Quote from: Exploderwizard;715282The 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?

This may be my primary point of contention.  From my perspective (I've been playing since about 1987 or so), roleplaying games - as I have experienced and understood them - have always been about both of those two objectives you listed above.  And even if the mechanics and/or commentary/advice lean more heavily on one or the other, that they are both inextricably interwined:

* When exploring a fictional setting roleplaying an inhabitant of that setting, the group will be creating shared fiction with the other participants.... and while creating shared fiction with the other participants, the group will be exploring a fictional setting roleplaying an inhabitant of that setting.

Quote from: double8infinity8;715284I 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).

Roleplaying is different from acting. You can completely be yourself while roleplaying. Have you ever participated in a fire drill exercise? If so then you were roleplaying yourself in the fictional situation of a fire emergency.

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; 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).

Roleplaying and storytelling are not the same activity. One can assume a role for a number of reasons, none of which need involve creating fiction or telling a story.

Quote from: double8infinity8;715284For 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.

Good news!!  There is no acting skill required in roleplaying. Just react to the imagined situation as if it were happening. Adopting a persona or mannerisms other than your own is optional to the core activity.
 

Quote from: double8infinity8;715284For 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.

You can always play yourself as character X. Many of us end up doing that to one degree or another anyhow. The only reason to adopt a different persona would be personal desire, in case you found it to be fun.

In any event, if you answer question 1 honestly then you know what type of game you are playing regardless of system. People used (and still use) regular rpgs to play shared narrative games. There didn't used to be many other options.

By the way - I'm appreciating this dialog, thanks for the time and effort; I know it's probably just another re-hash of what's happened time-and-time again here and on various other forums; but it's a new discussion for me!  (:  

I'm not at all interested in being "right", but I'm very interested in trying to better understand the mindset.  For instance, I like being able to say "here is why this camp thinks of things in this way, and why this other camp thinks of things in this other way" - but only if I can do so in a reasonably accurate way.


Cheers

Quote from: double8infinity8;715290* When exploring a fictional setting roleplaying an inhabitant of that setting, the group will be creating shared fiction with the other participants.... and while creating shared fiction with the other participants, the group will be exploring a fictional setting roleplaying an inhabitant of that setting.

This is why purpose of play is so important.

Exploring a fictional setting = there is no fiction, as far as your character is concerned. You are just living your life. There is no meta or narrative control to be exercised as there is no narrative. An inhabitant of a setting lives in it. He/she does not go about life for the purpose of creating fiction out of it any more than you do in your own everyday life.

Creating shared fiction= you are part of an ongoing story telling the tale from your character's perspective. The point of the game is to tell that story. As a collaborator, you will want some control over the fiction. Narrative mechanics provide this for you helping you tell the story you want to tell.

That is the difference.

Then I should bow out, as I'm not in any camp. I just wander where I find interesting people and things to talk about.

-clash

3rd person Roleplaying vs 1st Person Roleplaying has little effect on the Storygame vs RPG issue.

The main downfall of storygames is that they allow players do (and forced to consider) things that their characters can't. In a traditional tabletop RPG you are limited to what your character can do period.

It has no bearing whether you continually act out your character in 1st person or dispassionately describe the character actions as a third party.

Hi Exploderwizard, thanks for the input!  

However, with your post quoted below, I fear the subject might possibly drift to a slightly different area - unless I've merely misinterpreted the gist.

To try and point out what I'm talking about, I'll just present two bullet points:

* I am aware that not all games require/expect that each participant play a role other than themself. Outbreak: Undead, and TimeLords for instance, are examples of rpg's that even provide means of "playing yourself" as a Character. THis particular point I think is a technicality; I would rather train focus on the more prevelant and traditional style and expectation in which a Character is 'not-you' and wherein 'immersion' involves, amongst other things, describing one's Character's actions as though one were the Character, who has a different personality and perspective than oneself.

* With regards to roleplaying and story-telling as being separate activities - they certainly are in their none-game form... but I disagree that "traditional RPGs" and "storytelling RPGs" are separate activities in the same way that the standard definitions of roleplaying and story-telling are activities of a very different nature.  Kids roleplaying in a firedrill at school, and a teacher telling a story to kids in a class are certainly very different activities.  But I am having a very difficult time seeing how engagement in a "traditional" RPG and engagement in a "storytelling" RPG are categorically separate activities of an clear and obvious difference, aside from some fuzzy nuances in abstract conceptual approach.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;715293Roleplaying is different from acting. You can completely be yourself while roleplaying. Have you ever participated in a fire drill exercise? If so then you were roleplaying yourself in the fictional situation of a fire emergency.



Roleplaying and storytelling are not the same activity. One can assume a role for a number of reasons, none of which need involve creating fiction or telling a story.



Good news!!  There is no acting skill required in roleplaying. Just react to the imagined situation as if it were happening. Adopting a persona or mannerisms other than your own is optional to the core activity.
 


You can always play yourself as character X. Many of us end up doing that to one degree or another anyhow. The only reason to adopt a different persona would be personal desire, in case you found it to be fun.

