PDA

View Full Version : The Three Games in an RPG



Cluedrew
2017-07-22, 09:11 AM
So, I have been slowly turning over many thoughts about role-playing games and I have had another one recently. It grew out of what would a "pure" role-playing game would be. As I thought about it I realized different features one could focus on and I eventually came up with three basic parts that you can find in most role-playing systems.

Role-Playing Game:
What? Role-playing game is part of role-playing games? Well this is the one the end result was named after. But the basis of role-playing is making decisions as a character instead of as your self. Which is not to say that is all most role-playing games are just this, I mean if it was literally just this it would be more a simulation of someone's mind than a game.

Still it provides a base for the other sections. Characters are almost always the main point of interaction for most players (as in, all except the GM) and easily fit into roles in the following types of games as well (narrative characters and game pieces).

Storytelling Game:
Point of clarification, having a story told to you, even during a game, does not make it a role-playing game. Playing the game should be telling a story. If you want to start at the story telling side, than adding limits and unpredictability might be enough, and this is done through rules, dice and other players. Starting on the game side adding some narrative weight to the actions should be enough. So "rook takes bishop" at best qualifies by technicality, but really I'm talking about "Joan the Knight defeats the serpent threatening the port town".

This seems to be the most fun part to look back on, doesn't always have to be. I have had some great moments of improv. that I would never bother to put in a campaign journal because it was the live active discovery that made them good.

A funny note is that a lot of "meta-gaming" actually isn't from this perspective. If the goal is to tell a good story than using out of character information to make them coincidentally do the thing that leads to a more interesting story is entirely within the game itself. It can be taken too far of course.

Adventure Game:
The skill based overcoming obstacles part of the game. Also includes the tactical war game part. Here the goal is to overcome challenges, instead of determining if a character would or it is more interesting if they do. Probably the most straight forward part, it is the part that exists in board games, war games and computer RPGs.

Max_Killjoy
2017-07-22, 09:39 AM
Frankly, I do consider "what would make the best story?" to be an out-of-character consideration, that easily can become metagaming. But then, it's like nails on chalkboard when "what makes the best story?" overrides setting or character in actual fiction.

If I'm going to metagame, it's going to be for the sake of consideration for other people at the table, and whether they're having fun.

IMO, story can stay emergent where it belongs.

Cluedrew
2017-07-22, 09:57 AM
I would argue that a story with inconsistent setting and characters is just a bad story (or very experimental) so making a good story can't override those things. When people think that it does they are thinking too small, this particular scene often, and are missing it high level view. In other words I agree with the problem, I just think that people are wrong in using that justification.

From my understanding of the word the story has to be emergent for it to be a storytelling game. Otherwise there is no game in its telling. Maybe I should have even used that word in my description. I was also considering using Final Fantasy games as an example of the difference between telling a story in a game and a story telling game. They tell some complex and detailed stories in those game, but I don't know and definition by which they are storytelling games. Hope that clears things up.

goto124
2017-07-22, 11:51 AM
Final Fantasy is a video game, so it can't tell much more than pre-scripted events.

I suppose your point is that 'storytelling' in a roleplaying game should not mean the DM railroading players?

JBPuffin
2017-07-22, 12:10 PM
I can get behind a distinction between storytelling and role playing games - I can describe a character's actions without playing as a character, or embody a character without describing a plot. And I can do both in non-tactical ways, so...yeah, I can agree with this system.

FreddyNoNose
2017-07-22, 12:12 PM
So, I have been slowly turning over many thoughts about role-playing games and I have had another one recently. It grew out of what would a "pure" role-playing game would be. As I thought about it I realized different features one could focus on and I eventually came up with three basic parts that you can find in most role-playing systems.

Role-Playing Game:
What? Role-playing game is part of role-playing games? Well this is the one the end result was named after. But the basis of role-playing is making decisions as a character instead of as your self. Which is not to say that is all most role-playing games are just this, I mean if it was literally just this it would be more a simulation of someone's mind than a game.

Still it provides a base for the other sections. Characters are almost always the main point of interaction for most players (as in, all except the GM) and easily fit into roles in the following types of games as well (narrative characters and game pieces).

Storytelling Game:
Point of clarification, having a story told to you, even during a game, does not make it a role-playing game. Playing the game should be telling a story. If you want to start at the story telling side, than adding limits and unpredictability might be enough, and this is done through rules, dice and other players. Starting on the game side adding some narrative weight to the actions should be enough. So "rook takes bishop" at best qualifies by technicality, but really I'm talking about "Joan the Knight defeats the serpent threatening the port town".

This seems to be the most fun part to look back on, doesn't always have to be. I have had some great moments of improv. that I would never bother to put in a campaign journal because it was the live active discovery that made them good.

A funny note is that a lot of "meta-gaming" actually isn't from this perspective. If the goal is to tell a good story than using out of character information to make them coincidentally do the thing that leads to a more interesting story is entirely within the game itself. It can be taken too far of course.

Adventure Game:
The skill based overcoming obstacles part of the game. Also includes the tactical war game part. Here the goal is to overcome challenges, instead of determining if a character would or it is more interesting if they do. Probably the most straight forward part, it is the part that exists in board games, war games and computer RPGs.

Is this another variation how "the correct way" to play?

Arbane
2017-07-22, 07:11 PM
The best description I've heard of RPGs to date is "a combination of a strategic board-game and an improv radio drama".

Cluedrew
2017-07-22, 09:31 PM
To FreddyNoNose: I don't think so, what would it even be? I mean I got three options for one, and most systems I know are some mix of the three.

Yora
2017-07-23, 02:34 AM
While the three elements are not the same, I would say they are inseparable and all have to be there simultaneously to make an RPG.

RazorChain
2017-07-23, 02:19 PM
So, I have been slowly turning over many thoughts about role-playing games and I have had another one recently. It grew out of what would a "pure" role-playing game would be. As I thought about it I realized different features one could focus on and I eventually came up with three basic parts that you can find in most role-playing systems.

Role-Playing Game:
What? Role-playing game is part of role-playing games? Well this is the one the end result was named after. But the basis of role-playing is making decisions as a character instead of as your self. Which is not to say that is all most role-playing games are just this, I mean if it was literally just this it would be more a simulation of someone's mind than a game.

Still it provides a base for the other sections. Characters are almost always the main point of interaction for most players (as in, all except the GM) and easily fit into roles in the following types of games as well (narrative characters and game pieces).

Storytelling Game:
Point of clarification, having a story told to you, even during a game, does not make it a role-playing game. Playing the game should be telling a story. If you want to start at the story telling side, than adding limits and unpredictability might be enough, and this is done through rules, dice and other players. Starting on the game side adding some narrative weight to the actions should be enough. So "rook takes bishop" at best qualifies by technicality, but really I'm talking about "Joan the Knight defeats the serpent threatening the port town".

This seems to be the most fun part to look back on, doesn't always have to be. I have had some great moments of improv. that I would never bother to put in a campaign journal because it was the live active discovery that made them good.

A funny note is that a lot of "meta-gaming" actually isn't from this perspective. If the goal is to tell a good story than using out of character information to make them coincidentally do the thing that leads to a more interesting story is entirely within the game itself. It can be taken too far of course.

Adventure Game:
The skill based overcoming obstacles part of the game. Also includes the tactical war game part. Here the goal is to overcome challenges, instead of determining if a character would or it is more interesting if they do. Probably the most straight forward part, it is the part that exists in board games, war games and computer RPGs.

I look at this differently.

1) Role-playing
This is the part where you come up with a concept of character and then you play that character. Your decisions are based on what your character would do.

2) Gaming
This is where you interact with the rules and the system.

