Hey all!

I'm new here - coming over from rpg.net - of course often the first thing one does before registering/posting in a new forum is to spend a bit of time scouting out the place, getting a first impression of the culture and whatnot.

So - it appears that there is a Thing with regards to the whole "storytelling" vs "roleplaying" games here.

I hesitate to say something along the lines of "I come in peace" or "I am not trolling" - because that's the first thing any troll is going to say, right?  Anyhow, please regard this post a pure curiousity regarding your perspective.

So, as far as I've been able to make out, at least one significant reason for putting "story-games" into the big bucket of 'other games' (card games, dice games, video games, board games... and.... storygame rpgs) is that a major differentiator  in your opinion seems to be one of 'immersion'.  By all means, please correct me if I'm way off.

I come from a background of "traditional rpgs" and I've always had two major preferences:

#1:  historically, I've always had huge bias for 'simulationist'/'physics-based' mechanics/rules engines.

#2: historically, and currently, I've always had huge bias for 3rd-person perspective when describing my character's actions.


Now, I know that it is entirely possible to play traditional simulationist rpg's in 3rd-person perspective, and that by doing so, the game doesn't suddenly somehow become a "story-game". I say that I know this, because that has been my experience.

Looking at some of the debates here surrounding the whole "storygame" vs. "roleplaying game" categorization, it seems that a major element of "storygames" is that they entail a level of Out of Character perspective.  

3rd-person descriptions similarly entail a level of Out of Character perspective.

Thus would you say that a table of people playing AD&D 1st edition or Twilight 2000 entirely in 3rd-person, have crossed a line into "storygame" territory?

Or is this nuance of 3rd-person RP vs. 1st-person RP not really relevant in any real significant way to the nuance of "story-gaming" vs. "roleplay gaming"?


Cheers, and thanks!

Not really relevant, IMO. Then again, the whole "war" between story games and trad games is not really relevant to me, so take this with a grain of salt.

-clash

Quote from: double8infinity8;715248So - it appears that there is a Thing with regards to the whole "storytelling" vs "roleplaying" games here.

VERY simple.  A STORY is something that is already done.  Or, majorly done and some blanks need to be filled in.  As one can role play while following a script, that isn't the differentiator.

Traditionally, P&P RPG's have NOT been about telling stories but about RPing a character while interacting with a make believe environment.  NOT, telling a pre made story.

Quote from: flyingmice;715252Not really relevant, IMO. Then again, the whole "war" between story games and trad games is not really relevant to me, so take this with a grain of salt.

-clash

Thanks Clash - I'm trying to understand the "war" a little better, and I'd like to participate on this site. However, because I very much appreciate and enjoy _both_ "story rpgs" and "traditional rpgs" (so long as I'm "in" 3rd-person while playing) - and I see how for some reason "story games" are thrown in with _card_ and _video_ games - I'm worried that I'd somehow one day inadvertently set off the rath of some of the existing members here were I to miscategorize a game, or post in the 'wrong' forum, or something.

Reading through the DW thread, for example... I now know that I have to watch my language lest I set off Triggers.   I knew that I had to use the phrase "describing my character's actions" rather than "narrating my character's actions", for instance.

So I'm wondering just how deep the rabbit hole goes, especially after seeing some posts regarding the importance of "immersion" and whatnot. I'm trying to get an idea about where the landmines are most densely located so that I can be sure to avoid them. ( rpg.net has me irritated with their moderation practices, so I'm seeking alternatives )


Cheers

Quote from: Arduin;715257VERY simple.  A STORY is something that is already done.  Or, majorly done and some blanks need to be filled in.  As one can role play while following a script, that isn't the differentiator.

Traditionally, P&P RPG's have NOT been about telling stories but about RPing a character while interacting with a make believe environment.  NOT, telling a pre made story.

I've played in a few Call of Cthulhu games where the GM definitely had a pre-made story that he was telling, like sort of a "interactive video game" sequence sort of thing. I've participated in other older games by other GM's which took the same basic approach. I didn't like those games. (EDIT: by 'games', I meant those specific sessions - not the rpg itself... I love CoC, and have had more than a few great games)

I'm participating in a Torchbearer game right now in a PbP, and there is no pre-planned story being told; me and the other two players are interacting with a make-believe environment that the GM is describing to us as we go.

