What is a role-playing game?

[2D8HP]

.

.

Well I (just barely) played D&D in the 1970's (also Villains & Vigilantes, maybe even Traveller before 1980, dagnabbit I wish I had notes!), but most of my table time was in the 1980's.

While a remember some "FRP" (later "RPG", only briefly "Adventure games") philosophy in some articles of The Dragon, and more in Different Worlds (I don't remember any in the Space Gamer), I never heard anything close to "you're doing it wrong", until the early 1990's (which is when I dropped out of the hobby, so I only have guesses of what happened next)..

One thing I read "back in the day" was:

This book is dedicated to Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax, who first opened Pandora's box,
and to Ken St. Andre who found it could be opened again.

(Arneson & Gygax were the creators of D&D, Andre of T&T).

INTRODUCTION
WHAT IS A FANTASY ROLE-PLAYING GAME?
A role-playing game is a game of character
development, simulating the process of personal development commonly called "life". The player acts a role in a fantasy environment, just as he might act a role in s play. In fact, when played with just paper and pencil on the game board of the player's imagination, it has been called "improvisational radio theatre. " If played with metal and plastic figurines, it becomes improvisational puppet theatre. However it is played, the primary purpose is to have fun.

OK that's from the game that mostly replaced (over my objections) D&D at the tables I played at years ago.The part I agree most with is of course "However it is played, the primary purpose is to have fun." which I hope we don't lose sight of, anyway I don't actually remember anyone much playing "personal development improvisational radio theatre". Mostly it was closer to table top wargaming, with big interruptions of Monty Python and the Holy Grail based jokes, which doesn't look much different than how I see games played today (thank goodness).

The biggest change I see now is that more seem to worry if they're "doing it right", or are bothered by "doing it wrong".

While there was some handwringing before, it seems to me that the "Storytelling" game of Vampire in 1991 marks when things changed, and people started worrying more about "role-playing properly".

I don't remember the book that well, but I recall that Vampire stuck a bunch of short stories, along with rants about keeping a serious"proper mood" in with the rules.

While they were Comic book modern day setting games before (Villains & Vigilantes, and Champions) Vampire with it's admonishments to stay "serious", and relatively mundane setting turned the focus from imaginary environment exploration (and looting!) into imaginary character exploration (navel gazing, and method acting).

I didn't like it but it was (marginally) better than playing Cyberpunk, which was the usual alternative to play (in my area).

Dark times..

*shudder*

And then..
.
I don't know trading cards and computer games I guess (MMO's?) got popular, but my FLGS now has a Star Wars RPG on Tuesdays, D&D on Wednesdays, Pathfinder on Thursdays, and a lot more shelf space is devoted to board games (Settlers of Catan, etc), and you have self-described "indie" games (which existed in the 1970's as well, they just weren't called that).

The "Old School Revival" thing is weird to me, in that it just seems a bit off somehow, but at least now I can play "Labyrinth Lord", which is nearly identical to old D&D, but the "OSR" rants about "how it was" don't match what I dimly remember.

Oh well my sciatica is acting up, time for a nap dagnabbit!

[Quertus]

Well, "I used to believe I was a perfectionist, until I realized that wasn't quite right". It comes as no surprise to me, then, that my early play groups were "ahead of their time" in believing in badwrongfun long before that was a "thing".

[Tanarii]

RP" (later "RPG", only briefly "Adventure games") philosophy in some articles of The Dragon, and more in Different Worlds (I don't remember any in the Space Gamer), I never heard anything close to "you're doing it wrong", until the early 1990's (which is when I dropped out of the hobby, so I only have guesses of what happened next)..

I remember long rants about rollplaying monty haul munchkin mix-maxing powergamers from elitist "real" role-players throughout my first decade. So late 80s / early 90s. Later on when the internet really spun up (late 90s to early 00s) there was plenty of pushback against that: Coining of the Stormwind fallacy, rebranding certain negative terms in positive terms (like optimization), proper definition of what the core of role playing actually involves, in-character decision making, no matter how weakly or strongly 'in-character' differs from the player's character. As opposed to flowery descriptions or talky-time.