In any event, if you answer question 1 honestly then you know what type of game you are playing regardless of system. People used (and still use) regular rpgs to play shared narrative games. There didn't used to be many other options.

Quote from: double8infinity8;715261I'm trying to get an idea about where the landmines are most densely located so that I can be sure to avoid them.

No, you aren't. You're trying your hardest to jump up and down on them.

Quote from: estar;7153033rd person Roleplaying vs 1st Person Roleplaying has little effect on the Storygame vs RPG issue.

The main downfall of storygames is that they allow players do (and forced to consider) things that their characters can't. In a traditional tabletop RPG you are limited to what your character can do period.

It has no bearing whether you continually act out your character in 1st person or dispassionately describe the character actions as a third party.

This makes more sense to me, as far as a means of a differentiator goes. I'm still stumped as to how this slight change of perspective makes "storygaming" (Burning Wheel, FATE(?), Dogs in the Vineyard) an entirely different activity than "traditional roleplaying" (D&D, Shadowrun, CoC, etc.).  Or why "storygames" are lumped in with card games, board games and video games here on this board. ( It would be different if "traditional" RPGs and "storygame" RPGs had their own forums, in addition to a third 'Other Games'; then that would make immediate sense to me )

( though, I do not dispassionately describe my character's actions unless the game is really sucking )

I would point out that you should take what Arduin says with a huge grain of salt. He keeps describing railroads (players playing a part in a premade story that they have little influence over) which is completely irrelevant to the storygame/rpg divide.

(Hell, some might say that storygames were an attempted counter to railroading GMs, and there is a good bit of evidence to that effect).

Disclaimer: This post is not for or against storygames or RPGs, just posting for terminology clarification.

Quote from: The Traveller;715306No, you aren't. You're trying your hardest to jump up and down on them.

Fuck you.  Are you suggesting that I jump up and down harder? Because apparently I haven't hit any landmines until you decided to tell me what I'm doing.

Your omniscience needs adjustment or fine-tuning or something, because it's way out of order.

Quote from: double8infinity8;715311Fuck you.  Are you suggesting that I jump up and down harder? Because apparently I haven't hit any landmines until you decided to tell me what I'm doing.

Your omniscience needs adjustment or fine-tuning or something, because it's way out of order.

Whatever, it's no skin off my nose. At least this thread will serve as a useful education for anyone who might actually be pondering these matters.

Carry on.

Quote from: flyingmice;715299Then I should bow out, as I'm not in any camp. I just wander where I find interesting people and things to talk about.

-clash

I'm in the "I like rpgs and their mechanics and conventions" camp.   (:

I'm also in the "Am I missing something?" camp, concerning the social divide in our hobby wrt "storygame" and "traditional" RPGs.  

Anyhow, sorry if my 'camps' reference chased you off; I didn't mean it that way.



Cheers

Quote from: double8infinity8;715307This makes more sense to me, as far as a means of a differentiator goes. I'm still stumped as to how this slight change of perspective makes "storygaming" (Burning Wheel, FATE(?), Dogs in the Vineyard) an entirely different activity than "traditional roleplaying" (D&D, Shadowrun, CoC, etc.).  Or why "storygames" are lumped in with card games, board games and video games here on this board. ( It would be different if "traditional" RPGs and "storygame" RPGs had there own forums, in addition to a third 'Other Games'; then that would make immediate sense to me )

( though, I do not dispassionately describe my character's actions unless the game is really sucking )

This site was set up to talk about Traditional, ie. not narrative RPGs or Storygames.  As a result, anything else is "Other".  Who decides? The site owner.  If it seems incorrect, you're free to argue or insult him as you see fit, unlike other sites.

BTW, this site frequently sees new users pop up with "innocent" questions, who really are here either trolling for quotes for Something Awful's grognards.txt or are trying to proselytize to the savages about the wonders of shared narration, or have some other agenda that soon becomes readily apparent.  

You want to talk story here, people are gonna question your motives and you're gonna take fire.  Hell, you talk about anything here, you might take fire.  If you can suck it up, not get offended and fire back if you feel like it, you'll fit right in.

Every few months we have a knockdown dragout on the topic anyway.

Quote from: double8infinity8;715304But I am having a very difficult time seeing how engagement in a "traditional" RPG and engagement in a "storytelling" RPG are categorically separate activities of an clear and obvious difference, aside from some fuzzy nuances in abstract conceptual approach.

In roleplaying you are limited to what your character can do.

In storytelling you can make anything up including new characters, new locations, new stuff at any time for any reason.

People bring the Amber RPG a lot which involves character creating entire new universes. But in Amber that is an ability of the character and as godlike Amber characters appear they still have limitations the players are bound by them.

In storygames the focus shifts to the PLAYERS collaboratively working together to create a story through various mechanics. This may involve a players playing a individual character. But it differs in that the PLAYER is considering and doing things in the game but outside of what the CHARACTER can do or consider within the setting.

This is is the essential difference between the two.

Also I will point out that there is no clear cut line in terms of mechanics alone. You have to look at what the focus is on to figure out whether it is a storygame or a traditional roleplaying. It is a similar thing to the difference between a wargame and traditional roleplaying.