Some players are much more interested in the Gaming aspect and others are more interested in the Roleplaying aspect. It is perfectly possible to partake in roleplaying game without roleplaying at all. Your character is just an exstension of yourself with some skills/powers. The same can be said about roleplaying, you can sit down and roleplay without knowing the system at all, the GM just explains what you can do and you roll dice to see if you succeed.




Frankly, I do consider "what would make the best story?" to be an out-of-character consideration, that easily can become metagaming. But then, it's like nails on chalkboard when "what makes the best story?" overrides setting or character in actual fiction.

If I'm going to metagame, it's going to be for the sake of consideration for other people at the table, and whether they're having fun.

IMO, story can stay emergent where it belongs.

I consider "what would make the best story" to be something in the GM's domain. The player shouldn't consider that but concentrate on his character.


3) Storytelling I consider a story to be emergent in RPG's. The GM might have plots going on in his world and the PC's might choose to interact with them or not. The result of the PC's interacting with the world will result in an emergent story or a chronicle might be more aptly put.

Lvl 2 Expert
2017-07-23, 03:41 PM
Comes pretty close to simulationist, narrativist, gamist. Might be interesting to google if you don't know the theory.

Guizonde
2017-07-23, 04:04 PM
The best description I've heard of RPGs to date is "a combination of a strategic board-game and an improv radio drama".

i heard it as "it's improv combined with group problem solving and team-building". it leaves out the dice part, though. your description is pretty nifty, i might add it to mine.

Max_Killjoy
2017-07-23, 04:49 PM
Comes pretty close to simulationist, narrativist, gamist. Might be interesting to google if you don't know the theory.

Depends on whose version of those terms you end up reading, as discussed at great length in these parts. Some versions of that theory have more to do with pushing a very specific agenda than with doing anything useful for understanding gaming.

PhoenixPhyre
2017-07-23, 04:54 PM
Depends on whose version of those terms you end up reading, as discussed at great length in these parts. Some versions of that theory have more to do with pushing a very specific agenda than with doing anything useful for understanding gaming.

Agreed, and the terms have a lingering connotation that makes them less usable, at least on this forum. Great flame war starters though.

ImNotTrevor
2017-07-23, 06:17 PM
That, and GNS theory has been largely discarded by TRPG designers.

So when you bring it up like it's still a big guiding force, it's a bit like going onto a medical forum and starting an argument about the Humours.

Millstone85
2017-07-23, 06:57 PM
Great flame war starters though.
That, and GNS theory has been largely discarded by TRPG designers.What has been generally mentioned as the main problem with it?

Something I see is that instead of starting with the game involving (G) sheet filling and tabletop activities, (N) the development of one or several plots and (S) character portrayal and world building, the theory starts by dividing players into (G) those who like to defeat monsters and collect treasure, (N) those who like to make the story progress and (S) those who like to be someone else somewhere else.

That might be an unnecessary step. It also leads to the aforementioned flame wars by making you feel like you have to pick one of three teams.

Max_Killjoy
2017-07-23, 07:49 PM
What has been generally mentioned as the main problem with it?

Something I see is that instead of starting with the game involving (G) sheet filling and tabletop activities, (N) the development of one or several plots and (S) character portrayal and world building, the theory starts by dividing players into (G) those who like to defeat monsters and collect treasure, (N) those who like to make the story progress and (S) those who like to be someone else somewhere else.

That might be an unnecessary step. It also leads to the aforementioned flame wars by making you feel like you have to pick one of three teams.

As presented by Edwards and his sychophants, that division was the goal -- games were supposed to be designed for only one of the three or they were "incoherent" and therefore "bad", and players were supposed to play type of game that gave them which of the three they wanted. Their entire take on the theory was really, however, with the intention of promoting their agenda and pushing "Narrativism" (or rather their peculiar version of it).

I'd say they had it exactly backwards -- a game that focuses only on one element (G, N, or S) isn't really an RPG at all.

ImNotTrevor
2017-07-23, 08:01 PM
As I say often with GNS, yes it has been largely discarded. But it is a bad idea to throw out the baby with the bathwater or misrepresent the ideas therein.

A focus on one of the three (G,N, or S) does not mean "do that one at the exclusion of the others."
(I don't know if the above was Edwards' intent, and I could care less.)
And can be applied descriptively.
For instance D&D is Gns
Apocalypse World is more gNs
And, lets say... Phoenix Command is more gnS.
They contain all three but one experience is King and the others... less so.

As it stands, picking out the benefits of the system while ignoring its massive flaws has been a good call for most designers. Generally, the idea is that if you read it, read it with a grain of salt. Or, for an easier time, listen to another game designer give the not-awful version of it.

It's like early greek physics concepts. Not really correct, but they got a surprising amount of things pretty close to right. Edwards believed he was Newton but he was really more like Pythagoras. A few really good ideas but mostly a lot of philosophical mumbo jumbo.

GreatWyrmGold
2017-07-23, 09:58 PM
Final Fantasy is a video game, so it can't tell much more than pre-scripted events.
I agree with your conclusion that Final Fantasy does tell a preset narrative, but not that video games can't do more. Google emergent narrative sometime for the most obvious and unambiguous examples.

Florian
2017-07-24, 03:32 AM
As presented by Edwards and his sychophants, that division was the goal -- games were supposed to be designed for only one of the three or they were "incoherent" and therefore "bad", and players were supposed to play type of game that gave them which of the three they wanted. Their entire take on the theory was really, however, with the intention of promoting their agenda and pushing "Narrativism" (or rather their peculiar version of it).

I'd say they had it exactly backwards -- a game that focuses only on one element (G, N, or S) isn't really an RPG at all.

Just because some of the people over at the Forge had an agenda doesnīt mean the whole concept itself is wrong. A good number of people felt personally attacked and reacted in and to it, not understanding what the actual goal was. Heck, I remember that in the heyday of the discussions, some people were simply stuck with the "brain damaged" thingie and couldn't even try to understand what was meant with it.

You also present a twisted version of it. By its very nature, any (TT-)RPG contains all three elements (GNS) in varying degrees of strength. Things become "incoherent" when the parts used for it donīt support each other, they become "dysfunctional" when they actually start to oppose each other (without any meaningful gain coming from that).

What is misunderstood there is that some "goals" are not compatible.

Letīs look at a common thing that happens over and over in D&D:

A lot of gms try their hand at creating the classic dramatic narrative with the "win and setback to and fro"-core, as they think that provides fun by increasing tension.
More than a lot of players are into it for the fun of winning, tho, and do everything they can to prevent the setbacks, which will lead to intra-party friction.
At that point, one side or the other shows up and starts a new thread here, asking for help, either against the "railroading gm" or against "munchkin players".

Looking at the reward structures of D&D, we must come to the conclusion that the players are right on this one, as everything in the system is geared towards promoting G-type behavior.

We could leave it at that, or use our understanding to see that the missing component is a reward structure that also turns a "setback" into a "win". That would solve the "incoherent" situation here.

Millstone85
2017-07-24, 04:55 AM
At that point, one side or the other shows up and starts a new thread here, asking for help, either against the "railroading gm" or against "munchkin players".Munchkinery, railroading and what-my-character-would-do-ism.

Those do seem to be the concepts that show up when someone is judged to have gone into the dark side of G, N or S.

Max_Killjoy
2017-07-24, 09:03 AM
Just because some of the people over at the Forge had an agenda doesnīt mean the whole concept itself is wrong. A good number of people felt personally attacked and reacted in and to it, not understanding what the actual goal was. Heck, I remember that in the heyday of the discussions, some people were simply stuck with the "brain damaged" thingie and couldn't even try to understand what was meant with it.

You also present a twisted version of it. By its very nature, any (TT-)RPG contains all three elements (GNS) in varying degrees of strength. Things become "incoherent" when the parts used for it donīt support each other, they become "dysfunctional" when they actually start to oppose each other (without any meaningful gain coming from that).