(As a side note I'm not particularly a fan of heavy optimization but I agree with the idea of rebranding it in a positive light to counter slanderous negative terminology. Likewise the Stormwind fallacy was something that needed to be coined, for the same reason.)

None of which matters to my points previously made in this thread. I have a pet peeve about using the term 'storytelling' to ... uh, summarize ... what a role playing game is, because it's a different way of making decisions about the game from playing a role : in-character decision making. That said, I admit that is a pedantic way of looking at things. Even if in-character decision making were completely replaced by narrative decision making, it's not particularly important if said game were billed as a 'Roleplaying Game'.

[kyoryu]

The "Old School Revival" thing is weird to me, in that it just seems a bit off somehow, but at least now I can play "Labyrinth Lord", which is nearly identical to old D&D, but the "OSR" rants about "how it was" don't match what I dimly remember.

Of course they don't.

With no way of communicating rapidly and disseminating information, and the fact that the D&D rules (among others) didn't tell you really how to structure an actual session or campaign, people were left to figure out a lot on their own, and so they came up with very different ideas.

As a result, "how it was" was different for virtually every group.

[ImNotTrevor]

Retelling events as a story after the fact, and editing them to create a 'narrative' of your choice, is a time honored tradition of storytelling.

I apologize, but I don't understand the point of thos statement other than to attempt to say that Emergent Narrative and a crafted story are the same thing. In which case I would refer you to the difference between History and Literature.

History contains the Emergent Narratives of all humankind. Nobody worked to ensure the stories played out that way overall, but plenty of people decided to make the risky decision. (Often with the intention of bolstering their own personal legend.)

Literature is a person or group of people trying to create a story that exists in and of itself.

I'm not sure how else to better illustrate the difference.

[Tanarii]

History contains the Emergent Narratives of all humankind. Nobody worked to ensure the stories played out that way overall, but plenty of people decided to make the risky decision. (Often with the intention of bolstering their own personal legend.)

My point was that Emergent Narrative, as in a story based on history, is still selected by the storyteller. The narrative in such a story isn't an actual thing, it's merely chosen by the teller. They highlight the parts of the historical record that's tells the narrative they want to tell. This holds for creating a narrative based on the events of gameplay as well.

There is a difference, in that fitting past events to a narrative is only possible insofar as the events happened as recounted, or at least as they happened close enough to the events recounted. Contrast that to playing the game narratively (storytelling the game events), where events and their results are decided to happen based on what will fit the desired narrative.

[ImNotTrevor]

My point was that Emergent Narrative, as in a story based on history, is still selected by the storyteller. The narrative in such a story isn't an actual thing, it's merely chosen by the teller. They highlight the parts of the historical record that's tells the narrative they want to tell. This holds for creating a narrative based on the events of gameplay as well.

There is a difference, in that fitting past events to a narrative is only possible insofar as the events happened as recounted, or at least as they happened close enough to the events recounted. Contrast that to playing the game narratively (storytelling the game events), where events and their results are decided to happen based on what will fit the desired narrative.

Yes, but one is active and the other is retroactive. (Storycraft and Emergent Narrative, respectively)

So I'm still not understanding the point of pointing this out. >.> Be nice to me, I've had a long day at work.

[Knaight]

Of course they don't.

With no way of communicating rapidly and disseminating information, and the fact that the D&D rules (among others) didn't tell you really how to structure an actual session or campaign, people were left to figure out a lot on their own, and so they came up with very different ideas.

As a result, "how it was" was different for virtually every group.

There's also the matter of how the OSR movement has a lot of people very dedicated to the belief that the old way was just better, that they're better players than newer ones, and that everything outside of D&D can be ignored. It leads to a certain level of spin and selective omission for "how it was", along with routinely claiming that modern gaming doesn't include stuff it definitely includes.

