TheRPGSite

Just curious, what do you make of this (http://www.gamesdiner.com/whats_roleplaying_game)?

Mmphg! Nothing. I don't care about story. For me, story is just what happens, a by-product, a side-effect. Like all attempts to define roleplaying, this one falls on its face.

-clash

Quote from: alexandroJust curious, what do you make of this (http://www.gamesdiner.com/whats_roleplaying_game)?

I don't role-play for story.  I role-play for the experience of doing it.  The assumption that everyone role-plays for the story is like assuming that the only reason to used a wheeled vehicle is to travel and then trying to explain why people enjoy roller coasters in terms of the distance travelled and the speed at which is it travelled.

Things that people do for the experience don't necessariliy have any take-away value.  I find it boring to listen to people talk about their characters and what they did for the same reason why I find it boring to listen to someone talk about their vacation.  For the most part, the magic is in the experience of doing it, not in the telling afterward.

I think it covers some of the reasons for some people but it's not a universal way to look at why people play rpgs.  I know I haven't come up with a reason that would satisfy everybody.  I would boil it down the essay into RPGs are a hybrid between active and passive entertainment.  In other words, you act out while you watch others do so as well.  You have some control over the environment but you have to adapt to it as well.  I would say you not story creating but playing and responding to the play of others.  

Tangent:  I do have to say that when I write a story, I write a story.  When I play an RPG, I play an RPG.  I do use stories as inspirations for writing RPGs but I never use an RPG to write a story.

QuoteI don't role-play for story. I role-play for the experience of doing it.

This is what the article assumes.

It presents the following ideas:
- many people enjoy "becoming part of a fictional world" (simplified with the moniker "story" in the article)
- the "becoming part" can be achieved by creating it or consuming it
- neither way is completely satisfying to most roleplayers
- RPGs use a combination of the two, plus "the unknown elements" to make them interesting, which can be:

a) distribution of responsibilities for different parts of the fiction to different participants (i.e.: the GM controls the setting, the players each control a character), which creates a bit of uncertainty (leading to excitement) as to what the other participants will be doing. If you choose a collaborative approach and share your thoughts how play should progress with the other participants beforehand or if one person controls everything the participants can do or how they can affect the game, than it pretty much destroys the appeal of this aspect.

b) creation of parts of the play, where no one determines the outcome (randomizers), for much the same reasons mentioned above. Here it is important, to be clear on what triggers a randomizer (is climbing a tree something you just do in this system or do you have to roll some dice to see if you make it) and what kinds of outcomes (chance of success/failure; damage for failed attempt?) are possible, otherwise you could as well distribute this part to another participant and be done with it.

c) Information. It should be clear which part of the play you are dealing with and how it affects the other parts. If you don't know this and say, like "Well I walk down the street and..." and are interrupted with "Wait a moment, you have to make your Walking roll, before you can go further.", it interrupts the play. The best play instances happen, when the participants know exactly how far they can describe and where they have to "wait for the light to turn green" (so to speak). It makes play more fluid.
If you have to ask every time "Can I do this?" it makes play crawl to a standstill.

Thats my understanding of the article so far.

Oh, and "story" is really a useless term (just like "adventure" or "experience"), which could mean anything (and often does, considering how they are used in most RPG products).

Quote from: alexandroThis is what the article assumes.

No, I don't think it does, because I don't agree with your assertion, below, that it is using the word "story" to mean "becoming part of a fictional world", since the article defines its two ways of enjoying a story as "Create one. Be an author, a filmmaker, even a campfire storyteller (or barstool bard)." and "Listen to one. Read a book, watch a movie, lend an ear."  If the author had said, "Walk in the forest.", "Go skiing.", or "Ride a roller coaster." then I think they'd mean what I mean by "experience".  

It's like over here (http://www.i-would-knife-fight-a-man.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2169) on Vincent Baker's message board, where they are talking about "Sim" games but I get the distinct impression that they are all just guessing what a "Sim" game is.

Quote from: alexandroIt presents the following ideas:
- many people enjoy "becoming part of a fictional world" (simplified with the moniker "story" in the article)
- the "becoming part" can be achieved by creating it or consuming it

Experiencing a story is neither creating it nor consuming it in any meaningful sense.  If I visit Hawaii, am I "consuming Hawaii"?  Am I "creating a vacation"?  When I used to walk around Tokyo to see what was out there, was I "consuming Tokyo"?  Was I "creating" something?  Sure, you could describe things that way, but it's really stretching the meaning of the words "create" and "consume" beyond all usefulness and almost certainly misses the point.

