Quote from: CRKrueger;456276Where is the line?

Well first, it's not a line, it's more of a zone, with some clearly on one side or the other and some to different degrees in the middle.

If the mechanics of the game function primarily as a "physics engine" to determine the outcome of character actions, and the primary mode of play is to pretend you are a character in a fictional world, it's a roleplaying game.

If the mechanics of the game include metagame elements to define things in terms of story, theme, plot, and deal with concepts such as narrative control, which requires characters to spend time playing the metagame as well as the actual role-playing, it's a storygame.

Nice summation.

Quote from: CRKrueger;456276Where is the line?

Well first, it's not a line, it's more of a zone, with some clearly on one side or the other and some to different degrees in the middle.

If the mechanics of the game function primarily as a "physics engine" to determine the outcome of character actions, and the primary mode of play is to pretend you are a character in a fictional world, it's a roleplaying game.

If the mechanics of the game include metagame elements to define things in terms of story, theme, plot, and deal with concepts such as narrative control, which requires characters to spend time playing the metagame as well as the actual role-playing, it's a storygame.

Ditto.

Here's the current state of my evolving thoughts on the subject:

(1) Roleplaying games are defined by mechanics which are associated to the game world. Playing a role is about making choices as if you were the character. In order for a game to be a roleplaying game (and not just a game where you happen to play a role), the mechanics of the game have to be about making and resolving choices you make as if you were the character. If the mechanics of the game require you to make choices which aren't associated to the choices made by the character, then the mechanics of the game aren't about roleplaying and it's not a roleplaying game.

This still leaves some corner cases, mostly in the arena of wargames. For example, Monopoly is clearly not an RPG about bankers (the decision to buy a property might be lightly associated, but pretty much nothing else in the game is). But are the mechanics of Risk sufficiently associated enough to count as "roleplaying a commander-in-chief"? "Moving your armies" and "choosing which area/country to invade" are highly abstracted in the game, but they're still pretty directly associated.

So we might add something about mechanically defining the characteristics of a role and allowing those characteristics to affect the resolution of action to our definition in order to eliminate games like Risk and RoboRally.

This still leaves some fuzziness. For example, where's the dividing line between a Warhammer miniature game and playing multiple characters simultaneously in a D&D game?

(2) Storytelling games are defined by narrative control mechanics. The mechanics of the game are either about determining who controls a particular chunk of the narrative or they're actually about determining the outcome of a particular narrative chunk.

Storytelling games may be built around players have characters they're proponents of, but the mechanical focus of the game is not on the choices made as if they were those characters, but on controlling the narrative.

Wushu offers a pretty clear-cut example. The game has basically one mechanic: By describing a scene or action, you earn dice. If your dice pool gets more successes than everyone else's dice pools, you control the narrative conclusion of the round.

Everyone in Wushu is playing a character. That character is the favored vehicle which they can use to deliver their descriptions, and that character's traits will even influence what types of descriptions are mechanically superior for you to use. But notably the mechanics of the game are completely dissociated from the act of roleplaying the character. Vivid and interesting characters are certainly encouraged, but the act of making choices as if you were the character -- the act of actually roleplaying -- has absolutely nothing to do with the rules whatsoever.

That's why Wushu is a storytelling game, not a roleplaying game.

(3) More controversially, consider Dread. The gameplay here looks a lot like a roleplaying game: All the players are roleplaying individual characters. There's a GM controlling/presenting the game world. When players have their characters attempt actions, there's even a resolution mechanic: Pull a Jenga block. If the tower doesn't collapse, the action succeeds. If the tower does collapse, the character is eliminated from the story.

But I'd argue that Dread isn't a roleplaying game: The mechanic may be triggered by characters taking action, but the actual mechanic isn't associated to the game world. The mechanic is entirely about controlling the pace of the narrative and participation in the narrative.

I'd even argue that Dread wouldn't be a roleplaying game even if you introduced a character sheet with hard-coded skills that determine how many blocks you pull depending on the action being attempted and your character's relevant skill. Why? Because the resolution mechanic is still dissociated and its still focused on narrative control. The fact that the characters have different characteristics in terms of their ability to be used to control that narrative is as significant as the differences between a rook and a bishop in a game of Chess.

Another way to look at this is to strip everything back to freeform roleplaying: Just people sitting around, pretending to be characters. This isn't a roleplaying game because there's no game -- it's just roleplaying.

Now add mechanics: If the mechanics are designed in such a way that the mechanical choices you're making are directly associated with the choices your character is making, then it's probably a roleplaying game. If the mechanics are designed in such a way that the mechanical choices you're making are directly associated to making choices about the narrative, then it's probably a storytelling game.

(4) This gets fuzzy for two reasons.

First, few games are actually that rigid in their focus. For example, if I add an action point mechanic to a roleplaying game it doesn't suddenly cease to be a roleplaying game just because there are now some mechanical choices being made by players which aren't associated to character decisions.

Second, characters actually are narrative elements. This means that you can see a lot of narrative control mechanics which either act through, are influenced by, or act upon characters who may also be strongly associated with or exclusively associated with a particular player.