Needless to say, the facts of history do not support that happier, sanitized version of what Edwards and his inner circle said and did. For Edwards, it was nothing more than pushing his personal agenda, self-aggrandizement, and belittling those with different viewpoints, while indulging in self-serving redefinition of terminology ("terms of art") and postmodernist obscurantism.


http://whitehall-paraindustries.com/Theory/Threefold/rpg_theory_bad_rep.htm
https://refereeingandreflection.wordpress.com/2014/12/22/remembering-the-forge/
http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?4899-Brain-Damage-Thread
http://lumpley.com/index.php/anyway/thread/158
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=18707.0
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=18807.0
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/6/
http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-real-legacies-of-forge.html


I'll leave it at that, rather than derailing this thread farther, and leave readers to judge for themselves.

Cluedrew
2017-07-24, 05:07 PM
While the three elements are not the same, I would say they are inseparable and all have to be there simultaneously to make an RPG.Yeah, that is actually part of the idea. I tried cutting down the each of the three down to zero to see what I would get. Absolutely none of them worked out it my quite mental simulation. Maybe they could, but I don't have a hard definition of what 'zero' means in any of these cases so I can't forward any proof.


3) Storytelling I consider a story to be emergent in RPG's.Am I missing about "emergent story"? Or did not make the "by definition, a storytelling game will have an unpredictable* story that comes from gameplay" thing clear? This is the second time it has come up as if it was a different thing than what I am saying, but I don't think it is.

* Or at least, not pre-set, doesn't have to have surprising twists in it.


Comes pretty close to simulationist, narrativist, gamist. Might be interesting to google if you don't know the theory.I know of it. There is a correlation between the sections. Although I don't think it is quite perfect, the role-playing game part does not seem to map onto what I know of simulationist. Not that I care to research it more, it may have some value but you can't even bring it up with some people taking issue with it.

Anyways, I actually got at this idea from the idea of the Platonic Ideal of an RPG, combined with some ideas from an older thread of mine ~"What is a Role-Playing Game?". When I tried to strip down the idea of a role-playing game down I got some very different ideas, which I found mapped onto the idea of 3 inner games relatively well, so that is how I presented it.

Millstone85
2017-07-24, 06:12 PM
Yeah, that is actually part of the idea. I tried cutting down the each of the three down to zero to see what I would get. Absolutely none of them worked out it my quite mental simulation. Maybe they could, but I don't have a hard definition of what 'zero' means in any of these cases so I can't forward any proof.Here is how I see each of the three games without the two others:
* You can play a board game. It might have a premise that excites the imagination, like two armies meeting in battle or a group of survivors trying to escape a zombie-infested area. But you are not expected to develop on that, and it would even be disruptive to the game.
* You can play that game where someone begins a story, the next person continues it, then the next and so on. Each and every one of the protagonists is shared between the players, as is every other element of the story.
* You can have a part in a play, which may be scripted or improvisational.

These are all great, but not RPGs.

Now, combining them by two, without a third, I don't see what that would look like either.

Cluedrew
2017-07-24, 06:28 PM
Is the third role-playing without storytelling or adventure? The image that came to might head was more like a trivia game, except it is more about what would the character's response in a given situation, so you think like the character to find the answer. Of course you answer doesn't effect later questions, then story starts creeping back in, nor are you encouraged to be wise (unless the character is) because than the adventure starts creeping back in.

That one actually sounds the least fun of the three. Also yeah, I was actually working on two of three, and the answers I got were weird and fuzzy and hence hard to put into words. The one of three approach actually works better.

Quertus
2017-07-24, 06:47 PM
Yeah, that is actually part of the idea. I tried cutting down the each of the three down to zero to see what I would get. Absolutely none of them worked out it my quite mental simulation. Maybe they could, but I don't have a hard definition of what 'zero' means in any of these cases so I can't forward any proof.

Am I missing about "emergent story"? Or did not make the "by definition, a storytelling game will have an unpredictable* story that comes from gameplay" thing clear? This is the second time it has come up as if it was a different thing than what I am saying, but I don't think it is.

Well, no role-playing sounds like a war game. And you can play a series of war games, that represent a timeline of events, to tell a story / to have a story as an emergent property / to indicate a story going on in the background / whatever. And doing so would not be playing an RPG.

Now, as to your second item, I must say, I hadn't responded yet because I really had no idea what you were getting at with the "story" part. Think you can dumb it down for me? As a side bonus, maybe doing so might help you get replies more like what you anticipated.

Florian
2017-07-25, 03:22 AM
Am I missing about "emergent story"? Or did not make the "by definition, a storytelling game will have an unpredictable* story that comes from gameplay" thing clear? This is the second time it has come up as if it was a different thing than what I am saying, but I don't think it is.

I know of it. There is a correlation between the sections. Although I don't think it is quite perfect, the role-playing game part does not seem to map onto what I know of simulationist. Not that I care to research it more, it may have some value but you can't even bring it up with some people taking issue with it.

Anyways, I actually got at this idea from the idea of the Platonic Ideal of an RPG, combined with some ideas from an older thread of mine ~"What is a Role-Playing Game?". When I tried to strip down the idea of a role-playing game down I got some very different ideas, which I found mapped onto the idea of 3 inner games relatively well, so that is how I presented it.

"Role-Playing Game" is actually a hybrid of "Storytelling" and "Game", using the definition that a game is a structured form of play. The goal of this game therefore is to tell stories.

You yourself express an simulationist stance by connecting "telling a story" with "role playing" in such a way that one must base the decision making process on the fictional elements (setting, genre, character) being handled as if they were real (in contrast to them being either gaming pieces or narrative elements).

I suspect that people that mention "emergent story" actually try to go one step further and have the illusion that theyīre not participants in a game of telling stories, because, frankly, I donīt thereīs no element in the game that is not intended to start any kind of interaction and/or conflict.

Altair_the_Vexed
2017-07-25, 03:49 AM
Ha! I blogged on this topic, ages ago, using exactly the same terms! (http://running-the-game.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/adventure-vs-role-playing-vs.html)

My conclusion: most games are a blend of the three, depending on tastes.
Even depending on the tastes of the players - one guy at the table is playing a story telling game, another guy plays as an adventure game, and the rest of us a role-playing game.

It works okay, until someone thinks that there's only one right way to play...

Florian
2017-07-25, 05:00 AM
It works okay, until someone thinks that there's only one right way to play...

I canīt really share that conclusion.

Can a broadly designed game system include players with diverging creative agenda at the same table? Yes, as long as the friction is low but only up to the point a conflict comes up based on the differences in agendas.

Thatīs when the "gentlemens agreement" comes up, by trying to address things that can lead to the game breaking down as a preventive measure.

On german speaking RPG boards, thereīs the now famous case of the "Taschenlampenfallenlasser" (The one who dropped the flashlight): In a game of Call of Cthulhu, a group of characters enter a monster-infested basement and only one of them carried a flashlight. When seeing the ghoul, that particular player had his character drop the flashlight and run for the stairs. Naturally, the other characters died.
What followed was a heated debate that actually showed the underlying friction here. One side argued that has priority to always act in character (in which case dropping the flashlight is a valid choice), the other side argued that this is a game and each player has the duty to preserve the fun for everyone (so even if fitting in-character, abstain from doing it).

Altair_the_Vexed
2017-07-25, 06:32 AM
I canīt really share that conclusion.

Can a broadly designed game system include players with diverging creative agenda at the same table? Yes, as long as the friction is low but only up to the point a conflict comes up based on the differences in agendas.

Thatīs when the "gentlemens agreement" comes up, by trying to address things that can lead to the game breaking down as a preventive measure.

