The gameworld is much bigger than a single PC, both in imaginative scale and in table time. 

2. A PC exists to a certain extent only as an interaction with the gameworld.  For example, it does you little good to imagine your character as an orphan raised by a circus if your DM declares to you that there are no such things as circuses.

3. No one games the way EW implies.  No one constantly asks permission for every action in order to avoid inadvertently "adding things" to the gameworld.  People make assumptions about the gameworld, do things, "add things" in this thread's parlance, and the DM flows with it, interrupting where he feels it important to do so.  

To put it another way, lets say I decide that my character wants to give a coin to a beggar.  The DM hasn't expressly stated that there are any beggars, but I know I'm in a big town in a market place.  Without even thinking about it, I will likely assume that there is a beggar somewhere, and declare that I am giving a coin to him.  I have in essence added a beggar the the gameworld.  Now the DM would be entitled to declare an absence of beggars- maybe he's decided that this particular market is heavily patrolled by strict guards who eject the poor.  And that would be his business.  But most likely, in the typical game, the DM doesn't have an opinion on the subject and just rolls with it.  So I said I was giving a coin to a beggar- a beggar sounds like a plausible thing to be there, giving a coin to a beggar is something my character is capable of doing, so it just happens.  

This isn't to say that the DM doesn't absolutely control the setting in the abstract sense, but it is to say that the DM doesn't spend all day miserly guarding every last shred of that control.  No one plays that way- EW has essentially constructed a straw person of his own opinion, in which every action requires express DM permission in case formerly unstated attributes of the gameworld would make that action impossible.  No one plays that way, instead the gameworld is jointly created with the DM exercising editorial control and veto power.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 19, 2009)

Hussar said:


> 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.




Sorry I didn't intend to avoid the question I just forgot.
An action point in this sense is much like a character power that is available to all PC's. Like any other ability, the examples you provide  enable the PC to affect those things within his/her sphere of influence from within the role. I don't have enough detail to comment on "small changes in the scene". If a PC could use an action point to say, "that 3rd bugbear in the patrol wanders off in search of food." then that's a different matter. 

You can play a story based or roleplaying game in Eberron as the players wish.



Hussar said:


> So, you think that adding a dog to a setting is the same as changing every other feat and every third power? That these are on the same level?




The point isn't about specific examples and thier equality. It is about issues of ownership/entitlement cutting both ways.


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 19, 2009)

There's a conflict with traditional games and storytelling:

You can't be challenged if you can control the world as an author.

This isn't always true, based on the game; Spirit of the Century limits your authorial powers via resources.  I'm aslo assuming the reason you're playing a traditional game is to overcome challenges; if you want to play D&D to tell stories to each other, then there's no conflict.

Most D&D games have at least some storytelling going on in them.  "What are you doing right now?"  "I'm sitting on the porch of the inn, smoking my pipe, listening to the crickets chirp."  The crickets chirping isn't roleplaying but it's not a big deal.  The important thing is that the DM has final say.  He could say, "Actually, on this world, crickets don't chirp so much as whine."  But that's not really important.

(Where it gets interesting is if the DM says, "Actually, they are not chirping tonight."  He knows it's because there's a monster in the grass sneaking up to kill the PC.  Now the player can react to that.  Would he have had the same information if he just said, "I'm on the porch"?)


A year ago I might have sided more with Hussar, but now I see things differently.  The DM, with his authority over the game world, _enables_ the players to play their roles.  They don't have to step out of character in order to figure out what's over the next hill.  They don't have to make a choice between character advocacy (where you make choices that align with what your character wants - or thinks he wants) and creating adversity.

The DM can supply all the adversity he wants and it works because he doesn't care if the PCs succeed or not.  His job is to make sure the players can make the kinds of meaningful choices they want.  Because of this they aren't just passive consumers of the DM's material; they interact with it, change it, shape it, exploit it, all through playing their PC roles, while the DM maintains consistency of the game world, making their choices matter.

At least that's what I think now.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Aug 19, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> So long as we don't get into such preciousness as GNS jargon, in which none of the terms mean what they conventionally mean.




This whole thread exists because you and EW cling to a narrow and outdated use of "roleplaying" that hasn't been valid for most people ever.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 19, 2009)

nightwyrm said:
			
		

> 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.



Just so! That's not role-_playing_; it's role-_definition_.

This all started because ExploderWizard (as I understand the post) found the inclusion of theatrical "scene-playing" elements in the DMG2 a notable departure from the emphasis on role-playing that EW considers key to D&D ("the game", as opposed to "the brand", as Philotomy Jurament put it).

I think that's trying to close the stable door after the horses have bolted; the new game is by design a break with old D&D. "Story-telling" in various forms is a big part of that, just as it was in the 2e era. Thus, it seems to me quite appropriate that the DMG2 should include such a chapter.

I certainly don't think it's going to make 4e "no longer an RPG"!

The broader topic is one dearer to me, as I see the development of the story-game as having been hindered by a reluctance to set aside "legacy" assumptions. Maybe some people see ways in which unthinking adoption of "war-game" concepts has at times constrained experimentation in the RPG field.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 19, 2009)

In a way, many of our difficulties are a credit to the brilliance of Arneson and Gygax. Any much-bruited "revolution in gaming" is likely on closer examination to be really just another orbit, long ago followed, around the core concepts those pioneers set forth.


----------



## tyrlaan (Aug 19, 2009)

Oryan77 said:


> But really guys, why's everyone trying to segregate each player into their own category all of a sudden? Seems like for 2 weeks now people have been discussing each gaming style and trying to sort out who should be classified as what. Aren't we all RPG gamers? It doesn't matter how you play it as long as you're playing in a good group. No need to get bent out of shape because some guy from another group doesn't like how you play D&D



This.

What's the point of all this? Did we all just get tired (finally) of the 4e love/hate wars that we need a new argument of the season? 

Will the roleplaying community and/or industry suddenly awaken to some sort of renaissance because we have pegged the distinctness of story-telling vs. roleplaying? Or, in other words, how is this long-winded thread in any way constructive?


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 19, 2009)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> No one games the way EW implies.



*Baloney!* It stands to reason that EW role-plays in that sense; I know that I and the others in my group do. That's the only way I've seen 4e played, and I find plenty of people on forums -- playing a wide variety of RPGs -- who do so, and consider it _the conventional meaning of "role-playing"_ in an RPG. People playing roles with computer programs in place of GMs necessarily do so as well, unless they write additional programs.

It is the most "realistic" feature of our typically fantastic games!


----------



## Cadfan (Aug 19, 2009)

LostSoul said:


> There's a conflict with traditional games and storytelling:
> 
> You can't be challenged if you can control the world as an author.



This argument doesn't exist because people disagree with you.  It exists because some people have decided to apply a strange mixture of a "one drop rule" to player authorial control, such that your example of chirping crickets becomes not merely a benign example of how people roleplay by making assumptions and additions to the gameworld which the DM can then correct if he chooses.  Rather, as the tip of an iceberg inevitably reveals the presence of the mountain beneath the waters, it is taken as conclusive evidence that the gates to the Hades of PC authorial control have been flung open, and demons are spilling out.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 19, 2009)

tyrlaan said:


> Will the roleplaying community and/or industry suddenly awaken to some sort of renaissance because we have pegged the distinctness of story-telling vs. roleplaying? Or, in other words, how is this long-winded thread in any way constructive?



 Will the roleplaying community and/or industry suddenly awaken to some sort of renaissance because *someone publishes a new game*? Or, in other words, how is this long-winded *designing and publishing of game after game* in any way constructive?

Nobody is forcing anybody to partake of it. If one does not like it, then one is free to ignore it.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 19, 2009)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Rather, as the tip of an iceberg inevitably reveals the presence of the mountain beneath the waters, it is taken as conclusive evidence that the gates to the Hades of PC authorial control have been flung open, and demons are spilling out.



Maybe, although I have not seen it. In any case, what "some people have decided" hardly makes it illegitimate for the rest of us to discuss the matter.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 19, 2009)

tyrlaan said:


> What's the point of all this? Did we all just get tired (finally) of the 4e love/hate wars that we need a new argument of the season?



Like I said above, it's just another way to draw lines in the sand to prove that one person is playing RPGs right, and other people are doing them wrong.  In this case, so wrong they're not even playing an RPG anymore, but a different kind of game entirely.  (And what's more, they're too clueless to even figure _that _out, so it's a good thing that a few people in this thread have taken the time to beneficently point out who's really playing role-playing games and who's not.  It's educational, you see.)

-O


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 19, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Rather, as the tip of an iceberg inevitably reveals the presence of the mountain beneath the waters, it is taken as conclusive evidence that the gates to the Hades of PC authorial control have been flung open, and demons are spilling out.




Yeah.  I shouldn't have worded it so strongly.  

I believe there is a tension between adversity and storytelling.  It's more of a continuum than a binary, with different groups drawing the line in different places.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 19, 2009)

One of the reasons I actually think we're NOT in the golden era of gaming is because of how "stuck" people have become on what IS or ISN'T an RPG, what IS or ISN'T D&D, what IS or ISN'T good for the hobby, etc...

It seems like at one point, D&D was this amorphous ever changing "idea" really. There wasn't one thing that people demanded be D&D. New rules came in, new locations, new philosophies...  To me  that was the BEST part. 

Now it seems like people have just gotten too stuck in their ways.  New ideas come along, and instead of being excited, or at least accepting, they get up in arms about how "This isn't D&D" or "This isn't role playing!"

At best, this makes me sad.  At worst angry.


----------



## tyrlaan (Aug 19, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Will the roleplaying community and/or industry suddenly awaken to some sort of renaissance because *someone publishes a new game*? Or, in other words, how is this long-winded *designing and publishing of game after game* in any way constructive?



Surely you are attempting to imply that the answer to both is "no," in which case I hope you're joking. That said, a conversation regarding the constructive qualities of releasing new products is probably best served as a forked thread should you want to seriously discuss this, since it really has no bearing on this conversation.


Ariosto said:


> Nobody is forcing anybody to partake of it. If one does not like it, then one is free to ignore it.



This angle isn't a relevant counter to my comments. If I came to this thread claiming something along the lines "stop please, I find your posts offensive," then you would be 100% valid in your counter. But that's not my point. 

My point is that this kind of destructive behavior isn't doing us, the gaming community, or the gaming industry any good. My point is that all this internal bickering doesn't DO anything beneficial for anyone. This need to label everything in its own little neat container serves what purpose exactly? From where I'm standing, I have to agree with Obryn's take on this.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 19, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> The broader topic is one dearer to me, as I see the development of the story-game as having been hindered by a reluctance to set aside "legacy" assumptions. Maybe some people see ways in which unthinking adoption of "war-game" concepts has at times constrained experimentation in the RPG field.



You think rpgs should focus on one aspect rather than compromise? 100% gamist or 100% narrativist or 100% simulationist, no in between. You're a Forge-y, you are. Which is quite unexpected.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 19, 2009)

I tend to define rpgs as:
- One or more players inhabits a role, having an imaginary experience
- Some resolution system is used to adjudicate events in the game
- Any possible action within the game is permitted as a "move."

To me, then roleplaying is an activity which facillitates this kind of game. I think you can classify games in a number of useful ways, such as:

- Fantasy wargaming: classic style, associated with "simulation" and some gamist elements
- Storytelling: newish style, associated with emulating dramatic tropes and psychologically immersive experiences
- Postmodern style: even newer style, associated with metagaming, deconstruction/reconstruction, and examinations of texts between characters, environments, and imaginary events

Of course, good luck finding a pure example. That doesn't make distinctions useless, but it does mean that finding the precise boundaries for any taxonomy is very frustrating.

But i will definitely say that storytelling games, however they are defined, are definitely a subset of roleplaying, provided that at least one player adopts a role.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 19, 2009)

EW and Ariosto, what games do you consider to be 'story games' but not roleplaying games?


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 19, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> EW and Ariosto, what games do you consider to be 'story games' but not roleplaying games?




I am neither EW nor Aristo, but I can answer under my taxonomy.

Capes: The players own situations, not roles. You don't play a character, you have a character. 
Baron Munchausen: Only a limited number of conceivable actions are permitted.
Freeform play by post: There is no method of resolution other than conventional social rules.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 19, 2009)

LostSoul said:


> I believe there is a tension between adversity and storytelling.  It's more of a continuum than a binary, with different groups drawing the line in different places.




Yes. It is a matter not just of adversity but of surprise. _Discovering_ what lies over the hill or beyond the door is different from _dictating_ what is there.

Likewise, "play-acting" an earnest attempt to accomplish something, when one in fact chooses to make it more difficult for the character (or even decides that the attempt shall fail) -- because it enables one later, as a player of an abstract game, to add a bonus (or even ensure success) -- is a big step out of the role.

Adversity then is on another plane, separate from the character-role. It comes in via game limits on one's ability to enforce one's preferred story against the opposition of some other story.

When role-playing itself is given a lower priority than adversity, it may be that "authorial control" of the imagined world is trivially acceptable so long as its _effects_ are seen as trivial. "I look for an X" becomes, "I find an X, and our interaction happens this way."

When (as seems common among the "GNS" folks), _everything_ is reduced to a question of "narrative control", then role-playing ceases to be the actual means of play. One might end up with a "role-playing themed" game, just as one might dress up one's latest "Euro-style" board or card game as superficially "about" the Battle of Waterloo or farming on Fiji.

There's nothing "wrong" with that, to the extent that people have fun playing. A "war-themed" game such as _Stratego_ or _Risk_, though, is not quite what "wargamers" typically have in mind when they seek a "wargame".

The utilitarian purpose of such terminology is to facilitate matching game designs with players likely to appreciate them (and players with like-minded fellow players). Unfortunately, there is no well-intended enterprise that "geek culture" cannot pervert into yet another chance to practice the herd reaction against perceived threats.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 19, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> The utilitarian purpose of such terminology is to facilitate matching game designs with players likely to appreciate them (and players with like-minded fellow players). Unfortunately, there is no well-intended enterprise that "geek culture" cannot pervert into yet another chance to practice the herd reaction against perceived threats.



A good first step if you want to be seen as something other than an edition warrior in lexicographer's clothing might be to stop abducting & redefining common terms.  As an example, the Buffy RPG allows players some plot control among more traditional elements.  It's a role-playing game, though - pretty clearly, IMO.  Under a different taxonomic structure, it might not be, and that's unacceptable if you're taking a utilitarian approach to this question.

So why not start there?  Use a common definition of roleplaying games, familiar to hobbyists, and avoid the ickiness and inevitable conflicts associated with trying to tell someone playing a roleplaying game that they're really not _because you know better_.  Re-define the term for the game you yourself are playing, and leave "role-playing game" as the umbrella term it is today.

Heck, if you're looking for utility, how does it _help_ to re-define an existing and common term in a non-traditional way?

-O


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 19, 2009)

I think the utility of this discussion is that people can say, "Okay, here is this technique; this is what I think it's good for and what it doesn't do so well."

Then people can discuss that.

For example, "Third-person teasers" from the DMG2 preview, where the players play some other, DM-generated PCs in order foreshadowing some element of the game world.  This is what I think about that:

This technique isn't good if you want to maintain player-PC role-identification; that is, the PC knows what the player knows.

It's not so good if you want to figure out what was revealed in the teaser scene for yourself.

It's good for ratcheting up the tension.  

It's good if you want to show things to the players that the PCs would have no way of knowing.

It's good for creating sympathy with NPCs.

That kind of discussion I could see being useful.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Aug 19, 2009)

My goodness.  

While, from a purely theoretic-intellectual standpoint, this discussion is interesting.  But I would venture to guess, most roleplayers (or story players, or whatever) couldn't care less how they are labeled.  

If I am having fun gaming with my buddies, and are playing an RPG (or even a "story game" posing as an RPG, as is suggested by some) then we are friggin roleplaying!

I wonder how much creating these distictions really help the hobby or help gaming in general. There seems to be a trend lately in categorizing and plugging gamers into silos.  For me, it's a bit discouraging and it hasn't made visiting various RPG boards as much fun.


----------



## Mallus (Aug 19, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Yes. It is a matter not just of adversity but of surprise. _Discovering_ what lies over the hill or beyond the door is different from _dictating_ what is there.



Note that it's possible for a player to 'dictate' what's over Hill A and still 'discover' what's beyond Hill B (because they are not the author of Hill B).

For example, one of my players and I essentially collaborated on his homeland. Even though he participated in it's creation, and gave me a lot of inspirational material, I control all the fine details, in edition to having final say over the 'truth' of the place.

I don't foresee any difficulties with him role-playing a visit home, should the campaign move in that direction.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 19, 2009)

Obryn said:


> So why not start there?  Use a common definition of roleplaying games, familiar to hobbyists, and avoid the ickiness and inevitable conflicts associated with trying to tell someone playing a roleplaying game that they're really not _because you know better_.  Re-define the term for the game you yourself are playing, and leave "role-playing game" as the umbrella term it is today.



Yeah, leave the term 'roleplaying game' where it is and refer to subsets of rpgs - 'gamist rpgs', 'narrativist rpgs', etc. Not only does this not annoy people it has another, quite wonderful advantage:

It's the currently accepted terminology! You'd be using language the same way other people do! Nice!!


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 19, 2009)

Obryn said:
			
		

> ... trying to tell someone playing a roleplaying game that they're really not _because you know better_ ...



 ... is not something I have undertaken. Perhaps someone else has, and you simply cannot be bothered to distinguish individuals and their statements from each other.

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!


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 19, 2009)

LostSoul said:


> I think the utility of this discussion is that people can say, "Okay, here is this technique; this is what I think it's good for and what it doesn't do so well."
> 
> Then people can discuss that.
> 
> ...




*Quoted for Common Sense*


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 19, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> EW and Ariosto, what games do you consider to be 'story games' but not roleplaying games?




Once Upon A Time is the one I have played quite a bit of.
I have played some GURPS as a story game, the mechanics are neutral.
I have played D&D 4E as a roleplaying game. The design leans toward the narrative/story side but it doesn't have to be played that way.

I don't have direct experience with many heavy narrative based games marketed as RPG's.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 19, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> ... is not something I have undertaken. Perhaps someone else has, and you simply cannot be bothered to distinguish individuals and their statements from each other.



It's possible! 



> 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!



I have very little interest in trying to define a slippery term like that.  (I had a professor in grad school whose career was more or less dedicated to - I kid you not - defining the term "heap.")  I'd say a good first start is to take a look at everything currently marketed as a Role-Playing Game, look for common threads, and go from there.  I'd say identification with an avatar in the game, advancing that avatar, interacting with an imagined setting, and making decisions as if you were your avatar would be a good start, though.

-O


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 19, 2009)

Someone is free to call _Dungeon!_, _The Awful Green Things from Outer Space_, _The Creature That Ate Sheboygan_, _Circus Maximus_ or _Rogue Trooper_ "a role-playing game".

Someone else is free to call it "a pretty poor role-playing game".

People are still going to view things as unsatisfactory, and _for precisely the same reasons._ You can take away a particular word, but you cannot take away the whole apparatus of language -- much less the thought that gives rise to it.

So, take away! However, once you create the void, you cannot claim infinite vetoes over what people interested in carrying on a discussion come up with to fill it.

At some point, either you must quit such quibbling and deal with the actual ideas -- or else people with more serious concerns will cease to pay you any mind.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 19, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Once Upon A Time is the one I have played quite a bit of.
> I have played some GURPS as a story game, the mechanics are neutral.
> I have played D&D 4E as a roleplaying game. The design leans toward the narrative/story side but it doesn't have to be played that way.



Yeah, Once Upon A Time isn't a rpg. But then, no one thinks it is, afaik. It is indeed a storytelling game. GURPS is a simulationist rpg. How did you run it to make it into a 'story game'? D&D 4e is a traditional rpg with more emphasis on gamism than simulationism. No narrativism at all, as far as I'm aware.

None of those are what I would've suspected one might mean by 'story games'. Well, except Once Upon A Time. But, like I say, no one thinks it's an rpg.

I thought you were talking about games that bill themselves as rpgs but are heavily narrativist, such as Prince Valiant (the first narrativist rpg) and Forge type games such as My Life With Master or Dogs In The Vineyard. Or maybe Vampire 2nd ed which has a chapter on storytelling which includes techniques similar (or identical) to those in DMG 2 such as flashbacks, dream sequences and foreshadowing.

I thought you might also be talking about player control of elements outwith the PC's control, which are not, imo, necessarily narrativism, such as in James Bond 007.

EDIT: The only other person I've seen using the term 'story games' to refer to what other people call roleplaying games was howandwhy99. He seemed to be using it to mean any rpg published later than 1990. I guess I've been assuming that you and Ariosto are cut from a similar cloth, which is probably very unfair. Howandwhy's definitions are highly eccentric, I don't even think any edition of D&D would've fit his weird definition of what a roleplaying game is.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 19, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Now, perhaps Obryn and McCrae would be so kind as to _share_ the definition of "role-playing game" that they consider the proper one?



No one has yet come up with a decent definition.



> If we are to be bound by it, then it would be nice to know what it is!



Oh, we're bound by something far more useful than a definition. Meaning. The use of language. If something is generally called a roleplaying game, then as far as I am concerned it is one.

This gives me a quite wonderful advantage in discourse - people know what the f--k I'm talking about!!


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 19, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Someone is free to call _Dungeon!_, _The Awful Green Things from Outer Space_, _The Creature That Ate Sheboygan_, _Circus Maximus_ or _Rogue Trooper_ "a role-playing game".
> 
> Someone else is free to call it "a pretty poor role-playing game".



No one does either of those things though, so it isn't really a problem.


----------



## lutecius (Aug 19, 2009)

Obryn said:


> I'd say *identification with an avatar* in the game, advancing that avatar, interacting with an imagined setting, and *making decisions as if you were your avatar* would be a good start, though.



Doesn't that (bolded by me) exclude the more narrativist games?



Doug McCrae said:


> D&D 4e is a traditional rpg with more emphasis on gamism than simulationism. No narrativism at all, as far as I'm aware.



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

Healing surges have also been defended (by 4e supporters, not designers) as emulating some pulp/fantasy narrative tropes.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 19, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> No one does either of those things though, so it isn't really a problem.



More precisely, no one so far has done so in this thread.



> games that bill themselves as rpgs but are heavily narrativist, such as Prince Valiant (the first narrativist rpg)



You've got that backwards! The full title is *Prince Valiant, the Storytelling Game*.

Page 5:


> _Prince Valiant_ is most like a "roleplaying" game, such as _RuneQuest, King Arthur Pendragon, Call of Cthulhu,_ and _Dungeons & Dragons_, but is even different from them. _Prince Valiant_ is a storytelling game.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 19, 2009)

lutecius said:


> Doesn't that (bolded by me) exclude the more narrativist games?



Such as?

-O


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 19, 2009)

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


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 19, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> 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 (Aug 19, 2009)

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 (Aug 19, 2009)

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 (Aug 19, 2009)

Obryn said:


> 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 (Aug 19, 2009)

lutecius said:


> 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 (Aug 19, 2009)

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 (Aug 19, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> 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 (Aug 19, 2009)

lutecius said:


> 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 (Aug 20, 2009)

> 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.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 20, 2009)

The Jungian sense of _persona_, and its ancient literal senses of mask and character, correspond quite well to what I gather of the "Gygaxian D&D" concept of role-playing (although I have not read _Role-playing Mastery_).

It is "through the mask" that information comes to the player, and through it that the player affects the imagined world.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 20, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> MoogleEmpMog: I can dig it.
> 
> (whole review)




You must spread some xp around before giving it to Ariosto again.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 20, 2009)

lutecius said:


> Doesn't that (bolded by me) exclude the more narrativist games?
> 
> I tend to agree but I believe Mearls justified the encounter/daily power mechanic as "giving the player more narrative control".
> 
> Healing surges have also been defended (by 4e supporters, not designers) as emulating some pulp/fantasy narrative tropes.






lutecius said:


> 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")




The thing is though, those elements are not exclusive.  You can have games where the players have limited editorial control (Action Points) while at the same time playing a role and making decisions based on that role.

Now, some decisions you as the player make might not be based on that role at the time, but, many of them will.

My single point of contention here is that Exploder Wizard, and I believe Ariosto as well, contend that as soon as you can make any editioral change in the setting as a player, you are no longer playing a role playing game, but are now playing a story telling game.

Bascically, this definition excludes the vast majority of rpg's out there, other than pre-3e D&D from the definition of role playing game, since almost every rpg from the beginning of 3e era onward, and certainly many from before, allow players limited editorial control over the setting.

Again, what's the point of defining role playing game in such a way that it excludes the majority of what pretty much everyone calls a role playing game?

AFAIK, no one calls Hungry Hungry Hippos a roleplaying game, nor does it bill itself as one.  There's absolutely no confusion.  Advanced Squad Leader, while probably complicated enough to be an RPG, also doesn't bill itself as such and I don't think anyone would be confused enough to mistake it as one.

One danger here that I'm seeing is that editorial control is being equated with narrativism.  It's not.  Nar gaming in the GNS model is a totally different animal.  Being able to effect changes in the setting by spending resources available to all players is not an exclusively Narrativist (again GNS meaning) element.  Editorial control appears in just about every RPG out there to some degree.


----------



## maddman75 (Aug 20, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> 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!
> 
> ...




That's just a feature of 4e, its focused on making a fun tactical game, not create an interesting fight story-wise.  Exalted's mechanics enforce this, though its multilayered and often not seen until you actually play.

First off, everyone has killer combos.  Good guys and bad guys.  Everyone also has killer defenses.  These are paid for in 'motes', the magic currency of the game.  Generally in a fight characters throw attacks at each other, deflecting each others blows until they start to run out of motes.

Now enter the stunting rules.  If you describe what you do in a cool way, you get to roll extra dice.  You also (and this is more important) get motes back.  So when everyone is low on motes, they start stunting their asses off, doing more and more cool things until finally they can pull off one of their killer moves while the enemy is defenseless.

boom, boom, BOOM

I suppose you could find a way to enforce this in 4e as well.  Maybe a shot clock or something, where the DC for your daily goes up for each Encounter power that you've used, encouraging players to use them as killing blows rather than openers.

Another way would require them to be redesigned, but model them after the stake in the heart move in Buffy.  The attack does normal damage, but if 5x damage would kill them, they die.  Otherwise they just take normal damage.  Makes you want to ensure you soften the enemy up before going for the kill.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 20, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> Yeah, Once Upon A Time isn't a rpg. But then, no one thinks it is, afaik. It is indeed a storytelling game. GURPS is a simulationist rpg. How did you run it to make it into a 'story game'? D&D 4e is a traditional rpg with more emphasis on gamism than simulationism. No narrativism at all, as far as I'm aware.
> 
> None of those are what I would've suspected one might mean by 'story games'. Well, except Once Upon A Time. But, like I say, no one thinks it's an rpg.
> 
> ...