Quote from: alexandro- neither way is completely satisfying to most roleplayers
- RPGs use a combination of the two, plus "the unknown elements" to make them interesting, which can be:

Again, I think this article makes a lot of assumptions that simply aren't always true.  I don't role-play to create a story or enjoy a story.  I role-play to experience being a different person doing things I'll never get to do.  Sure, you can force that square peg into the round story hole if you want, but you'll wind up missing the point.  Yes, I can describe a roller-coaster ride as a journey or as travel, but that really misses the point and won't help you understand why people are willing to wait 2 hours for a 3 minute trip that starts and ends at the same place.

Quote from: alexandroOh, and "story" is really a useless term (just like "adventure" or "experience"), which could mean anything (and often does, considering how they are used in most RPG products).

I think that "story" has become a useless term because people prefer to fold, bend, spindle, and mutilate it to mean things it doesn't mean to most people, so that they can make their theories fit even when they really don't.  When an article talks about "story" and says, "Create one. Be an author, a filmmaker, even a campfire storyteller (or barstool bard)." and "Listen to one. Read a book, watch a movie, lend an ear.", I think it's pretty clear what they mean by story -- the sort of thing you'll find in a book or movie.  I'm not sure how you read that as "becoming part of a fictional world".

Excallent, John! Thank you!

And that Lumply thread is the Blind Men and the Elephant all over!

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceAnd that Lumply thread is the Blind Men and the Elephant all over!

The problem is that they are describing the elephant's feathers, claws, and fangs.

Isn't that thread simply amazing, in a train-wreck sort of way?  I don't think I could write up a better parody if I tried.

Quote from: John MorrowThe problem is that they are describing the elephant's feathers, claws, and fangs.

Isn't that thread simply amazing, in a train-wreck sort of way?  I don't think I could write up a better parody if I tried.

I was laughing my butt off here! It was astounding!

-clash

I'm not sure what the original link is getting at: you can write a story, read a story or rpg one? Not sure that follows, that is, he hasn't supported the premise that the RPG necessarily has elements of a traditional story with beginnig, middle and end, or the five act approach of theater.  Certainly you can impose one, there will be a beginning a middle and a definite conslusion end, but the link doesn't seem to be talking about such play necessarily.  

That you can construct a story out of the actions you undertake in an RPG doesn't support the premise either as far as I can see.  I can construct a story out of my day at work, (and beleive I'm sure some dice are being thrown somewhere to determine my fate:)) but I'm not telling a story in the sense of a traditional book or movie.

The only sense in which "story" matters to me in what I think of as a "proper RPG" is that I enjoy the web of meaning and signification, the relationships between characters, setting, and the history of the game that give depth to the present action.

However I strongly suspect that the introduction of the language of "story" into "what is an RPG?" texts led to a very different emphasis on the part of many readers--often regardless of what the text said otherwise. What they seem to have received was that RPGs are a way of telling stories, with implications of entitlement either to consume certain kinds of stories or to create/control them.

As I've done before, I'll compare an RPG to a game of baseball. Does a baseball game "tell a story"? In a sense, yes it does, often a very powerful one, tied up as it is in the observer's knowledge of the players, team rivalries, past victories and defeats, current standings, events of the game up to this point, etc. It can do so as much for players as for fans. Is the game a failure if it doesn't produce a certain result? No, people talk about a good game or a boring one, but nobody wants to be guaranteed a game that will turn out a certain way, or even one that will necessarily contain anything that isn't a natural function of the rules. Similarly, do players or fans want a game that they can control by any means other than, well, playing the game? No.

So, sure, there's story in an RPG, it's even produced and enjoyed in real time, but for me the enjoyment of the "story" is enhanced by the fact that it comes out of playing the game and engaging in "storytelling" as little as possible.

You failed your spot check.

It is not about creating a story for the sake of the story.
Its about the experience associated with it.

And sorry:

QuoteIf the author had said, "Walk in the forest.", "Go skiing.", or "Ride a roller coaster." then I think they'd mean what I mean by "experience".

is a delusion (or do you think you really do this stuff, when you role-play? Do you think you can get to this experience without, in some way, interacting and influencing the fictional content?).

Quote from: Elliot WilenSo, sure, there's story in an RPG, it's even produced and enjoyed in real time, but for me the enjoyment of the "story" is enhanced by the fact that it comes out of playing the game and engaging in "storytelling" as little as possible.

This is what I mean by "Story is a byproduct" of play. Well put, Eliot!

-clash

Quote from: alexandroYou failed your spot check.

