After the recent discussion of Immersion, I was looking for any writing on RPGs and Suspension of Disbelief.

This article by John Kim is one of the best essay's I've read about "RPG Theory".  It explains a lot about the divide between the Forge style games and RPGs that don't fit the Forge (GNS etc) model of gaming.

Some key quotes (with added emphasis on key points):

QuoteCollaborative Storytelling
In this paradigm, play is understood as multiple authors producing a single discourse and a single story. This discourse (the shared play) is seen as the product of play, analogous to a book or movie. The key to role-playing is the forming of the shared discourse. All other parts of the diagram -- including game texts, GM notes, and characters -- are considered only aids for producing the true product of play.

QuoteThere are many consequences of this paradigm, including:

• It discourages secrets between the participants. A secret held by a player or even by the GM and one player is considered not a part of the real product.
• It discourages extensive information in the game texts. Since these are not considered a part of the real product, they are often seen as potentially hindering play.
• It encourages improvisation compare to referring to game texts or notes. For example, in a murder mystery, the players might openly making up the identity of the murderer on the spot, rather than discovering what the GM had planned in her notes.
  
• It encourages an even distribution of authorship among the participants. Play is seen as passing authorship between the participants. If verbal narration is dominated by the GM, that is seen as a flaw.
  
• The connection of player to character is seen as arbitrary and inessential to the experience. Thus, it tends to encourage various non-character actions by the player such as plot point spending or factual declarations.
  
• It considers the rules system to be outside of the meaningful product. Rules are judged on their result for shared play, not on how the participants view the process.

QuoteVirtual Experience
In this paradigm, play is understood as interacting within a virtual environment, where the GM provides the surroundings while the players create their own viewpoint characters. The basic elements of play are the characters and world. These are conceived prior to shared play sessions, including both the physical notes and the mental models of how they work. Through play, the participants explore what the others have created and further develop their own creations.

QuoteThere are many consequences of this paradigm, including:

• The association of player to character is central to the experience. Thus, out-of-character actions and meta-game thinking should be minimized, though they may be useful for other reasons.
  
• It encourages one-to-one player-to-character associations. The tabletop form approaches this in that only one participant (the GM) needs to do otherwise.
  
• It encourages detailed background in game texts, though there is still such a thing as too much detail. The players may refer to those as part of play, but more importantly the background provides a context which colors all of play even if it isn't directly referred to.
• It encourages a player not knowing what her character would not know. An ideal in this sense is a live-action game where the players all perceive different amounts. However, there are major limitations on live-action play which may make it less than ideal for other reasons.
• It encourages the player to personally reflect on what his character is thinking. This gives an inner life to the character which is a part of the player's experience.
• It encourages rules to represent in-game cause and effect -- i.e. to be in-game rather than meta-game. Meta-game mechanics are potentially good devices, like soliloquy or addressing the camera in a movie. However, by default they should be used sparingly.

And perhaps most importantly:

QuoteParadigm Clash
Problems can arise within games due to disagreements over the understanding and construction of narrative. A participant who understands RPGs as Collaborative Storytelling may get into arguments with another participant who understands them as Virtual Experience.

To the storytelling point of view, the experiential view seems to result in an unnecessarily limited set of techniques. Players will pass over opportunities to improve the story (i.e. shared play) just to conform to pre-written rules or background. Since storytellers see these as not being part of the story, this behavior may seem inexplicable -- i.e. deliberately choosing a less interesting story. Experiential play may also seem passive, letting events happen rather than actively controlling them. Of course, a fictional narrative is still created so this is not quite accurate. The difference is over the type of narrative created.

To the experiential point of view, storytelling play seems to be creating a product for a nonexistent reader. That is, the product is a story for someone who sees the shared play but not the surrounding experience. Storytelling may freely revise or ignore pre-written rules and background, which runs counter to the experiential understanding of story. Experiential players faced with storytelling play may complain about breaking suspension of disbelief, or lack of depth.

These difference can be difficult to resolve, because it is hard to simultaneously see two different definitions of story. Two people can internalize the same RPG play in different ways -- forming different mental models which they conceive of as the "story". Hopefully this explanation of the distinction will help clarify these differences.

RPGs are not "collaborative storytelling". There's no question of "understanding" or not understanding.  If someone believes RPGs are "collaborative storytelling" they are WRONG.

RPGPundit

QuoteRPGs are not "collaborative storytelling". There's no question of "understanding" or not understanding. If someone believes RPGs are "collaborative storytelling" they are WRONG.

I tend to agree with that.  A Collaborative Storytelling game could be a lot of fun, but it's something different from a Roleplaying Game.  One is about collaboratively telling stories, the other is about roleplaying a character in a "virtual" story world.

Names / Terminology aside, I hope everyone can at least agree that there are (at least) 2 different types of games being discussed here.  The theory, techniques and suggestions to support improving gameplay and creating new games will be different depending on which "paradigm" you're talking about.  Some theories (eg. Forge, GNS, etc) may be very helpful in improving a particular type of game -- but be detrimental to the improvement of another.

Quote from: StuartAfter the recent discussion of Immersion, I was looking for any writing on RPGs and Suspension of Disbelief.

That's a good essay and, I think, an excellent example of clear and useful thinking.

Theory at its best.

Cheers,
-E.

For what it's worth, I like the term "Story Games" to refer to Collaborative Storytelling type things, since is succinctly points out what the priorities are: a Story Game is about collaborative storytelling, a Roleplaying Game is about playing a role (and thus about virtual experiences).