GURPS is quite easy to adapt and play as a story game. A lot of the cinematic options pave the way and the point based system is great for designing custom advantages that allow the player to control plot elements. 

I do not share howandwhy99's strict definition of roleplaying. I do believe that once the game master and the players begin to share the responsibilities of world editing the roles of both the player and GM blur to a point eventually making a GM just another player. For as long as rpgs have been around, the universal rule of DMing has been to leave player choices to the player. With a game handing out narrative control like candy the players become the editors and contributing byline writers of the game world. The players still have thier characters all to themselves but the DM must share his/her toys with the group. In order for narrative control to be equal then the DM should be able to share in the PC's decision making process. This would result in everyone having a hand in playing all the roles. More control over the game for everyone and a loss of individuality for all.


----------



## jdrakeh (Aug 20, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> You're not in a dungeon, your avatar is.




Pffft. You've never seen that movie with Tom Hanks, have you?


----------



## maddman75 (Aug 20, 2009)

Question: If an OD&D GM asks for character backgrounds, even brief ones, and uses that information to flesh out his world, is the group no longer playing RPGs, according to your definitions?

What about a wizard casting a Wish spell?

If a player makes a suggestion as to what's beyond the hill and the GM takes it, are they still playing roleplaying games?  If so, what is the functional difference between this an a system of points that the player can use to define things about the setting, with GM veto (as nearly all games that use these mechanics support)?

Here's another one.  I commonly use the Luck roll as a form of metagame mechanic.  Player asks if there's a crowbar in the ol' toolshed.  Roll luck and there is, fail and there isn't.  Are you going to claim that Call of Cthulhu isn't a roleplaying game?

Would you be willing to consider less offensive terminology?  I agree with Obryn that saying your style is REAL roleplaying and other people's ways are something else is inherently offensive.  I'll accept 'story-game' as a subcategory of Roleplaying Game, but not a seperate category.  I don't feel when I play Buffy instead of Call of Cthulhu that I'm taking part in a totally different hobby.  What would you call games without metagame mechanics?


----------



## lutecius (Aug 20, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> I see those as being more gamist - they present players with interesting resource management or tactical decisions.



I agree here. I've always felt the narrativist justification was just that, a justification. I believe the main purpose of these mechanics is balance though, not interesting resource management.



> 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.



I don't think that not being able to _ever_ repeat a manoeuvre during a fight is particularly simulationist and if a manoeuvre works, unless it specifically relies on surprise (rather than skills) I don't see why it couldn't be used over and over in a real fight.
In a fictional fight, it would probably be boring. However, simulating the progress of a fictional fight sounds narrativist to me.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 20, 2009)

Hussar said:


> My single point of contention here is that Exploder Wizard, and I believe Ariosto as well, contend that as soon as you can make any editioral change in the setting as a player, you are no longer playing a role playing game, but are now playing a story telling game.




I won't speak for Ariosto but I believe that editorial changes in the game made from outside the chosen role give the game more story orientation and brings it further from roleplaying.

Shared gameworlds can be a wonderful thing. If everyone in the group runs games in the same shared world then all can share in it's creation and editing. As a player I come to a game wanting to play the character, influencing the rest of the game through the running of that character. When I want more narrative control I will run a game and give up the joy of playing a single character.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 20, 2009)

Hussar said:
			
		

> ... and I believe Ariosto as well ...



Nope.



> Nar gaming in the GNS model is a totally different animal.



_Everything_ in the GNS model is a totally different animal!


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 20, 2009)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> If one person on a thread thinks he's playing an RPG, he's goddamn playing an RPG.  Simple as that.



And if a designer claims to have designed a storytelling game, then he's darned well designed a storytelling game.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 20, 2009)

maddman75 said:


> Question: If an OD&D GM asks for character backgrounds, even brief ones, and uses that information to flesh out his world, is the group no longer playing RPGs, according to your definitions?
> 
> What about a wizard casting a Wish spell?
> 
> ...




Some great questions 

Character backrounds: If the DM would like character backrounds and asks for them then either the player is presented a range of options based on info from the game world or the DM gives the player a blank slate. In the latter case the DM is actually soliciting help with his world. There is no character being played and thus no role yet.

Wish Spell: This is a great example of world altering and editing that is accomplished from within an assumed role. The character has the power to make a wish come true subject to the limitations on such magic, no problems.

Luck mechanic: This is a prime example of letting the dice fall where they may in the determination of a character's fortune. The same rule applies to all and eliminates the need for the dreaded GM fiat. No impact on roleplaying one way or another. 

I don't find story based games offensive. I have played games that way and probably will do so again in the future. If nothing else this discussion has made me more aware of  story based indie games that I might want to check out when I get the chance.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 20, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> I do believe that once the game master and the players begin to share the responsibilities of world editing the roles of both the player and GM blur to a point eventually making a GM just another player.



Like Hussar says, player power extending beyond the PC doesn't necessarily have anything to do with storytelling.

Also you seem to be worrying unnecessarily that allowing a little more player power will open the floodgates to DMs and players being equal, D&D turning into Once Upon A Time, cats and dogs living together, etc, etc. That's really not the case at all. Lots and lots of games have rules which allow the players to control fairly small and limited non-PC elements of the world without it going any further than that.

As far as I know the first game to explicitly have a rule for this is James Bond 007, published in the early 80s. I think they are called Hero Points. The example in the text is of a player whose PC (James Bond ofc) is fighting Oddjob. The player spends a Hero Point to have a gold brick be lying to hand which he can use as a club.

I understand that Spirit of the Century has quite a few rules like this allowing players to control things such as whether an old flame shows up in a bar the PCs enter.

Mutants & Masterminds has Hero Points which allow the PCs to temporarily boost their powers or avoid injury with a good ol' Marvel-style adrenalin surge or even find a clue or otherwise receive inspiration.

In my current M&M game the players have created their own nemeses and related organisations. One PC comes from a galaxy-wide space empire, which in a sense didn't exist until he made it up. One player wanted to have his PC investigate global warming so I said he could decide what caused it in this world. This might seem like a lot but really it's not a big deal, my game is very much a traditional, challenge-focused roleplaying game, I would never call it a story game.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 20, 2009)

Here's an example of player power without storytelling. A traditional D&D game, let's say it's 1e. The PCs go to the Caverns of Blood, a monster-infested hole. The DM allows the players to determine the monsters in each room. The more powerful/numerous the monsters, the more treasure they get. So it's really a gamist decision for the players. They can fight 5 orcs, or 10, or 30. Whatever they want. An ogre, a hill giant or a stone giant. An otyugh or a roper.

That seems a lot of power. It's a power the PCs definitely do not possess, though really it's not that different from the player's ability to decide what they take on in a sandbox-style game, just expressed purely in terms of player power, not PC.

Those decisions, that power, have nothing to do with story though. It's gamist player power, not narrativist.

Here's another. It's quite common in gamer groups for one player to be an acknowledged expert in some field such as medicine or medieval weapons, to whom the GM will defer. There is in fact an expert on the latter in my game group. The player is thus being allowed control over the game world. Things will change because he says so. But again, this has nothing whatever to do with story. This time the power is in the service of simulation.

It could be that the expert on the rules isn't the GM. That's also the case in my group. I often defer to Neil, our rules expert, on this issue. Again, player power without story.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 20, 2009)

> Like Hussar says, player power extending beyond the PC doesn't necessarily have anything to do with storytelling.



That's not precisely a claim I've seen him make so far.

The writing's on the wall, though.

I propose "role-identification" as a replacement for what "role-playing" formerly meant.

"Game mastering" might serve for "storytelling" in the context at hand.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 20, 2009)

> Those decisions, that power, have nothing to do with story though. It's gamist player power, not narrativist.



Jeffs Gameblog: I got your threefold model right here, buddy!


----------



## FireLance (Aug 20, 2009)

Sometimes, living on the other side of the world from most of the people involved in a discussion is a real pain. 

Anyhow...


ExploderWizard said:


> 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.



And this is where I would make the distinction: in a storytelling game, there is no need for a player to play just one character at a game session. However, if the activity is both a storytelling game AND a roleplaying game, then the player should (must?) have a character to roleplay. As mentioned in the actor/scriptwriter analogy, it is a matter of playing two distinct roles related to the same activity.


> 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?



There are some grey areas, though. Who has control over the PC's friends and family? How free is the DM to introduce elements that essentially contradict the PC's background by saying that the PC only knows part of the story? (E.g. "You thought you were an only child, but you actually have two half-orc half-brothers.") How free is the player to add elements to his background after the campaign begins, or add flavor elements to the game? (E.g. "Quillain orders the vegetable stew instead of the roast beef. The elven druids of his order do not eat meat during the winter solstice.")

I personally do not see why the player cannot flesh out details of the campaign setting if it adds flavor to the game and does not detract from the challenge that the PCs face. For example, telling the DM that your PC would not have eaten the roast beef because of his elven druidic tradition _after_ he tells you it has been poisoned is bad form, in my view.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 20, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Jeffs Gameblog: I got your threefold model right here, buddy!



I have to admit, Jeff's theories make a lot of sense.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 20, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> 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.




I think this is at least somewhat unfair to Gygaxian D&D.  The accounts I've read from those who were actually at Gary's table, as opposed to only playing the tournament adventures inspired by his style, always mention that there was a lot more role-playing going on than you might guess.  See some of Old Geezer's stories on rpg.net, for example.



Doug McCrae said:


> 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!
> 
> ...




This is often bad tactics in 4e, in my experience.  A lot of solo and elite monsters get dramatically stronger when they're Bloodied; it's often better to soften them up with at wills and 'set up' style encounter powers, and then unleash action points, dailys and spectacular, damage-dealing encounters immediately after bloodying the creature in a mad rush to drop it in one round before it can hit back.

Not necessarily the "hero pushed to the brink of death, then recovers" rhythm - more the "hero team combines their powers for a finishing move just before the enemy unleashes its own finishing move."

Of course, I've also seen that combination flub and the solo go to town on the spent adventurers, which... isn't something you find much in fiction.  And if both sides survive the devastating climax, it can turn into a real slog.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 20, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> That's not precisely a claim I've seen him make so far.
> 
> The writing's on the wall, though.
> 
> ...




Actually, that's precisely the claim I've made so far.  Multiple times.  Repeatedly even.  I can provide quotes if you like.

Having a bit of free time, I came up with the following chart in response to Ariosto's request for defining RPG's.  This is how I would define things.  Note, this chart is not exhaustive at all.  And, also note, there is blurring along all sorts of lines.







But, that's how I view RPG's.  I have no problems defining story games separate from traditional RPG's.  I agree with everyone there.  My problem is with defining "role playing game" in such a way that it excludes story games.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 20, 2009)

Hussar, maybe I missed it. I saw you state that a player doing whatever the heck we're supposed to call it did not make the game not an RPG; and I have not disagreed.

I have noted that it's different from doing whatever the heck we're supposed to call that other thing. That's not the same as labeling a game. But then ...

... You also pointed out that the first thing, whatever we're supposed to call it, is not the same as what Ron Edwards means by "narrativism", and suggested that someone had claimed otherwise. Maybe, but I think it more likely that people don't happen to know, much less care, about the counter-intuitive Forge-speak.


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 20, 2009)

I just got finished playing House of the Blooded.  You play a role, but when you make rolls you get to state facts that are true in the game world.  A lot of fun.

I would say that "role-playing" is a technique employed to achieve a desired result.  The same goes for "storytelling".

I think both techniques are present in the actual play of almost all RPGs.  Where someone wants to draw the line and say, "That's not an RPG", I don't really care.

What I'm interested in is seeing people discuss the relative merits of both techniques, employed in various forms.  In that sort of discussion, what you're trying to get out of the game is an important factor.  To that end, I think it's helpful to say, "At that moment you weren't roleplaying."  The follow-up question is, "How did that impact the game?"


----------



## Obryn (Aug 20, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> I don't find story based games offensive. I have played games that way and probably will do so again in the future. If nothing else this discussion has made me more aware of  story based indie games that I might want to check out when I get the chance.



You're side-stepping the question.

It's irrelevant whether or not you find story games offensive.  The offensive part is that you're basically telling people who have every reason to believe they are playing roleplaying games that they are _not_ - and that you know better than they do.

So, to ask again - would you be willing to use different terminology here?

-O


----------



## Hussar (Aug 20, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Hussar, maybe I missed it. I saw you state that a player doing whatever the heck we're supposed to call it did not make the game not an RPG; and I have not disagreed.
> 
> I have noted that it's different from doing whatever the heck we're supposed to call that other thing. That's not the same as labeling a game. But then ...
> 
> ... You also pointed out that the first thing, whatever we're supposed to call it, is not the same as what Ron Edwards means by "narrativism", and suggested that someone had claimed otherwise. Maybe, but I think it more likely that people don't happen to know, much less care, about the counter-intuitive Forge-speak.




Ow ow ow ow.  That just made my brain hurt.  

To be quite clear, I've stated my position multiple times pretty plainly.  I'm not really sure how to do so more clearly.  But, in the interests of understanding, this is my position:

[font color=green]The defining characteristic of a role playing game is not a player's ability to alter the setting.  That a player can effect changes in the setting does not make a game "not a role playing game".  Nor does editorial control (the ability of a player to effect change in the setting) have to reside entirely within the perview of the GM/DM/Referee in order to quality as a role playing game.

While there are differences between traditional RPG's and story games, those differences do not suddenly eject story games from under the umbrella of role playing games.  They are both role playing games, much in the same way that hockey and golf are both sports, despite sharing pretty much nothing in common rules wise.  [/font]​
Does that clear it up?  I thought that my chart did the same thing, but, apparently not.


----------



## Acid_crash (Aug 20, 2009)

I think the problem, if there is a problem at all, is the term 'roleplaying game'.... and we all kind of know what a rpg is, but it's kind of a confusing term in a way.  And like alignments in D&D we all have our own views and interpretations and none of us really can agree, and yet we all can kind of agree as to what the hell we are kind of talking about.  

But I think the problem, if there is one, is the term 'roleplaying' and I think that it's a horrible term to use in defining an entire style of game.  Maybe for it's time it was good, but now with everything that we've seen in the last twenty five years it's time for a new paradigm of thinking but until people can step beyond what it has been and are willing to think of a new way of thinking about them... but until then, we will just have these dumb multi-thread arguments till the end of time... and we will anyways because sometimes it's just plain fun to argue.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 20, 2009)

Acid_crash said:


> sometimes it's just plain fun to argue.



No, it's not.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 20, 2009)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Does that clear it up?  I thought that my chart did the same thing, but, apparently not.



Nope. You're off about labeling _games_ as this or that. That's why my "But then ..." led into your invocation of GNS; whatever the theory, the practice seems often to come down to such labeling, with the non-N considered "not really RPGs".

"That's not precisely a claim I've seen him make so far" was in response to:


			
				DougMcCrae said:
			
		

> Like Hussar says, player power extending beyond the PC doesn't necessarily have anything to do with storytelling.



In the context of this thread, "storytelling" has _meant_ "player power extending beyond the PC". Shifting the meaning still does not change the distinction between -- on one hand -- describing component _activities within the game_ and -- on the other -- slapping a label on _the game as a whole_.


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 20, 2009)

On telling stories in RPGs:

The most important thing, in my experience, is to make sure that you have a protagonist and make sure that he faces competant adversity.  But what makes a protagonist?  I think it's the fact that he _wants something_ and the story is driven by his need to get that thing and the adversity he faces.  And, of course, how the adversity changes (or perhaps _does not change_) him.

(One of my favourite examples of a protagonist who does not change is probably "A Witch Shall Be Born"; Conan turns down a lot in order to stay free and independant.)

This, I think, is independant of the techniques used.  One can role-play a driven character - Burning Wheel is a great example of this - or use storytelling techniques in order to say, "This is what I want and this is what I am willing to sacrifice for it."  Spirit of the Century seems to be this type of game; I don't have much experience with it, but the economy of the game (to use a Forge term) means that you have to decide what's important to your character.

That is an interesting way to handle things, blending the choices the player makes between authorial control and role-identification.


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 20, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> In the context of this thread, "storytelling" has _meant_ "player power extending beyond the PC". Shifting the meaning still does not change the distinction between -- on one hand -- describing component _activities within the game_ and -- on the other -- slapping a label on _the game as a whole_.




I think this is a good point.  One can have elements of "storytelling" and still be totally engaged in a roleplaying game.  "Hey DM, gnolls are savage brutes, would they leave any survivors?  They'd probably just enslave everyone they didn't want to eat."  

One does not need mechanics to engage in storytelling.

The reverse is also true, of course.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 20, 2009)

Obryn said:


> You're side-stepping the question.
> 
> It's irrelevant whether or not you find story games offensive. The offensive part is that you're basically telling people who have every reason to believe they are playing roleplaying games that they are _not_ - and that you know better than they do.
> 
> ...




I'm not all that concerned with terminology for it's own sake. What I would like is for a game to state the prime play objectives openly. Is the game about the players assuming roles and exploring fictional worlds from within those roles or is the main objective for the playing group to collaborate on weaving a story through play. As long as one can tell the difference from reading a blurb about the game it's all good.

Having a game of each type sitting next to each other that both just say:
This is X-the RPG, isn't helpful in that regard.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 20, 2009)

Ariosto said:
			
		

> In the context of this thread, "storytelling" has meant "player power extending beyond the PC".




That's part of your problem.  That's not what storytelling means! At all! It's not related! It's just going to confuse things and start threads like this! 



			
				ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> Is the game about the players assuming roles and exploring fictional worlds from within those roles or is the main objective for the playing group to collaborate on weaving a story through play.




There's another part of your problem. These things are not mutually incompatible for a game's goals. Both happen all the time in most games of D&D. This isn't a zero-sum binary solution, a "choose A or B" kind of situation: both of these things happen in EVERY RPG.

It's even possible to emphasize both at once.

This whole conversation seems to be "I'm going to make up definitions and everyone is going to abide by them."


----------



## Hussar (Aug 20, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Nope. You're off about labeling _games_ as this or that. That's why my "But then ..." led into your invocation of GNS; whatever the theory, the practice seems often to come down to such labeling, with the non-N considered "not really RPGs".
> 
> "That's not precisely a claim I've seen him make so far" was in response to:
> 
> In the context of this thread, "storytelling" has _meant_ "player power extending beyond the PC". Shifting the meaning still does not change the distinction between -- on one hand -- describing component _activities within the game_ and -- on the other -- slapping a label on _the game as a whole_.




Ok, IIRC, and I did post rather a lot in this thread, so I may have mis-spoken, but, exactly where did I "invoke" GNS?  If I did, I did so entirely mistakenly, because I don't really grok GNS.  

IIRC, and I'm not going to swim upthread yet again to clarify a point I have just clarified, I made the point that editorial power being given to players is not an exclusive feature of narrative games.

But, since I have now TWICE clarified my point, please stick to my clarifications and stop belaboring your understanding of what I said before.

And, I would just like to say that KM is getting it perfectly well.  

Something that confuses me EW.  You state that in CoC it is okay for the player to use rules which change the setting, so long as those rules involve a measure of random chance.  That random chance element apparently is enough to maintain a game's "role playing game" nature.

But, even though the EXACT same scenario happens in my Diamond dog example, other than random die roll - the player invokes a game resource to change the setting, and exercise editorial control, in this case Fate Points - that suddenly changes it to a story telling game.

So, are you now claiming that it is possible to have player vested editorial control in a role playing game, so long as the mechanic is not guaranteed?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 20, 2009)

lutecius said:


> I agree here. I've always felt the narrativist justification was just that, a justification. I believe the main purpose of these mechanics is balance though, not interesting resource management.



The power system structure is for balance, but the presence of power is for resource management, tactical play or simply decision making (however you prefer to call it.). Achieving balance is hard (to impossible if you allow too much freedom) if you use different resource subsystems for the same area (typically combat. But from a "gamist" point of view, without limited resources, there is little tactics involved - you need something to make meaningful decisions about.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 20, 2009)

K< said:
			
		

> That's part of your problem.  That's not what storytelling means! At all! It's not related! It's just going to confuse things and start threads like this!




Well, to be fair, I think Ariosto actually has pegged that rather well.  EW's primary criteria for separating Story Telling Games from Role Playing Games has boiled down to editorial control over the setting.  Thus Story Telling Games has become, in this thread at least, synonymous with player editorial control.

My problem is that almost every single RPG out there has some mechanics which give editorial control to some degree to the players, thus, splitting the hair here seems to be counterproductive.


----------



## tyrlaan (Aug 20, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> I'm not all that concerned with terminology for it's own sake. What I would like is for a game to state the prime play objectives openly. Is the game about the players assuming roles and exploring fictional worlds from within those roles or is the main objective for the playing group to collaborate on weaving a story through play. As long as one can tell the difference from reading a blurb about the game it's all good.




Not to sound snarky, but isn't that what reviews are for? 

Judging a book by it's cover and getting the short end of the stick when you buy it is by no means an rpg industry only experience. Hell, I've seen movie trailers that bill the movie as genre X and when you see it the thing turns out to be genre Y. 

Furthermore, unless these definitions you are crusading get accepted by the industry as a whole, they're meaningless. As this lengthy thread demonstrates, this is a very subjective point of discussion. That means someone could bill their new RPG as a story-telling style game but be "wrong" in their categorization by your eyes. 

Actually, even if the industry accepts it, unless retailers do too, it could still lead to confusion because a brick and mortar shop might mix their story-telling games in with their "adventure games"*

Coming full circle, I think perhaps reading a review is the right answer here. I say that because I'm starting to get the sense that this hair being split wouldn't be a concern if you just research a product a bit before you buy it. 

*I'm dubbing RPGs that you think are not story-telling games as adventure games. I by no means suggest this is a good term (of course I think we shouldn't even be doing this segregation in the firstplace, but hey) but I needed something to put my sentence together without implying the insult that somehow story-telling games are not what you define as RPGs.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 20, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> There's another part of your problem. These things are not mutually incompatible for a game's goals. Both happen all the time in most games of D&D. This isn't a zero-sum binary solution, a "choose A or B" kind of situation: both of these things happen in EVERY RPG.
> 
> It's even possible to emphasize both at once.
> 
> This whole conversation seems to be "I'm going to make up definitions and everyone is going to abide by them."




It really is as simple as that. Players are either playing the game from within their defined roles or not. If players are operating in the game outside of the role of adventurer and yet are still roleplaying, what role is that exactly?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 20, 2009)

I have to admit, claiming 4e isn't a roleplaying game because it has too many storytelling elements gets 10/10 for originality. Normally the 'not a roleplaying game' charge comes from the other direction - just a videogame, feels like M:tG, nothing but combat, etc. So EW is to be congratulated for that. The claim needs a lot more substantiation than we've seen so far, though. You can't just throw something like that out there and not back it up. We need specifics. Is it the action points, player's ability to choose treasure, possible interpretations of the power Come And Get It or what?


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 20, 2009)

tyrlaan said:


> Coming full circle, I think perhaps reading a review is the right answer here. I say that because I'm starting to get the sense that this hair being split wouldn't be a concern if you just research a product a bit before you buy it.




I actually try and play a game before I buy if possible. Some reviews are more useful than others.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 20, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> GURPS is quite easy to adapt and play as a story game. A lot of the cinematic options pave the way and the point based system is great for designing custom advantages that allow the player to control plot elements.



Could you expand on this please? Give specifics. What could the players do that made it no longer a roleplaying game? Were they no longer controlling individual PCs?


----------



## Hussar (Aug 20, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> It really is as simple as that. Players are either playing the game from within their defined roles or not. If players are operating in the game outside of the role of adventurer and yet are still roleplaying, what role is that exactly?




But that's the problem.  Why can't a game be a role playing game and have players doing both activities.  Granted, not at the same time, but, certainly performing both activities.

It would be a very strange game indeed where you don't actually play any role at all, but rather always simply add on the next line in the plot.  Totally agree that that's not a role playing game at all.

But, other than you, no one is actually talking about that, I think.  Every single game that's been brought up in this thread has instances where you are not specifically playing a role, including D&D.  Yet, you call some of them role playing games and not others.

Another question then.  To qualify as a role playing game, do you have to role play in character 100% of the time?

And can you give me an example of a game where that happens?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 20, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> It really is as simple as that. Players are either playing the game from within their defined roles or not. If players are operating in the game outside of the role of adventurer and yet are still roleplaying, what role is that exactly?



When you're arguing with the GM about whether or not it's realistic that bows have an effective range of 1000 ft you're still playing a roleplaying game, even if you're not playing a role. When you're solving a logic puzzle using your own mental abilities, you're still playing a roleplaying game, even if you're not playing a role. And so on and so forth. Much of the time in rpgs, the players are not actually roleplaying.

Campaigns aren't necessarily a series of pitched battles fought to achieve an objective, either. The word campaign has developed a new meaning when it applies to rpgs.

Roleplaying isn't that good a word for all the activities that take place under the heading of roleplaying game. But it doesn't matter. It's what those activities are called. To think otherwise leads us to howandwhy99 type redefining madness.


----------



## maddman75 (Aug 20, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Some great questions
> 
> Character backrounds: If the DM would like character backrounds and asks for them then either the player is presented a range of options based on info from the game world or the DM gives the player a blank slate. In the latter case the DM is actually soliciting help with his world. There is no character being played and thus no role yet.




Fair enough



> Wish Spell: This is a great example of world altering and editing that is accomplished from within an assumed role. The character has the power to make a wish come true subject to the limitations on such magic, no problems.




In the Buffy RPG, PCs have Drama Points they can use to create plot twists, remove damage, etc., exactly the kinds of things that you say make it not a roleplaying game.  The number of these points the characters get, how expensive they are to buy, and the way they are rewarded are determined by the character's role - they are cheaper and easier to get for the sidekicks.  How is this not world altering and editing from within an assumed role?



> Luck mechanic: This is a prime example of letting the dice fall where they may in the determination of a character's fortune. The same rule applies to all and eliminates the need for the dreaded GM fiat. No impact on roleplaying one way or another.




In either a system with a random chance determining such player edits or a limited pool of points, GM Fiat is eliminated.  I don't see a functional difference, just a different implementation.



> I don't find story based games offensive. I have played games that way and probably will do so again in the future. If nothing else this discussion has made me more aware of  story based indie games that I might want to check out when I get the chance.




Again, its not that you're using the term 'story game', its that you're staying the things I most enjoy playing are not roleplaying games.



ExploderWizard said:


> I'm not all that concerned with terminology for it's own sake. What I would like is for a game to state the prime play objectives openly. Is the game about the players assuming roles and exploring fictional worlds from within those roles or is the main objective for the playing group to collaborate on weaving a story through play. As long as one can tell the difference from reading a blurb about the game it's all good.
> 
> Having a game of each type sitting next to each other that both just say:
> This is X-the RPG, isn't helpful in that regard.