It is not about creating a story for the sake of the story.
Its about the experience associated with it.

And sorry:

is a delusion (or do you think you really do this stuff, when you role-play? Do you think you can get to this experience without, in some way, interacting and influencing the fictional content?).

Mwa?

-clash

Quote from: alexandroYou failed your spot check.

I don't think so.

Quote from: alexandroIt is not about creating a story for the sake of the story.
Its about the experience associated with it.

As both Elliot and clash pointed out, it's not about the experience associated with creating a story any more than real life is about creating a story or about the experience of creating a story.  It's a byproduct.  A side effect.

Quote from: alexandroAnd sorry:

is a delusion (or do you think you really do this stuff, when you role-play? Do you think you can get to this experience without, in some way, interacting and influencing the fictional content?).

And, once again, I think that shows you are missing the point.  Of course I interact with and influence the fictional content when I play, but that's not the reason why I play.  It's a means to an end, not an end.  And one of the reason why so many of the Indie games leave me going "Huh?" is that they seem to assume that I want to spend more of my playing time fiddling with rules, interpreting dice, and controlling the "fictional content" when all I want to do is just pretend I'm my character experiencing the things my character experiences.  I don't want more control over the "fictional content" than a traditional game offers.  I don't want may games to be better stories.  That's not what I'm playing for.

Quote from: flyingmiceI was laughing my butt off here! It was astounding!

-clash

It's like a bunch of philosophers debating the merits of coitus by their own imaginings of what such an activity would be like.

It reads like a parody thread. :(

@John Morrow:
as the article is obviously talking about the appeal of traditional RPGs, not "storygames" or "indie games" etc., I would suggest, that YES, you missed the point of the article.

Okay, EVERYBODY take an "Old Geezer says you ALL missed the point, ya damn punk kids!"

The article is about... hold on...

HOW TO DESCRIBE RPGS TO SOMEONE WHO ASKS.

It's not attempting to define RPGs.  It's attempting to arrive at a metaphor that can be understood by somebody who doesn't know what an RPG is.

Now all of you get off the Proletariat's lawn.

Quote from: alexandroas the article is obviously talking about the appeal of traditional RPGs, not "storygames" or "indie games" etc., I would suggest, that YES, you missed the point of the article.

It's important to bear in mind that different gamers have played for different reasons since the beginning of the hobby.  There are many different things that appeal to people in traditional RPGs.  Here is a good place to start about that, backed by survey data rather than simply anecdotal evidence:

ttp://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html


To try to narrow that down to any one thing is going to miss why a lot of people role-play (maybe 75%).  

The reason why I'm being so picky about "story" is that once people get the idea into their head that role-playing is all about telling a story, all sorts of unfortunatley assumptions and mistakes seem to follow.

I do think that the article makes an interesting observation about the value of uncertainty and divided authority, but I think the argument is overstated quite a bit.

Quote from: Old GeezerIt's not attempting to define RPGs.  It's attempting to arrive at a metaphor that can be understood by somebody who doesn't know what an RPG is.

That wouldn't be my first pick.

Don't kids go outside and play cops and robbers or house anymore?  Is the reason for all of this obsession over creating, consuming, and control a side-effect of video gaming?

(response to Geezer) Except that the article falls into the same trap that RQ2 did when it described roleplaying, in the opening paragraphs, as akin to improvisational radio theater. Which then opens the way to various...deviations. Why isn't "playing pretend with rules & dice" a good enough description?

Quote from: John MorrowThat wouldn't be my first pick.

Don't kids go outside and play cops and robbers or house anymore?  Is the reason for all of this obsession over creating, consuming, and control a side-effect of video gaming?

No, it was already there in the late 80's/early 90's. I've linked a few times to a Usenet thread started by Robert Plamondon talking about how he doesn't get "storytelling games", and you can find the same arguments there--basically between people who see RPGs as a rules-and-ref-mediated version of pretend, and people who want to tell a story.

Quote from: John MorrowThat wouldn't be my first pick.

Don't kids go outside and play cops and robbers or house anymore?  Is the reason for all of this obsession over creating, consuming, and control a side-effect of video gaming?

I've said before that roleplaying is a natural activity. Every kid I know - and as a guy with 7 brothers and sisters and 66 first cousins, I've known a lot - roleplays as part of their normal play. Somewhere in middle school, most kids stop doing it and seemingly forget how. The only really difficult part is the game aspect.

-clash

Quote from: Elliot WilenI've linked a few times to a Usenet thread started by Robert Plamondon talking about how he doesn't get "storytelling games", and you can find the same arguments there--basically between people who see RPGs as a rules-and-ref-mediated version of pretend, and people who want to tell a story.