[Tanarii]

Yes, but one is active and the other is retroactive. (Storycraft and Emergent Narrative, respectively)

So I'm still not understanding the point of pointing this out. >.> Be nice to me, I've had a long day at work.

Me too. It's possible I didn't have a coherent point.

Uh, seriously though, looking back, my original point was agreement, in that storytelling after the fact based on events that have happened is lots of fun! It's one reason people often call roleplaying games 'cooperative storytelling'. What they often (but not always) it's a shared experience of cool stuff that happened, and that's the beginning of a story right there.

I mean, I go rock climbing every Sunday morning with a specific group of buddies. Some people would call that creating stories together. I don't, any more than I call my afternoon D&D sessions cooperative storytelling. But I do understand where the thinking comes from.

But (per my second response), I agree that's absolutely different thing from actually playing the game narratively.

[ImNotTrevor]

Me too. It's possible I didn't have a coherent point.

Uh, seriously though, looking back, my original point was agreement, in that storytelling after the fact based on events that have happened is lots of fun! It's one reason people often call roleplaying games 'cooperative storytelling'. What they often (but not always) it's a shared experience of cool stuff that happened, and that's the beginning of a story right there.

I mean, I go rock climbing every Sunday morning with a specific group of buddies. Some people would call that creating stories together. I don't, any more than I call my afternoon D&D sessions cooperative storytelling. But I do understand where the thinking comes from.

But (per my second response), I agree that's absolutely different thing from actually playing the game narratively.

Mhm. I guess the easiest and most Jargon-free wording of this would be that I prefer playing to find out what happens.

The only problem I occassionally run into is when people mistake Narrative-focused to mean Storytelling game. I'm pretty sure that when people describe a system as Narrative or Fiction Oriented they mean the Fiction layer of the game. (Ie, the game cares that Ragnar swung his axe. It just cares more about HOW and WHY than other systems do.)

I also dislike that Storytelling Game has become a sort of instant write-off for systems that people don't really understand. That bugs me, but it's a fairly small issue most of the time.

[2D8HP]

There's also the matter of how the OSR movement has a lot of people very dedicated to the belief that the old way was just better, that they're better players than newer ones, and that everything outside of D&D can be ignored. It leads to a certain level of spin and selective omission for "how it was", along with routinely claiming that modern gaming doesn't include stuff it definitely includes.

Well I'm pretty fond of and defensive about old D&D (mostly when people make claims about "old D&D that just doesn't ring true to me, but I'm learning that what others call "old", I call "new"), but holding the exact rules sacrosanct seems wrong-headed and contrary to how I remember the game actually being played.

A skim of the early rules should make it obvious that they were ad hoc and slapdash.
While @Yora makes a good case that things like Encumbrance, XP for treasure, and random encounters work together well in old D&D, insisting that something like Descending AC is better because "old school" is absurd.

IIRC tinkering with and mix-and-macthing rules was common.

Head scratching discussions about deciphering the rules happened, but rules lawyering?

It was DM fiat or go home.

No rule was sacred, and any attempt to "preserve in amber", how the game was played is doomed to fail because IIRC play was too fluid to catch.

While I was very exited about it at the time, I think the creation of Advanced D&D (as opposed to D&D) and its attempt to regulize play was a mistake.

(Some history of the division here).

---

...I also dislike that Storytelling Game has become a sort of instant write-off for systems that people don't really understand. That bugs me, but it's a fairly small issue most of the time.

To flog a(n) (un)dead horse, I think that some of the confusion came about because Vampire called itself a "storytelling game", and what most RPG's call the "Gamemaster" Vampire called the "Storyteller".

To me a "storytelling game" is something more like:

The Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Munchausen

---

While this Forum was down I read a bunch of blogs, some of which have some fodder for thought for this thread, such as:

What is a Roleplaying Game?

For example: it is argued that "The first four editions of D&D are not roleplaying games. but Call of Cthullu is?