I would agree that this is useful.  I don't agree that the presence of metagame mechanics mean I'm not playing RPGs, and find the suggestion that I'm not to be rude and arrogant.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 20, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> It really is as simple as that. Players are either playing the game from within their defined roles or not.





Ah, but I disagree. It is precisely for this reason that I tried to popularize the phrase "envelope of experience" to describe the immersion in a role, the acting "as-if" a character, and yet the player still being present in the game as more than the originator of a character. It is the player that makes many decisions, even in-character decisions, because their authorship does not end the moment the character comes to life.



> If players are operating in the game outside of the role of adventurer and yet are still roleplaying, what role is that exactly?




Well, player, first of all. But you are having a problem with your definition. RPGs are not games which consist entirely of roleplaying games. We don't call them roleplaying-and-gamemastering games, after all. But RPGs are games, firstly, which feature roleplaying as a major distinguishing characteristic from other games. We don't say someone is "not playing football" just because a time-out has been called.

I believe the gamemaster does roleplay. They play the role of the world as a character. They play the role of the gameworld god. They roleplay NPCs. They even, at times, define actions of the PCs. Certainly the GM acts "as if" the master villain when reacting to the PC's actions, and "as if" the natural environment when introducing hazards and creatures.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 20, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> I have to admit, claiming 4e isn't a roleplaying game because it has too many storytelling elements gets 10/10 for originality. Normally the 'not a roleplaying game' charge comes from the other direction - just a videogame, feels like M:tG, nothing but combat, etc. So EW is to be congratulated for that. The claim needs a lot more substantiation than we've seen so far, though. You can't just throw something like that out there and not back it up. We need specifics. Is it the action points, player's ability to choose treasure, possible interpretations of the power Come And Get It or what?




I never claimed 4E wasn't a roleplaying game. I did say that it could be played as a roleplaying game or a more story focused game depending on the RAW elements a particular group chooses to use.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 20, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> I never claimed 4E wasn't a roleplaying game. I did say that it could be played as a roleplaying game or a more story focused game depending on the RAW elements a particular group chooses to use.



Okay. So when you say:



> What I would like is for a game to state the prime play objectives openly. Is the game about the players assuming roles and exploring fictional worlds from within those roles or is the main objective for the playing group to collaborate on weaving a story through play. As long as one can tell the difference from reading a blurb about the game it's all good.
> 
> Having a game of each type sitting next to each other that both just say:
> This is X-the RPG, isn't helpful in that regard.




What are you talking about? What are these non-roleplaying games which are deceitfully masquerading as such to cheat poor helpless rpg fans out of their hard-earned cash?

EDIT: Or are you saying that because 4e contains a lot of story-focused elements (I don't agree that it does btw), it should make it clear on the back cover or somewhere near the start that it's not a traditional rpg?

The thing is rpgs have had these player-as-mini-GM rules for a long time now. James Bond 007 in 1983, Warhammer's (1986) fate points, WEG Star Wars (1987) force points. They are quite common and, as Hussar says, seem to be getting more and more common these days. They are not a big deal. People are not going to be surprised by these mechanics, given they've been around for almost 30 years now.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 20, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Granted, not at the same time, but, certainly performing both activities.




Unless we are going to try to split hairs to the sub-second, people are capable of multitasking.  Humans are capable of multidimensional analysis and decision making - I can have one decision in game, and take my character role and the needs of story into account at the same time.  Or I can have multiple decisions, and switch between the concerns so quickly as to make them effectively simultaneous.

The idea that these activities are mutually exclusive seems to me like trying to tell gamers they are fundamentally incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.  We are capable of far more complicated cognitive gymnastics than some seem willing to give us credit for.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 20, 2009)

maddman75 said:


> In the Buffy RPG, PCs have Drama Points they can use to create plot twists, remove damage, etc., exactly the kinds of things that you say make it not a roleplaying game. The number of these points the characters get, how expensive they are to buy, and the way they are rewarded are determined by the character's role - they are cheaper and easier to get for the sidekicks. How is this not world altering and editing from within an assumed role?




When a PC uses a wish spell that use is not only a resource for the player but for the character as well. When a player uses a drama point in Buffy, they do so outside of their role because a drama point has no concept or meaning to the sidekick. So actually, the world alteration does not come from the assumed role, instead the amount of editorial control given to the player stems from a _choice_ of assumed role.




maddman75 said:


> I would agree that this is useful. I don't agree that the presence of metagame mechanics mean I'm not playing RPGs, and find the suggestion that I'm not to be rude and arrogant.




It is not my intent to insult, merely to identify and define.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 20, 2009)

Umbran said:


> Unless we are going to try to split hairs to the sub-second, people are capable of multitasking. Humans are capable of multidimensional analysis and decision making - I can have one decision in game, and take my character role and the needs of story into account at the same time. Or I can have multiple decisions, and switch between the concerns so quickly as to make them effectively simultaneous.




If you are taking the needs of the story into consideration when making decisions for your character then such decisions are either made from outside the role or the character is actually aware that that he/she is part of a story and acting accordingly.


----------



## Campbell (Aug 20, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> If you are taking the needs of the story into consideration when making decisions for your character then such decisions are either made from outside the role or the character is actually aware that that he/she is part of a story and acting accordingly.




Here's the thing - most of the time in actual play the character's role is fairly loosely defined and there are often multiple decisions that make sense for a character in a given situation. I'd also argue that barring story concerns we're still concerned with stuff outside of a character's role like beating tactical challenges, giving other players a chance to shine, not being a dick, etc.


----------



## GrimGent (Aug 20, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Another question then.  To qualify as a role playing game, do you have to role play in character 100% of the time?
> 
> And can you give me an example of a game where that happens?



Well... There's _Puppetland_ by John Tynes, in which staying in character for the one hour that a single session of the game always lasts is mandatory according to the rules. Furthermore, the players are only allowed to _talk_ in character during that time, and if they wish to make OOC comments they must first stand up or leave the table: _"What you say is what you say."_ But I rather suspect that some folks wouldn't consider it a "real" RPG, and even the booklet actually calls itself "a storytelling game with strings attached."


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 20, 2009)

Campbell said:


> Here's the thing - most of the time in actual play the character's role is fairly loosely defined and there are often multiple decisions that make sense for a character in a given situation. I'd also argue that barring story concerns we're still concerned with stuff outside of a character's role like beating tactical challenges, giving other players a chance to shine, not being a dick, etc.




A player can be kind, show respect for others , and engage in tactics all from within the role. The tactics part can be more difficult if the best tactical options have no meaning to the character. 

Playing in character should never be used as an excuse to be a turd towards other people.


----------



## maddman75 (Aug 20, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> When a PC uses a wish spell that use is not only a resource for the player but for the character as well. When a player uses a drama point in Buffy, they do so outside of their role because a drama point has no concept or meaning to the sidekick. So actually, the world alteration does not come from the assumed role, instead the amount of editorial control given to the player stems from a _choice_ of assumed role.




You make the assumption that Buffy tries to simulate some kind of reality.  It does not.  It simulates a TV show, and TV show characters have plot immunity.  The Drama Point usage is very much 'in-character'. 



> It is not my intent to insult, merely to identify and define.




I'd say your intent is less relevent than your results.  Do you really not understand what is pissing people off?

Fine, I'm going to say that my kind of gaming is a roleplaying game, and if you're playing a game without any kind of story or metagame mechanic you're playing a world simulation games.  I have nothing against world simulation games, and even think they're fun from time to time.  But they aren't Roleplaying Games like I play.

Are you okay with that definition?


----------



## tyrlaan (Aug 20, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> It is not my intent to insult, merely to identify and define.



Okay, but to what end? 

You said before that it was basically so you could discern a product by (effectively) reading it's back cover text. I countered by recommending doing product research, to which you replied that you do just that. 

So if that's the case, clearly you can discern for yourself how you would categorize a certain product based on your research and/or experience. 

I am just not seeing the ultimate purpose behind this.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 20, 2009)

maddman75 said:


> You make the assumption that Buffy tries to simulate some kind of reality. It does not. It simulates a TV show, and TV show characters have plot immunity. The Drama Point usage is very much 'in-character'.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The relevance of a given thing within a role is not dependent on any type of reality other than the reality of the fictional universe. If the characters are actually aware that they are on a tv show then yes drama points would be used within the role. 

A world simulation game could have just as little to do with roleplaying as a pure storytelling game.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 20, 2009)

maddman75 said:


> You make the assumption that Buffy tries to simulate some kind of reality.  It does not.  It simulates a TV show, and TV show characters have plot immunity.  The Drama Point usage is very much 'in-character'.




I disagree. Drama Points are clearly meta.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 20, 2009)

tyrlaan said:


> I am just not seeing the ultimate purpose behind this.



 Then feel free to stop reading the thread.


----------



## maddman75 (Aug 20, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> The relevance of a given thing within a role is not dependent on any type of reality other than the reality of the fictional universe. If the characters are actually aware that they are on a tv show then yes drama points would be used within the role.
> 
> A world simulation game could have just as little to do with roleplaying as a pure storytelling game.




So characters in your game are aware of classes, levels, attribute scores, skills, and other game constructs that are clearly visible to the player and used to make changes in the game?


----------



## darjr (Aug 20, 2009)

Did I miss something?

How is a  game that has player control over the game and setting but also has people playing a role with a character not a role playing game?

I think I started with EW, then saw the example of Spirit of the Century and now I think I'm absolutely not with EW. I get the difference in type of game. I also think that there is a blurring that makes a very fine line of difference impossible. The SC example was a good example of an RPG session. I even recall playing D&D a little like this, even in the deep dark past.

There comes a time when I as DM would just let things slide and the players would define things. I had a player with a disarmed character. He had his character pick up rocks and throw them. I didn't nit pick about the types of rocks or if there were any. I had a player whose character would drink his mead and eat a meal and he had that character get up, find and thank the proprietor for a good meal, I didn't step in and define if it was a good meal or not, I didn't even know the proprietor was on the premises. I could go on and on.

SC just seems to have rules to codify this, expand the scope and tie it to characters stats.


----------



## darjr (Aug 20, 2009)

I forgot to add.

I don't think you can play a traditional RPG without players defining things in the game or setting. Especially as you get to larger groups and some of those players get to roleplaying as subsets of folks at the table.

Two players interacting with each other outside of the main event are going to define things outside of their role.

Edit to ask, is there a game that codifies players outside the main event doing things?


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 20, 2009)

> It's just going to confuse things and start threads like this!



It in fact started *this* thread -- See the title! -- and it looked to me as if most of the participants agreed on the usage enough to carry on the discussion. I may have been mistaken, though.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 20, 2009)

maddman75 said:


> So characters in your game are aware of classes, levels, attribute scores, skills, and other game constructs that are clearly visible to the player and used to make changes in the game?




Classes: Characters in the game world can be familiar with classes as a player is with members of professions such as doctor, firefighter, etc.

Levels: With the numbers, not so much. With the realization that some people are more skilled/badass than others, yes.

Attribute Scores: Again, not so much the precise numbers but the perceptible effects of those numbers, sure.

Skills: Are you serious?


----------



## maddman75 (Aug 20, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Classes: Characters in the game world can be familiar with classes as a player is with members of professions such as doctor, firefighter, etc.
> 
> Levels: With the numbers, not so much. With the realization that some people are more skilled/badass than others, yes.
> 
> ...




Yes.  How many ranks do you have in 'internet posting'?  Real life does not work like this.  All of these things - levels, skills, scores, are abstractions to allow the game to happen.  The metagame points aren't really any different.



> A world simulation game could have just as little to do with roleplaying as a pure storytelling game.




You're continuting to miss the point.  I'm not trying to argue that as legitimate terminology, I'm not going to defend it.  I'm trying to get you to see how your terminology feels to those of use whose games you deem not real roleplaying games.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 20, 2009)

maddman75 said:


> Yes. How many ranks do you have in 'internet posting'? Real life does not work like this. All of these things - levels, skills, scores, are abstractions to allow the game to happen. The metagame points aren't really any different.
> 
> 
> 
> You're continuting to miss the point. I'm not trying to argue that as legitimate terminology, I'm not going to defend it. I'm trying to get you to see how your terminology feels to those of use whose games you deem not real roleplaying games.




Well apparently I have max ranks in Irritate other without having to practice much.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 20, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> It is not my intent to insult, merely to identify and define.



When it's clear that you're being insulting, and yet don't change your methodology or terminology to stop being insulting, I no longer believe it's not your intent to insult.

-O


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 20, 2009)

Obryn said:


> When it's clear that you're being insulting, and yet don't change your methodology or terminology to stop being insulting, I no longer believe it's not your intent to insult.
> 
> -O




Clear that I'm being insulting or clear that others are taking offense at my opinion and that I should change it because of that?


----------



## Obryn (Aug 20, 2009)

There's no difference between the two in this case.

For the sake of having a conversation, (which you insist you want to do despite all evidence to the contrary) is there a practical difference?  If your taxonomy is, in and of itself, controversial, shouldn't you be willing to look for different terminology if you want to engage in a discussion?

Simply put, I don't think you're discussing this in good faith.

-O


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 20, 2009)

Obryn said:


> There's no difference between the two in this case.
> 
> For the sake of having a conversation, (which you insist you want to do despite all evidence to the contrary) is there a practical difference? If your taxonomy is, in and of itself, controversial, shouldn't you be willing to look for different terminology if you want to engage in a discussion?
> 
> ...




Good faith in this case meaning the world at large doesn't universally share my opinion so it should be changed?
How does one discuss an opinion in good faith without changing it. Like any other topic, we are not all going to agree on it.

My opinion is just that, no more. If someone wants to give it more weight than that it's none of my business. You are free to disagree and have done so, and I am not offended by that.


----------



## tyrlaan (Aug 20, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Then feel free to stop reading the thread.



You could instead feel free to address the post you dismissed with this comment.

If this is so important to you, explaining it shouldn't be that difficult. And asking for said explanation is quite a reasonable request.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 20, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Good faith in this case meaning the world at large doesn't universally share my opinion so it should be changed?
> How does one discuss an opinion in good faith without changing it. Like any other topic, we are not all going to agree on it.
> 
> My opinion is just that, no more. If someone wants to give it more weight than that it's none of my business. You are free to disagree and have done so, and I am not offended by that.



Who's asking you to change your opinion?  I'm not.

I'm asking you to use other, less-controversial terminology to facilitate discussion on a topic you're purportedly interested in.  I think there are convincing and reasonable arguments against using the term "role-playing game" in an unconventional manner to describe only a small subset of games which have been called role-playing games for over a decade.  You don't have to agree - just accept that the argument exists and take steps to move forward past that sticking point.

-O


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 20, 2009)

Hussar said:
			
		

> W's primary criteria for separating Story Telling Games from Role Playing Games has boiled down to editorial control over the setting. Thus Story Telling Games has become, in this thread at least, synonymous with player editorial control.




Let's introduce some new terms to hopefully keep things clear, then.

Let's call games where the players have a large amount of control over the non-PC aspects of the game *Shared Worlds*.

Shared worlds are not incompatible with storytelling, nor do they really require it. Second Life is a shared world that has no inherent story. Players can make their avatar, but can also construct buildings and make items and code their own terrain and all sorts of things. 

Shared worlds are also not incompatible with roleplaying, nor do they require it. Again, a good example is Second Life: some people create avatars that are themselves (at least to a certain degree), others create avatars that are particular characters.

Hooray, confusion *drastically reduced*!



			
				ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> Players are either playing the game from within their defined roles or not. If players are operating in the game outside of the role of adventurer and yet are still roleplaying, what role is that exactly?




Just because a player defines things outside of their character does not mean that they are not also playing their character.

If I make up my character's family, and use that as a reason for going on adventures, I'm still playing the role of my character, I've just now engaged in building a *shared world* as well.

Most RPGs that use the concept of a shared world remain RPG's, because the players still play a role in the game. 

Not everything with a shared world is also an RPG. Not every RPG lacks elements of a shared world.

Most games of D&D are not greatly shared world games, but the DM can certainly add shared world elements to both reduce their load, to give players a bigger investment into the game, or just to see what comes up. This can be as mild as "give me a family member" or as significant as "You tell me about all of the Eladrin in the world!" 

Weirdly enough, the stuff in the DMGII that has preivewed has very little to do with a "shared world" and is more about pacing, framing, presenting, and other narrative elements. It's not about what players control, it's about treating the players as an audience distinct from their characters.

This certainly doesn't make the game "not an RPG," however.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 21, 2009)

tyrlaan said:


> You could instead feel free to address the post you dismissed with this comment.
> 
> If this is so important to you, explaining it shouldn't be that difficult. And asking for said explanation is quite a reasonable request.





Police officer: Were there any witnesses.
Mrs. Swan: On yeah, I see everything.
Police officer: What did the purse snatcher look like?
Mrs. Swan: He look...............like a man.
Police officer: Was he , tall or short, heavy or thin?
Mrs. Swan: Yeah, you know, he look like a man.

I don't know if anyone here is familiar with MAD TV but the acronym "RPG" might become "a man"

Awareness. Being aware of all the different types of games out there is a good thing. If the meaning of RPG keeps expanding to encompass a game of any type that wants to call itself rpg the term will eventually become meaningless.

You asked.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 21, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Let's introduce some new terms to hopefully keep things clear, then.
> 
> Let's call games where the players have a large amount of control over the non-PC aspects of the game *Shared Worlds*.
> 
> ...




We agree. Shared worlds are awesome. Everyone should take a turn as GM and contribute. 



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Just because a player defines things outside of their character does not mean that they are not also playing their character.




If the character possesses the ability to define such things as opposed to just the player, then yes.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> This certainly doesn't make the game "not an RPG," however.




Quite so. A 4E DM is free to exclude any elements that he/she feels detract from the RP experience.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 21, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> We agree. Shared worlds are awesome. Everyone should take a turn as GM and contribute.




Dude, you're doing it again.

"Let's call games where the players have a large amount of control over the non-PC aspects of the game Shared Worlds."

If we're doing this, then you don't need to be a GM to contribute to a shared world.

You can contribute as a player.

You're still playing an RPG, and you're still role-playing.



			
				Exploder Wizard said:
			
		

> If the character possesses the ability to define such things as opposed to just the player, then yes.




Man, I know it's going to be important to get our terms right here, so let me say:

A game where the *character* defines elements of the world that are not the character itself would be a game where the character has an ability like, say, _Create Water_, where the character defines water as existing where it wasn't before. 

A _player_ who was playing such a character would still be role-playing if their character used such an ability.

A game where the *player* possesses such an allowance would be a game where you could, for instance, tell your GM that your _character_ had certain family members. 

A player who was playing in such a game would still be role-playing if they did such a thing.



			
				ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> Quite so. A 4E DM is free to exclude any elements that he/she feels detract from the RP experience.




Sure, but since nothing that's been mentioned so far "detracts from the RP experience," I'm not sure why that's very relevant.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Aug 21, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Police officer: Were there any witnesses.
> Mrs. Swan: On yeah, I see everything.
> Police officer: What did the purse snatcher look like?
> Mrs. Swan: He look...............like a man.
> ...



You know what? The term "RPG" is _already_ the same as "a man". It simply does not have the same kind of descriptive qualities that you want to give it. In fact, even the very idea that an RPG has to involve a player playing a role is totally false. The term RPG is used to cover everything from D&D to World of Warcraft to Final Fantasy, and the differences between these three games far exceed whatever differences are being discussed in this thread.

In of itself, the term "RPG" does not imply a tabletop game played with a group of friends. It does not imply the existence of a GM. It does not even imply the ability of the player to create his own character. It has been used in countless ways with often contradictory definitions, and is about as vague and undefined as "action game", "adventure game", or "puzzle game". Trying to give it any kind of more specific definition is a futile task.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 21, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Dude, you're doing it again.
> 
> "Let's call games where the players have a large amount of control over the non-PC aspects of the game Shared Worlds."
> 
> ...




Sure. If the contribution comes from within the role. If the contribution comes from outside the role you may still be roleplaying but the role has switched to creator/writer/editor for a time.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Man, I know it's going to be important to get our terms right here, so let me say:
> 
> A game where the *character* defines elements of the world that are not the character itself would be a game where the character has an ability like, say, _Create Water_, where the character defines water as existing where it wasn't before.
> 
> A _player_ who was playing such a character would still be role-playing if their character used such an ability.



Quite so.


Kamikaze Midget said:


> A game where the *player* possesses such an allowance would be a game where you could, for instance, tell your GM that your _character_ had certain family members.
> 
> A player who was playing in such a game would still be role-playing if they did such a thing.



A player is always free to suggest elements of spice and color to the game experience. The DM (unless a specific reason justifies it) should accept such suggestions if they add a positive element to the game. A player matter-of-factly manipulating aspects of the gameworld via granted player resources that have no relation (joke unintended) to the character has to step out of the character role and into the aforementioned creator/writer/editor .




Kamikaze Midget said:


> Sure, but since nothing that's been mentioned so far "detracts from the RP experience," I'm not sure why that's very relevant.




Except "scenes" "staging" and so forth which are storytelling elements.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Aug 21, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> A player matter-of-factly manipulating aspects of the gameworld via granted player resources that have no relation (joke unintended) to the character has to step out of the character role and into the aforementioned creator/writer/editor .




Yet that's exactly what players do when they create their character's background (something that I find an important element for good role playing).  If the player does so during play, does it really matter so long as it acts to enhance the game?  He's merely developing his background, which then (presumably) can be used to role play.  There's no need to be excessively bureaucratic about backgrounds since they belong to the player along with his character.  Obviously the DM is there to act as a sanity check (no, you can't suddenly be the king's long-lost twin brother with free access to the kingdom treasury) but that hopefully isn't necessary. 



ExploderWizard said:


> Except "scenes" "staging" and so forth which are storytelling elements.




All of these elements can act to enhance role play when used properly.  They aren't there to detract from the role play experience, they are there to better it.  They might not work for you EW, but I can say from personal experience that they do work.


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 21, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Except "scenes" "staging" and so forth which are storytelling elements.




What do you think about this:

DM: Where is Jom the Red right now?
Player: In the bar, having a drink.
DM: What's he doing there?
Player: Trying to pick up the hot waitress.

I'd call that staging a scene.  I'd also call it pretty typical play.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 21, 2009)

Hey, cool, we're getting down to the basic point of contention between us! 

We mostly agree, so let's just tease out where we disagree:



			
				ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> A player is always free to suggest elements of spice and color to the game experience. The DM (unless a specific reason justifies it) should accept such suggestions if they add a positive element to the game. A player matter-of-factly manipulating aspects of the gameworld via granted player resources that have no relation (joke unintended) to the character has to step out of the character role and into the aforementioned creator/writer/editor .




I think you misapprehend exactly what playing a role entails.

There's an interview in this week's AV club with BJ Novak that I think is helpful here. 

Specifically, this part, in response to the question "What other backstory do you have for your character?"



			
				BJ Novak said:
			
		

> ...the character’s name was Smithson Utivich, which I thought was an odd name for a Jewish soldier. So I thought “Well, all right, I bet he came from a very assimilated family that didn’t want to focus on being Jewish, and so they tried to give him what they thought was a WASPy name, Smithson, which is a name I never heard. And maybe this was his way to reclaim being Jewish. He was a journalist who had been mistreated in England when Brad Pitt drafted all these soldiers for this renegade unit.”




So BJ Novak's character is Smithson Utivich, and he essentially created a backstory for his character -- a family with a personality, a motive for participating in this mercenary squad, a history, a career, all of it.

This is part and parcel of any role-playing: you create a history. You manifest parts of a fictional world that underpin your character's desires and motives. The director didn't create them -- the director didn't ask you to create them, or permit their existence. You created them. For you, for the purposes of _playing your role_, there is a world outside of your character that has shaped your character. 

If I tell the DM I went on this adventure because my character is a little greedy, always looking for a way to raise himself out of the ghetto in the big city where he was born, trying to strike it rich, and since the death of the grandmother who raised him, he has nothing left to loose, I have created:

a) A city. A big city. This city has particularly harsh socio-economics. This city has a ghetto.
b) A grandmother. A grandmother who raised my character.
c) Presumably, a mother and father, who are absent from my character's childhood for some reason. 
d) A historical event of my grandmother's death.

These are all aspects of a shared world that I have added to the game, in order to play my role as a gold-seeking adventurer.

In doing that, I am still playing a role.

In creating a family and history for Smithson, BJ Novak is still playing the role of Smithson Utivich. He is, actually, probably playing it _better_ than someone who didn't think of it. The dude is a pretty decent actor. 

I have not stopped playing a role just because I have also crafted a world element. Building a world element does not mean I am not also playing a role.


----------



## ST (Aug 21, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> A player is always free to suggest elements of spice and color to the game experience. The DM (unless a specific reason justifies it) should accept such suggestions if they add a positive element to the game. A player matter-of-factly manipulating aspects of the gameworld via granted player resources that have no relation (joke unintended) to the character has to step out of the character role and into the aforementioned creator/writer/editor .




You're entitled to your opinion, no doubt, but you do get that it's just your own? Your justification for why certain types of activities aren't "roleplaying" seems to be "Because I think so." 

It's totally cool if you want to define roleplaying however you want, for yourself. it's only if you want other people to adopt your terminology that you need to provide a _reason_ for it. Could you maybe summarize that reason? What is the purpose of labeling certain activities that (other) people routinely engage in while roleplaying as something other than roleplaying? What purpose or benefit is involved with the relabeling?

Or if it's just a matter of opinion for you, obviously that's cool too; it just means this is more of an abstract discussion, in which case people can adjust how they engage with the conversation.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 21, 2009)

I think that any classification system that says the Buffy RPG is closer to the card game Once Upon A Time than it is to D&D is flawed at the outset.   Or, for that matter, any classification system which has Arcana Evolved - which has metagame Hero Point mechanics - as somehow not being an RPG is missing something.

People know what Roleplaying Games are.  Very few people playing Buffy would say it's not an RPG, or say it's a completely different kind of game than D&D.  I think EW is a lot more interested in appropriating the term than discussing the issue, so I don't know how much further that can go. 

I think it is reasonable, though, to talk about a continuum of player involvement in RPGs.  AD&D has essentially zero metagame mechanics, as does a default 3.5.  Eberron 3.5, Marvel Superheroes, Star Wars Saga Edition, and so on involve metagame mechanics wherein the player can influence their character's success, but never influence the world outside their own character except through action of their character.  RPGs like BtVS, Spirit of the Century, and FATE have metagame mechanics wherein the player can influence the game's setting and narrative by, say, adding a ladder in a convenient place.  It's still a _mechanic_, though, and the player's narrative control is much less than the GM's, which in my mind makes it a very different beast from freeform group storytelling.  Arcana Evolved is an odd duck in that its Hero Points are insanely powerful, but also quite rare in most cases.