...and the people who want to play them like a wargame with their character as their piece on the board.  Yes.  Those categories were also present in Glenn Blacows article in Different Worlds in 1980.  But it's as if the old "rules-and-ref-mediated version of pretend" is the style that people are having trouble understanding, and I find it difficult to believe that anyone who played pretend as a child couldn't get that.

Quote from: flyingmiceSomewhere in middle school, most kids stop doing it and seemingly forget how.

The way a person I knew in college put it, "We used to play D&D until we discovered beer."  Girls/boys are another popular distraction that kicks in around middle school.  Of course it might help if people were actually creating games to catch people at that age.

Quote from: flyingmiceThe only really difficult part is the game aspect.

Well, given how bad mental math skills seem to be getting over the years (I'm still amazed at schools giving kids calculators), I can see where doing basic math in your head or having to use a calculator to add up modifiers could be a show stopper.

Yeah, I'm in crotchety old man mode.

Quote from: John Morrow...and the people who want to play them like a wargame with their character as their piece on the board.  Yes.  Those categories were also present in Glenn Blacows article in Different Worlds in 1980.  But it's as if the old "rules-and-ref-mediated version of pretend" is the style that people are having trouble understanding, and I find it difficult to believe that anyone who played pretend as a child couldn't get that.

Ah well, that gets into another thing. Back in that discussion (or maybe it was another Usenet thread, probably several) what happened was that the story guys couldn't distinguish between "rules-and-ref-mediated-pretend" and "board wargame". Somehow they conflated stuff like playing by the rules, having to understand detailed rules, not having rules to cater to "story concerns", and focusing on combat--so that emphasizing any of these characteristics was seen as trying to turn RPGs into wargames.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen....Why isn't "playing pretend with rules & dice" a good enough description?

That would be the basic definition I would use, it covers the gamet from pretending to be fighting (bang bang your dead) to pure social (playing house).

The "game" aspect ist pretty easy to explain...
... but it is hard to explain to someone WHY exactly one does this "pretend-thingie" ("Like playing 'Cops'n'Robbers'? We are no 5 year-olds anymore, bub") and so far this is the best explanation I have encountered.

You could probably apply John Morrows "experience"-tack, except I think it sounds so hokey I'm keep thinking about petitioning the Pundit to change the name of this channel (from "Game design and theory" to "Let's all hold hands, sing and tell each other we are all special in a way"). :haw:

@ all:

Quote from: John MorrowWell, given how bad mental math skills seem to be getting over the years (I'm still amazed at schools giving kids calculators), I can see where doing basic math in your head or having to use a calculator to add up modifiers could be a show stopper.

When he said that the "game" part was the difficult part, I think Clash meant that explaining to a non-rpger why we need rules for roleplaying is the difficult part, and/or getting the rules right for the kind of roleplaying you'd like to do is difficult.

That's what I've found in describing rpgs to non-rpgers. When I describe what happens at the game table, with characters and adventures and choices, that all makes sense to them. But then they ask, "yeah, but that's a big pile of books, why do you need all those rules for that?" If I point them to some rules-light game, they say, "why do you need any rules."

I usually give them HeroQuest's thing of how when you're watching a movie or reading a book, part of the fun of it is not knowing what'll happen next, and that since with an rpg session you control what happens next, to have the same uncertainty you need rules and dice, but... well, it doesn't usually convince them.

Really it's just one of those things you have to see or experience to "get."

Quote from: Kyle AaronWhen he said that the "game" part was the difficult part, I think Clash meant that explaining to a non-rpger why we need rules for roleplaying is the difficult part, and/or getting the rules right for the kind of roleplaying you'd like to do is difficult.

Bingo!

Quote from: Kyle AaronThat's what I've found in describing rpgs to non-rpgers. When I describe what happens at the game table, with characters and adventures and choices, that all makes sense to them. But then they ask, "yeah, but that's a big pile of books, why do you need all those rules for that?" If I point them to some rules-light game, they say, "why do you need any rules."

I usually give them HeroQuest's thing of how when you're watching a movie or reading a book, part of the fun of it is not knowing what'll happen next, and that since with an rpg session you control what happens next, to have the same uncertainty you need rules and dice, but... well, it doesn't usually convince them.

Really it's just one of those things you have to see or experience to "get."

Yep! The rules thing really throws non-gamers. Explaining Roleplaying is dead easy. Explaining Gaming is dead easy. Combining the two is where the muddle hits.