On german speaking RPG boards, thereīs the now famous case of the "Taschenlampenfallenlasser" (The one who dropped the flashlight): In a game of Call of Cthulhu, a group of characters enter a monster-infested basement and only one of them carried a flashlight. When seeing the ghoul, that particular player had his character drop the flashlight and run for the stairs. Naturally, the other characters died.
What followed was a heated debate that actually showed the underlying friction here. One side argued that has priority to always act in character (in which case dropping the flashlight is a valid choice), the other side argued that this is a game and each player has the duty to preserve the fun for everyone (so even if fitting in-character, abstain from doing it).

So ... someone thought there was only one right way to play!

In your example, the Taschenlampenfallenlasser is totally sticking to his preferred way of playing, regardless of the other players' wishes or the consequences of those actions. This is the same as the paladin who refuses to adventure with the thief, or the druid who won't leave her forest (the Giant's examples - "Decide to react differently" section (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html)).

In my blog post (http://running-the-game.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/adventure-vs-role-playing-vs.html), I argued that a blend of all styles is necessary - even when the game is weighted towards one or other of the styles to start with.

Cluedrew
2017-07-25, 08:14 AM
Now, as to your second item, I must say, I hadn't responded yet because I really had no idea what you were getting at with the "story" part. Think you can dumb it down for me? As a side bonus, maybe doing so might help you get replies more like what you anticipated.Roughly speaking it is just two things: Story is determined by the game play as it is not pre-set. The story is not retroactive, strapped onto the events after the fact. In other words the game play and story advancement happen together and effect each other.

It a pure storytelling game the game play might actually be just narrate the scene with some restrictions, which is both. Other games set up a correspondence between game elements (say a skill check) and a narrative event (trying to pick a lock) which has the same effect of tying them together.


You yourself express an simulationist stance by connecting "telling a story" with "role playing" in such a way that one must base the decision making process on the fictional elements (setting, genre, character) being handled as if they were real (in contrast to them being either gaming pieces or narrative elements).The telling a story and role-playing are different parts, I suppose they become connected in the context of the complete game, but while we are looking at these three parts they are separate concepts.

Max_Killjoy
2017-07-25, 08:36 AM
"Role-Playing Game" is actually a hybrid of "Storytelling" and "Game",


No, actually, it's not -- or rather, it isn't essentially or necessarily so. To approach an RPG as "storytelling" is simply one approach among many.




using the definition that a game is a structured form of play. The goal of this game therefore is to tell stories.


That's certainly not my goal. It might be your goal, but that doesn't make it universal.




You yourself express an simulationist stance by connecting "telling a story" with "role playing" in such a way that one must base the decision making process on the fictional elements (setting, genre, character) being handled as if they were real (in contrast to them being either gaming pieces or narrative elements).


Which would be a non-storytelling approach to RPGs. It's setting-focused and character-focused, not story-focused. Elements in common with authorial fiction, do not a story-focus make. The key difference is in intent -- does the player set out to deliberately tell a story, or does the player intend to make decisions for their character as the character would, in the setting.

There is a critical difference between setting out to tell a story, and letting a story emerge through the course events -- between "what would make the best story?", and "what would this character do in this situation?". ( Neither question there has to be the absolute final guideline, either can be tempered by "what will also allow the game to be fun for others and continue onward?" )

goto124
2017-07-25, 10:23 AM
There is a critical difference between setting out to tell a story, and letting a story emerge through the course events -- between "what would make the best story?", and "what would this character do in this situation?".

In a game where the story is not pre-planned, could you give an example of how this would play out?

Max_Killjoy
2017-07-25, 10:58 AM
In a game where the story is not pre-planned, could you give an example of how this would play out?


It would play out like an actual "reality", instead of a story.

The PCs interact with their world and the other characters in it, mutually affecting and being affected. Circumstances change, what characters know or think they know changes, the PCs and the world and the other characters continue to interact, taking those changes into account. Characters, PC and NPC alike, have thoughts and emotions and plans and goals, and act on those things. There is no predestination, just the big web of interactions, out of which a story might emerge after the fact.

In other words, you treat the characters and the world as "real", and not as elements of a narrative.

goto124
2017-07-25, 11:01 AM
Apologies for not being clear. I had meant to ask for concrete examples to illustrate the difference between 'roleplaying' and 'storytelling/narrative', in a game that does not have a pre-planned story.

Max_Killjoy
2017-07-25, 11:12 AM
Apologies for not being clear. I had meant to ask for concrete examples to illustrate the difference between 'roleplaying' and 'storytelling/narrative', in a game that does not have a pre-planned story.


I have to ask for a little time to come up with concise and clear examples. Apologies.

Millstone85
2017-07-25, 11:50 AM
After giving it more thought...

If people sat together for a game of "continue the story", but with the idea that each of all but one of the players would only contribute to the story through the actions of their own protagonist, that would be an RPG without dice, figurines, stats, features or any of that tabletop stuff, but an RPG nonetheless. I guess.

Yet this makes me realize why I am not big on "Play a character, not a class". Sure, I don't want to be "the knight", but I don't want to be "Bob" either. I want to be "Bob the knight". I want to take the piece on the board, with all the things people already see in it, and breathe a more unique life into it.

Max_Killjoy
2017-07-25, 11:53 AM
After giving it more thought...

If people sat together for a game of "continue the story", but with the idea that each of all but one of the players would only contribute to the story through the actions of their own protagonist, that would be an RPG without dice, figurines, stats, features or any of that tabletop stuff, but an RPG nonetheless. I guess.

Yet this makes me realize why I am not big on "Play a character, not a class". Sure, I don't want to be "the knight", but I don't want to be "Bob" either. I want to be "Bob the knight". I want to take the piece on the board, with all the things people already see in it, and breathe a more unique life into it.


I think the thing in your first paragraph, lacking any rules framework, fails my personal test for "is this an RPG"? It sounds more like a collaborative story-crafting exercise.

Cluedrew
2017-07-25, 05:24 PM
In a game where the story is not pre-planned, could you give an example of how this would play out?Example from one of my games. I was playing a expedition leader who was hiring mercenaries. One of the other PCs (not mercenary, but looked like one) got into a fight there and won. My character still had funds to higher people, so what do they do?
From a role-playing perspective my character would dismiss the mercenary as unruly and move on. They were more about order and control than anything else, in fact this whole mercenary hiring was not their preferred method.
From a storytelling perspective my character should respect mercenary's strength and offer them a job. Brings in a main character into the main group and gives them all a reason to travel into the dangerous area of the setting.
From a adventuring perspective I should do everything in my power to get that character killed. Because I know what the character concept is and just them being alive would be a problem for my character's goals.
I added the third perspective in as well, I did skip the "making the game fun for everybody" perspective because that has less to do with game design and more with being a good human being. Does that help?

goto124
2017-07-26, 03:31 AM
My character still had funds to higher people, so what do they do?

Did you mean: hire


Does that help?

It did, thanks! I see that storytelling sometimes means breaking character to allow the story to continue with a PC who wanted in.

Max_Killjoy
2017-07-26, 06:45 AM
Did you mean: hire



It did, thanks! I see that storytelling sometimes means breaking character to allow the story to continue with a PC who wanted in.


That can also be taken as a "table etiquette" issue, with the players willing to compromise 10% on character-driven decisions in order to make the game work for everyone involved.

Cluedrew
2017-07-26, 07:13 AM
Did you mean: hireI've been messing that one up a lot recently.


That can also be taken as a "table etiquette" issue, with the players willing to compromise 10% on character-driven decisions in order to make the game work for everyone involved.Frame it however is useful to you. I made this more from a game design standpoint than actually playing the game, so that might effect how well it works in those contexts.

daniel_ream
2017-08-05, 07:58 PM
You've independently discovered the Threefold model of RPG design.