Yet in Rulings, Not Rules

How I helped to pull the rope that tolled the bell for OD&D is praised?

[Quertus]

While I was very exited about it at the time, I think the creation of Advanced D&D (as opposed to D&D) and its attempt to regulize play was a mistake.

Clearly, you didn't have the same horrible DMs I did.

What is a Roleplaying Game?

That's an interesting take.

Personally, I prefer ars pro artis, and find rewarded role-playing to be impure, undesirable detritus by comparison, but I can see the logic. Can you call an activity where you have the option to perform physical actions, but there are no rules to govern these purely optional physical actions, a sport? I don't think so, but I feel confident it'll never be added to the Olympics.

[Tanarii]

Well I'm pretty fond of and defensive about old D&D (mostly when people make claims about "old D&D that just doesn't ring true to me, but I'm learning that what others call "old", I call "new"), but holding the exact rules sacrosanct seems wrong-headed and contrary to how I remember the game actually being played.

That jives with everything I know about pre-AD&D then vs 'Classic D&D' now. That it was all about making it up as you went, whereas now the old game is carefully labeled and distinguished.

Hell, when I started in 1985 we played BE and AD&D adventures with whatever characters we wanted from BE (and later CMI) rules, AD&D rules (including OA or UA), and Dragon rules we could get our hands on. It was just one huge mishmash of whatever was fun. It wasn't until 2e release in '93 that I saw anything like a single set of (somewhat) concise rules used for just one game. And even that changed as the 'Complete' books were released.

While this Forum was down I read a bunch of blogs, some of which have some fodder for thought for this thread, such as:

What is a Roleplaying Game?

I prefer http://angrydm.com/2011/08/defining-your-game/

[kyoryu]

I've said it before, probably on this site, and possibly on this thread.

I've seen three basic interaction types in RPGs.

Type 1:

GM: "This is the situation"
Player: "Okay, I do this thing."
GM: "This is the new situation."

Type 2:

Player 1: "I move my character in accordance with the rules"
Player 2: "I move my character in accordance with the rules"
Player 3: "I move my character in accordance with the rules"

Type 3:

Player 1: "This happens"
Player 2: "Then this happens"
Player 3: "And then this happens"

Few games are strictly one type, and many switch types based on what's going on at a given time.

They are all, I think, roleplaying, at least so long as each player nominally has control of a (or even a few, think Ars Magica) primary characters.

[Quertus]

I prefer http://angrydm.com/2011/08/defining-your-game/

I completely agree with and wholeheartedly endorse this definition and explanation of role-playing.

[2D8HP]

...I prefer http://angrydm.com/2011/08/defining-your-game/

"Grind my gears"



"I’m an American, so I support your right to proudly cling to being wrong like a dog proudly rolling in its own mess."*



A gentleman of wit and taste.

---

I've said it before, probably on this site, and possibly on this thread.

I've seen three basic interaction types in RPGs...

I've said it before, probably on this site, and possibly on this thread, that I really like @kyoryu's typology.

I'm pretty sure that I previously wrote (two months ago?) that "I'm strongly Type one, and I don't like "mixing chocolate with my peanut butter", but I'm finding that I enjoy Type two more than I thought.

I'd really like to see a thread that polls what mix of "kyoryu"s types" people find fun, but I fear that kyoryu is too anti-rancor to start one.

I've also come to realize that despite what I previously advocated:

[....maybe I'm not reading carefully enough, but as far as I can tell I'm the only poster trying to "win" (people over to calling them "Adventure games", rather than "role-playing" games).
Besides, the goal of role-playing adventure games is to continue, not to "win" (threads too).
BTW I did indeed buy issues of Tim Kask's Adventure Gaming magazine in the early 1980's

that I enjoy "method acting" too much to drop the "R" from RPG, which begs the question (perhaps in another thread?), just how important is "role-playing" in a RPG?

[Max_Killjoy]

I've said it before, probably on this site, and possibly on this thread, that I really like @kyoryu's typology.