Saying RPGs with metagame mechanics aren't actually RPGs strikes me as unusually argumentative.  With that said, I think there's a useful distinction to be made within the umbrella category of RPGs.

-O


----------



## Thasmodious (Aug 21, 2009)

I read this entire thread in one sitting and now hate you all.  I am going to bed.

Goodnight, sirs.





I said goodnight!


----------



## tyrlaan (Aug 21, 2009)

ST said:


> Could you maybe summarize that reason? What is the purpose of labeling certain activities that (other) people routinely engage in while roleplaying as something other than roleplaying? What purpose or benefit is involved with the relabeling?



ST, I've been trying to get the same info, perhaps you will have more luck. So far it seems EW feels this needs to be done (I'm paraphrasing):
 (a) so if a cop interrogates you, you can be appropriately descriptive when explaining what RPG was being played at the scene of a crime
 (b) because there is a credible danger that the term RPG is becoming meaningless
 (c) because it would be a good thing (see further, awareness)

Yes, there's a touch of snark there, but that is the answer I got, so take it as you will.

Since I know I'm being silly about (a) I'll pass over it. 

As for (b), I just don't see it. Maybe if we were talking about the term "game" becoming meaningless I could see it. But the fact that this is 11 pages long, and that it's not the first thread in which this has been discussed, suggests to me that mayhaps the perceived concern just isn't there. 

Regarding (c), I haven't seen the justification of it being a Good Thing (tm). Again, based on the sheer volume of argument against what's being proposed, it seems clear to me that there are plenty of individuals who either just don't care if their playing an RPG that's flavor X vs. flavor Y, or for that matter what the different flavors are OR have their own viewpoints on the delineations OR don't want to be told their not playing a RPG. Perhaps there is a group if individuals out there that isn't accurately represented in this thread that are cursing the heavens because the game they just bought wasn't carefully compartmentalized into a convenient subcategory, but somehow I doubt it.

Unless of course EW is trying to tell all of us that EW knows better than the rest of us and is doing this for our own good.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 21, 2009)

The "milestone" term in 4e is (to me) more evocative than the implementation in terms of number of encounters and action points. Action points themselves are pretty weak in "shared world" terms. I'm not familiar with Arcana Evolved, but a number of references suggest that it might interest me.

The RPGA turned out some cards of special powers from which players can choose at the start of a session. The scenarios are tightly structured, of course, but I wonder whether some folks in home campaigns have tried techniques more like Lion Rampant's old Whimsy Cards (iirc) or "plot points".


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 21, 2009)

I tend to think the "narrative" or "story-telling" aspects of roleplaying games exist to define the role you play. 

For example, if you spend a "metagame resource" like a possibility, action point or hero point, you are basically saying "this is a situation that's important to the character." MIght it be fate or hidden reserves in himself, he gets an extra benefit.

If you can decide aspects of the game world, you do so to highlight the role you play. Introducing a dog that ate a precious gem defines your characters tendency to be "Poor as Dirt". It enables you to roleplay this character - you describe how it can be that he keeps staying poor, and enables you to roleplay through the resulting conflicts.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 21, 2009)

LostSoul said:


> What do you think about this:
> 
> DM: Where is Jom the Red right now?
> Player: In the bar, having a drink.
> ...




I wouldn't consider that really staging. It seems like typical play to me too.

The DM was asking the player what his character is doing and where. This could be for any number of reasons: would the character be close enough to overhear a conversation going on outside? Is the character at ground zero for the purple worm that is about to burst up through the ground?

In this example the "stage" is certainly set for a possible dialogue between Jom the Red and the hot waitress. I don't really see it as a staged event because prior to the DM asking Jom's player where he was,there was no indication of Jom's whereabouts or intentions.

Staging and scene setting IMHO do not pose such questions, rather they assume the PC's will be in a given location and then event X will happen.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 21, 2009)

tyrlaan said:


> Unless of course EW is trying to tell all of us that EW knows better than the rest of us and is doing this for our own good.




Please re-read post #197 and let me know if I was being unclear.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 21, 2009)

EW, is this an accurate definition of Role Playing Game as you define it?

A role playing game is one where players play a well defined role and all elements outside of that role are the sole perview of the GM/DM​
That's the definition that I'm getting.  Please correct it if it's wrong.

If it's correct, please explain to me how Magic The Gathering is not a role playing game as you define it.  In MtG, I play a single role that is well definied - in this case a very powerful wizard.  I cannot make any changes to the setting that are outside of my pre-defined abiities (the Magic cards in my hand).  I play through the scenario of being attacked by my enemies and being forced to defend myself through the use of my very powerful magics.

How does this fail to be a Role Playing Game as you define the term?


----------



## ST (Aug 21, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Good faith in this case meaning the world at large doesn't universally share my opinion so it should be changed?
> How does one discuss an opinion in good faith without changing it. Like any other topic, we are not all going to agree on it.
> 
> My opinion is just that, no more. If someone wants to give it more weight than that it's none of my business. You are free to disagree and have done so, and I am not offended by that.




Quoting this post since it was mentioned on this page. Fair enough. I can understand wanting a definition that excludes, say, kinds of play or techniques you don't personally enjoy. I still don't get what purpose there is binding that to a strict definition, since everyone has kinds of play and techniques they don't like. It seems more useful to me to discuss those techniques individually, since they're the heart of the issue.

I don't really think roleplaying has ever had much of a useful definition besides "Here is what roleplaying means to me", and that a group of people deciding to play together have to go beyond "Let's play a roleplaying game", just like you can't get a bunch of people together and say "Let's play some ball" without at least a cursory discussion of what that means _*here and now*_, rather than in the abstract. Heck, even specify the game system and setting, and two groups are still going to have a totally different experience. 

So i guess that's the main reason why I don't see what a more specific definition would make -- it doesn't do away with the need for further discussion. You could say, "Today I'm interested in playing a RPG where all the players but the GM only offer input into the game about things their characters physically do or say." or you could say "Today I'd like to play a RPG instead of a storygame", or even "Today let's play an immersion-heavy RPG", but I don't see how the definition of RPG being changed helps that discussion at all.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 21, 2009)

I was tootling around this evening and was cleaning up my shelves.  Took a moment to read some old Dragon issues on a whim.  Surprisingly enough, happened across an article, or series of articles actually, that specifically talk about this.  In Dragon 283 (so this is 3e, WOTC Dragon just to be clear), Gary is continuing a series on "What the Heck is an RPG?!" in his Up on a Soapbox column.  From my understanding, he had polled a number of gamers, over 200 is mentioned in the article I have, and outlined 16 elements of a roleplaying game.  He then ranked the elements based on the poll.

This is from the final four, and, appropriately enough, contains the element of Story.



			
				Dragon 283 Page 28 said:
			
		

> ((Disclaimer - any typos here are mine))
> 
> Story (backstory and in play): The reason for what is about to happen, or is happening, is a paramount consideration in roleplaying games.  One needs to understand, be moved so as to suspend disbelief, and actually "believe" through the medium of the story.  Some reasonable backstory needs to be presented for this purpose as well as some elements of the current and continuing tale about to be played out.  *While some participants place the most emphasis on the material leading up to the current time, and then depend on the DM to furnish the remainder, most participants want a more direct involvemnt of the players' characters in the shaping of events.  They desire that their characters not merely perform but also interact meaningfully with the environment as their players direct so as to actually shape the story as well as have the capacity to affect its conclusion.*  In all cases though, the element is generally recognized as a major one to the game form, so it has been rated at 7.6 - the highest score for any of the critical portions of the game.




So, even back then, and this is May, 2001, so not so long after the release of 3e, people identified the ability to have direct impact upon the story to be of paramount importance.  Gygax even identifies Exploder Wizard's position almost word for word and says that while some people do promote this concept, the majority take it much further.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 21, 2009)

Hussar said:


> EW, is this an accurate definition of Role Playing Game as you define it?
> A role playing game is one where players play a well defined role and all elements outside of that role are the sole perview of the GM/DM​That's the definition that I'm getting. Please correct it if it's wrong.
> 
> If it's correct, please explain to me how Magic The Gathering is not a role playing game as you define it. In MtG, I play a single role that is well definied - in this case a very powerful wizard. I cannot make any changes to the setting that are outside of my pre-defined abiities (the Magic cards in my hand). I play through the scenario of being attacked by my enemies and being forced to defend myself through the use of my very powerful magics.
> ...




A role playing game is one in which the participants experience play from within a given role. 

MtG could very well be a roleplaying game. The scope of the game is rather limited (combat with other wizards) with a small almost non-existent game world (there is no one playing any role apart from the wizards) but sure it could certainly be played like that. It would serve as well as _Hungry Hungry Hippos _I suppose but I like the Hippos game mechanics better because they are simpler and less fiddly.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 21, 2009)

Hussar said:


> I was tootling around this evening and was cleaning up my shelves. Took a moment to read some old Dragon issues on a whim. Surprisingly enough, happened across an article, or series of articles actually, that specifically talk about this. In Dragon 283 (so this is 3e, WOTC Dragon just to be clear), Gary is continuing a series on "What the Heck is an RPG?!" in his Up on a Soapbox column. From my understanding, he had polled a number of gamers, over 200 is mentioned in the article I have, and outlined 16 elements of a roleplaying game. He then ranked the elements based on the poll.
> 
> This is from the final four, and, appropriately enough, contains the element of Story.
> 
> ...




Thanks for finding this, good research

If you will make note of the part that you bolded for emphasis you will notice Gary's explanation never mentions anything that needs to occur from the player _outside_ of the adopted role. For instance:

*most participants want a more direct involvemnt of the players' characters in the shaping of events. *

The players' characters. Shaping events. How do the players' characters shape events? They shape events through thier actions within the game and within the limitations the role of thier characters permit. 

*They desire that their characters not merely perform but also interact meaningfully with the environment as their players direct so as to actually shape the story as well as have the capacity to affect its conclusion.*

Characters interacting meaningfully with the environment. What does this mean? It means that when players have thier characters take actions and make decisions, those actions and decisions should matter in the game's milieu and should not be rendered meaningless by plot device constructs fabricated by the DM.

Nowhere do I see anything indicating that all of the above cannot be achieved without player only metagame resources utilized from outside the adopted role.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 21, 2009)

Yes, note the contrast with "merely perform". To "shape the story as well as have the capacity to affect its conclusion" requires no more than the emergent story of what characters do, as opposed to depending "on the DM to furnish" a plot-line.

How many of the players surveyed wanted something more is not indicated. The emphasis on acting via role-identification -- "the players' characters", "their characters" -- is consistent with other Gygaxian works. 

(I'm not sure, but _Dangerous Journeys_ and/or _Lejendary Adventures_ might include some sort of "hero point" resource for optional expenditure, along the lines of the compulsory expenditure of hit points in D&D. I don't think either design shifts focus to a "shared-world", out-of-character role for players.)


----------



## Obryn (Aug 21, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> (I'm not sure, but _Dangerous Journeys_ and/or _Lejendary Adventures_ might include some sort of "hero point" resource for optional expenditure, along the lines of the compulsory expenditure of hit points in D&D. I don't think either design shifts focus to a "shared-world", out-of-character role for players.)



I know that Dangerous Journeys/Mythus does - it has "Joss Factors" (not related to Whedon), a metagame mechanic that allows you to turn success into failure.

It's in that middle step on the ladder, too, that I mentioned earlier - A roleplaying game where you have metagame resources to affect your character's success or failure.

-O


----------



## ST (Aug 21, 2009)

Then of course you have the ability for casters to make massive changes to the game world, in some ways far more profound than "Action Points" or "Fate Points" or player narration would allow. 

But it's not metagaming, right? Because it's _maaaagic_. 

It's just amusing to me that "I scry the evil overlord, summon a horde of demons, and then teleport in" isn't using "metagame resources" in D&D, while "My PC has an uncle who lives in this town" is. _Detect evil? Detect lies?_ Those things look to me exactly like metagame resources, dressed up in magical paint so as not to be "metagame".


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 21, 2009)

> It's just amusing to me that "I scry the evil overlord, summon a horde of demons, and then teleport in" isn't using "metagame resources" in D&D, while "My PC has an uncle who lives in this town" is.



There is a simple reason, but one is unlikely to understand it if one is determined not to do so.


----------



## maddman75 (Aug 21, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> There is a simple reason, but one is unlikely to understand it if one is determined not to do so.




Nonsense.  The D&D magic system can certainly be seen as a metagame resource.

The system doesn't even copy Vance's work very accurately, where IIRC even the most powerful wizards could cast, maybe, half a dozen spells.  You can go the preparation route, but its just as easy to reskin that as all manner of happenings.  Maybe the mystic energies have to be just right to cast a spell.  Maybe the mage can do certain spells during certain astrological instances.  Whatever, you can do a fireball X times a day for a totally non-narrative reason.  Because its a game mechanic that happens to work.

Really, all mechanics IMO are at least a little meta.  Some more blatent than others.


----------



## darjr (Aug 21, 2009)

If somebody is looking for a meta game way that characters in old school games like AD&D affect the world out of character, look to saving throws.

In the DMG Gary Gygax has a couple of explanations for saving throws because of the sharp criticism saving throws received. He invokes magic, quickness, divine intervention and sheer determination of a fighter... to withstand a full on dragon breath.

To me this is a meta tool to change the world and was sharply criticized as making no sense. However, Gary Gygax found a way. 

'Whatever the rationale the character is saved to go on.'
-- Gary Gygax DMG pg 81.

Or not, if the half damage was still enough to kill the character. But the point was that these characters were hero's in an epic story.

In my mind it's pretty much settled. Spirit of the Centry is a role playing game. AD&D is a role playing game. I get the difference between the two, in the rules and in the style that you would play AD&D vs SoC. I do think there is an extreme on the SoC side of games that are not rpgs, but I'd probably include any game where players play a characters role, it just makes sense.

What I'm not clear on is why make the distinction? I don't mean the review reasons or clear labeling reasons, i get that. What I mean is why make the distinction in your games? What is wrong with a little bit of action point in AD&D? How does blurring the line spoil the game?


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 22, 2009)

maddman75 said:


> Nonsense. The D&D magic system can certainly be seen as a metagame resource.
> 
> The system doesn't even copy Vance's work very accurately, where IIRC even the most powerful wizards could cast, maybe, half a dozen spells. You can go the preparation route, but its just as easy to reskin that as all manner of happenings. Maybe the mystic energies have to be just right to cast a spell. Maybe the mage can do certain spells during certain astrological instances. Whatever, you can do a fireball X times a day for a totally non-narrative reason. Because its a game mechanic that happens to work.
> 
> Really, all mechanics IMO are at least a little meta. Some more blatent than others.




The D&D magic system was Vancian influenced but not completely transposed. Magic doesn't qualify as metagame because the character in the gameworld understands and accepts its existence. The rules that govern magic use may not make any common sense but if the users of the magic know and accept them its not metagame.

If a sidekick in the Buffyverse understood what a drama point was and how it influenced the world then it would no longer be a metagame device either.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 22, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> The D&D magic system was Vancian influenced but not completely transposed. Magic doesn't qualify as metagame because the character in the gameworld understands and accepts its existence. The rules that govern magic use may not make any common sense but if the users of the magic know and accept them its not metagame.
> 
> If a sidekick in the Buffyverse understood what a drama point was and how it influenced the world then it would no longer be a metagame device either.




Game characters don't really exist. They're just  a collection of predefined "limitations" each player has when interacting with the game. (IE if you have an 18 marked as your strength score, you can't do something requiring a 20 strength.) 

I don't see any issue with having other rules that exist outside of the "collection of rules known as a character" that the players can access to achieve whatever end they wish.

In fact RPGs are commonly heralded for their ability to be modified/expanded on the fly. If an action seems reasonable the GM is encouraged to allow it (or give it a chance to succeed) even when there are no specified rules for said action.

I see no real difference between:

"I pick up a rock and toss it at him."

- "Ok, roll a ranged attack -2 to see if you hit"

and

"I have a cousin in the next town over."

- "Ok, roll to see if he's home when you get there."


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 22, 2009)

Scribble said:


> I see no real difference between:
> 
> "I pick up a rock and toss it at him."
> 
> ...




Me either. If the guy has a cousin in the next town over a random chance of being home seems perfectly reasonable to me.


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 22, 2009)

Something like Circles from Burning Wheel straddles the line, I think.

Circles: You have a rating called Circles.  It represents your character's circle of contacts, people he might know, or people he might know how to get in touch with.  The reach of your Circles is determined by the character's history; if your PC is a peasant from a village who joined up with a mercenary army, nobles and clergy (except the local village abbot) are outside of his Circles.

In the game, a player can make a Circles test to get in touch with an NPC.  The NPC is defined by the player: "I want to find a blacksmith who can repair my armour," for example, or "I need to find a witch to remove this curse."  The difficulty of the test is based on a number of things, like how common that NPC might be, when the PC will be able to find the NPC, the attitude of the NPC, etc.

If the test succeeds, the NPC is brought into play at the appropriate time.  If the test is failed, the NPC can be brought into play at the DM's discretion, though the NPC is considered an enemy.  (The blacksmith might be a bigot who hate the PC's nationality, or just not like the look of the PC; the witch might be upset at the PC's intrusion and turn him into a toad.)

While the Circles test is based on the PC's connections in the game world, there's a lot of "meta" stuff going on with it as well.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 22, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Me either. If the guy has a cousin in the next town over a random chance of being home seems perfectly reasonable to me.




Sure, but like a lot of things in the game, it sprouted from a player suggesting something that isn't specifically spelled out in the character rules combined with DM interjection. (And to me this is one of the things tabletop RPGs have over computer RPGs.)

The amount and intensity of DM interjection will vary with each DM. 

One DM might say you have to make a back story and tell me where everyone on your family tree lived pre-game, or they don't exist. Another might say, eh, tell me where you want your family to be living as the game goes.  Othrs might be somewhere in between. 

In any case all of it is just ways in which the players interact with the game system.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 22, 2009)

> What I'm not clear on is why make the distinction?



Different kinds of experience appeal more or less to different people. I think it's a strength of D&D that it easily provides various kinds within one session. However, when the mix tilts far in one direction, then its appeal is likely to become more limited.

The trend today is away from role-identification. Powers and skill challenges (as they work in 4e) cater to other interests. Apparently, ExploderWizard can take those in stride -- but is ready to draw a line. Hussar has drawn a line at a point at which he sees too little of the shared-world aspect. Someone else might prefer to downplay both, if that facilitates free exploration of a detailed milieu (such as getting tons of Forgotten Realms "canon" not by reading books but in a game). Yet another might be all for concentrating on the war-game aspect ... and so on.


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 22, 2009)

Following up on Ariosto's post, I think it's useful to discuss what _techniques_ provide results that they play group wants, and which techniques don't.

Labelling games is a little too contentious.  I say we put all that behind us and focus on what people are doing at the table, and why.


----------



## ST (Aug 22, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Game characters don't really exist. They're just  a collection of predefined "limitations" each player has when interacting with the game. (IE if you have an 18 marked as your strength score, you can't do something requiring a 20 strength.)
> 
> I don't see any issue with having other rules that exist outside of the "collection of rules known as a character" that the players can access to achieve whatever end they wish.




I think that hits the nail on the head. (Although I've seen long, heated threads disputing "character's don't really exist" in the past, which I find interesting.)

I get that some people's enjoyment hinges on immersion. I still don't really "get" it myself. My understanding of it is that there's some sensation of the inhabiting the character's persona, so that interacting with game mechanics outside that persona take away from that sense. I dunno, I feel for my characters and totally go "Oh I know what he'd do now", but that's just engagement with the character, and it's something I do with a novel or movie I get really into, as well.

So I know what techniques tend to be disfavored by immersion players, since they've said so, but I don't personally understand how those techniques detract from the experience they want. Eh, no biggie, it's the same situation as how I don't understand why people eat fish, but it's still useful to know what _not_ to do if I'm cooking it for my friends.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 22, 2009)

The "immersion" game is a game of limited information and immediacy. Here's what you perceive; what will you do? By analogy with video games, it's like a "first person" view rather than a side or bird's-eye view. An even closer analogy might be the text-driven adventure game, because old-style RPGs are mainly verbal in medium of play (but human parsing is much better).

The combination of role-appropriate limits and (with human moderation) great flexibility in implementation facilitates challenges engaging different creative faculties than other approaches do. It resembles more the playing of real-world roles for which evolution and personal experience equip us.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 22, 2009)

In my experience, those first entering the hobby tend to be most comfortable with either almost pure role-identification or almost pure story-telling of the _Once Upon a Time_ sort.

From accounts of people who played in it, I gather that the early Blackmoor campaign was role-identification of a purity seldom encountered since. Only Arneson really knew the mathematics "behind the scenes", players seeing not even their characters' stats.

As I understand it, that changed when the group started play-testing the D&D rules set developed in Lake Geneva. Many modern players might be startled by a feature of the original campaign retained in that set: It instructed that the DM was to do the "rolling up" of characters! A new player could simply be handed an index card drawn from a pile, with the ability scores already noted.

(There is a procedure that, interpreted one way, gives players limited options for "swapping" points to boost prime requisites after choosing a class. By another interpretation, the scores themselves remain as rolled.)

Rationally, it should not matter whose hand tosses the dice unless there's some form of cheating involved. I'm not sure how much to chalk it up to the influence of AD&D, but that rational consideration seems pretty generally trumped by the visceral appeal of rolling dice. Most players (who will accept even semi-random generation in the first place) seem to consider it very important to "throw the bones" themselves.

The choices of race, sex, and name -- apparently taken for granted from Day One -- are a marked departure from our real-world experience of identity, a catering to interest in other aspects of the game. Choice of character class (occupation) departs a bit from the medieval model, reflecting the fantastic element (especially the examples of "self-made" men and women in sword-and-sorcery fiction).

What I am getting at is that, even among those with a strong interest in "putting themselves in the shoes of" their characters, a complex of other concerns may be involved. Also, this eclecticism may be more evident when it comes to preparations for play -- and in "between-session" game activities -- than in play itself.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 23, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> A role playing game is one in which the participants experience play from within a given role.
> 
> MtG could very well be a roleplaying game. The scope of the game is rather limited (combat with other wizards) with a small almost non-existent game world (there is no one playing any role apart from the wizards) but sure it could certainly be played like that. It would serve as well as _Hungry Hungry Hippos _I suppose but I like the Hippos game mechanics better because they are simpler and less fiddly.




See, and this is why I have a problem with your definition.  Your definition excludes something like Spirit of the Century as a role playing game, but does not exclude Magic the Gathering.  

Wouldn't a more useful definition be one which actually reflects reality?



			
				Ariosto said:
			
		

> Hussar has drawn a line at a point at which he sees too little of the shared-world aspect.




Hang on a tick.  I have drawn no such line at all.  I am saying that both traditional role playing games where there is little or no shared-world aspect and games in which players have greater degrees of editiorial control are *both* role playing games.

I am saying that the umbrella of role playing game should be more inclusive, not less. 

Again, going back to the graphic I posted a ways back, Magic the Gathering would not be a Role Playing Game because it is not focussed on collaborative play.  It's competitive.  It also fails my criteria in that play is not assumed to carry on between sessions.  It fails in a third way in that there are win conditions as a goal of the game.

To me, a role playing game has none of those conditions.  Thus, MtG and Hungry, Hungry Hippos both fail to be a role playing game, while Spirit of the Century or Sufficiently Advanced (in which players have a MUCH greater degree of editorial control over the game) are both role playing games.

Different from traditional rpg's?  Oh sure.  But, I'm certainly not claiming that traditional rpg's are not role playing games.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 24, 2009)

DMG2 Excerpts: Ch. 2 Advanced Encounters


----------



## Hussar (Aug 24, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> DMG2 Excerpts: Ch. 2 Advanced Encounters




Your point? 

Actually, had an additional thought as well, Exploder Wizard.  Your definition also does not exclude CRPG's like Diablo.  After all, my character in Diablo is always played in character.  I have no editorial control over the game (barring cheats I suppose).  I can only interact with the game world through my avatar.

At the end of the day, this is why I don't buy your definition of a role playing game.  Any definition which excludes games like Burning Wheel and Dogs in the Vineyard, while fails to exclude games which are pretty obviously not role playing games to any reasonable observer is not a terribly useful definition.

Just to be absolutely clear though - I'm not saying that all games must have editorial control.  Nor am I saying that one version is better than the other.  I've certainly played traditional RPG's and really liked them.  My bone of contention is that your definition doesn't actually help communication.

Like I said, I'd prefer to have "Role Playing Game" be a pretty big umbrella for a large number of games (ie, how the term is pretty much currently understood by the majority of gamers out there) with sub-genres existing within that larger umbrella.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 24, 2009)

I just got Spirit of the Century. On page 1 it says:


> By *roleplaying game*, we mean a story-telling game which has several players.



Everyone apart from ExploderWizard seems to be using the wrong definitions of roleplaying game and storytelling game.


----------



## lutecius (Aug 24, 2009)

I tend to agree with EW's definitions.

RPGs may include _some_ storytelling mechanics and that alone doesn't make them not RPGs, they may even facilitate roleplaying.
But I don't think you're roleplaying while using them, just like I dont think number-crunching or even character creation are roleplaying (even though they're part of the game.)

And the more a game focuses on storytelling, the less it feels like an rpg to me. 
Some indie designers might equate the two notions (some also claim narrativism is the most intuitive form of roleplaying) but to me they're clearly different things.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 24, 2009)

Thanks, Doug! 
I pick up my papers and smile at the sky, for I know that the SotC never lies:

Diablo is a *CSTG*!

Hussar ("CRPGs like Diablo") will take note, I'm sure.


----------



## darjr (Aug 24, 2009)

lutecius said:


> I tend to agree with EW's definitions.
> 
> RPGs may include _some_ storytelling mechanics and that alone doesn't make them not RPGs, they may even facilitate roleplaying.
> But I don't think you're roleplaying while using them, just like I dont think number-crunching or even character creation are roleplaying (even though they're part of the game.)
> ...




But I think you are disagreeing with him. Those 'story' elements make it NOT a roleplaying game, as far as I understand his position.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 24, 2009)

darjr said:


> But I think you are disagreeing with him. Those 'story' elements make it NOT a roleplaying game, as far as I understand his position.




While not purely a roleplaying game, SOTC certainly has some roleplaying elements and most likely opportunities for regular roleplaying during play. Mechanical elements that require players to operate outside thier roles are what make SOTC a storytelling game, not a complete absence of opportunity for roleplaying.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 24, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> I just got Spirit of the Century. On page 1 it says:
> 
> Everyone apart from ExploderWizard seems to be using the wrong definitions of roleplaying game and storytelling game.



Wait a moment, but they are saying they are a roleplaying game, of a kind as described in the following way How does this fit ExploderWizards definition? (Unless there is a new one I have missed.)