Ignore GNS and The Forge and all the people are butthurt about GNS and The Forge. They're distractions from the only thing that matters: having a useful model that helps you make decisions.

The threefold model is useful as a descriptive tool. If you think about any game design, player or GM as existing somewhere on a triangle where the three points are 100% gamism, 100% simulationism, and 100% dramatism, you can quickly describe said game, player or GM in a way that will make it easier to see if you've got a good fit.

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-05, 08:01 PM
You've independently discovered the Threefold model of RPG design.

Ignore GNS and The Forge and all the people are butthurt about GNS and The Forge. They're distractions from the only thing that matters: having a useful model that helps you make decisions.

The threefold model is useful as a descriptive tool. If you think about any game design, player or GM as existing somewhere on a triangle where the three points are 100% gamism, 100% simulationism, and 100% dramatism, you can quickly describe said game, player or GM in a way that will make it easier to see if you've got a good fit.

...until people can't even agree on what those terms mean or which of them different aspects of gaming belong to...

daniel_ream
2017-08-05, 08:28 PM
...until people can't even agree on what those terms mean or which of them different aspects of gaming belong to...


Ignore [...] all the people butthurt about GNS and The Forge

-----------

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-05, 08:37 PM
-----------

Ah, yes, because all disagreement about the terminology or scope must be "butthurt about the forge", and people just couldn't possibly have their own disagreements that have nothing at all to do with that.

Cluedrew
2017-08-05, 08:46 PM
They don't have to agree, they just have to clarify.

FreddyNoNose
2017-08-05, 08:49 PM
Did you mean: hire

Perhaps he wants to raise some troops. You know, off the ground. Perhaps on a castle wall?

FreddyNoNose
2017-08-05, 08:51 PM
So, I have been slowly turning over many thoughts about role-playing games and I have had another one recently. It grew out of what would a "pure" role-playing game would be. As I thought about it I realized different features one could focus on and I eventually came up with three basic parts that you can find in most role-playing systems.

Role-Playing Game:
What? Role-playing game is part of role-playing games? Well this is the one the end result was named after. But the basis of role-playing is making decisions as a character instead of as your self. Which is not to say that is all most role-playing games are just this, I mean if it was literally just this it would be more a simulation of someone's mind than a game.

Still it provides a base for the other sections. Characters are almost always the main point of interaction for most players (as in, all except the GM) and easily fit into roles in the following types of games as well (narrative characters and game pieces).

Storytelling Game:
Point of clarification, having a story told to you, even during a game, does not make it a role-playing game. Playing the game should be telling a story. If you want to start at the story telling side, than adding limits and unpredictability might be enough, and this is done through rules, dice and other players. Starting on the game side adding some narrative weight to the actions should be enough. So "rook takes bishop" at best qualifies by technicality, but really I'm talking about "Joan the Knight defeats the serpent threatening the port town".

This seems to be the most fun part to look back on, doesn't always have to be. I have had some great moments of improv. that I would never bother to put in a campaign journal because it was the live active discovery that made them good.

A funny note is that a lot of "meta-gaming" actually isn't from this perspective. If the goal is to tell a good story than using out of character information to make them coincidentally do the thing that leads to a more interesting story is entirely within the game itself. It can be taken too far of course.

Adventure Game:
The skill based overcoming obstacles part of the game. Also includes the tactical war game part. Here the goal is to overcome challenges, instead of determining if a character would or it is more interesting if they do. Probably the most straight forward part, it is the part that exists in board games, war games and computer RPGs.

You mean this applies to your game. We can ignore it right? Or are you telling us how it must be?

daniel_ream
2017-08-05, 10:11 PM
They don't have to agree, they just have to clarify.

This.

Talking about games, game design, and game play styles really isn't as fraught as people like to opine. The inability of so many people to do so speaks more to the maturity of those people than anything else.

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-05, 10:20 PM
maturity


Ironic.

You drop into a thread and insult anyone who doesn't share your opinion, dismiss everyone else's concerns as meaningless, and then make snide comments about "maturity"?

/plonk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plonk_(Usenet))

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-05, 10:56 PM
They don't have to agree, they just have to clarify.


How do you move forward with a meaningful discussion if one person talks about their PC decisions being character-driven and not story-driven, and how story-driven decisions make gaming less fun for them... and another person insists that all character-driven decisions are story-driven decisions and the two cannot be separated? Where do you go from there on a game design or a gameplay discussion?

Or if one person sees character motives including "I want to succeed" and "I'd rather not die" as purely a "gamist" element, and the other sees them as absolutely in-character for most people, and thus most characters?

daniel_ream
2017-08-05, 11:27 PM
How do you move forward with a meaningful discussion if one person talks about their PC decisions being character-driven and not story-driven, and how story-driven decisions make gaming less fun for them... and another person insists that all character-driven decisions are story-driven decisions and the two cannot be separated? Where do you go from there on a game design or a gameplay discussion?

I'm going to go with "there's no beer in this perfectly spherical white room, let's go get one somewhere else and stop arguing about something that's of no consequence whatsoever".

Cluedrew
2017-08-06, 06:56 AM
To FreddyNoNose: I already said (page one) that I had no intention of using this model to create a one true way to play games. I will go further and say I'm not even sure how this description translates into game-play styles. It exists at a system design level for one, although you could extend it outwards that is what I made it for. It doesn't say what sort of combination you should be aiming for, nor how to do that.

As for the explicate question, no you don't have to use it. I'm not even sure if I will because I came up with it just before I posted it and put up the idea to see what other people thought about it. I gather that your opinions are rather low.

To Max_Killjoy: Once I know that someone uses words differently than I do, I can use their definitions when I'm listening to them. So even if you don't agree with how they use a word, once you know that they do you can actually communicate with them.

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-06, 08:40 AM
To Max_Killjoy: Once I know that someone uses words differently than I do, I can use their definitions when I'm listening to them. So even if you don't agree with how they use a word, once you know that they do you can actually communicate with them.


Very often in these discussions, two problems arise with that approach.

1) they refuse to extend the same courtesy.
2) their assertion of terminology includes the implication of their correctness about the actual subject in dispute -- they have defined the terms such as to make their argument correct via definition.

E: for example, the odd convergence of "railroading is good because anything that isn't random is railroading, so if your game is any good you've been railroading"... and "anything predetermined by the GM before play starts is railroading, and therefor bad".

ImNotTrevor
2017-08-06, 08:48 AM
How do you move forward with a meaningful discussion if one person talks about their PC decisions being character-driven and not story-driven, and how story-driven decisions make gaming less fun for them... and another person insists that all character-driven decisions are story-driven decisions and the two cannot be separated? Where do you go from there on a game design or a gameplay discussion?
Maybe you clarify like Cluedrew said, don't assume you have the absolute knowledge (since this suggests they're so misguided as to be impossible to talk to) and ask questions about the why and how of their position in case they actually have a unique and worthy perspective.

Or just put them on ignore for disagreeing with a hint of snark because they might secretly be me. (He ain't.)



Or if one person sees character motives including "I want to succeed" and "I'd rather not die" as purely a "gamist" element, and the other sees them as absolutely in-character for most people, and thus most characters?

Then they clarify their positions, maybe? A discussion isn't necessarily meant to have a victor. This conversation has no reason to stop unless you esteem one side to be too stupid to talk to due to their position. Which makes YOU (the person makinh this estimation) the only problem.


Very often in these discussions, two problems arise with that approach.

1) they refuse to extend the same courtesy.
2) their assertion of terminology includes the implication of their correctness about the actual subject in dispute -- they have defined the terms such as to make their argument correct via definition.

1. Leave.

2. Then they are right, by their own definition of the thing. Oh no. So horrible. Explain your own definition and see if you both can reach a conclusion. Don't speak in absolutes.