When you combine these two factors, you end up with a third: Because characters are narrative elements, players who prefer storytelling games tend to have a much higher tolerance for roleplaying mechanics in their storytelling games. Why? Because roleplaying mechanics allow you to control characters, characters are narrative elements, and, therefore, roleplaying mechanics can be enjoyed as just a very specific variety of narrative control.

OTOH, people are primarily interested in roleplaying games because they want to roleplay a character tend to have a much lower tolerance for narrative control mechanics in their roleplaying games. Why? Because when you're using a dissociated mechanic you aren't roleplaying (i.e., you are not making choices as if you were your character; you're making a completely different sort of choice). At best, dissociated mechanics are a distraction from what the roleplayer wants. At worst, the dissociated mechanics can actually interfere and disrupt what the roleplayer wants (when, for example, the dissociated mechanics begin affecting the behavior or actions of their character).

Which is why many aficionados of storytelling games don't understand why other people don't consider their games roleplaying games. Because even traditional roleplaying games at least partially satisfy their interests in narrative control, they don't see the dividing line.

Explaining this is made more difficult because the dividing line is, in fact, fuzzy in multiple dimensions. Plus there's plenty of historical confusion going the other way. (For example, the "Storyteller System" is, in fact, just a roleplaying game with no narrative control mechanics whatsoever.)

Personally, I enjoy both sorts of games: Chocolate (roleplaying), vanilla (storytelling), and swirled mixtures of both. But, with that being said, there are times when I just want some nice chocolate ice cream; and when I do, I generally don't want heavily dissociated mechanics screwing up my fun.

If I was pissing anywhere, it'd be on the storygames themselves.

RPGPundit

Quote from: JustinHere's the current state of my evolving thoughts on the subject:
*snip*

+1

Really good analysis.  That makes a lot of sense and gels pretty well with my own experiences.

Quote from: RPGPundit;456373If I was pissing anywhere, it'd be on the storygames themselves.

RPGPundit

What's funny about this is that you think they care.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;456350Here's the current state of my evolving thoughts on the subject:

Don't know if you're aware, but your post made it on grognards.txt, Justin.

I only dabbled in 4chan when I was in college, so I'm complete oblivious to SA.  What is the relevance of grognards.txt?  A collective of "grognardy" content and quotes?

If so, I don't get why it was posted there.  I'm a borderline hippy gamer with enough indie games I'm my shelf to make the Pundit's pipe explode, and I don't see a problem with Justin's post.  Hell, most grognards I know would never call PCs a "narrative element."

Quote from: Peregrin;456395I only dabbled in 4chan when I was in college, so I'm complete oblivious to SA.  What is the relevance of grognards.txt?  A collective of "grognardy" content and quotes?

If so, I don't get why it was posted there.  I'm a borderline hippy gamer with enough indie games I'm my shelf to make the Pundit's pipe explode, and I don't see a problem with Justin's post.  Hell, most grognards I know would never call PCs a "narrative element."

It's a place where people with terrible opinions on games get posted. Stuff like "you can only ropleplay when there are rules to let you roleplay".

Quote from: Peregrin;456395I only dabbled in 4chan when I was in college, so I'm complete oblivious to SA.  What is the relevance of grognards.txt?  A collective of "grognardy" content and quotes?

Posted by the kool kids and laughed about, basically, yes.

Quote from: Peregrin;456395If so, I don't get why it was posted there.

That's the thing. It doesn't have to make sense. If it's even tangentially different from the kool aid consensus, it's worthy of mockery for them, so it's going to make it there.

Collecting geeky quotes from obscure forums and posting them on other obscure forums makes you cooler than the original posters? Hmm.

It does when the quoted people have dumb opinions.

Quote from: Benoist;456400That's the thing. It doesn't have to make sense. If it's even tangentially different from the kool aid consensus, it's worthy of mockery for them, so it's going to make it there.

Wow. That's a cesspit I really didn't need to know existed. "Thanks", Ben.

I think my favorite part is someone reading a message which explicitly talks about roleplaying without any mechanics at all and somehow carries away the impression that the message is saying "you can only roleplay when there are rules that let you roleplay".

That takes a special kind of illiteracy.

Which, judging from a quick sampling from the rest of the cesspit, appears to be par for the course over there.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;456406Wow. That's a cesspit I really didn't need to know existed. "Thanks", Ben.

Sorry, I should have put some kind of warning. Didn't know if you were aware of what that was.

And... now they linked back to this thread. And Game Daddy's perusal of Heroes of the Fallen Lands and the Rules Compendium made it there, too. It's actually quite funny to follow. And well. Cirno (of ENWorld/Circvs Maximvs infamy) is posting there in all his "look at these nerdraging assholes" nerdrage brilliance, going on and on about it like it's normal or something, so that ought to tell you how nice the environment is.

It's not like it's a badge of honor or anything. Pretty much all of us made it on that thread sooner or later. It's just that it's funny as hell to see hipster douchebags dance like they've got the moral high ground by practicing "in-crowd" mockery away from the people they actually quote. The lame platitudes and back-handed, self-righteous, pseudo-wisdom of the posts keeps on giving. Lulz for the win.