----------



## maddman75 (Aug 24, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> While not purely a roleplaying game, SOTC certainly has some roleplaying elements and most likely opportunities for regular roleplaying during play. Mechanical elements that require players to operate outside thier roles are what make SOTC a storytelling game, not a complete absence of opportunity for roleplaying.




You can keep repeating this all you want, no one agrees with your definition.  Personally, I don't see how using an Action Point mechanic to make my choices is significantly different from knowing what my Strength Score is.  If you claim that characters 'know' about all these mechanics, games would all play like Order of the Stick comics.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 24, 2009)

darjr said:


> But I think you are disagreeing with him. Those 'story' elements make it NOT a roleplaying game, as far as I understand his position.






ExploderWizard said:


> While not purely a roleplaying game, SOTC certainly has some roleplaying elements and most likely opportunities for regular roleplaying during play. Mechanical elements that require players to operate outside thier roles are what make SOTC a storytelling game, not a complete absence of opportunity for roleplaying.



So in other words, "Yes, you're right, SotC is not a Roleplaying Game"?

Or am I misunderstanding?

-O


----------



## lutecius (Aug 24, 2009)

darjr said:


> But I think you are disagreeing with him. Those 'story' elements make it NOT a roleplaying game, as far as I understand his position.




I also wrote:







> the more a game focuses on storytelling, the less it feels like an rpg to me.



It's a matter of proportion. The threshold is probably different for each person.
The idea is that those story elements are not roleplaying.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 24, 2009)

DMG2 Excerpts: Ch. 2 Advanced Encounters



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Your point?





			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> It fails in a third way in that there are win conditions as a goal of the game.




It has a cute caboose, too!


----------



## darjr (Aug 24, 2009)

lutecius said:


> I also wrote:It's a matter of proportion. The threshold is probably different for each person.
> The idea is that those story elements are not roleplaying.




No. I think He will not say that SOTC is a roleplaying game. Yes those elements are not roleplaying, according to EW. But he also will not call it a roleplaying game, full stop. You seem to want to. That is my only point. Essentially you seem to agree on some of the terms but not the conclusions of EW. EW doesn't seem to want to call SOTC a roleplaying game. Is your position that SotC is not a roleplaying game? See, I thought that I agreed with EW as well. I find that I don't.

Me? SOTC is a roleplaying game.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 24, 2009)

darjr said:


> No. I think He will not say that SOTC is a roleplaying game. Yes those elements are not roleplaying, according to EW. But he also will not call it a roleplaying game, full stop. You seem to want to. That is my only point. Essentially you seem to agree on some of the terms but not the conclusions of EW. EW doesn't seem to want to call SOTC a roleplaying game. Is your position that SotC is not a roleplaying game? See, I thought that I agreed with EW as well. I find that I don't.
> 
> Me? SOTC is a roleplaying game.




I agree with the authors. It is a storytelling game in which the participants also roleplay. 

The case could be made that Hungry Hungry Hippos is more of an rpg than SOTC. I could play HHH as an rpg. One could play the game entirely from within the role of a hippo with a voracious appetite. Nothing in the game would require an approach outside of the role. I have not read/played SOTC (yet). Could I participate fully as a player and say the same?


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 24, 2009)

Lizzie (purple) was broken in my game, so her replacement with Happy (pink) was about time. 

The edition wars over orange versus blue Henry are silly.


----------



## darjr (Aug 24, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> I agree with the authors. It is a storytelling game in which the participants also roleplay.




So it is a roleplaying game. Or not.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 25, 2009)

darjr said:


> So it is a roleplaying game. Or not.




it's very zen.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 25, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> I agree with the authors. It is a storytelling game in which the participants also roleplay.




But, that's not what that quote says.  The quote says it's a role playing game.  It further defines it as saying that a role playing game is one where you have a story telling game with multiple payers.  In other words, their definition of role playing game is pretty much opposite of what you are claiming.




> The case could be made that Hungry Hungry Hippos is more of an rpg than SOTC. I could play HHH as an rpg. One could play the game entirely from within the role of a hippo with a voracious appetite. Nothing in the game would require an approach outside of the role. I have not read/played SOTC (yet). Could I participate fully as a player and say the same?




And you do not think that this is ridiculous?  Really?  That your definition of role playing game would allow HHH to be considered a role playing game?  Could it be played as such?  Quite possibly, but, considering your stated goal is to be more precise with descriptive language, how is this not a HUGE misnomer?

"Hey, Exploder Wizard, let's go play this new role playing game I got."

"Sure, sounds great!"

/me pulls out Hungry, Hungry Hippos

Exploder Wizard, "Damn, this is true role playing game."


----------



## Hussar (Aug 25, 2009)

darjr said:


> So it is a roleplaying game. Or not.




It's Schroedinger's Role Playing Game!


----------



## ST (Aug 25, 2009)

Okay, that's a pretty clear example. By the definitions advanced here, SotC would be a roleplaying game if you added the words "You cannot invoke Aspects on anything but yourself" to the book. That way Aspects dealing with terrain are invoked by the GM based on your actions, rather than directly. Instead of saying "I light the stack of oily rags on fire, invoking "On Fire" as an Aspect", you'd say "I like the stacks of oily rags on fire," and then the GM would say "I'm gonna rule that invokes "On Fire" as an Aspect."

Or if you want to be stricter, disallow invoking Aspects on everything, period. That even eliminates using your own Aspects as feats or bonuses, meaning a person who's known as Sneaky can't get extra bonuses for their Stealth roll, but that's not that huge a deal.

So does that tell us anything useful? It doesn't seem like these definitions deal with hugely different types of play if a sentence of house rules can switch it from a storytelling game to a roleplaying game. It seems mostly to deal with whether or not the player can narrate stuff other than what their PC does, and then all that stuff just gets handed over to the GM to run for the player. So Aspects would give your PC a bonus when the GM said they did, instead of when you say, but there's not much else changed at all.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 25, 2009)

ST said:


> So does that tell us anything useful? It doesn't seem like these definitions deal with hugely different types of play if a sentence of house rules can switch it from a storytelling game to a roleplaying game. It seems mostly to deal with whether or not the player can narrate stuff other than what their PC does, and then all that stuff just gets handed over to the GM to run for the player. So Aspects would give your PC a bonus when the GM said they did, instead of when you say, but there's not much else changed at all.




It tells us that one of the main design goals of the game is creating collaborative fiction. The value of this information depends on the individual. To those that believe cooperative storytelling and roleplaying are one and the same, the information is meaningless.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 25, 2009)

Hussar said:


> And you do not think that this is ridiculous? Really? That your definition of role playing game would allow HHH to be considered a role playing game? Could it be played as such? Quite possibly, but, considering your stated goal is to be more precise with descriptive language, how is this not a HUGE misnomer?




I never said that HHH was a good roleplayiing game. My point was that there is nothing in the rules/ mechanics that prevent it from being played as one just as there is nothing stopping anyone from playing D&D as a tactical skirmish game.


----------



## tyrlaan (Aug 25, 2009)

Point the first:


ExploderWizard said:


> I never said that HHH was a good roleplayiing game. My point was that there is nothing in the rules/ mechanics that prevent it from being played as one just as there is nothing stopping anyone from playing D&D as a tactical skirmish game.




Then by your definition, everything is a roleplaying game because there's nothing in the rules/mechanics of any game that prevents it. You are so intent on subdividing the world of roleplaying games that you've just expanded it well beyond the initial purpose of the term. At this point I think you're defeating your own purpose.

Point the second:


ExploderWizard said:


> While not purely a roleplaying game, SOTC certainly has some roleplaying elements and most likely opportunities for regular roleplaying during play. Mechanical elements that require players to operate outside thier roles are what make SOTC a storytelling game, not a complete absence of opportunity for roleplaying.



As Hussar states, SOTC flat out calls itself a roleplaying game and _then _chooses to further clarify its nature by saying it is a story-telling game. I note that you elected not to respond to Hussar's comment. 

So are you saying SOTC is wrong? And if so, what position are you in to make such a claim? 

I take great issue with you claiming that any game dubbed a role-playing game is not a role-playing game. See further Obryn's comments along these lines if you are unclear as to why this might bother me.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 25, 2009)

tyrlaan said:


> Point the first:
> 
> 
> Then by your definition, everything is a roleplaying game because there's nothing in the rules/mechanics of any game that prevents it. You are so intent on subdividing the world of roleplaying games that you've just expanded it well beyond the initial purpose of the term. At this point I think you're defeating your own purpose.
> ...




SOTC isn't wrong. " By roleplaying game we mean a story-telling game which has several players." They are very forthright in the description of thier game. The writers clearly understood the aims of the design they were going for and identified them correctly as storytelling. The writers are also clear on thier own use of the term "roleplaying".

I have no idea why that bothers you.


----------



## tyrlaan (Aug 25, 2009)

SOTCs words don't bother me. Your "rephrasing" to state it is not a roleplaying game does.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 25, 2009)

tyrlaan said:


> SOTCs words don't bother me. Your "rephrasing" to state it is not a roleplaying game does.




What rephrasing was done? I restated the quote posted by Doug and didn't change a single word. The statement was made by the game's designers not me. 

You seem to be confusing what appears to be a question of absolutes vs catagorization based on game design goals.

"You can roleplay during the game" does not make it a roleplaying game by design, thus the Hungry Hungry Hippos example.

It is a simple matter: what are the expected goals of the game? If the expected goals are to play a role as you experience the game then it's an rpg. If the expected goals are to engage in creating colloraborative fiction through the medium of the game then it's a storytelling game.


----------



## tyrlaan (Aug 25, 2009)

The quote from SOTC:


> By roleplaying game, we mean a story-telling game which has several players.




Your quote (again):


> While not purely a roleplaying game, SOTC certainly has some roleplaying elements and most likely opportunities for regular roleplaying during play.



And: 


> I agree with the authors. It is a storytelling game in which the participants also roleplay.



It's clear as day that you are rephrasing and not merely restating. 

SOTC defines itself as a _role-playing game_ and then specifies that it is a story-telling game. This implies that a story-telling game, at least in the mind of SOTC, is a subset of role-playing games.

You state that SOTC is "not purely a roleplaying game" and "...a storytelling game in which the participants also roleplay." You are quite specifically turning it around to label SOTC as a story-telling game and _not_ a role-playing game. 

SOTC says: it's a RPG (subset: story-telling)
You say: it's a story-telling game NOT a RPG


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 25, 2009)

tyrlaan said:


> The quote from SOTC:
> 
> 
> Your quote (again):
> ...




OK. So your position is than anything is a roleplaying game if the designers say so even if such a statement conflicts with the designer's own definition of the object of play?  Interesting.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 25, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> OK. So your position is than anything is a roleplaying game if the designers say so even if such a statement conflicts with the designer's own definition of the object of play?  Interesting.



There is no conflict if you do assume that roleplaying and story-telling are _not _mutually exclusive. Or even more specifically, that story-telling is a subset of roleplaying.


----------



## tyrlaan (Aug 25, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> OK. So your position is than anything is a roleplaying game if the designers say so even if such a statement conflicts with the designer's own definition of the object of play?  Interesting.



I said nothing of the sort. In fact, all I did was point out that you rephrased and did not merely restate. Please review my previous post.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 25, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> There is no conflict if you do assume that roleplaying and story-telling are _not _mutually exclusive. Or even more specifically, that story-telling is a subset of roleplaying.




They are mutually exclusive. A game can contain elements of both. An rpg may have some elements of story involved. If these elements require players to operate outside the role being played and effectively play the role of storyteller during actual play then the game has morphed into a storytelling game. This becomes even more so if the stated design of the game is to create collaborative stories instead of experiencing the game from within a chosen role.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 25, 2009)

tyrlaan said:


> This implies that a story-telling game, *at least in the mind of SOTC*, is a subset of role-playing games.




And I repeat, the designers claim makes this true?


----------



## maddman75 (Aug 25, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> They are mutually exclusive. A game can contain elements of both. An rpg may have some elements of story involved. If these elements require players to operate outside the role being played and effectively play the role of storyteller during actual play then the game has morphed into a storytelling game. This becomes even more so if the stated design of the game is to create collaborative stories instead of experiencing the game from within a chosen role.




No they're not.  Creating stories is a function of roleplaying games.  If everyone sits down to a game and plays their role, a story is created.  A given game might not care about the quality of that story, but it still exists.  Being a story creation game is a byproduct of being a roleplaying game.

Relate to me what a game session would be like that did not create a recognizable story.  Here's a hint to help you, a story means 'stuff happens to possibly imaginary people.  There's a start, a middle, and an end.'

Your entire idea of a division between roleplaying and story creation is fallacious.  Every RPG session ever played created  a story.  You can just say you don't like mechanics that try to make the created story better, you don't have to categorize them as some other hobby entirely.  Its okay.


----------



## Thasmodious (Aug 25, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> They are mutually exclusive.




No, they aren't.  You are playing a role within a story.  How that story is "written" varies a great deal.  DM plot, player choice, shared creation, after the fact; but in it, the player's are playing roles.  There are a number of metagame elements within any RPG.  A collaborative act of creation is just one of them.  It doesn't instantly change the entire nature of the game into something else, it is just one moment of metagame creation among many.  Dice rolls are moments of metagame player determination, too.  Savage Worlds uses a number of metagame devices to enhance the RP possibilities of the game.  An optional rule is to use their Adventure Deck, where players draw a card and can play that card during the session.  Cards include things like "run into old friend" or "love interest" and many other acts of player narration.  Also, the PCs play allies and henchmen during combat, deciding and playing out their actions.  Bennies themselves, like action points, are a seemingly retroactive response (GM: I hit you for 2 wounds.  PC: Nope, I used a benny and soaked them).  Of course, its not really retroactive, the result of an attack is  not final until all steps (including use of bennies) have been taken.  

Storytelling and roleplaying are not exclusive, but interwoven.  They are both fundamental to the RPG and do not present an either/or package in any way.  A game does not cease to be a roleplaying game if the player engages in anything outside of his character, those moments happen constantly in an RPG, every time dice are rolled, distances are measured, rules are consulted....


----------



## Hussar (Aug 25, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> They are mutually exclusive. A game can contain elements of both. An rpg may have some elements of story involved. If these elements require players to operate outside the role being played and effectively play the role of storyteller during actual play then the game has morphed into a storytelling game. This becomes even more so if the stated design of the game is to create collaborative stories instead of experiencing the game from within a chosen role.




No, they are not mutually exclusive and nor should they be.

After all, story is THE MOST IMPORTANT element of an RPG according to Gygax's little study.  The most important.  Not second, not barely registered, it's the single most important element of an RPG.  If a game has no story involved, then people do not consider it to be an RPG.

If they did consider it an RPG, then Story would not be so important.

Every single session of an RPG that has ever been played is an exercise in creating collaborative stories.  Every single one.  You cannot play a single session of any RPG without creating a collaborative story.  The point of view of the player does not change that.  Whether you are forced by the mechanics to a single viewpoint or allowed multiple viewpoints doesn't change the fact that every single session of every single RPG out there is an exercise in collaborative story telling.

In every single session of every single RPG, you have character, you have plot and you have setting.  In every single session of every single RPG, you have at least two players (a player and a DM) playing out the interaction between those characters.  If you have character, and plot and setting, you have story.  Where you have two people creating that story, you have collaborative story telling.

The story might be very basic - go to the cave and kill everything you find - but there is still a story there.  

While I suppose you could argue that there is a plot in Hungry Hungry Hippos, it's pretty damn hard to find.  And, again, it's pretty much pointless to have a definition of role playing game that includes HHH and not SotC.

Now here's another question for you EW.  What if I play multiple characters?  Am I role playing or am I story telling?  What about games where roles are switched during play - Ars Magica for example - which allows different players to play the mage at different times.  Is that role playing or not?


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 25, 2009)

tyrlaan said:
			
		

> Then by your definition, everything is a roleplaying game because there's nothing in the rules/mechanics of any game that prevents it. ...  I take great issue with you claiming that any game dubbed a role-playing game is not a role-playing game.



Make up your mind, eh?


> SOTC defines itself as a _role-playing game_ and then specifies that it is a story-telling game. This implies that a story-telling game, at least in the mind of SOTC, is a subset of role-playing games.



Actually, the quoted sentence defines a role-playing game as a subtype of story-telling game.



			
				ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> And I repeat, the designers claim makes this true?



Considering what results from the "not an RPG" claim, I think that a wise course. That leaves open the more meaningful treatment of the reasons why one considers Game X *less satisfying* as an RPG than Game Y. Naturally, some fans will object -- but that is going to happen regardless one's reasons for not loving their beloved.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 25, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> They are mutually exclusive. A game can contain elements of both. An rpg may have some elements of story involved. If these elements require players to operate outside the role being played and effectively play the role of storyteller during actual play then the game has morphed into a storytelling game. This becomes even more so if the stated design of the game is to create collaborative stories instead of experiencing the game from within a chosen role.



So, categorically, Eberron 3.5 with metagame Action Points is categorized with the storytelling card game Once Upon A Time (as a Story Game), and _not_ categorized with default D&D 3.5 _without_ Action Points (as an RPG).

....You know how crazy that sounds, right?

-O


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 25, 2009)

Obryn said:


> So, categorically, Eberron 3.5 with metagame Action Points is categorized with the storytelling card game Once Upon A Time (as a Story Game), and _not_ categorized with default D&D 3.5 _without_ Action Points (as an RPG).
> 
> ....You know how crazy that sounds, right?
> 
> -O




I am not familliar with the Eberron action points and what they do so I cannot comment.


----------



## tyrlaan (Aug 25, 2009)

@Ariosto: Neither of the sentences you plucked from my post are me taking a stance on this silly RPG/story-telling debate. Rather, they are both points I made to counter EW's argument. I am looking to poke holes, not draw lines in the sand - that's what EW and you are trying to do.


ExploderWizard said:


> And I repeat, the designers claim makes this true?



You continue to put more behind my words than what is there. Again, I am pointing out that SOTC says one thing and you have twisted it to say another. I am illuminating the disparity because you are implying there is none in an attempt to prove your point. I have not said that I agree or disagree with SOTC's stance on the definition of it's game.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 25, 2009)

maddman75 said:


> No they're not. Creating stories is a function of roleplaying games. If everyone sits down to a game and plays their role, a story is created. A given game might not care about the quality of that story, but it still exists. Being a story creation game is a byproduct of being a roleplaying game.
> 
> Relate to me what a game session would be like that did not create a recognizable story. Here's a hint to help you, a story means 'stuff happens to possibly imaginary people. There's a start, a middle, and an end.'
> 
> Your entire idea of a division between roleplaying and story creation is fallacious. Every RPG session ever played created a story. You can just say you don't like mechanics that try to make the created story better, you don't have to categorize them as some other hobby entirely. Its okay.




As characters are roleplayed, thier actions as directed by the players can be interpreted as a story. When players cease roleplaying thier characters and instead_ begin narrating action from a perspective outside of the role,_ we have story *telling *rather than story *development *that comes from the actions of the characters. 

While the "story" flows from the game in both instances, the methods used to convey that story are not identical. If the differences are not relevant to you, pay them no mind.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 25, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> I am not familliar with the Eberron action points and what they do so I cannot comment.



It is a metagame construct that a player spends to give their character a better chance of success at a task, or to enhance one of their abilities.  Its most common use is +1d6 on the d20 roll.  These can further be enhanced by feats.

It's purely a metagame mechanic, like Force Points in SWSE or Drama Points in BtVS.  Clearly, characters have no idea what action points are.

-O


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 25, 2009)

Obryn said:


> It is a metagame construct that a player spends to give their character a better chance of success at a task, or to enhance one of their abilities. Its most common use is +1d6 on the d20 roll. These can further be enhanced by feats.
> 
> It's purely a metagame mechanic, like Force Points in SWSE or Drama Points in BtVS. Clearly, characters have no idea what action points are.
> 
> -O




In your example an action point is simply a temporary boost from extra effort that allows a character to perform certain tasks that he/she is already capable of a little bit better. 
I don't see anything here that requires action outside of the role.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 25, 2009)

I don't own the game myself but if the following is the actual quote in its entirety:



> By roleplaying game, we mean a story-telling game which has several players.




Then EW I think you really are reading your own thoughts into that sentence.

That sentence is indicating that a roleplaying game, is defined as a storytelling game, which has several players.  They're not indicating a difference between two games (storytelling or roleplaying.)  They're simply defining roleplaying games. You can surely disagree with their definition, but that's what that sentence says.

Personally I think you're attacking it incorrectly, as I think others have said.

For me, roleplaying game is the large category. Similar to the word Automobile. It describes a large collection of games that have similar aspects, but different particular styles. 

By doing what you're doing, I think you're trying to essentially say something like: A Ford is an Automobile, a Toyota is... something else.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 25, 2009)

Scribble said:


> I don't own the game myself but if the following is the actual quote in its entirety:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So if I were to create a retro clone game and called it Hungry Hungry Crocs, and included attributes for the Croc characters and provided scenarios, I can call it an rpg and it would be true? If I then stated on page 1 of the rules that Hungry Hungry Crocs is a roleplaying game and by roleplaying game I mean an action-packed marble eating game for several players does THAT mean its true?


----------



## Obryn (Aug 25, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> In your example an action point is simply a temporary boost from extra effort that allows a character to perform certain tasks that he/she is already capable of a little bit better.
> I don't see anything here that requires action outside of the role.



OK, so we're getting somewhere now.  In your definition, metagame mechanics like Eberron's Action Points or SWSE's Force Points or 4e's Powers can be characteristics of an RPG, so long as it's something the character can do.  A Drama Point like in Buffy which lets you add, say, a ladder in a convenient spot (or a Hero Point in Arcana Evolved which lets you do that and _more_) would _not_ be.

This is a more sensible definition, but it's still idiosyncratic.  Not as idiosyncratic as howandwhy99's, but if you're fine with using an irregular definition of Roleplaying Game that almost nobody else uses, more power to you, I guess.  It might make conversations difficult, though.  And certainly I'm not going to use a nonstandard definition like this.

-O


----------



## Scribble (Aug 25, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> So if I were to create a retro clone game and called it Hungry Hungry Crocs, and included attributes for the Croc characters and provided scenarios, I can call it an rpg and it would be true? If I then stated on page 1 of the rules that Hungry Hungry Crocs is a roleplaying game and by roleplaying game I mean an action-packed marble eating game for several players does THAT mean its true?




I wasn't trying to define any kind of trueness- I think you missed the point. 

I was simply saying you're reading into that sentence something that isn't there.  You keep saying they're indicating two types of game. They're not. They're defining RPGs as collaborative storytelling games. Full stop.

Again, you can disagree with that definition, and indeed, I do as well, but I also disagree with what you're saying.

I think there are several key features a game will have that indicate it will be commonly viewed as an RPG despite varying gameplay specifics. (Just like there are several key features of a car that will allow it to be seen as a car, despite the various specifics.)


----------



## ST (Aug 25, 2009)

Okay, let me try that one from the side.

Here's a roleplaying game. 

THE RULES

Create a character. You start with 10 Hit Points, no other stats. They refresh to full at the beginning of each session.

The GM will describe the world, and you roleplay your character to portray them. 

If you get in a conflict, play Hungry Hungry Hippos to determine who wins the conflict. At the end of the fight, take the winner's # of marbles, subtract yours from the total. Take that much damage to your Hit Points. (If you won, you don't take any damage.)

----
There you go, is that actually a roleplaying game or not?

I'm confused because first the conversation was about what rules you could _not_ include for something to be a roleplaying game. Now it seems to also be about what rules the game must have?

I mean, there's tons of games out there that are roleplaying games because they tell you "In this game, you roleplay a character", but then the rules are about swinging a sword or how much damage you take from falling off a cliff or whatnot. Isn't replacing all those resolution mechancis with "Play Hippos" just changing the mechanics, meaning they'd still be a roleplaying game?

How about freeform roleplaying? No mechanics, but the central rules of "You're GMing, we're the players" still apply -- so is it still a game despite having no written mechanics? How can you differentiate "freeform roleplaying game" from "freeform storytelling game" if neither have mechanics, just an agreed sense of "how we'll play"?

Finally, how does stuff in the book like "This is a roleplaying game" or GM's advice sections affect the picture? Personally, I consider that stuff to be part of the rules without being actual mechanics, because they set a default assumption as to how to play. Other people might just ignore those sections entirely and look only at the mechanics.


----------



## ST (Aug 25, 2009)

Sorry to multipost, I just find this an interesting topic. 

Okay, bang on this and tell me if I've missed something. 

I believe as it's being interpreted, if you're playing a roleplaying game, this exchange would be verboten as it's got storytelling gaming all over it:

Player: "I think I remember there's a member of my thieves' guild working in this town. I pay a Fate point."
GM: "Yep, Azur the One-Legged runs a fence here, is what you've heard."

And this would be okay:
Player: "Hmm, this town seems pretty busy, I wonder if my guild's got their fingers in."
GM: "Make a streetwise check." (It succeeds) "Yep, Azur the One-Legged is the name you get."

Would _this_ be legit?

Player: "Hmm, I can't remember if the guild set up shop here or not..."
GM: (Spends 1 Fate point from the PC's total, without telling them) "Actually you're in luck -- Azur the One-Legged seems to be operating here. You recognize his mark from back in the day."

In that last example, the PCs have Fate point totals but the GM never told the players they exist, and he decides to spend them based on when he thinks the player's musing or idea would be interesting. It's still a metagame mechanic, but _the players aren't aware of it._ Is the fact that the mechanic is removed from player use enough to turn this back into a roleplaying game?

The thing is, I feel like you can turn any of those exchanges from one case to another based on how your group operates, independent of the rules or definitions. Okay, it's not okay for a player to say that something is true in the game world... can they muse that they sure wonder if it was true OOC? Or investigate whether or not it's true IC? At that point, it's the GM's decision in a "strict roleplaying game" whether or not that's true... so it seems like "Player affecting something outside of their PC's skin" is a pretty nebulous category.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 25, 2009)

ST said:


> There you go, is that actually a roleplaying game or not?




The problem with this is you can go on endlessly with "Is this a roleplaying game?" and that's because RPG is the higher level description. As such, even though the answer might be "Yes" to both games, two different games that are both RPGs might be wildly different in many ways. (A semi and a sports car are wildly different but are both automobiles.)

My issue with EW isn't that he's trying to define RPGs. but that he's taking a specific play style and saying THAT is the definition of RPGs. It's not, it's just a style of RPGs (and one that he evidently prefers.)

The trick is finding what all games people commonly accept as RPGS (regardless of specific style) tend to have in common, and go from there.

You'll also find that not every game accepted as an RPG will have ALL of the common attributes, but as long as they have an acceptable number, they will be accepted as an RPG. I don't know what that acceptable number would be, nor have I gone through and thought about all the various elements RPGS have in common.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 25, 2009)

ST said:


> Okay, let me try that one from the side.
> 
> Here's a roleplaying game.
> 
> ...