I'm also participating in a face-to-face Pathfinder campaign, using one of the published modules.  I'm pretty much the only one who narrates/describes in 3rd-person, which is difficult when everyone else is in 1st-person, including the GM's NPC's - so I find that I start to go 1st-person because that's the flow at the table, but it runs contrary to how I prefer to play.

Quote from: double8infinity8;715261Thanks Clash - I'm trying to understand the "war" a little better, and I'd like to participate on this site. However, because I very much appreciate and enjoy _both_ "story rpgs" and "traditional rpgs" (so long as I'm "in" 3rd-person while playing) - and I see how for some reason "story games" are thrown in with _card_ and _video_ games - I'm worried that I'd somehow one day inadvertently set off the rath of some of the existing members here were I to miscategorize a game, or post in the 'wrong' forum, or something.

Reading through the DW thread, for example... I now know that I have to watch my language lest I set off Triggers.   I knew that I had to use the phrase "describing my character's actions" rather than "narrating my character's actions", for instance.

So I'm wondering just how deep the rabbit hole goes, especially after seeing some posts regarding the importance of "immersion" and whatnot. I'm trying to get an idea about where the landmines are most densely located so that I can be sure to avoid them. ( rpg.net has me irritated with their moderation practices, so I'm seeking alternatives )


Cheers

Forget about avoiding landmines! They are there to be stepped on.

Luckily, you won't be banished for stepping on one. You'll just get an earfull from some guys who take that as their sacred duty. Grow a thick skin and shrug it off, or yell back. No one cares.

As for third person play, I have been playing since 1977, and I heard third person play more often than first person play in the beginning. That didn't change 'til well into the eighties. Hell, in the beginning, many DMs didn't bother with character names. You were Wizard or Elf or Dwarf or Fighter, and some used a "caller" who did all the talking for you.

So, don't worry about the third person thing at all, and only worry about landmines if you can't stand being yelled at. ;P

-clash

I am speaking about my actions as my character in the first person, and I encourage players at my game table to do the same. I find it conducive of the immersion into the game world I am looking for, and I prefer it when everyone's on the same page regarding these sorts of things.

That said, just as you can speak in the first person and immerse in the game world as your character, I believe you can speak in the third person and immerse in the game world as well, so I don't think of speaking in the first or third person out loud as an indicator, in and of itself, directly connected to the "playing the world" versus "building a story" divide.

Quote from: double8infinity8;715263I'm also participating in a face-to-face Pathfinder campaign, using one of the published modules.  I'm pretty much the only one who narrates/describes in 3rd-person, which is difficult when everyone else is in 1st-person, including the GM's NPC's - so I find that I start to go 1st-person because that's the flow at the table, but it runs contrary to how I prefer to play.

Well, role playing is by definition more of a 1st person activity.   Doing it 3rd person is not the norm but not rare either.  It isn't the defining point between Story Telling / P&P RPG play.

Cool - well I do appreciate a place where folks self-moderate or at least have reasonably thick skins. So cheers to that. (:

Reading Arduin's and Benoist's posts, I'm currently left with the following in my mind:

* 1st-person vs. 3rd-person isn't so much a significant qualifier in the "storygame" vs. "roleplaying game" divide, however, "playing the world" versus "building a story" is  relatively significant?

I believe I saw some mention of that in some of these other larger threads here on the subject, but I admit: personally, I'm currently finding the distinction of "playing the world" vs. "building/telling a story" somewhat fuzzy.

Storygaming is just one type of 3rd-person gaming.  There might be many reasons why one is making decisions "out of character".  Story is only one.  Tactical game decisions might be another.  Social aspects might be a third (helping your RL friend even though your characters hardly know each other).  Genre awareness is a fourth.  There's lots.

Quote from: double8infinity8;715275* 1st-person vs. 3rd-person isn't so much a significant qualifier in the "storygame" vs. "roleplaying game" divide, however, "playing the world" versus "building a story" is  relatively significant?

If you describe what you are doing during the day, are you building a story?  No, you are simply describing what you are doing while doing it. (P&P RPG game)  

What happens to you MAY, at a later time, be told as a story.  You may even publish it and assign people to play various roles in that story (with wiggle room to act in various ways) and thus, play a Story Telling game.