It's almost like you didn't know that a person's internal concept of a thing might be different from yours and lead to a different conclusion due to being shaped by different experiences, and that your internal concept is shaped by the same bias as theirs, and is equally flawed for that reason.


Ironic.

You drop into a thread and insult anyone who doesn't share your opinion, dismiss everyone else's concerns as meaningless, and then make snide comments about "maturity"?

/plonk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plonk_(Usenet))

Well lets see...

Him: >perfectly reasonable post
Yiu: >dissmissive single sentence response
Him: >equally dismissive response
You: >sarcasm
Him: >sarcasm
You: Oh my gosh this guy is so unreasonable and started the whole problem IGNORE.

I think his point on maturity stands.

(As if you'll even see this because I disagreed sarcastically a couple times, too.)

2D8HP
2017-08-06, 01:52 PM
So, I have been slowly turning over many thoughts about role-playing games .

Looks good Cluedrew, but since I like to bloviate about "Ye Auld days" here's a bit related:

Glenn Blacow's "Aspects of Adventure Gaming" from a magazine article in
Aspects of Adventure Gaming

Adventure gaming (also known as FRP, for fantasy role-playing) is a relative newcomer to the field of gaming. The original game which introduced the genre, Dungeons & Dragons by TSR Hobbies, has since been joined by a flood of new games based on the same general idea: Tunnels & Trolls, RuneQuest, Traveller, Space Quest, Chivalry & Sorcery, and many others. These games are now a major source of entertainment to hundreds of thousands of players, including most of the readers of this magazine.

They are also a source of violent arguments in the pages of game magazines, APAs, and fanzines. All too often one hears Game Masters (GMs) complaining about 22nd level mages, 15th level split ranger/illusionists, and 30th level werebears equipped with the Orb of the Dragon Kings. Or players griping about the "killer dungeon" where their favorite umpteenth level character got butchered by kobolds. Writers sneer about the stupidity and lack of sense shown by monsters of another GM. Caustic remarks concerning the lack of realism in background and motivation in another's campaign are made. No small amount of heat gets generated as a result.

A bystander, reading the furious discussions and noting the feuds that develop might be inclined to feel bewildered. "Are we all playing the same game? Do the terms mean the same to everyone?"

The answer is no. While the people arguing may be using identical sets of rules, they are not necessarily using them in the same way or for the same purpose. Arguments rage the fiercest between players whose minds operate along different axes of game development. For there are four aspects of FRP gaming, and they tend to produce very divergent ideas of what makes a good game. And the flame grow most fiery when the two debaters have never played in games that have contained the same elements...

What are the four aspects of adventure gaming? They are:

I. Power Gaming

II. Role-Playing

III. Wargaming

IV. Story Telling

Every game contains these aspects in at least a rudimentary degree, and the feeling of any given world is determined by the interaction of these four elements. But there are a large number of universes where development has overwhelmingly concentrated on a single one of the above facets. Much light on the question of ill-will within the hobby can be shed by first considering games with just a single major emphasis. So let us begin with...

I. POWER GAMING

This is how most FRP games start out, and is by far the most common form. It's where the 20th+ level wizards, 13th/13th/13th split fighter/mage/clerics most often come from. The Mace of Cuthbert, Stormbringer, the One Ring, and other mighty artifacts often appear on the equipment lists of player characters who hail from them, usually to the distress of GMs of other schools.

The purpose of the game is neither role-playing (as such) nor the development of skills. Instead, the main drive of the players is power. Levels, magic, special abilities, divine favor, and other sources of individual strength are what matters. The personality of the typical character is that of the player, decked out with labels such as "class" and "alignment."

A typical exchange in some games of this sort might sound like this:

"I'm gonna run my 20th level cleric with the +5 plage and shield, the Sceptre of the Demon Kings, the Ring of Arkyn, and the Spell Turning Ring."*
"OK, what's his name?"*
"Uh, name? Er, call him Jocko."*
"Got it! What's he a cleric of?"*
"Huh? Oh, I never thought of that. But he's lawful/good."

It's usually the amount of power available that determines the outcome of battles, and an inadequate supply of it can be disastrous. Given this and the way games of this sort operate, then an abundance of magic is only to be expected. Power gaming causes much competition among the players, "winning" being possible by the accumulation of magic and other means of power. In some cases this has led to inter-character treachery, murder, and theft over ownership of especially good magic, or even to prevent another character from overshadowing one's own.

II. ROLE-PLAYING

Within the pure role-playing campaign, the most important element is the player character and his or her life. The personalities of the characters are worked out in loving detail, and favorite characters tend to have great emotional investments made in them. Their owners do not hold the lives of these beings to be cheap. Characters tend to act within the personalities accorded to them and by the beliefs they're supposed to hold, and the players speak in persona. An example of this might be:

The party discussed the possibility that the young nobleman they were searching for was held prisoner in the castle ahead. Cunnerith and Hippoclates the Sot are the most vocal, but the clever young elf-maid Violet and quiet Aris the Mariner have their own points to make. Much more seldom, dour and vinegary Waldo the Silent makes a brief but incisive comment. And, inevitably, there is a constant stream of chatter from Naomi. Not that anyone ever pays any attention to that thimblewit.
The last was almost a fatal mistake. For as the party entered the great hall the next day, Naomi looked around confusedly and asked (one of the party, fortunately), "Where's the man we're supposed to rescue?"
Well, nobody ever said she had any brains!
"Shut up, Naomi!" came the chorus.

In a game of this sort, the world is just a stage on which the characters live out their lives, with the spotlight directed at them. They suffer, they triumph, they have their loves, hates, and sorrows; and in some way they are as alive as the players who created them.

As might be expected, the above tends to influence the structure of the game. Given the emotional attachment of the player to his characters, a high casualty rate is downright counter-productive. The players will withdraw the precious "lives" from the game to a place of safety. As a result, the GM tends to exercise a considerable amount of discretion with regard to the player characters, utilizing methods such as "soft-keying" (willingness to adjus the opposition's strength after the fighting has started so that the party won't be overmatched) and subtly trying to warn off the expedition if they're approaching something that they can't handle.

It should be noted that this is a particularly cooperative form of FRP gaming. Inter-player rivalry -- except as demanded by characterization -- tends to be relatively rare. The GM usually helps things along by providing the players chances to interact with the universe and each other.

III. WARGAMING

Here one might say that the emphasis is almost the reverse of the role-playing oriented game. The most important facets of this type of game are the tactical abilities of the players and GM, and the mechanics of play. There is a strong tendency towards a relatively low level of magic here, both in quantity and quality, since it is upsetting the GM to have a tactically brilliant setup destroyed when a character pulls out a gadget.

Wargaming FRP is a competition between the players (as a group) and the GM in which they match wits and skills. He sets up tactical problems which they have to solve for their experience and treasure. Knowhow is all-important, and detailed knowledge of rules a vast help. Since there is a fine edge of danger in the game, developing a character's personality may result in it doing things dysfunctional to survival. Hence the role-playing aspect of the "pure" wargaming approach is often minimal.

It should be obvious that in a game dominated by this way of thinkng, soft-keying is an extremely dubious practice. The ethic demands that the players survive by their wits, with bad play being rewarded by death. For the GM to arbitrarily reduce the opposition in order to save the party would be as much cheating as adding monsters to raise the death rate would.

Unlike role-playing based games, killing player characters is an integral and logical part of the game; in fact, many Gms of this school set themselves a desired kill ratio and try to meet it. While this fosters a competitive approach between the GM and players, it usually tends to reduce inter-character fighting. The world is foe enough...

IV. STORY TELLING

In the most general sense of the term, any successful FRP game requires some story telling ability. There are few players who will abide a GM who is so inept that they can't figure out what's going on most of the time, or whose tale limps so badly that suspension of disbelief is impossible.