It certainly could be, and a darn fun one to play to boot! 



ST said:


> I'm confused because first the conversation was about what rules you could _not_ include for something to be a roleplaying game. Now it seems to also be about what rules the game must have?
> 
> I mean, there's tons of games out there that are roleplaying games because they tell you "In this game, you roleplay a character", but then the rules are about swinging a sword or how much damage you take from falling off a cliff or whatnot. Isn't replacing all those resolution mechancis with "Play Hippos" just changing the mechanics, meaning they'd still be a roleplaying game?




Certainly. Using hippos instead of dice means little to the roleplay/storytelling divide. 



ST said:


> How about freeform roleplaying? No mechanics, but the central rules of "You're GMing, we're the players" still apply -- so is it still a game despite having no written mechanics? How can you differentiate "freeform roleplaying game" from "freeform storytelling game" if neither have mechanics, just an agreed sense of "how we'll play"?




Mechanics are optional in order to bring a sense of fairness to the game. Players could certainly agree to freeform all the action with success determined by the quality of description for thier actions. As long as the action of the game is focused on from with the roles, mechanics can be whatever.


ST said:


> Finally, how does stuff in the book like "This is a roleplaying game" or GM's advice sections affect the picture? Personally, I consider that stuff to be part of the rules without being actual mechanics, because they set a default assumption as to how to play. Other people might just ignore those sections entirely and look only at the mechanics.




"This is a roleplaying game" in the introduction tells me that the players will interact with the game through the role of thier characters. Mechanics are simply for resolution. They can be roleplay focused or story focused (for mechanics that require player actions outside thier role)


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 25, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> It tells us that one of the main design goals of the game is creating collaborative fiction. The value of this information depends on the individual. To those that believe cooperative storytelling and roleplaying are one and the same, the information is meaningless.




I'm with you on how you define storytelling vs. roleplaying (though I wouldn't attempt to classify _games_ in one way or another, only what people do at specific points during play), but I don't think that's a good definition.

"What's your marching order?"
"Morgan and Sister Rebecca in the front, with Silverleaf and Black Dougal in the rear."

That's creating collaborative fiction!  "Creating collaborative fiction" is fundamental to roleplaying.  Stepping outside of your role to do it means, in my opinion, that you are not employing the roleplaying technique at that moment.



ST said:


> There you go, is that actually a roleplaying game or not?




I'd say that during combat you're not employing the technique I'm calling "roleplaying".


There is a discussion on story-games talking about one guy's definition of what makes a roleplaying game.  You might find it interesting.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 25, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> "This is a roleplaying game" in the introduction tells me that the players will interact with the game through the role of thier characters. Mechanics are simply for resolution. They can be roleplay focused or story focused (for mechanics that require player actions outside thier role)




I think I agree with somewhat of this part. I think "players will interact with the game through the role of thier characters." IS an important starting point to listing what makes a game an RPG, but I don't think it's as hard fast a line as you seem to.

I don't think the addition of some rules/methods that players can use to effect the game outside of their character takes it out of the realm of RPGs.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 25, 2009)

The specific play style to which EW refers has a narrow focus -- but that focus _is_ on the element that originally distinguished RPGs from wargames, the specifically role-playing element. To exclude other elements may be unhelpful, but a game excluding that element (other than in the superficial sense that one can apply to absolutely any game) would, I think, not sensibly warrant being called an RPG.

Hungry Hungry Hippos by itself falls into that category, as did the Chainmail miniatures rules set that was a precursor to the mechanics of D&D.

Role-playing in the critical sense comes in with the scenario that puts such mechanics to use. Before Arneson first "dungeon mastered" an expedition into the mazes of Blackmoor, he had played in and moderated a number of "Braunstein" games. He combined the basic concept of those very free-form games with his innovative dungeon-exploration situation, adapted Chainmail to his needs, and added the very appealing feature of advancing characters to successively more powerful "levels" (starting, for instance, as a normal fighting man able to attain the rank of "hero" and eventually "superhero").

One could likewise take the HHH apparatus as a convenient means for resolving conflicts (or other affairs with doubtful outcomes) in a much wider-ranging Hippos game. Dice, hit points, and so on, are convenient and familiar (due to the influence of D&D) means, but hardly definitive.

By the same token, one could pick up an RPG rules-set and revert the game right back to a wargame. Combining that detachment from role-identification with "fudging" of whatever dice-rolls don't suit, one could change it firmly into a story-telling enterprise.


----------



## maddman75 (Aug 25, 2009)

You know the HHH discussion is kind of moot.  There's already a game that does a similar thing - Dread.  Players answer a questionnaire to define their character.  There are no stats or numbers involved, nor dice or other randomizer.  You want to do something, pull from the Jenga tower.  Succeed, and you do it.  Decline to pull and you fail.  Knock the tower over, and you're toast.

EW, you're welcome to your definition, but it doesn't look like anyone else is interested in using it.  So you'll have to remain confused when people refer to BtVS and InSpectres as roleplaying games, and refuse to refer to computer games and Hungry Hungry Hippos as such.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 25, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> The specific play style to which EW refers has a narrow focus -- but that focus _is_ on the element that originally distinguished RPGs from wargames, the specifically role-playing element.




Not sure if I agree completely here (unless I misunderstand.)

The main difference was rather then the main aspect through which the player interacting with the game being a collective "Unit" the player now interacted primarily through a single entity. In and of itself this doesn't preclude effecting the game outside of that character, however.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 25, 2009)

It may not preclude affecting the game outside of that character, but affecting the game _in_ character is absolutely necessary.

There is at the least a *spectrum*, from interacting _solely_ through one's character (as in the Braunsteins and the early Blackmoor dungeon games, as I gather) -- to not identifying with a single character _at all_.

A campaign of Larry Brom's _The Sword and the Flame_, for instance, can fall along a point on that spectrum as one follows the fortunes of the named men in a platoon. Yet I have never known it to be billed as an "RPG"; it has always been a "wargame".

Perhaps, though, some other game really not very different in essence _is_ advertised as an RPG.


----------



## maddman75 (Aug 25, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> It may not preclude affecting the game outside of that character, but affecting the game _in_ character is absolutely necessary.
> 
> There is at the least a *spectrum*, from interacting _solely_ through one's character (as in the Braunsteins and the early Blackmoor dungeon games, as I gather) -- to not identifying with a single character _at all_.
> 
> ...




That's interesting.  I think that identifying with a single character is the bit that makes RPGs what they are.  Consider something like InSpectres.  Its a ghostbusters like game where the PCs investigate the supernatural.  Only the 'skill roles' just let the PCs dictate what happens if they are successful.  For example, the group gets called by a client to investigate weird lights in their restaurant.  The PC uses his scanner gadget and makes his roll.  He can simply declare that the weird lights are because of a ghost that is haunting the building.  The GM doesn't know this ahead of time, its all off the cuff.  According to Exploder Wizard this isn't anything like an RPG.

But it is easily recognizable as such.  Each player, apart from the GM, has a distinct character they identify with.  They generate these characters, speak for them, declare their actions, and use the rules to resolve disputes.  That the players get to determine what happens if their rolls are successful doesn't change the fact that it is sold as and accepted as an RPG by the people who play it.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 25, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> It may not preclude affecting the game outside of that character, but affecting the game _in_ character is absolutely necessary.
> 
> There is at the least a *spectrum*, from interacting _solely_ through one's character (as in the Braunsteins and the early Blackmoor dungeon games, as I gather) -- to not identifying with a single character _at all_.
> 
> ...




Sure I'll agree with that mostly. 

The primary method of the players interacting with the game is through the use of a "character." What constitutes a character from game to game might vary widely though.

And again, just because the player has a few other tricks up his sleeve not attached to the character, doesn't mean the primary character is negated.

I think it's probably important to note that if we really were looking for a collection of attributes that all games considered RPGs have in common, each attribute would also have a weight attached to it. Certain aspects being "true" would lend more weight to it being accepted as an RPG then others.

Also the existence of one of these attributes wouldn't indicate it's an RPG in and of itself. 

For instance just because the game has "characters" doesn't automatically make it an RPG. (IE in Super Mario Brothers, Mario is your character, however, it's not considered an RPG.)


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 25, 2009)

There once was as well a distinction in the matter of _scope_. Thus, one might say of TSATF that it was clearly a wargame due to the limitations not so much of its mechanical apparatus as of its _assumptions_. A "role-playing" game would more clearly encompass affairs beyond the battlefield.

GDW's _En Garde_ was an early example of a game combining strong role-identification with fairly stereotyped scope. However, it has often been taken as the starting point for far more; activities beyond those detailed in the booklet are (as with the original D&D game) treated in pretty informal fashion.

I have come across some Forge-y RPGs with _much_ more constrained scenarios!


----------



## ST (Aug 26, 2009)

Well, I doubt anyone's going to be portraying multiple characters at once, what with only the one larynx and all.  So I'd guess playing multiple characters is a matter of how you timeshare.

I don't see any fundamental difference between "I switch characters when my old one dies or retires" and "I switch characters between scenes", in terms of what you're doing while you're actually roleplaying.

Otherwise, then it's not "really roleplaying" when the GM portrays a character, since he's just gonna switch NPCs in a bit anyway, right?


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 26, 2009)

> Otherwise, then it's not "really roleplaying" when the GM portrays a character, since he's just gonna switch NPCs in a bit anyway, right?



There are reasons the GM is called "the GM" rather than "a player".


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 26, 2009)

ST said:


> Otherwise, then it's not "really roleplaying" when the GM portrays a character, since he's just gonna switch NPCs in a bit anyway, right?




If the players are interacting with the game through thier characters then the GM cannot be too invested in roleplaying a specific character because he/she is representing everything that is not the PC's all at once. If the DM does have the luxury to become immersed in a character then beware-the dreaded DMPC is about to strike.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 26, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> In your example an action point is simply a temporary boost from extra effort that allows a character to perform certain tasks that he/she is already capable of a little bit better.
> I don't see anything here that requires action outside of the role.




But, you see, there's a problem of timing.  Action Points are applied AFTER the die roll, not before.  There is no "extra effort" possible because, well, the effort is already done.

I would also point out that Action Points, at least in Unearthed Arcana also allow you to retain a cast spell.  If you spend the AP, you don't lose a memorized spell (or spell slot) after casting.  What kind of effort allows that?

In addition, I can spend an Action Point to gain the benefit of a feat that I don't actually have:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Emulate Feat
> 
> At the beginning of a character’s turn, he may spend 1 action point as a free action to gain the benefit of a feat he doesn’t have. He must meet the prerequisites of the feat. He gains the benefit until the beginning of his next turn.




What kind of efforts allow me to spontaneously gain a feat?

And, what kind of effort can allow me to produce a ladder?  After all, you allowed that Call of Cthulu is a role playing game, and not a story game.  Using CoC rules allows me to change the setting through what are effectively action points.  I'm thinking that the effort that would allow me to produce a ladder would really, really hurt.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 26, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> If the players are interacting with the game through thier characters then the GM cannot be too invested in roleplaying a specific character because he/she is representing everything that is not the PC's all at once. If the DM does have the luxury to become immersed in a character then beware-the dreaded DMPC is about to strike.




I find it interesting that you would argue that a DM should not be too invested in an NPC, but, you also argued that allowing PC's to change the setting is equivalent to the DM choosing feats for characters.

If the DM is not too invested into the setting, then he shouldn't care if the player alters the NPC in some way that fits within the context of what's happening currently (ie.  Adding a dog that eats the diamond).  But, if the DM is so invested in the setting that any alteration by the players is seen as a violation of his vision, then shouldn't he be very invested into the NPC's?


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 26, 2009)

Hussar said:
			
		

> And, what kind of effort can allow me to produce a ladder? After all, you allowed that Call of Cthulu is a role playing game, and not a story game. Using CoC rules allows me to change the setting through what are effectively action points. I'm thinking that the effort that would allow me to produce a ladder would really, really hurt.



I take it you're referring to post #137 on page 7:


			
				maddman75 said:
			
		

> Here's another one. I commonly use the Luck roll as a form of metagame mechanic. Player asks if there's a crowbar in the ol' toolshed. Roll luck and there is, fail and there isn't. Are you going to claim that Call of Cthulhu isn't a roleplaying game?



... and the reply in post #142 on page 8:


			
				ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> This is a prime example of letting the dice fall where they may in the determination of a character's fortune. The same rule applies to all and eliminates the need for the dreaded GM fiat. No impact on roleplaying one way or another.




First, that is *maddman75's* custom, not a _rule_ of CoC entitling a player to declare anything. There are no "action points". The Keeper is not required to use _any sort_ of roll, much less one based on a character's Power score -- and would have *no compulsion* to answer in the affirmative. It might well be that there in fact is no crowbar. Barring magic, the player has no power to make something appear.

Second, the player in the example in fact did not declare a crowbar's existence but simply asked a question indicating that the character was _taking a closer look_ at the environment. There's a fair chance that a crowbar _might_ be in a tool shed. It would be extraordinary to come across a penguin in the Arctic, or lobster Thermidor in the Gobi Desert.

Keeper's Lore from CoC:

_When the keeper sets a scene, his or her most important ally is invisible, one which no scenario-writer ever puts on paper. 'Reasonable deduction' consists of all which is in the room or cavern or aircraft or other physical setting which is not described as being there, but which can logically be inferred as being there.
   For instance, the investigators are in the library of the mansion. Specifically mentioned are the many massive bookcases lining the walls, two leather chairs, a desk and chair, and a billiards table. What else might be there?
    Books, certainly, and lots of them. Cues, chalk, and billiard balls. Writing material. Paintings on the walls. Lamps and light switches. Windows, maybe lots of windows. Rugs on the floor. A fireplace, and fireplace tools. Lots of odd things in the desk drawers, including scissors, a letter opener, glue, stamps, twine, tape (if it's the right era), and an address book. Matches for the fireplace. Cigars in the humidor. Brandy on the side table._

The night gaunts are not wearing sombreros or galoshes; they are neither skipping rope nor turning cartwheels; they are not carrying kumquats or bananas.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 26, 2009)

Hussar said:


> In addition, I can spend an Action Point to gain the benefit of a feat that I don't actually have:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of efforts allow me to spontaneously gain a feat?




Storytelling ones.



Hussar said:


> And, what kind of effort can allow me to produce a ladder? After all, you allowed that Call of Cthulu is a role playing game, and not a story game. Using CoC rules allows me to change the setting through what are effectively action points. I'm thinking that the effort that would allow me to produce a ladder would really, really hurt.




Already answered but can you not see the difference between wholesale creation and speculation based on the logical environment?



Hussar said:


> I find it interesting that you would argue that a DM should not be too invested in an NPC, but, you also argued that allowing PC's to change the setting is equivalent to the DM choosing feats for characters.




I was merely pointing out that a DM who becomes too invested in an NPC can easily turn such a character into an annoying DMPC, not that the DM cannot roleplay NPC's.



Hussar said:


> If the DM is not too invested into the setting, then he shouldn't care if the player alters the NPC in some way that fits within the context of what's happening currently (ie. Adding a dog that eats the diamond). But, if the DM is so invested in the setting that any alteration by the players is seen as a violation of his vision, then shouldn't he be very invested into the NPC's?




The DM should be very invested in the setting. You are confusing fixation on a single NPC with "setting" in this case.


----------



## maddman75 (Aug 26, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> First, that is *maddman75's* custom, not a _rule_ of CoC entitling a player to declare anything. There are no "action points". The Keeper is not required to use _any sort_ of roll, much less one based on a character's Power score -- and would have *no compulsion* to answer in the affirmative. It might well be that there in fact is no crowbar. Barring magic, the player has no power to make something appear.




I find it works in practice in a very similar manner.  A crowbar is something that might or might not appear in the toolshed, it would be a reasonable thing to appear, but there are no assurances of such.  I don't have my books in front of me, but the Luck score is used IIRC to see if something goes the PC's way.

In play, in a Buffy game the player asks if there's a crowbar handy.  I'm within my power to say no, there most certainly is not.  Normally, I'll say 'there can be for a Drama Point.'  In CoC, same thing.  I could plainly say no.  In practice, I'll say 'I don't know, roll Luck.'  This is a common occurance judging from the people I've played CoC with, but of course YMMV.

I still would love to hear a description of a game session that did not involve the creation of a story.

As another point, the presence or absence of metagame mechanics does not encourage or discourage the game to create a better story, it just slightly alters the player's narrative ability.  Game with no metagame mechanics at all create just as much of a story as games that are full of them.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 26, 2009)

maddman75 said:


> I still would love to hear a description of a game session that did not involve the creation of a story.




Creation or narration? I can give you plenty examples of the latter.


----------



## maddman75 (Aug 26, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Creation or narration? I can give you plenty examples of the latter.




Creation.  Are we in agreement that all RPGs create stories?


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 26, 2009)

maddman75 said:


> Creation. Are we in agreement that all RPGs create stories?




I am comfortable with that. Creation of story occurs as a result of play rather than play being driven by the creation of story.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 26, 2009)

> As another point, the presence or absence of metagame mechanics does not encourage or discourage the game to create a better story, it just slightly alters the player's narrative ability.



This depends, I think, on one's definition of "better". The designers (and many fans) of 4e pretty clearly consider "stories" with as much misfortune (especially sudden PC death) in them as in old D&D unsatisfactory. Reducing the probability of dying from a failed save versus poison from so many chances in 20 to so many in 1000 may make the outcome seem only the more arbitrary.

Mechanisms explicitly directed at "authorial control" can enable participants to avoid such derailing of whatever stories they have in mind. Heroes and villains alike can have "plot protection" to preserve dramatic structure when the dice are heedless of such niceties.

That is simply not a consideration in most games. There is no plot to preserve in Chess, Backgammon or Parcheesi! A historical wargame may constrain players from departing too much from history (using anachronistic tactics, making implausible alliances, refusing the very battle that is the scenario's subject, etc.) -- but it is central to the game concept that the course and outcome are dependent on a combination of player skill and luck.

D&D -- and thereby the whole RPG field -- originated with that same expectation. Finding out not merely how but whether the characters survive and succeed, fail or perish was rather the point of the game! If Ulrica the Unready met a quick and ignominious end, one rolled up a successor and the game continued: an endless game, an ever-emerging story.

The assumption a priori that Ulrica is the heroine of a great saga is a marked departure.

_*Socialite*: Mr. Churchill, _ _what kind of woman do you think I am?!
__*Churchill*: Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.

_We have already established what kind of character Ulrica is, although we may haggle over the _scope_ of her entitlement to survival and success.

In the old game, Ulrica's story was simply whatever happened in play. That might turn out to be an epic tale, a cautionary anecdote, or a mere footnote in the rolls of the dead ("eaten by owls"; "set on fire and drowned"; "petrified and sold as an _objet d'art_").


----------



## Scribble (Aug 26, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> The assumption a priori that Ulrica is the heroine of a great saga is a marked departure.




I wouldn't call it a departure from anything- rather more vocal support for a play style that has always existed.


----------



## maddman75 (Aug 26, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> This depends, I think, on one's definition of "better". The designers (and many fans) of 4e pretty clearly consider "stories" with as much misfortune (especially sudden PC death) in them as in old D&D unsatisfactory. Reducing the probability of dying from a failed save versus poison from so many chances in 20 to so many in 1000 may make the outcome seem only the more arbitrary.




So your argument is that poison that has a good chance to kill a character makes for a better story.

All mechanics support some agenda behind what the story should work like.  The old D&D attack tables support the idea that an experienced swordsman should hit a foe more often. 



> Mechanisms explicitly directed at "authorial control" can enable participants to avoid such derailing of whatever stories they have in mind. Heroes and villains alike can have "plot protection" to preserve dramatic structure when the dice are heedless of such niceties.




Yes, and?  I don't see how random dice determining an outcome is different in principle than some limited resource.  Or some combination of the two.  You're talking as if the players were all GMs, which is not the case in any game I've seen.  



> That is simply not a consideration in most games. There is no plot to preserve in Chess, Backgammon or Parcheesi! A historical wargame may constrain players from departing too much from history (using anachronistic tactics, making implausible alliances, refusing the very battle that is the scenario's subject, etc.) -- but it is central to the game concept that the course and outcome are dependent on a combination of player skill and luck.




Roleplaying games are very different from chess and backgammon.  Neither chess nor backgammon create stories.



> D&D -- and thereby the whole RPG field -- originated with that same expectation. Finding out not merely how but whether the characters survive and succeed, fail or perish was rather the point of the game! If Ulrica the Unready met a quick and ignominious end, one rolled up a successor and the game continued: an endless game, an ever-emerging story.
> 
> The assumption a priori that Ulrica is the heroine of a great saga is a marked departure.
> 
> ...




Yes.  Different game rules tend to create different kinds of stories.  That's why we have different rulesets, and the idea of GM fudging results and making spot rulings - they eliminate these border cases where an unsatisfactory result is created.

That is another benefit IME to metagame mechanics.  They tend to eliminate GM fudging.  There's literally no need, that is put into the players' hands.  Heck, I don't even roll dice in BtVS.  I couldn't fudge a roll if I wanted to!


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 26, 2009)

That the play style requires such support is a direct consequence of its departure from the original design, just as the "play style" of that departed from the wargame and so necessitated new "supports".


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 26, 2009)

Scribble said:


> I wouldn't call it a departure from anything- rather more vocal support for a play style that has always existed.




I'm not sure about always but at least as far back as Dragonlance.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 26, 2009)

> So your argument is that poison that has a good chance to kill a character makes for a better story.



I have made no such argument. As I wrote: 







> *This depends, I think, on one's definition of "better".*





> Different game rules tend to create different kinds of stories.  That's why we have different rulesets ... That is another benefit IME to metagame mechanics. They tend to eliminate GM fudging. There's literally no need, that is put into the players' hands.



That is the very point I made in the post you quoted -- along with the point that there is no need for fudging if the premise of the game is that the dice fall as they may.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 26, 2009)

> I don't see how random dice determining an outcome is different in principle than some limited resource.



*Timing*, for one thing. Dramatically, it might be inconvenient if Frodo -- or even Boromir or Gollum -- were to meet an untimely end, or if some other character failed to pass on at the appointed hour.

The utility is not limited to a tale of triumph, but is equally applicable to tragedy or comedy.



> Neither chess nor backgammon create stories.



They do indeed, as often as one cares to tell them. The key is that they _create_ stories, though -- they do not reliably _tell_ stories already conceived, and that is fundamental to their interest as *games*.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 26, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> I'm not sure about always but at least as far back as Dragonlance.




I hear this a lot but I don't buy it.

I mean look at the back of the AD&D 1e DM's guide for the inspirational reading list. What was supposed to be gleaned from that reading list if not the idea that the game gives you the ability to create your own stories? Too me it seems only natural that players would be assumed to be the heroes of the story.

Whether or not they succeed is the real game, and that's still the case.

I think the biggest difference is that the game is now giving players a little more chance to use player skill, rather then solely relying on chance, to fulfill that role.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 26, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> I have made no such argument. As I wrote: That is the very point I made in the post you quoted -- along with the point that there is no need for fudging if the premise of the game is that the dice fall as they may.





This key point brings up a question. If the aim of play is to adventure to whatever end fate brings the characters thereby creating thier story then how is needing to fudge not changing this aim to begin with? 

It's a circular defense:
With mechanic X we don't have to fudge. With the old rules we had to fudge to get result Z that we knew we wanted. Mechanic X gets us to point Z in a more orderly fashion.

What determines point Z and why is it so important to get there?

Why use mechanics if certain events HAVE to happen and other events CANNOT happen at the wrong time? In any event such devices are for story telling rather than event resolution.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 26, 2009)

Scribble said:


> I think the biggest difference is that the game is now giving players a little more chance to use player skill, rather then solely relying on chance, to fulfill that role.




 Player skill has been progressively driven from the mechanics in ever increasing steps since the launch of 2E and NWP/skills.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 26, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Player skill has been progressively driven from the mechanics in ever increasing steps since the launch of 2E and NWP/skills.




An increase in available tools doesn't equate to a decrease in a persons ability to do something. 

It might change the way someone approaches the problem, but doesn't eliminate the skill needed. (Often it lets them better showcase their ability.)


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 26, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Why use mechanics if certain events HAVE to happen and other events CANNOT happen at the wrong time? In any event such devices are for story telling rather than event resolution.




I was asking this question recently.

It's because you can't get everything you want with storytelling mechanics.  (If you can, the game is broken.)  You have to make a choice between priorities.  Do I want to use my plot tokens now to desert the army and make it to Switzerland, or to make sure my lover lives through her pregnancy?


----------



## maddman75 (Aug 26, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> This key point brings up a question. If the aim of play is to adventure to whatever end fate brings the characters thereby creating thier story then how is needing to fudge not changing this aim to begin with?
> 
> It's a circular defense:
> With mechanic X we don't have to fudge. With the old rules we had to fudge to get result Z that we knew we wanted. Mechanic X gets us to point Z in a more orderly fashion.
> ...




Not everyone has the same point Z.  Heck, I don't have the same point Z from game to game.

I'm a firm believer that if you're fudging dice or rules, it indicates a failure of the rule system to give you the kind of play you want.  I tend to agree, that if you don't want outcome Y, don't allow the rules to give you that outcome.

Of course sometimes it isn't so simple.  Maybe its not that you don't want a PC to get killed, you don't want him to get killed by a skeleton.  Or you want him to die after a big fight with the BBEG, not on the first round after losing initiative.  It isn't a simple binary choice.

Metagame mechanics are one way to deal with that problem, and they have the benefit of flexibility.  But there are other solutions.  For example, I've contemplated a rule in Exalted that you can only be killed when Incapacitated as part of a stunt.  That is, only at the end of a fight with a powerful enemy who intentionally makes a death blow.  Thus, no random PC death, and no metagame mechanics either.



ExploderWizard said:


> Player skill has been progressively driven from the mechanics in ever increasing steps since the launch of 2E and NWP/skills.




Player skill is vastly overrated.  The only skill I want is 'make entertaining characters'.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 26, 2009)

Different skills are applied to different means to different ends. A 4e "skill challenge" is very, very different from the "skill challenge" of a classic OD&D or AD&D dungeon. This is not by accident, but by design.

It is just so with the old game's probabilistic production of results that many people find unacceptable and so "fudge". The results are (perhaps with rare exceptions) just what the designer intended! Were the intent otherwise, a deterministic method (or explicitly bounded results) would be obviously preferable.

For all the attention devoted in some more recent designs to loading the odds heavily in favor of "the right way", a set of a million trials still yields some outliers that "go wrong".

This concept of preferred outcomes is set forth repeatedly in the 4e DMG, although the dice-rolls remain for those who wish to use them. A sort of "split personality" may result, a compulsion to hide fudging behind a pretense of applying the rules.