-clash

Quote from: Kyle AaronThat's what I've found in describing rpgs to non-rpgers. When I describe what happens at the game table, with characters and adventures and choices, that all makes sense to them. But then they ask, "yeah, but that's a big pile of books, why do you need all those rules for that?" If I point them to some rules-light game, they say, "why do you need any rules."

Years ago, that was easy enough to explain to anyone who had ever played cops and robbers and had the typical, "Bang, I shot you!"  "Did not!" exchange.

I never, ever encountered a problem with explaining RPGs to anyone. It´s important to know whom you are talking to, though.
Relate to their experiences, and all will be well.
A helpful thing might be, that

Don´t expect everyone to like it, though. Some people get what it´s about and shun it for what it is. That´s just the way it is.

I'm finally beginning to get a glimpse of the problem:

What you call "rules-and-ref-mediated-pretense" I simply call "story".
The basic roleplaying technique (found in every RPG, from D&D, over to the WoD to (most of) those crazy-Forge-games) is the same.

It's not about creating a story, its being part of one.
And don't make the mistake of confusing a story with a narrative, because thats a different animal altogether.

The idea is, that the characters can do anything they want in the game and it would still be a story, simply because we are suckers for the dramatic and wouldn't allow it any other way.
If the fighter chops off the dragons head in mid-flight is just as interesting as if he fails to do so and plummets to his death (or rather: because we make it interesting...)
The idea, that a certain outcome is required for the session to qualify as a story is a flawed assumption to begin with.
The session may not (in a literary sense) make for a very good story, but it will always be a story (and while it may not be great in a literary sense it has its own value, because it thrills and entertains the players and the GM).

The only way for it NOT to be a story, would be if neither the players nor the GM CARE about what happens in the session...but I think we would agree, that any kind of roleplaying falls flat if that happens...:D

Hello, all, I'm the author of the linked article.

Quote from: Old GeezerThe article is about... hold on... HOW TO DESCRIBE RPGS TO SOMEONE WHO ASKS.

Thank you, OG, for nailing it. My little article isn't trying to define RPGs, or state what they mean to an given gamer, or do anything high-falutin'; please don't read so much into it, folks!

It's just a short spiel I've used in the past to answer non-gamers' most basic question about our hobby. They generally don't know (or even care) about story-vs-experience-vs-mediated pretense and other philosophical musings; they just want a quick peek, using examples they're immediately familiar with, into what goes on in this odd-sounding "game" that  lacks all the standard components of the table-top games they know (like player-vs-player competition, scores, a fixed game board, step-by-step rules, even "winning").

There are other great, much-used explanations of gaming (the "Cowboys and Indians" comparison, to name one), and if the listener remains interested, deeper trails to pursue (the nature of roleplaying, etc.). I'm only tossing out one quickie intro that I've used, and which – while it's very unlikely to be original – I don't recall having seen anyone else put into print before.

Anyway, thanks for the attention, all. I'm completely new to this site, and will enjoy poking around.

T. Bone
Plenty of GURPS stuff and more at the Games Diner:
http://www.gamesdiner.com

EDIT: First paragraph removed due to excessive insinuation.  

For me there's plenty of Story to enjoy in RPGs, as well as plenty of Gaming.   They go hand in hand as far as I'm concerned.   And the fact is, I enjoy the RPG more when the story actually turns out to be good in it's own right.   Am I saying that the way I enjoy RPGs is the Best and Only way and that people who don't care about the Story as compared to the Gaming aspect are having BadWrongFun?  Nooooo... because that would be totally asinine.  

What I am saying is that Story can have it's place in RPGs and people can enjoy that aspect just as much as the Gaming, without that being some sort of "issue".   If you enjoy the Gaming aspect more, great.  If you enjoy the Story aspect more, great.  If you like them both equally, great.  If you hate both of them - then go become an accountant or something.  Yah?

Thanks T.Bone.

A friend of mine pointed out the article to me as a possible way to explain RPGs to non-gamers (our gaming club is running demos at the local book fair), so it is used the way you intended.
 
I think the article succeeds in what it attempts to do and even I as a "experienced" gamer really enjoyed reading and thinking about it (especially since it is to my knowledge the first article with a satisfactory explanation as to why RPG mechanics work the way they do).
That you don't get mired in theory culture is a good thing in my book.

You are very down-to-earth in describing what most RPGs are like (although the term "story" is controversial for historical reasons), without drawing conclusions based on these observations- which avoids the pitfalls of the "real" theory (like GNS or Pundits' 3-and-1/2 obvious facts) of excluding playstyles that don't fit the model.