However, the term as used here means something beyond this basic approach.

All of the game types mentioned above have background of some sort. The GM may be content with the basic gilded hole with attached false front town, or he might indulge in the splendid pageantry of empire, complete with ruling dynasty, elaborate history, and detailed geography. Regardless of the extent of the universe, however, in most games it's just stage setting. Unless the players characters walk into a scene, the non-player characters there remain frozen and inactive, just stringless puppets.

In a story telling world, the non-player characters are alive offstage. History is a continuing and developing process, with the actions of both player and non-player characters affecting the course of events. Moreover, the GM has usually a very good idea of how the general trend of events is going. Also, of how the actions of the adventurers can affect things.

Now, the pure form of the story telling game is rare, and every campaign emphasizing it is unique. The details of what's going on depend entirely on what story the GM is telling. A role-player encountering such a game for the first time will usually find it a trifle odd, for unlike the heavily role-playing game, the player characters are not on the center of the stage, not the element about which events revolve. The player characters can only act within the tale, and their freedom is somewhat limited...

The friends sang merrily, toasting their luck in fine Golidene wine in the public room of the Red Wolf Inn.

"By the White Christ!" hiccuped Rhodri, "Tomorrow we head for the Alarghi Hills and enough gold to make us rich for the rest of our lives!"

The other fighter, a pretty lass named Susanna, and the half-drunk mage Gondor, both nodded happily, aglow with anticipation.

Gondor looked up at the sound of footsteps. "Sergeant Orse! Sit down and have a drink! We're leaving tomorrow. Gonna get rich!"

The sergeant grinned, poured himself a glass of wine, and let the sparkling vintage wash the dust from his parched throat. Then he smiled benevolently at the group, "Oh no, you're not."

"Huh?!" chorused the group, "Why not???"

"Because," said the sergeant, cheerfully sipping away at his glass, "the Hadurnei just broke out in rebellion, and you're all drafted into the militia for the duration."

The amount of freedom can vary enormously. In some games of this kind, there is a distinct impression that the GM has already determined the entire future of the universe, and that the player characters are just improvising the script. In more free-form versions of this game type, the flow of the story and the form of the script are decided by interactions between the GM's general outline of events and the actions of individuals within the campaign.

Much of the attraction of this kind of world comes from the fact that there is a story being told in which one's character is participating. The world has a purpose, a reason for being, independent of what the adventurers do. Living in such a world is not a little like being a character within a novel. It does require a constant effort on the part of its creator to make the universe -- whether it's a county or a continent -- rational and consistent. And as an FRP forum, it requires a cooperative group of players.

The statements above are, of course, generalizations. They are useful, however.

Most of the older games in existence long ago passed beyond the simple forms described above. Wargamers have learned how to role-play, role-players have learned to see the advantages of well-done rules, and there has been a growing drive across the hobby towards more reasonable and consistent worlds. But this does not mean that all adventure gamers have common attitudes. The mind sets generated by the original approaches still live on, and even among the most sophisticated players and GMs can produce raging disputes, mostly through lack of understanding about the assumptions that the other side is operating under.

Consider the cases that might occur at an ordinary convention...

Ben Jones has been running a successful dungeon for years. He's a role-playing GM from the word go, and has been working smoothly with a group of similar-minded players for almost as long. He was asked to prepare a special scenario for the con and run three groups through it, one per day. Ben really gets into the spirit of the thing and produces an adventure to remember. There's a castle wiht suitably gruesome garrison, some interesting magic, and an exciting random encounter. After a moment's thought, he also provides for a meeting with one of his most fascinating non-player characters, Arilla of the Silver Lake. Arilla is a personality his regulars always enjoy meeting, visiting players consistently go out of their way to encounter. A great chance for some role-playing.

Unknown to Ben Jones, the three groups are unmixed collections of people brought up in the other three FRP traditions. The first party to experience the scenario is the people from a story telling world, the second is a batch of wargamers, and the last a collection of power gamers.

1) Ben sets up the first trip and begins. As an adventure it seems to go quite well. The players, however, instead of just appreciating and experiencing Arilla, keep asking a lot of irritating queries about the castle and its owner. A fuming Ben begins to wonder if they're trying to show him up. Why don't they just hurry up and get along with the scenario?

The run comes to an end with Ben somewhat annoyed about their taste for nitpicking detail. They depart convinced that he hasn't quite gotten his act together.

2) The wargamers run through next. They organize the expedition quickly and without any of the pre-game role-playing Ben dearly loves to hear. They march out to the castle, almost ignoring Lady Arilla. Once there, they spend 20 minutes setting up an assault plan. The actual assault may take even less time than the planning. It is also done with startling efficiency and an almost total lack of character (as opposed to player) interaction.

Ben watches them leave with the conviction that while they know their stuff, they're a dull and uninteresting lot.

In the eyes of the wargamers, he's probably proved himself to be incompetant. The trouble that they had with his monsters would almost certainly seem minor ("Why, I've had more trouble with a room full of Kevin's kobolds"), and the rewards disproportionately great.

3) The last expedition is the one that really sours Ben. Looking at the group with some caution, he insists on only accepting characters of the proper level, and refuses to allow some of the more extravagant items into the game. The expedition starts in the midst of much discussion about who gets to go where in the marching order. ("Well, my paladin has 18 strength, 78 hits, and a Vorpal Sword!" "Yeah, but my fighter has a Belt of Storm Giant Strength, a Rod of Lordly Might, and +5 armor.")

Once again the party encounters Arilla of the Silver Lake. This time, there's no conversation at all. The player characters eye the magical crown, the cool looking belt, and powerful staff -- and kill her! Poor Ben sits there in a state of shock while the adventurers commit atrocities on her followers, destroy the bodies, and divide the loot among them. When they finish and look expectantly at him, he grinds his teeth in rage and begins handing out appropriate punishments for their crimes. The paladin is stripped of his paladinhood, alignments are changed, and various weapons argue at great length with their (former) owners.

By the time the expedition reaches the castle, there is no small amount of ill-will in the air. A still furious Ben attempts to avenge Arilla, whle the players buckle down with grim determination to show him up. Given the power of the players characters on the expedition, they win. The GM watches them leave, growling about "over-equipped turkeys" under his breath. The players in turn consider him to be a poor loser and a sorehead.

Variations of the theme could be endlessly devised, but the basics are visible above. To the role-player, the wargaming GM is the master of a "killer dungeon"; to the GM concerned, characters are just "dice," and there are plenty more where the player characters he just killed came from. Power gamers find other games dull restrictive, and comparatively unrewarding. Players inured to a wargaming approach tend to impeach the skills of GMs and players of other game types, and are apt to mutter the words "Monty Hall" more often than is likely to earn them good will.

All of the above cases derive from mutual inability to perceive differences in game philosophy. Ben Jones, contrary to the assumptions of the three groups of players, has his act together, is quite competent, and was not being a sorehead. He is not really trying to write an epic, he was not interested in killing the characters of the second group, and his outrage at the killing of the non-player character was justified. What he was offering was a chance to role-play.

Conversely, none of the three groups were trying to be difficult. The first group was looking for something important to them that wasn't there. The wargamers were looking for a tactical challenge. And the last group was interested in having fun, according to their own perceptions of it. To them, Arilla was not an important and interesting person, but a wandering monster. And what else are wandering monsters for, if not to kill and loot?