It is quite possible to have an interesting game in which the outcome (in broad strokes) is preordained, the challenge lying in choosing among the paths to that end. How much does victory cost? What was the magnitude of defeat?

Both Bonaparte and Wellington won many of their battles largely in the maneuvers beforehand. To take on a reasonably skilled player in a fairly historical re-fight is pretty much to accept that the Great Captain's side is going to hold the field at day's end. It is possible, though, to compare the players' performances with their historical counterparts -- and thus to win the _game_ despite losing the battle (or vice-versa).


----------



## Scribble (Aug 26, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Different skills are applied to different means to different ends. A 4e "skill challenge" is very, very different from the "skill challenge" of a classic OD&D or AD&D dungeon. This is not by accident, but by design.




What skill challenges of classic OD&D dungeons? Skill challenges didn't exist.



> It is just so with the old game's probabilistic production of results that many people find unacceptable and so "fudge". The results are (perhaps with rare exceptions) just what the designer intended! Were the intent otherwise, a deterministic method would be obviously preferable.
> 
> For all the attention devoted in some more recent designs to loading the odds heavily in favor of "the right way", a set of a million trials still yields some outliers that "go wrong".
> 
> This concept of preferred outcomes is set forth repeatedly in the 4e DMG, although the dice-rolls remain for those who wish to use them. A sort of "split personality" may result, a compulsion to hide fudging behind a pretense of applying the rules.




If you say so, but all Ive seen in the 4e DMG is that things should be fun. Which is good advice.

A while back a friend of mine and I were playing pool. Both of us were around the same skill level. 

We were playing 8-ball and it was his shot. He miscued and ended up accidentally pocketing the 8 ball, which meant I won. 

He wasn't trying anything fancy, or trying something he knew might be hazardous to his game. He just screwed up. It was pretty early in the game, and both of us knew it was more of a glitch then anything. At this point, we knew that we could just sink the rest of the balls, or just do a "do over" and take the 8ball out of the pocket and pretend it never happened. 

We chose the later, because we knew we'd have more fun actually testing our skills against each other, then just randomly sinking billiard balls.

Both might be fun, but one was more fun for us  then the other.

I find the same thing happens in D&D as in all other games. Sometimes, while for the most part the game rules as they stand promote fun, a combination of dumbluck + the rules promotes unfun. 

In those cases I say fudge away and bring on the fun.  Thats one of the strengths of TTRPGs. They're open to moderation.

Setting plays just as much importance to the game as set.


----------



## Mallus (Aug 26, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Player skill has been progressively driven from the mechanics in ever increasing steps since the launch of 2E and NWP/skills.



The thing about 'player skill' is that it's only good for certain character actions. It's great when the player's describing _exactly_ how their character is searching a room or dealing with a potential trap. That kind of descriptive, player skill-based resolution works for things like physical puzzles.

It's not so good at resolving a PC's attempt at a complicated feat of acrobatics. Or a chase on horseback. Or an attempt to build a big siege engine --unless both the player _and_ the DM have the relevant skills. Which bring up another problem: without help from the mechanics, 'player skill' is only as good as DM skill -- the DM needs to be knowledgeable enough to evaluate the player's descriptions. If not, they'll just dice the outcome. While I'm sure they are still a few polymath DM's out there, most of us are rather more limited in our expertise.

And then, switching genres for a minute, how does 'player skill' fit into trying to fix your starship's warp drive? What player skill can be tested when the in-game problem is one of  bullsh*t engineering based on bullsh*t physics?

This is why having a mechanical skill system that describes _character_ aptitudes is nice to have, if only for emergencies.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 26, 2009)

> What skill challenges of classic OD&D dungeons? Skill challenges didn't exist.



Hah! I can _almost_ imagine someone saying that with a straight face.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 26, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> The assumption a priori that Ulrica is the heroine of a great saga is a marked departure.
> 
> _*Socialite*: Mr. Churchill, _ _what kind of woman do you think I am?!
> __*Churchill*: Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.
> ...



PCs can still die in 4e. In fact it's fairly common, by all accounts. A character's 'story' is not fixed, by RAW.

In every edition of D&D the only way to ensure a PC survives is DM fudging. This was most strongly encouraged in 2e.

4e does make it harder to die, yes, just as did the '-10 hit points' rule in 1e. I believe the prime reason for this is the move, which occurred long ago, away from the old 'wargame' style of play with a vast army of PCs and henchmen, towards parties composed of only one character per player. 2e encouraged this with the idea of giving PCs a detailed backstory and personality but did nothing mechanically. 3e makes PCs more detailed mechanically, they take longer to build, but they die easily, which doesn't fit with the mechanical complexity because it takes a long time to generate a new one. It's only by 4e that the mechanics have finally changed to fit the play style which has been most popular for more than 20 years.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 26, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Hah! I can _almost_ imagine someone saying that with a straight face.




Yet seem to have an inability to answer the question.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 26, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> It is just so with the old game's probabilistic production of results that many people find unacceptable and so "fudge". The results are (perhaps with rare exceptions) just what the designer intended! Were the intent otherwise, a deterministic method (or explicitly bounded results) would be obviously preferable.



Gary advises DMs to fudge die rolls on what is basically the first page of the DMG after the contents and preface - the 5th paragraph of the Introduction.



Ariosto said:


> This concept of preferred outcomes is set forth repeatedly in the 4e DMG,



The concept of a preferred outcome comes across very strongly in the 1e DMG. Players who do everything 'right' ought to win. Players who are 'bad' should be punished. The DM is sort of like Santa Claus.


----------



## Mallus (Aug 26, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> Gary advises DMs to fudge die rolls on what is basically the first page of the DMG. after the contents and preface - the 5th paragraph of the Introduction.



He also describes D&D as 'swords and sorcery', which I believe is a form of fanciful story, suggests in an appendix players read up on those stories, and claims people will become better 'thespians' through playing the game.  

(He really does use the word 'thespians'. I can cite once I get home, if I really have to...).


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 26, 2009)

I used to win in 1e by cheating on my die rolls. Like when my paladin had an 18/99 strength (I figured that would be more plausible than 18/00) and 'rolled up' a giantslayer sword on the tables in Dragon magazine before we played the Against The Giants series.

Ah, the good olde days.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 26, 2009)

> Yet seem to have an inability to answer the question.



I seem never to have been issued a "stat block" with a number for "ability to answer questions"; I guess skills did not exist back when I was born. 

"D&D skills" used to refer to actual acumen possessed by players.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 26, 2009)

> In every edition of D&D the only way to ensure a PC survives is DM fudging.



In any game in which outcomes depend at least partly on chance, the only way to ensure them is to "fudge". They have another word for it in Las Vegas and Atlantic City.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 26, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> I seem never to have been issued a "stat block" with a number for "ability to answer questions"; I guess skills did not exist back when I was born.
> 
> "D&D skills" used to refer to actual acumen possessed by players.




My question was:

There wasn't anything in the rules called a skill challenge, so I needed you to define what YOU were calling an OD&D skill challenge. You responded with snark.

Now you're comparing two separate aspects and calling them the same.

Player "acumen" still exists in the game. We also now have new tools and ideas to work with as well, one of which being a skill challenge. (Of which players can also gain "acumen." )


----------



## maddman75 (Aug 26, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> I seem never to have been issued a "stat block" with a number for "ability to answer questions"; I guess skills did not exist back when I was born.
> 
> "D&D skills" used to refer to actual acumen possessed by players.




Doesn't it mostly refer to being annoyingly paranoid and having the MM memorized?


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 27, 2009)

Scribble: Your play on the word "skill" looked like a clever joke to me. Was it really uncharitable of me to take likewise your personal jab concerning "inability" and roll with it in good humor?

I am well aware of the advice to DMs in the 1e DMG in the fifth and sixth paragraphs of page 9. To represent that as advocacy of the "fudging" at issue here seems to me quite a stretch.

It is no news to me that "amateur thespianism" has been a significant part of the game from the first! It's another great leap from that _analogy to_ play-acting to trying to impose a script (whether as player or as DM).

If you want to cross that gap yourself, then you need nobody's "official permission"! Neither are appeals to an "authority" I found odious 30 years ago about to make me toe a line today. The rhetorical acrobatics make them entertaining, though.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 27, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> I am well aware of the advice to DMs in the 1e DMG in the fifth and sixth paragraphs of page 9. To represent that as advocacy of the "fudging" at issue here seems to me quite a stretch.



1e fudges to promote gamism, by which I mean challenging the players, over simulationist rules. 2e fudges to promote story over simulationist rules.

Could you give an example of 4e's promotion of fudging? I suspect if it does it would be in the name of fun or 'whatever works for your group' or somesuch. The DMG advice in the d20 editions is much more open-minded about different gaming styles than that of previous editions.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 27, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Scribble: Your play on the word "skill" looked like a clever joke to me. Was it really uncharitable of me to take likewise your personal jab concerning "inability" and roll with it in good humor?




Wasn't making a jab, just commenting that instead of answering the question you went to snark. 

Maybe we just misunderstood each other at some point?

My point is simply that a player's skill at the game itself, hasn't left the game at all, simply because he/she now has more "tools" to work with.

I don't think it's valid to say that player skill has been replaced by in game skill challenges, anymore then it is to say a powerful new computer system replaces the need for skill in the 3d animator.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 27, 2009)

> I don't think it's valid to say that player skill has been replaced by in game skill challenges ...



The player skill at playing a 4e "skill  challenge" is different from the player skill at dealing with other kinds of challenges.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 27, 2009)

For advocacy of fudging, 1e DMG p. 110 would (IMO) better fit the bill than page 9:



> You might ... wish to give them an edge in finding a particular clue, e.g., a secret door that leads to a complex of monsters and treasures that will be especially entertaining. You do have every right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a particular course of events that you would like to have occur. In making such a decision you should _never_ seriously harm the party or a non-player character with your actions. "ALWAYS GIVE A MONSTER AN EVEN BREAK!"



An aside:

Speaking of monsters, page 9 states,  "Wandering monsters, however, are included for two reasons, as is explained in the section about them." It beats me where that section is, and -- come to think of it -- I'm not sure it's there (in the DMG or PHB) at all. Oh, there are mentions, but I don't recall that particular section.

I've got the default 1/6 chance per turn in the dungeon stuck in my brain from the original set, but darned if I can find it in 1e! Organization is an asset of 2e (and of OSRIC).


----------



## Hussar (Aug 27, 2009)

Exploder Wizard said:
			
		

> Already answered but can you not see the difference between wholesale creation and speculation based on the logical environment?




Pulling this particular quote out.

No, I really can't.  You're telling me that the appearance of a dog in the street in a fantasy town is somehow wholesale creation and far less likely than the appearance of a crowbar (thanks for the clarification Ariosto - was going by memory) in a shed?

Do you have a crowbar in your shed?  I know I don't.  I keep my crowbar with my tools - in my basement.  The only thing in my shed are gardening tools.  Not sure of the last time I used a crowbar while gardening.  Might find a crowbar in a garage, I suppose, but a shed? 

 Ok, I'm being way too pedantic here, but, I am making a point.  What you think of as reasonable and what someone else thinks is reasonable may be miles apart.  Many, many gaming sessions have devolved into acrimony on that alone.  I don't know about you, but, I've certainly had that argument more times than I care to count.

The addition of a mechanic that allows either a chance or a simple statement from the player takes away that argument.  It makes the game go smoother, IME.  

But, in either case, the player is trying to dictate setting elements that were not there.  The GM did not put a crowbar there, nor did he add in the dog.  Neither examples though are beyond belief.  A dog in a fantasy town?  Come on, be honest here.  That's easily as believable as finding a crowbar in a shed.



			
				EW said:
			
		

> Why use mechanics if certain events HAVE to happen and other events CANNOT happen at the wrong time? In any event such devices are for story telling rather than event resolution.




Again, you're taking this to a far extreme.  I agree that if the players can dictate every single facet whenever they please, then yeah, that's probably not a role playing game.  Or at the very least, it's pretty far left field.  But, no game actually works like that.  (or again, very few do)  Most games allow you to make limited changes based on the genre (such as 007's Action Points which allow you to add in features that fit with the feel of the Bond movies) a limited number of times.

It's a resource, same as anything else.

Really, we're just going around in circles on this.  I'm going to sum up my position here and go back to lurking unless something really new comes up.  First, let me summarize how I understand your definition of role playing game:

A role playing game is one where the players act out a specified role and cannot affect anything in the game world outside of that role.  Thus a wizard could have a greater effect on the setting (through a Wish spell for instance) but, any effect would be prescribed by the system.  If the game includes mechanics which allow players to affect the setting in some fashion outside of their pre-defined role, then it becomes a story telling game.

(I hope I got that right.  )

Why I don't buy into this:

1.  It defines role playing too narrowly.  It allows games like Hungry Hungry Hippos to be considered role playing games while excluding games like Spirit of the Century.

2.  It ignores the fact that almost no rpg out there does not have some mechanism for a character to affect the setting.  For example, many games have Flaw mechanics of some sort.  Within those Flaw mechanics, you typically have an Enemy (again of some sort) Flaw.  If I take that, I, as the player, have now affected the setting by adding in an enemy that was not developed through play.  

3.  There already exists perfectly good definitions of Role Playing Game which include pretty much everything that gamers consider to be rpg's.  There's nothing wrong with sub-dividing the RPG into various types.  That's fine.  But, I do not see the value in promoting a single type of RPG over all others.  It does nothing to clarify discussion.


----------



## ST (Aug 27, 2009)

In terms of what's "real" in the imagined game world, I'm gonna take a crack at how I see this playing out.

So, everybody's imagining this fictional place where the events of the game are occurring. This might be as simple as how when you read a book you're following along with who's what, or it might be a full blown "immersion" where you're focusing on imagining your character, and only thinking about world stuff as they directly interact with it.

One school of thought might say that the "real" version of the imagined game world is in the GM's head. The GM tells you stuff, and that goes into your own version of the imagined game world, the one that's about your PC.

Another school of thought might say that the "real" version of the imagined game world is the *shared* one. What? A "shared imagined world"? Well, if you have a conversation with five people about a funny thing that happened yesterday, bam, that's also a shared imagined situation, so the whole idea of "this imaginary thing exists in all our heads simultaneously" isn't that weird.

The shared version basically says that the fancy, detailed version of the game world in the GM's head is the _potential_ game world. There's all this stuff he has planned and prepped. But until it's shared, and the whole group is aware of it, none of it actually exists.

So really I think it boils down to where you think of the "game world" as residing. I personally think of it being the "shared imagined world", because that's the one everybody has access to.


----------



## ST (Aug 27, 2009)

(double post)


----------



## Scribble (Aug 27, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> The player skill at playing a 4e "skill  challenge" is different from the player skill at dealing with other kinds of challenges.




Yes... There's no difference of opinion there. It's just another part of the game players can gain proficiency at handling, and DMs can use to challenge the players.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 27, 2009)

Hussar said:


> No, I really can't. You're telling me that the appearance of a dog in the street in a fantasy town is somehow wholesale creation and far less likely than the appearance of a crowbar (thanks for the clarification Ariosto - was going by memory) in a shed?




The issue is not one about the perceived rarity of dogs or crowbars. The difference is the method of implementation for the addition of either one. 

The crowbar example was a query, and one that the character might have that is voiced by the player. Asking "hey what are the odds of a crowbar being in a shed around here?" is a question posed by a player while still within the role of the character in need of a crowbar.

IIRC your dog example was not a query and there was no consideration given to possibility that there _might _not be a dog in the vicinity. The statement that a dog had actually eaten the diamond was true and awarded the player an in-game resource for this particular edit of the ongoing story. The event happened from the perspective of editorial control outside of the role of the poor as dirt character. The decision was made for purpose of telling an entertaining story. Because of this, such a decision is from outside the role *unless *_the poor as dirt character knows that he/she is a character in a story and is acting accordingly._



Hussar said:


> But, in either case, the player is trying to dictate setting elements that were not there. The GM did not put a crowbar there, nor did he add in the dog. Neither examples though are beyond belief. A dog in a fantasy town? Come on, be honest here. That's easily as believable as finding a crowbar in a shed.




Again, I am not making any comparative observations about the likelihood of either occurance. 




Hussar said:


> Again, you're taking this to a far extreme. I agree that if the players can dictate every single facet whenever they please, then yeah, that's probably not a role playing game. Or at the very least, it's pretty far left field. But, no game actually works like that. (or again, very few do) Most games allow you to make limited changes based on the genre (such as 007's Action Points which allow you to add in features that fit with the feel of the Bond movies) a limited number of times.
> 
> It's a resource, same as anything else.




Yes, and those resources are used for storytelling.


Hussar said:


> Why I don't buy into this:
> 
> 1. It defines role playing too narrowly. It allows games like Hungry Hungry Hippos to be considered role playing games while excluding games like Spirit of the Century.




Actuality can sometimes hit like a Mack Truck.




Hussar said:


> 2. It ignores the fact that almost no rpg out there does not have some mechanism for a character to affect the setting. For example, many games have Flaw mechanics of some sort. Within those Flaw mechanics, you typically have an Enemy (again of some sort) Flaw. If I take that, I, as the player, have now affected the setting by adding in an enemy that was not developed through play.




Who claimed that characters affecting the setting made it NOT an rpg?



Hussar said:


> 3. There already exists perfectly good definitions of Role Playing Game which include pretty much everything that gamers consider to be rpg's. There's nothing wrong with sub-dividing the RPG into various types. That's fine. But, I do not see the value in promoting a single type of RPG over all others. It does nothing to clarify discussion.




Perfectly good is a relative term.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 27, 2009)

EW, I think there's pretty strong agreement that acting in character is necessary. Disagreement over whether it's sufficient could further muddy debates. However, anything approaching "zero tolerance" for acting out of character looks only to prolong futile argument (in the emotionally charged sense).

People will go round and round with specious comparisons and slippery slopes, often enough trying (as obviously a non-starter as it may seem) to convince you that one thing is just like another.

The issue of labeling games is so loaded that it can only get in the way of discussing the effects of different processes and experiences, and how game design and presentation shape those.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 27, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> EW, I think there's pretty strong agreement that acting in character is necessary. Disagreement over whether it's sufficient could further muddy debates. However, anything approaching "zero tolerance" for acting out of character looks only to prolong futile argument (in the emotionally charged sense).
> 
> People will go round and round with specious comparisons and slippery slopes, often enough trying (as obviously a non-starter as it may seem) to convince you that one thing is just like another.
> 
> The issue of labeling games is so loaded that it can only get in the way of discussing the effects of different processes and experiences, and how game design and presentation shape those.




Yes. I am growing tired of this. It's time to discuss other topics.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 27, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> The issue of labeling games is so loaded that it can only get in the way of discussing the effects of different processes and experiences, and how game design and presentation shape those.



Agreed. Especially when you use the wrong labels.

There's an interesting discussion to be had about the 'new' (ie since 1983) mechanics that allow players to control features of the game universe other than their PC. There's an interesting discussion to be had about storytelling, and whether it has any relationship to these mechanics.

ExploderWizard's emphasis on misusing accepted terminology, ironically in the interests of greater clarity, serves only to obscure such a discussion.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Sep 2, 2009)

IMO, most traditional roleplaying games have nothing to do with acting "in character" and have never been about that kind of roleplaying.  Pretending to be someone you are not is well documented as being completely unnecessary for roleplaying. Nor has ever been so. Check any science book on the subject.  Fire drills are roleplaying, football preseason scrimmage games are roleplaying, playing capture the flag is legitimately roleplaying.  No one is saying "What would my character do?" in these games and it isn't necessary to in most hobby RPGs either.  

Trying to make it necessary is a good thing.  Trying to say it is a necessary condition to qualify as a roleplaying game actually excludes by definition almost every RPG ever created in the hobby.  

The difficulty about defining what is an RPG comes about when trying to define the terms like Game, Story, and Roleplaying.  By strict definition every game is a story game and every game is a roleplaying game.  It's impossible not to tell a story in a game in a similar way to how it is impossible not to play a role in a game.  Games have rules and by defining them you've defined the role for the participants to play.  Not that it is any easier to define what is a game and isn't compared to other activities in life.  Making up rules and following them is as fundamental an aspect of human nature as telling stories is.

I know many people's current agenda is to redefine the hobby with either character exploration or storytelling as the "one true objective" of RPGs.  Neither were ever the actual focus of most designs (often whether the designers knew this or not).  If the aforementioned redefinition ever were the case, then the first 30 years of RPG game design were an abject failure, populated by "the bitterest players in the world".  It's pretty clear to me that is simply not the kind of roleplaying those games were meant to deliver.  

Has the hobby shifted towared players desiring character exploration and "telling a story about my character"?  I'd certainly say so, but any history of the hobby could never accurately claim either was the result, nor original intention, of early RPG designs.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Sep 2, 2009)

Oh dear, it's that tmie again. 

Speaking of 'agendas'. . . *snort*


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 2, 2009)

> IMO, most traditional roleplaying games have nothing to do with acting "in character" and have never been about that kind of roleplaying. Pretending to be someone you are not is well documented as being completely unnecessary for roleplaying. Nor has ever been so. Check any science book on the subject. Fire drills are roleplaying, football preseason scrimmage games are roleplaying, playing capture the flag is legitimately roleplaying. No one is saying "What would my character do?" in these games and it isn't necessary to in most hobby RPGs either.



D&D did not come from fire drills.


----------



## FireLance (Sep 2, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> D&D did not come from fire drills.



On the other hand, "evacuate the burning inn" seems like it could make a pretty cool hot interesting skill challenge.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 2, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Yes. I am growing tired of this. It's time to discuss other topics.




EW.  I know you're moving on, but there were two final points I just wanted to make that have been sticking in my brain.  The first is related to the thread itself.

Earlier, upthread, you sounded somewhat disappointed that RPG's no longer strongly support player skill challenges (4e terminology notwithstanding  )  I'm a little surprised by that to be honest.  After all, unless your character knows that he is being played by a 21st century individual in our world, he couldn't actually solve a player challenge.  A player challenge is a meta-game challenge.  It requires player knowledge in order to be resolved.  Thus, by your definition of role playing, wouldn't a game which favors player skill challenges actually not be a role playing game?  Since player skill challenges require the player to step outside of his defined role, aren't they in the same category as player editorial control?  And, if not, why not?

The second point has to do with an ongoing current in this thread that I'd like to address.  Throughout this thread, despite the fact that we have disagreed on pretty much every point, sometimes quite strongly, you have consistently argued against my points and not against me.  That is a very, very refreshing thing to be honest.  It is nice to see posters who can check their ego at the door, be passionate about something they believe in, but not feel they have to rely on silly buggers semantic tricks or playing stupid games and pretending not to understand a point, over and over again.

It's a true breath of fresh air and I really thank you for that.  It's a shame that more posters appear to be incapable of discussing the issue and not the person.  

Well done you sir.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 2, 2009)

> After all, unless your character knows that he is being played by a 21st century individual in our world, he couldn't actually solve a player challenge.



Maybe I have the wrong idea on what a "player skill challenge" is, but solving a puzzle, looking at a trap in the right place, finding the right lever to push, or deciding not to go through the forest with the Ancient Green Wyrm don't require 21st century individuals.

On the other hand, worms that eat your brain out when you're listening at doors are clearly challenges that can't be solved by 21st century individuals if there aren't rules about knowing such monsters exist. Since they sure don't exist in our world and we'd had no clue that this could be a reasonable thing to worry about. 

The less the 21st century people knows on how something in the fantasy world might work, the more you need the rules to help you resolve a situation.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 2, 2009)

Hussar said:


> EW. I know you're moving on, but there were two final points I just wanted to make that have been sticking in my brain. The first is related to the thread itself.
> 
> Earlier, upthread, you sounded somewhat disappointed that RPG's no longer strongly support player skill challenges (4e terminology notwithstanding  ) I'm a little surprised by that to be honest. After all, unless your character knows that he is being played by a 21st century individual in our world, he couldn't actually solve a player challenge. A player challenge is a meta-game challenge. It requires player knowledge in order to be resolved. Thus, by your definition of role playing, wouldn't a game which favors player skill challenges actually not be a role playing game? Since player skill challenges require the player to step outside of his defined role, aren't they in the same category as player editorial control? And, if not, why not?




Player knowledge would be things that the character wouldn't know or have any frame of reference for. I prefer in-game challenges that are approachable by both the player and the character. A numerical puzzle fits the bill but a riddle requiring obscure rock song lyric knowledge would not. The general challenge for the player is in decision making and strategic resource management, both of which have a frame of reference for the character. 


Hussar said:


> The second point has to do with an ongoing current in this thread that I'd like to address. Throughout this thread, despite the fact that we have disagreed on pretty much every point, sometimes quite strongly, you have consistently argued against my points and not against me. That is a very, very refreshing thing to be honest. It is nice to see posters who can check their ego at the door, be passionate about something they believe in, but not feel they have to rely on silly buggers semantic tricks or playing stupid games and pretending not to understand a point, over and over again.
> 
> It's a true breath of fresh air and I really thank you for that. It's a shame that more posters appear to be incapable of discussing the issue and not the person.
> 
> Well done you sir.




A mere disagreement on gaming terminology and classification of approaches to playing are a poor excuse for hurling insults. You are very welcome.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 2, 2009)

Damn, I must spread points around before giving to EW again.  

I was thinking more about number puzzles and the like - anachronistic puzzles, rather than something like ear seekers.  

Are ear seekers in doors a player skill challenge?  I suppose - knowing enough to use listening cones and the like.  I wasn't actually thinking that way, but, Mustrum, you are exactly right.

I was thinking more along the lines of Chess puzzles, or inserting coins into slots to open doors (would someone really get the idea of a vending machine without modern knowledge?)  - that sort of thing.  BTW, I realize that chess isn't exactly anachronistic, but, there are a couple of things to think about there:  first, why would chess exist in a fantasy world with modern rules?  After all, 11th century chess is considerably different from what we play today.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 2, 2009)

I'm glad this thread is back --and not so I can disagree w/howandwhy again . I kept meaning to post my every-so-pithy description of role-playing.

While role-playing, you...

... are your character.

... are the author of your character.

... are a moving a playing piece around a game board.

These three things make up role-playing. Which is to say, these are the three things that I've noticed role-playing gamers _doing_ over the past 25 years or so. Sure, some people enjoy and emphasize one aspect over another, but rarely to the exclusion of the other two. 

Most role-playing gamers fluidly shift between these stances --forgive me Father, for I have used a Forge term-- during the course of a session. So you _could_ say D&D is a game about role-identification, role-authorship (ie storytelling), and a wargame. Seeing as that's something of a mouthful, it's probably simpler just to call D&D a role-playing game, and leave terms like 'storygame' for things like the Baron Munchhausen game, where the premise of game involves your in-game avatars literally sitting around telling stories, rather than guiding avatars through the events that make up the story in more-or-less real time.