Yeah, I'm a drama-craving story-whore, but I don't approach what you describe as a collaborative storytelling game.  I'm probably a couple of steps in that direction, with the players having more input into narrative than a lot of folks and a good amount of metagame thinking, but this is the garnish, not the main course.

Quote from: WarthurFor what it's worth, I like the term "Story Games" to refer to Collaborative Storytelling type things, since is succinctly points out what the priorities are: a Story Game is about collaborative storytelling, a Roleplaying Game is about playing a role (and thus about virtual experiences).

The tricky part is that there is overlap of these views.  

People do often enjoy both.  People may play what is nominally a role-playing game, but also enjoy the stories which are generated from it.  However, if enjoyment of the stories becomes an important part of enjoyment as a whole, then you're in the range between paradigms.

In case I didn't state it clearly enough the first time, the problem with this essay is that it considers both models to be on equal footing, with the assumption that both are RPGs. Its an effort to say that both are equally valid as RPGs, are just vastly different "types".

But that's not true. The first one he talks about are NOT RPGs, and the latter are.

I don't get why these guys can't just accept this and create their own hobby rather than trying to keep force the former model on all of us and our hobby.

RPGPundit

I would note that the vast majority of the indie games do not fall under this description either - Dogs in the Vineyard, Burning Wheel, and even My Life With Master all have far more in common with the second description than the first.  Those that do, well even many of the indie folks wouldn't put up too much of a fight if you said they aren't really RPGs.

Quote from: RPGPunditI don't get why these guys can't just accept this and create their own hobby rather than trying to keep force the former model on all of us and our hobby.

Because you're wrong, poop dick.

Quote from: Jack Spencer JrBecause you're wrong, poop dick.

Not in the least.

LARPers.
Story gamers.
Computer "RPG" players.

What do they all have in common? They all covet the term "RPG", but they're not part of my hobby and they never will be.

QuoteI would note that the vast majority of the indie games do not fall under this description either

I'm guessing you mean Forge-Indie (limited scope), as opposed to true Indie (broader scope).  

If a game has:
* No GM
* Shared GMing duties
* Players introducing plot points
* Players making factual declarations

It's moving away from a Roleplaying Game and towards a Storytelling Game.  Even if it's only partway, it will offer less "Virtual Experience" (what most of us have been calling Immersion) than a regular RPG that does not move towards being a hybrid.  This means players expecting a roleplaying game "may complain about breaking suspension of disbelief, or lack of depth."

Unless I'm mistaken, if DitV isn't a Storytelling game it's still less Roleplaying game than something not drifting across the line.

Once again -- that's not to say that it isn't a great game, lot's of fun, etc.  But it *is* saying that the design patterns for non RPG games, are unlikely to be good models for building new RPGs.  Suggesting that an RPG would be improved by players introducing plot points won't help someone make a better RPG.

EDIT:  I don't really care what the different types of games are called.  What I DO care about is making room to discuss "RPG" design without having to wade through all the "Storygames" design that invariably gets thrown into the mix.  I'd also like to see a bit less evangelizing from the "Storygames" crowd.  Pimp your games, sure, but stop telling people they're "Braindamaged" etc. because they enjoy playing a different type of game...

I mentioned specific games so we wouldn't be arguing over what "indie" means.  If you mean different games, then what are they?

Quote* No GM
* Shared GMing duties
* Players introducing plot points
* Players making factual declarations

Even in indie-land, GMless games are very rare, as are games where GM duties are shared.  And in most of them the players ability to introduce plot points or make factual declaration are still subject to GM veto/adjustment and/or are limited by some resource.  They are still very game-like.

The idea that there's games out there where the players run the show and the GM does nothing and the people who make them want to take over gaming (DUN DUN DUNNN) is a huge strawman.  This does not exist.  The few games that fit your collaborative storytelling definition, as I noted, would likely be argued as not technically RPGs even by their devotees.

Quote from: StuartEDIT:  I don't really care what the different types of games are called.  What I DO care about is making room to discuss "RPG" design without having to wade through all the "Storygames" design that invariably gets thrown into the mix.  I'd also like to see a bit less evangelizing from the "Storygames" crowd.  Pimp your games, sure, but stop telling people they're "Braindamaged" etc. because they enjoy playing a different type of game...

In cases of overlapping usage, it's generally better to include a specifier.  i.e. So rather than beating your head against the millions of MMORPG players that what they're playing isn't really an "RPG" and trying to correct them, it seems more useful to accept this and use the term "tabletop RPG" to distinguish yourself from both MMORPGs and LARPs.  

As for distinguishing narrative-paradigm games from experiential...  Well, the term "Adventure Game" has some momentum.  Does that sit well with you?  So the separatists among narrative-paradigm could use the term "Story Games", while separatists among experiential-paradigm could use the term "Adventure Game".  Those who want to mix ideas could continue to use "RPG".  

P.S.  Agreed about the evangelizing.  I've got a distaste for those who use blanket insults like "brain damaged" or "swine" over a ridiculous thing like what games one likes to play.

QuoteAs for distinguishing narrative-paradigm games from experiential... Well, the term "Adventure Game" has some momentum. Does that sit well with you? So the separatists among narrative-paradigm could use the term "Story Games", while separatists among experiential-paradigm could use the term "Adventure Game". Those who want to mix ideas could continue to use "RPG".

Personally, I think "Adventure Game" would be a good identifier for the game I'm developing.  "RPG" is only useful for people already in the hobby, and carries some unfortunate baggage for people outside the hobby (eg. Social Stigma, etc)... II don't know about non-adventure-game RPGs though...

Edit: I'll add to this...