Sadly enough, one of the biggest gulfs between groups is increasingly one that coincides with age. Overwhelmingly the newcomers to the hobby are high school age or younger. By their very numbers, it becomes almost certain that they will begin their FRP careers in new games. And, as has been said, most campaigns start out emphasizing the power gaming aspect of the craft. It is obvious that the older games contain older players. Most of these campaigns went beyond power gaming long ago, and the people running in them have increasingly associated power gaming with the youth of its most numerous proponents -- and labeled them both "childish." This statement is both false and extremely harmful. It's true that power gaming is the most basic of the approaches, but this doesn't make it childish. There are older players aplenty, even in more developed games, who operate on exactly the same principle. The statement is harmful because while statistically true, it's conceptually false. Younger players do indeed largely play in power gaming campaigns. But they don't do so "because they're young," they do so because they're new to the hobby.

I'd say that there are enough substantial questions in the field of adventure gaming to keep us arguing for decades. I can't see any reason to add to the unpleasantness by dragging in irrelevant question of age.

Hopefully, this article will help reduce the amount of heat in some of the arguments about FRP. An argument in which neither side realizes the vast gaps in the fundamental assumptions that underlie what they're discussing is an argument apt to result in nothing more productive than angry name calling. If the aggrieved player can understand that the death of a beloved character is an integral part of the campaign he's in, then he may appreciate that the GM is not evil; if another finds the rewards too easily come by, he may realize that the GM is using a different set of parameters for the game and refrain from uttering the word "turkey." Then we can get down to really important matters, such as what people want in a game, and how to achieve it in practice. It's important to remember, however, that we do not all want the same thing.

So, when you're at a con getting ready to run your own patented, super-duper, error-free, guaranteed-to-promote-role-playing, tactically flawless, polished to the last degree, builds-strong-bodies-eight-ways game -- and up strolls this eager adolescent who wants to run his 100th level druid/illusionist/samurai -- don't scream at him. Young he is. Ignorant of everything you think is important about FRP he may be. This does not mean that he's either stupid or incompetant. Give him a chance.

Just remember that you aren't going to convince him that your way is superior by insulting him. Nor will killing off his character, or cleverly finding a way to strip it of its magic, or ignoring him during the run. While I've seen all of the above used, in no case have they caused a conversion. Instead, you might try explaining things to him, or better yet showing him how Your Way is better...

(Yes I read it back then, but I never saw the game "Space Quest")

Cluedrew
2017-08-06, 06:01 PM
To 2D8HP: Similar ideas, they divided up the optimization/character creation from the tactical play after the fact. Or maybe the important divide is the power level and chance of survival. If I split it up more, I don't think I would divide it up on either of those lines. Although having reflected a bit on it, Adventure Game does encompass a couple more ideas than the other two. Maybe I should split it.

Maybe I will do Adventure Game and War Game. War Game gets most of the player skill items, such as tactical play and optimization. Adventure Game then becomes more about discover and exploration. I'm not actually sure if it is an essential part of the experience. It almost certainly isn't if you count only exploration of physical space. By if we pull in other types of discovery it works, but that might be stretching the definition too far to be useful. There is some skill there as well you react to the things you discover as well, its a bit different from the war game skill as it is more improvisational.

That's what I got so far, so I might make it the four games in RPGs.

daniel_ream
2017-08-06, 08:05 PM
Maybe I will do Adventure Game and War Game.

I wouldn't use the term "war game". It implies kinship with the miniatures wargaming roots of the hobby, but there are a great many things which are clearly, recognizably RPGs but have no wargaming elements - but can still be "gamed" in terms of choice optimization in pursuit of a defined goal.

Case in point: the Smallville RPG has no combat system (or at least, no combat system distinct from the general conflict mechanic). Yet it is entirely possible to optimize your choices as a player to increase your various stats and attributes to increase your chances of "winning" conflicts.

Cluedrew
2017-08-06, 08:43 PM
Well yes, but the issue is I don't have a better name yet. If I think of one I'll switch to it. Anyone have any other ideas?

ChaiGuy
2017-08-06, 09:41 PM
So, I have been slowly turning over many thoughts about role-playing games and I have had another one recently. It grew out of what would a "pure" role-playing game would be. As I thought about it I realized different features one could focus on and I eventually came up with three basic parts that you can find in most role-playing systems.

Role-Playing Game:
What? Role-playing game is part of role-playing games? Well this is the one the end result was named after. But the basis of role-playing is making decisions as a character instead of as your self. Which is not to say that is all most role-playing games are just this, I mean if it was literally just this it would be more a simulation of someone's mind than a game.

Still it provides a base for the other sections. Characters are almost always the main point of interaction for most players (as in, all except the GM) and easily fit into roles in the following types of games as well (narrative characters and game pieces).

Storytelling Game:
Point of clarification, having a story told to you, even during a game, does not make it a role-playing game. Playing the game should be telling a story. If you want to start at the story telling side, than adding limits and unpredictability might be enough, and this is done through rules, dice and other players. Starting on the game side adding some narrative weight to the actions should be enough. So "rook takes bishop" at best qualifies by technicality, but really I'm talking about "Joan the Knight defeats the serpent threatening the port town".

This seems to be the most fun part to look back on, doesn't always have to be. I have had some great moments of improv. that I would never bother to put in a campaign journal because it was the live active discovery that made them good.

A funny note is that a lot of "meta-gaming" actually isn't from this perspective. If the goal is to tell a good story than using out of character information to make them coincidentally do the thing that leads to a more interesting story is entirely within the game itself. It can be taken too far of course.

Adventure Game:
The skill based overcoming obstacles part of the game. Also includes the tactical war game part. Here the goal is to overcome challenges, instead of determining if a character would or it is more interesting if they do. Probably the most straight forward part, it is the part that exists in board games, war games and computer RPGs.

I do like your thoughts concerning a "pure" roleplaying game. I's surprised however that the 3 pillars of D&D 5th Edition have not been mentioned yet. In case you're unfamiliar with these three pillars they are: Exploration, Social Interaction and combat.

Generally I would say that even though role playing is central to roleplaying games, I don't see it as a stand alone pillar. As you have pointed out it is a basis for all parts of the TTRPG experience and is distinct to these games, that distinguishes them from other games. Concerning storytelling I have had several games made more fun for me and the players when I incorporated PC motivation and backstory into the events happening in the story on the fly. I generally feel the obstacles mentioned in the adventure section is best split between social interaction and combat, since they are both very different types of challenges that need different rules to bring those struggles to life, although for social interaction it could be said that no rules all role play is acceptable, some guidelines are appreciated IMO.

Exploration: This includes everything not related to combat or interacting with NPCs, rules for getting lost in the wilderness, navigating a labyrinth, a dense city, dangers of extreme weather, dehydration, traveling by sea, traversing the planes, ect... If handled correctly these can be as deadly as a combat encounter. From my personal experience this has been somewhat under developed in D&D/Pathfinder, but not entirely undeveloped. In higher levels of play, much of these challenges are bypassed by magic.

Social interaction: PCs interacting with NPCs where the "best" outcome cannot be achieved by combat. Negotiating a peace treaty between two good but opposed parties (is subjective, but if the two parties are both important to one of more of the PCs it could be a similar situation). Negotiating with a crafter, an important NPC for a payment for a service ect... I generally feel D&D could go a long way in improving this system, generally this is where role playing is expected to be the go to solution with skills as a backup.

Combat: Generally the most rule intensive part of an TTRPG, which D&D is generally fairly good at (although class balance is often a considered less than ideal). In general RPGs struggle to find a sweet spot in combat speed (the length of fights being too long), tactical options to keep combat interesting, and the right amount of flexibility to guidelines that keeps the action from spiraling into unmanageable chaos. TTRPGs have an advantage in that since a person is running the game they are a much more flexible than most other games, but this also causes them to be more inconsistent in the quality of any specific game you play in, than say video game RPGs where there is generally hard rules and thus more predictable in quality (the fun you have is largely dependent on if you like the style of the GM, perhaps equally as important as the game itself).