Doesn't get much simpler than that.  

The type of game is largely if not completely determined by the objectives of play.

Question 1: What (beyond having fun) is the object of playing the game?

Is it to explore a fictional setting roleplaying an inhabitant of that setting?

Is it to create shared fiction with the other participants?

That, beyond the minutae of mechanics, is where the answer lies. Some mechanics or elements of play will push the game harder in one direction or the other. Many disagree on the precise tipping point.

A straight up honest answer to question 1 usually settles the issue.

As a preference, I generally prefer a 1st person approach while both playing and while portraying an npc when running the game. Attempts at acting or doing accents/voices are purely optional and I don't see such things as a requirement to roleplay.

Another angle, I'm not quite sure how to explain it - so forgive my clumsy attempt:

I think that when it comes down to it... that I just tend to not like roleplaying in the technical definition of the term vs. "roleplaying" as the term generally applies to our hobby (as I understand it at least).

To me "roleplaying" games very much have always consisted in people telling a story through the actions of characters in a fictitious world; and that some people  prefer to do that storytelling "in character" (1st-person), and some people prefer to do that storytelling "out of character" (3rd-person).

For instance: I absolutely suck at acting... thus I suck at 'roleplaying' as per the technical (non-game) definition of the term.  I suck at acting so much, that I don't even like doing it.  But I do like using a set of rules by which to have characters progress their skills, and achieve or fail at goals, and to end up with cool stories one way or another. But acting out a part? Hell no, I just don't do that very well.  But yet I've played all kinds of great campaigns and sessions: CoC, Talislanta, MERP, *D&D, some Rifts, etc.

For instance, I cringe a little whenever I read the "what's an rpg" portion of some games, where the commentary talks about "you" being someone other than yourself.  I don't want to be someone else while I play, I want to be me, who happens to be using a Character much like a playing-piece in a boardgame.

Hope that makes some sort of sense.

Quote from: double8infinity8;715284To me "roleplaying" games very much have always consisted in people telling a story through the actions of characters in a fictitious world;

 "Storytelling" is a very recent phenomenon in the RPG genre.  Unheard of really until recently.  (see examples of play in ALL D&D PHB's & DMG's since the beginning of time to see that it isn't "storytelling")

Quote from: double8infinity8;715284Another angle, I'm not quite sure how to explain it - so forgive my clumsy attempt:

I think that when it comes down to it... that I just tend to not like roleplaying in the technical definition of the term vs. "roleplaying" as the term generally applies to our hobby (as I understand it at least).

To me "roleplaying" games very much have always consisted in people telling a story through the actions of characters in a fictitious world; and that some people  prefer to do that storytelling "in character" (1st-person), and some people prefer to do that storytelling "out of character" (3rd-person).

For instance: I absolutely suck at acting... thus I suck at 'roleplaying' as per the technical (non-game) definition of the term.  I suck at acting so much, that I don't even like doing it.  But I do like using a set of rules by which to have characters progress their skills, and achieve or fail at goals, and to end up with cool stories one way or another. But acting out a part? Hell no, I just don't do that very well.  But yet I've played all kinds of great campaigns and sessions: CoC, Talislanta, MERP, *D&D, some Rifts, etc.

For instance, I cringe a little whenever I read the "what's an rpg" portion of some games, where the commentary talks about "you" being someone other than yourself.  I don't want to be someone else while I play, I want to be me, who happens to be using a Character much like a playing-piece in a boardgame.

Hope that makes some sort of sense.

It makes perfect sense.  I think there are a lot of people who have always played that way, and for them, that is roleplaying.  Since, for you, roleplaying has always meant a third-person, out of character, almost authorial view of things, then the difference between a traditional rpg and a narrative one probably means very little to you, because every rpg you play, you play in a narrative way.

You never immerse in the character per se, but in what's happening to the character, as you call it, the "story".  It's like watching a movie, where you decide what Han Solo does, but you're not Han Solo.

A traditional RPG, that can support multiple playstyles can easily handle a first-person perspective or a third-person perspective.  The issue that mainly comes up here is when a new-style game that to some degree forces a third-person perspective thus makes it impossible to stay in first-person perspective and then gets caught in the crossfire between the different sides of "what is roleplaying" debate.