----------



## Ariosto (Sep 2, 2009)

It was formerly quite common to bring in players' knowledge. Anagram names suggest the relationship between player and persona, and puns and literary references obviously depend on players' familiarity to "get".

The key distinction here is that between what's in the player's mind and what's in the character's shoes. The player might know about something, but that doesn't necessarily mean the character can just make it appear -- any more than could the player.

Writing up a program that effectively "plays" the character certainly yields more theatrical consistency. The further one codifies things, reducing the players' role in deciding them to that of dice-rollers, the less they are really playing a game and the more they are doing the job of actors.

The game aspect once was more favored, role-playing having more to do with imagining oneself in the place of one's elf. Nowadays, the vogue is more for imagining oneself _as_ the character; the "story-telling" shift puts the emphasis on _portraying_ the character. These are not absolutes but points on a spectrum.


----------



## ST (Sep 2, 2009)

I don't think anybody can hassle you for using the Stance terms, Mallus, you're right that they actually do describe real things that real people do during games. That alone means they're not just theory. 

I agree that most play has a mix of those stances, and in most of our campaigns I've seen a pretty wide mix in how they get used without it seeming jarring or incompatible. Although if a "full immersionist" or whatnot was sitting in, they'd probably label a large portion of our gameplay as OOC chatter because we end up pretty seamlessly moving from "playing out the scene" to "talking about the scene".


----------



## Mallus (Sep 2, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> It was formerly quite common to bring in players' knowledge. Anagram names suggest the relationship between player and persona, and puns and literary references obviously depend on players' familiarity to "get".



It still is common in my games. For example, I named an NPC 'Mephisophocles' and a group of Hawaiian-Viking hybrids the 'Polynietzschians' . My players find things like that pretty amusing.



> The player might know about something, but that doesn't necessarily mean the character can just make it appear -- any more than could the player.



re: making stuff appear. 

Let's say a player asks the DM if there's a ladder in a room (or a wagon in the town square, or a voluptuous trollop in an alleyway, etc.) Any request for more detail works. Prior, the DM hadn't considered it. But once the player asks, the DM decides 'yes there is'. 

Did the player make the ladder/wagon/voluptuous trollop appear? After all, it was the _player's_ idea, which was then ratified into fictional existence by the DM. This sure as hell looks like collaborative storytelling to me. It also looks like an integral part of every role-playing game I've ever encountered. 

I guess I don't really see the significant difference between:

[player] "Is there a ladder?"
[DM] "Hmm, now that you mention it, yes"

and

[player]"I spend a Drama Point to make a ladder."
[DM]"OK, there's a ladder".

The former is a pure negotiation between player and DM, the latter occurs under a mechanical framework, like D&D combat. The result, however, is the same; the collaboration on a fictional event.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 2, 2009)

ST said:


> I agree that most play has a mix of those stances, and in most of our campaigns I've seen a pretty wide mix in how they get used without it seeming jarring or incompatible. Although if a "full immersionist" or whatnot was sitting in, they'd probably label a large portion of our gameplay as OOC chatter because we end up pretty seamlessly moving from "playing out the scene" to "talking about the scene".



This sounds exactly like how my group plays. Come to think of it, it's how the majority of groups I've been in played. And by 'majority' I mean 'all'.

And on the subject of 'full immersionists', much like the proverbial atheist-in-a-foxhole, no-one's a 'full immersionist' when they roll a natural 20! At that point the gamers I know look more like gamblers who just won at the craps table.


----------



## Ariosto (Sep 2, 2009)

> I guess I don't really see the significant difference between ...



Then spending Drama Points must seem superfluous.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 2, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Then spending Drama Points must seem superfluous.



I'm not sure what you mean here. Please explain. In fact, type slowly... 

In the meantime, let me reiterate: mechanics like Drama Points represent one method for player/DM collaboration on a scene/encounter/situation. But simple, old-school player requests for more details also represent a form of player/DM collaboration. Every time the DM says 'yes' to a detail they hadn't previous conceived of, the player is de facto the author of that detail. The DM merely stamps it with his little rubber stamp of in-game reality.


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 2, 2009)

I had a post about drama points and pure viking-hat DM authority, but it was eaten by an erb.

There is a difference between spending drama points and asking the DM.  Drama points in play make it so that any person who has a drama point can change the game world at any time.

It's hard to get a clear picture of what the game world is like when that's the case, when the game world is in a state of flux.

(It gets worse if the DM sometimes says, "No, don't use that drama point; your idea is cool, I like that."  Much worse.  It means that anything anyone says at any time could possibly be part of the game world, or not, or maybe they have to spend a drama point.)

edits: I should say this is my personal experience.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 2, 2009)

LostSoul said:


> There is a difference between spending drama points and asking the DM.  Drama points in play make it so that any person who has a drama point can change the game world at any time.



Oh sure, you're right. I didn't mean to suggest there weren't only any differences. I just wanted to focus on the similarities between acts of authorship.



> It's hard to get a clear picture of what the game world is like when that's the case, when the game world is in a state of flux.



This sounds like a bigger problem in theory than in practice. For starters, in practical terms, there's always a paucity of information about the game environment. There simply isn't time for really thorough scene-setting/description, and this lacuna leaves a lot of room for player-authored details. 

Then there's the whole interpretation-thing. Aren't our game worlds always in a _bit_ of flux, because we aren't all imagining exactly the same thing, despite our most heroic expository efforts?

I mean, how clear a picture of the game world do we usually get? 

Finally, there's good-old wild contrivance and coincidence (both lifelong friends to RPG's and the less-than-believable fictional genres that inspired them). Sure, you might ask precisely _where_ loin-cloth clad Thud the Barbarian pulled the hidden flask of Greek fire from. But do you really want to know? Next you'll be asking why Thud decided to spend the rest of his life camping and looting with three other fellows he met in a tavern one day .



> (It gets worse if the DM sometimes says, "No, don't use that drama point; your idea is cool, I like that."  Much worse.  It means that anything anyone says at any time could possibly be part of the game world, or not, or maybe they have to spend a drama point.)



Agreed. Once you explicitly tie narrative authority to a game currency you have to more mindful of how you dole it out. I should say I don't much experience with games that do that.


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 2, 2009)

Mallus said:


> This sounds like a bigger problem in theory than in practice.




For me, it sounded cool in theory, but when I tried to put it into practice that's the kind of thing I started running into.

I know that the game world is always going to be different for each player, but when one guy can say, "*This* is what it's like," it's easier to get a clear picture.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 3, 2009)

Mallus said:


> I'm glad this thread is back --and not so I can disagree w/howandwhy again . I kept meaning to post my every-so-pithy description of role-playing.
> 
> While role-playing, you...
> 
> ...




Your first two points are at odds with each other unless the player is in fact playing a character that is aware that he/she exists in a story world and can identify his/her author. 

Are these things gamers are doing at the game? I would say yes probably. Would they be doing all this _while_  roleplaying? Probably not. 

My original point wasn't about exclusivity or heavy immersionism. Our sessions are sometimes 50% or more OOC chatter and BS since we only get to play and really see each other every two weeks at best. We are not roleplaying our characters when we start rambling about movies, TV shows, and other non-game related topics but we are engaging at that activity at the table. That doesn't make what we are doing part of roleplaying any more than narration/editing during the action does.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 3, 2009)

LostSoul said:


> I had a post about drama points and pure viking-hat DM authority, but it was eaten by an erb.
> 
> There is a difference between spending drama points and asking the DM.  Drama points in play make it so that any person who has a drama point can change the game world at any time.
> 
> It's hard to get a clear picture of what the game world is like when that's the case, when the game world is in a state of flux.



In Spirit of the Century, the GM has right of veto over the spending of 'drama points'. I imagine that type of rule is pretty common in these new-fangled (ie since 1983) player-as-world editor games. As Mallus says, it's really just codifying the method, universal in rpgs, whereby a previously hazy universe is brought more clearly into focus.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 3, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Are these things gamers are doing at the game? I would say yes probably. Would they be doing all this _while_  roleplaying? Probably not.
> 
> My original point wasn't about exclusivity or heavy immersionism. Our sessions are sometimes 50% or more OOC chatter and BS since we only get to play and really see each other every two weeks at best. We are not roleplaying our characters when we start rambling about movies, TV shows, and other non-game related topics but we are engaging at that activity at the table. That doesn't make what we are doing part of roleplaying any more than narration/editing during the action does.



You're too hung up on what counts as roleplaying. As you say, the vast majority of what a participant does in a typical rpg session is not, strictly speaking, roleplaying. That really doesn't matter, it's still a roleplaying game, because 'roleplaying game' is the name we give to these weird combinations of improv theatre, wargaming, dice rolling, rules discussion and general BSing sessions. In fact each player is actually an audience member rather than an 'actor' most of the time.

In many ways 'roleplaying game' was a poor name for the activity. But that's irrelevant. The name's stuck and that's what they are called now.


----------



## Ariosto (Sep 3, 2009)

"Just codifying the method, universal in rpgs," glibly dismisses too much, I think.

If the "universal method" is for a player to make a declaration, then the "codification" is of a limit on how many times per session a player can do so. That the GM can reject any such attempt may lead one to wonder what pressing need the limitation on even trying serves.


----------



## FireLance (Sep 3, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Your first two points are at odds with each other unless the player is in fact playing a character that is aware that he/she exists in a story world and can identify his/her author.



As I have mentioned before, just as the same person can write a script and act as one of the characters in a play, a person can exercise authorial control over the setting and roleplay a character in a role-playing game. In the case of improvisational theatre, the person may even be doing so on the fly, paying attention both to how the character should be acting, in-character, as well as the broader needs of the narrative. Of course, that is why improv theater is hard to do well, but nonetheless, it can be done.


----------



## FireLance (Sep 3, 2009)

Mallus said:


> This sounds like a bigger problem in theory than in practice. For starters, in practical terms, there's always a paucity of information about the game environment. There simply isn't time for really thorough scene-setting/description, and this lacuna leaves a lot of room for player-authored details.
> 
> Then there's the whole interpretation-thing. Aren't our game worlds always in a _bit_ of flux, because we aren't all imagining exactly the same thing, despite our most heroic expository efforts?
> 
> ...



Plus, there's the time-honored RPG tradition of random tables. Most human DMs would not generate all the monsters in the world beforehand and then constantly monitor their locations relative to the PCs; they would just use random encounter tables or simply decide when the PCs have an encounter. Similarly, most DMs would not create all the NPCs present at a local fair and determine what they have in their pockets in advance just in case a PC thief decides that he wants to go on a pick pocketing spree.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 3, 2009)

LostSoul said:


> For me, it sounded cool in theory, but when I tried to put it into practice that's the kind of thing I started running into.
> 
> I know that the game world is always going to be different for each player, but when one guy can say, "*This* is what it's like," it's easier to get a clear picture.




But, typically, it is still only one person who gets to say "This is what it's like" at any given time.  It's pretty rare for dueling Drama Points to come up in game.  For one thing, it's a limited resource and most people aren't going to waste the points retconning someone else's idea.  They might, but, IME, it's not that common.



Ariosto said:


> "Just codifying the method, universal in rpgs," glibly dismisses too much, I think.
> 
> If the "universal method" is for a player to make a declaration, then the "codification" is of a limit on how many times per session a player can do so. That the GM can reject any such attempt may lead one to wonder what pressing need the limitation on even trying serves.




There's a few reasons why having a codified method is a good thing.  Not that it's necessarily better than not having a codified method mind you.  Groups can work perfectly well without it.  However, having a codified method does a few things:


Brings the idea of player authorial control into the forefront.  Instead of players passively taking in whatever the GM presents to them, possibly asking for clarification from time to time, it makes the players active participants.
It allows a new element of gameplay and resource management that many gamers enjoy.  Do I spend my Drama Point now or later?  How important is this situation to me right now?  Again, it can serve to further draw the players into the game.
It allows the GM far more flexibility as well.  The GM is no longer solely responsible for the game.  Because the players have the option of altering the game at any given time, the responsiblity for making sure everyone is having a good time gets spread around a bit more.

Again, let me reiterate, none of these things are exclusive to having mechanics in place.  The same effects can be gotten without the mechanics, and I don't want anyone to think that I'm claiming that they cannot be.  However, having the mechanics in place puts a giant sign out for the players of the game that "this is something you can do, DO IT".  It simply emphasizes an element of the game that is present in almost every RPG.


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 3, 2009)

Hussar said:


> But, typically, it is still only one person who gets to say "This is what it's like" at any given time.  It's pretty rare for dueling Drama Points to come up in game.  For one thing, it's a limited resource and most people aren't going to waste the points retconning someone else's idea.  They might, but, IME, it's not that common.




We really should talk about experiences with actual play instead of referencing some vague "Drama Point" mechanic.

I'll give you one:

Playing Burning Wheel.  BW has -wises, skills which, by some readings, allow players to introduce facts into the fiction outside of their character.

There's also an idea, not supported by the game's text (by my reading), that the DM can "Say yes" to any action a PC takes; this means the PC just succeeds.

Anyway.  We end up in this orcish cave.  All at once everyone is trying to describe it.  "It's big and open."  "There's a waterfall."  "Sigils of the Red Raven clan are on the walls, showing their history."  "This is a sacred cave, where they do their sacrificial orcish rituals."

I'm sitting there having no idea where the hell my PC is, unable to make any decisions because I don't know what's going on.

The reason this came about is because you say something, and if the DM doesn't object he just says "Yes".  Since this applies to facts about the game world, anything anyone said had just as much weight as anyone else.

After that session I made sure that we would have to ask the DM about the game world, and frame any attempt at using a -wise skill as an in-character action.

We could have rolled the dice to resolve who gets to say what, but - since it's a player level thing, a social thing, how can the dice resolve that?  I'm saying "Dude, I don't like that."  He says, "Well, let's roll and see who gets it."  That has nothing to do with in-character stuff, it's just two people rolling dice to see who gets their way.

I don't think that's good for any game.

Check out story-games for more about this.  Here's a link: Story Games for Everybody - Role-playing Characters vs. Authoring Characters


----------



## Hussar (Sep 3, 2009)

Honestly LS, I would peg that more as a table issue than a game issue.  If everyone is constantly trying to sort of "one-up" the next guy, then this is perhaps not the game for them.  I would suggest sitting down and working out how this sort of thing is expected to go, at least at a basic level, before play even starts.

But, yes, I can see how this could be an issue in a game.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 3, 2009)

FireLance said:


> As I have mentioned before, just as the same person can write a script and act as one of the characters in a play, a person can exercise authorial control over the setting and roleplay a character in a role-playing game. In the case of improvisational theatre, the person may even be doing so on the fly, paying attention both to how the character should be acting, in-character, as well as the broader needs of the narrative. Of course, that is why improv theater is hard to do well, but nonetheless, it can be done.




You are correct that such a thing can be done. The one condition that makes this possible is that the character is aware of his/her status as an element in a story and makes use of such knowledge when exercising editorial control. While this can be workable, it would make the roleplaying experience less appealing for some.


----------



## FireLance (Sep 3, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> You are correct that such a thing can be done. The one condition that makes this possible is that the character is aware of his/her status as an element in a story and makes use of such knowledge when exercising editorial control. While this can be workable, it would make the roleplaying experience less appealing for some.



No, the _character_ does not have to be aware, although the _player_ may have to work harder at separating what he knows as the character from what he knows as a scriptwriter. It is similar to how an author can write about a character in a novel and describe his thoughts and actions from his limited viewpoint without needing to make him aware of his status as an element in a story.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 3, 2009)

FireLance said:


> No, the _character_ does not have to be aware, although the _player_ may have to work harder at separating what he knows as the character from what he knows as a scriptwriter. It is similar to how an author can write about a character in a novel and describe his thoughts and actions from his limited viewpoint without needing to make him aware of his status as an element in a story.




If the character is unaware of the scriptwriting taking place then the player has stepped outside the character role to assume the role of author and has stopped roleplaying the character. If the player is still roleplaying the character while this takes place then the character would in fact be aware of it.


----------



## FireLance (Sep 3, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> If the character is unaware of the scriptwriting taking place then the player has stepped outside the character role to assume the role of author and has stopped roleplaying the character. If the player is still roleplaying the character while this takes place then the character would in fact be aware of it.



Well, as long as we agree that even though the player as scriptwriter has declared that a dog wanders onto the scene, he is still roleplaying when he describes how his character is surprised by the dog, I'm happy.


----------



## Ariosto (Sep 3, 2009)

> Well, as long as we agree that even though the player as scriptwriter has declared that a dog wanders onto the scene, he is still roleplaying when he describes how his character is surprised by the dog, I'm happy.



That's not role-playing in the sense that was important enough to identify "role-playing games" in the first place. It's an affectation of the sort one could adopt in any game.

There's a problem with a happiness dependent on others' conformance with such redefinition. It's one thing to allow that an RPG can include things other than role-playing in the critical sense. To call some other ingredient actually the same -- like calling oil "milk" in an alleged dairy product -- opens the way for complete replacement.

That is too much.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 3, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Your first two points are at odds with each other unless the player is in fact playing a character that is aware that he/she exists in a story world and can identify his/her author.



Not at all. Writers both create and inhabit their characters all the time. That in no way requires their characters to have an awareness of the author. So too with role-playing gamers.

There's really no need for "Six Characters in Search of a Dungeon Master". 



> Are these things gamers are doing at the game? I would say yes probably.



Go out a limb and say 'yes' ! 



> Would they be doing all this _while_  roleplaying? Probably not.



To be honest, I'm just not interested in a definition of role-playing that forces me to discount a significant amount of character-related activity at the table. Though I will grant you Dorito comsumption and Python references aren't role-playing.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 3, 2009)

LostSoul said:


> Anyway.  We end up in this orcish cave.  All at once everyone is trying to describe it.  "It's big and open."  "There's a waterfall."  "Sigils of the Red Raven clan are on the walls, showing their history."  "This is a sacred cave, where they do their sacrificial orcish rituals."
> 
> I'm sitting there having no idea where the hell my PC is, unable to make any decisions because I don't know what's going on.



Is this really all that different from when each party member wants to strike off in a different direction?


----------



## Mallus (Sep 3, 2009)

FireLance said:


> It is similar to how an author can write about a character in a novel and describe his thoughts and actions from his limited viewpoint without needing to make him aware of his status as an element in a story.



Exactly.

Also, I have to wonder, if the player isn't the author of their character, who is?


----------



## Mallus (Sep 3, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> "Just codifying the method, universal in rpgs," glibly dismisses too much, I think.



It doesn't dismiss anything. It established a starting point, a common ground. Like I demonstrated, in traditional D&D play the DM and player are frequently collaborators in creating the game environment. 

Would you like to disagree w/that?


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 3, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Also, I have to wonder, if the player isn't the author of their character, if he's not _writing_ him at the same time he's _assuming his role_, where does the character come from? Who does write him?




From the perspective of the character, he/she simply exists. There is no author. Do you wonder who your author is and who is writing you as you go about the business of life? Most people probably don't.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 3, 2009)

American football isn't really football cause you don't kick the ball much. Let's call it handball instead. Y'know, to minimise the risk of confusion.


----------



## maddman75 (Sep 3, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> From the perspective of the character, he/she simply exists. There is no author. Do you wonder who your author is and who is writing you as you go about the business of life? Most people probably don't.




I'm not a character.

Characters don't exist outside the person creating them (author) or viewing them (audience).

The player is both author and audience for their own character.  The other players and GM are audience.  The GM is director, but has no control over the script, just stage directions and bit parts.

This is what roleplaying is, and has always been.


----------



## Tistur (Sep 4, 2009)

Hi, all. I just thought I'd let people know that this entire thread has been very helpful for me, in figuring out why my players are playing the way they are. We're playing a Serenity game, where players get "Plot Points" and can spend them on different things, including changing the world (with the GM's approval and probable twists.) Most of my players are only spending these points on enhancing their die rolls (even though there is not that much rolling per session). 

I asked them about this. They couldn't express their reluctance to use them. I offered my own opinion (the following is probably highly paraphrased):

Me: "I know for me, when I'm playing, a large part of the fun is discovering the world, and adding things myself negates that."

Player1: "Yeah, I do enjoy the challenge, using what's there to construct a solution to the challenge at hand, like my character would."

Some of the other players just kept forgetting they could use the points to influence the world, however. These tend to be the players who play a character with certain characteristics no matter the game. I think letting the GM twist whatever a player comes up (or outright veto it) is the best balance I've seen in play. And by using up a resource, not everyone is throwing around descriptions and items all the time. 

As a player, however, I really agree with ExploderWizard. If I'm doing something to influence the game world, my character should be able to explain it later when recounting her heroic adventures.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 4, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> American football isn't really football cause you don't kick the ball much. Let's call it handball instead. Y'know, to minimise the risk of confusion.




Quite right mate. I dunno why Americans need 50 lbs of armor to play rugby.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 4, 2009)

maddman75 said:


> I'm not a character.




You sure? 


maddman75 said:


> Characters don't exist outside the person creating them (author) or viewing them (audience).




OK. I don't remember saying characters were real people.



maddman75 said:


> The player is both author and audience for their own character. The other players and GM are audience. The GM is director, but has no control over the script, just stage directions and bit parts.
> 
> This is what roleplaying is, and has always been.




The player makes all decisions for the character but the character usually doesn't have the knowledge that he/she is just a puppet being controlled by an outside force (the player). If the DM is handling things well there will be no "script" and the players will need only information about the world apart from thier characters rather than "direction".


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 4, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Honestly LS, I would peg that more as a table issue than a game issue.  If everyone is constantly trying to sort of "one-up" the next guy, then this is perhaps not the game for them.  I would suggest sitting down and working out how this sort of thing is expected to go, at least at a basic level, before play even starts.
> 
> But, yes, I can see how this could be an issue in a game.




Yeah, it was a table issue, and that's how we dealt with it.

It was also an artifact of how BW works, which is a more traditional system; I've played games that are much more "player adds world definition" games, and since they were set up for it, we didn't have problems.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 4, 2009)

LS, I'm not all that familiar with BW, so, I can't really offer any specific advice.

I know that in say, Spirit of the Century, the Fate points that you have are directly tied to your character's aspects.  You can't just change the scene willy nilly.  Any change you, as the player, want to add in has to be intimately tied to your character - thus the diamond dog example.  Because of that, I think you would avoid your BW problem.  The players just can't declare that the cave is this or that.  Any declaration they make has to come from their character and thus is automatically tied to at least some sort of plot.  



			
				EW said:
			
		

> The player makes all decisions for the character but the character usually doesn't have the knowledge that he/she is just a puppet being controlled by an outside force (the player). If the DM is handling things well there will be no "script" and the players will need only information about the world apart from thier characters rather than "direction".




But, this is where I have troubles.  Why does having a player instead of the DM add in information about the world suddenly make the game "scripted"?

Is the player specifically playing his character when using a Fate/Action point?  Probably not.  You're likely right there.  But, I'm not sure why having a player step outside of his character for thirty seconds during a game suddenly makes it not a role playing game.  After all, and I think we all agree here, players step outside  of their character all the time.  Why does this specifically make the game no longer a role playing game?


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 4, 2009)

Hussar said:


> But, this is where I have troubles. Why does having a player instead of the DM add in information about the world suddenly make the game "scripted"?
> 
> Is the player specifically playing his character when using a Fate/Action point? Probably not. You're likely right there. But, I'm not sure why having a player step outside of his character for thirty seconds during a game suddenly makes it not a role playing game. After all, and I think we all agree here, players step outside of their character all the time. Why does this specifically make the game no longer a role playing game?




The script reference wasn't about players. That was a response to maddman75's post when he mentioned that the DM has no control over the script.  My point was that in an unscripted game then there is nothing to have control over in the first place. 

Stepping outside the character is purely an immersion issue and it happens all the time with many groups. Doing so while still participating in the game is a separate issue. When table chatter about OOC stuff happens, the action and play of the game is put on hold. When a player steps outside the character role while still shaping/ influencing actual gameplay the storytelling starts.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 4, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> When a player steps outside the character role while still shaping/ influencing actual gameplay the storytelling starts.



Not at all, as has already been mentioned many times. If a player gives another player tactical advice he's shaping play but not storytelling. If the GM consults a player who is an acknowledged expert on some field, say medieval weaponry, the player is shaping play but not storytelling. If a player asks the GM to make the monsters weaker or give out more magic items, he's shaping play but not storytelling. If the group have a discussion about a rules interpretation or what houserule to use, as happens frequently in rpgs, the players are shaping play but not storytelling.

It could even be argued that when James Bond's player spends a hero point to have a gold brick to hand to beat Oddjob with he is not primarily storytelling. He's mostly just trying to win, within the restrictions of style and setting. It's really gamist, not narrativist. This is exactly how the players in my M&M game spend their hero points. They don't give a crap about story, they want their PCs to beat the bad guy or solve the mystery.

I've seen this point made before about what you are calling storytelling mechanics. Fate points in WFRP or SotC, hero points in James Bond and M&M. They might seem to be mechanisms similar to those in Munchausen and Once Upon A Time, but because they exist in traditional challenge oriented rpgs the way they are used is totally different.

Another point is that these mechanics are very limited in scope. They only affect the 'PC sphere'. Ie the field of influence of the PC, his history, his friends etc. Altering this 'sphere' has always been part of roleplaying. If you make a decision about what sort of person your character is you are necessarily deciding things about the world, about the character's environment, how he was brought up and so on. No man is an island. You simply cannot draw as clear a distinction as you are trying to do between PC and world. The two are intimately connected.


----------



## maddman75 (Sep 4, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> The player makes all decisions for the character but the character usually doesn't have the knowledge that he/she is just a puppet being controlled by an outside force (the player). If the DM is handling things well there will be no "script" and the players will need only information about the world apart from thier characters rather than "direction".




The character doesn't "know" anything because the character doesn't exist.  If by this you mean the character is played as if he doesn't know anything about being a character in a roleplaying game, I agree for the vast majority of games.  There's nothing about the player using other criteria to make decisions while still maintaining player illusion.  A player may have his character do something that is not in their best interest, were they a living breathing rational person, like go into a dark hole full of monsters hoping to steal shiny things from them.  But the player justifies it because if the character doesn't, he doesn't get to participate in the game.

One of the best skills a player can learn is to play the meta-game, in a good sense.  To not only have fun themselves, but to try and make things fun and interesting for everyone there.

As far as script I mean 'what the characters will say'.  The script is written during play, by the players.  This is all I was referring to.

Giving no direction is a valid way to play, though you run the risk of a boring session.  I'm not gaming every day after school any more.  When I get some time to game, I want it to be fun.  If it isn't spontaneously fun, I expect the GM to give us some direction.  If he doesn't, then IMO he's not a very good GM.


----------