I'm pretty sure that I previously wrote (two months ago?) that "I'm strongly Type one, and I don't like "mixing chocolate with my peanut butter", but I'm finding that I enjoy Type two more than I thought.

I'd really like to see a thread that polls what mix of "kyoryu"s types" people find fun, but I fear that kyoryu is too anti-rancor to start one.

Realistically, I don't think most players are purely of one type. The rules/structure of #2 can be useful for those whose core preference is #1 or #3, for example.

I've also come to realize that despite what I previously advocated:



that I enjoy "method acting" too much to drop the "R" from RPG, which begs the question (perhaps in another thread?), just how important is "role-playing" in a RPG?

In my opinion, if it doesn't feature any roleplaying, it's not a roleplaying game. First-person or third-person, some sort of character-driven decision and action element is required. An RPG can blend in elements of storytelling, and/or elements of "wargame", and/or other elements, that RPGs have often shared with other sorts of activities... but if it goes off too far in any direction and leaves that character-centric element out, then it's no longer an RPG. It's a cooperative storytelling game, or a board game, or something else. I'd say there's even room for honest disagreement as to how far is too far.

[2D8HP]

....In my opinion, if it doesn't feature any roleplaying, it's not a roleplaying game....

I don't doubt that, what I meant (and maybe this should be for a different thread) wasn't how much role-playing is needed to stay a Roleplaying game, instead I wonder how much to be fun?

I've enjoyed playing Car Wars which we stretched to be a Role-playing game (I imagine Arneson did something similiar when he stretched Chainmail to be "Blackmoor/The Fantasy Game", but he had less of a model), but I also like Chess and Risk without any role-playing (I've heard that you should never play Diplomacy with anyone you wish to remain friends with).

And I'm sure most everyone has traded stories.

How much role-playing is needed in a game to "scratch the itch"?

[kyoryu]

Realistically, I don't think most players are purely of one type. The rules/structure of #2 can be useful for those whose core preference is #1 or #3, for example.

Few games are purely a given type. Old school D&D is mostly type 1, with a little type 2. D&D 3 is type 2 in combat (mostly), and a mix between the two out of combat. Fate straddles the middle pretty much all over the place.

If a given game isn't purely one type, then most players won't be purely one type, as a player likely plays more than one game anyway.

So yeah, I agree with you totally. I can't think of a single pure example of any of these types, but rather games that incorporate them to various degrees.

In my opinion, if it doesn't feature any roleplaying, it's not a roleplaying game. First-person or third-person, some sort of character-driven decision and action element is required. An RPG can blend in elements of storytelling, and/or elements of "wargame", and/or other elements, that RPGs have often shared with other sorts of activities... but if it goes off too far in any direction and leaves that character-centric element out, then it's no longer an RPG. It's a cooperative storytelling game, or a board game, or something else. I'd say there's even room for honest disagreement as to how far is too far.

Agreed. Even very strongly type 2 games can veer away from this - I don't know many people that consider Descent to be a roleplaying game. But I would consider Fiasco (strongly type 3, with a touch of type 2) a roleplaying game.

[Lazymancer]

I sit in a weird place here, ...

You don't. It's simply regular role-playing.

If not for the story-telling circus of narrativists, there wouldn't even be any other position. Unfortunately, that is not the case, and we have to deal with clowns like John Wick and other vocal members of narrativist cargo cult.

Heck, actually role-playing as myself involved more role-playing - more making decisions based on what would make sense for the character - than I usually see out of these players.

That's because that's what role-playing is - decision-making.

That's an interesting take.

Personally, I prefer ars pro artis, and find rewarded role-playing to be impure, undesirable detritus by comparison, but I can see the logic. Can you call an activity where you have the option to perform physical actions, but there are no rules to govern these purely optional physical actions, a sport? I don't think so, but I feel confident it'll never be added to the Olympics.

Are you serious? Or is this another attempt at being sarcastic? Because it's not an interesting take. It's a horrible mess of excuses, distortions, and blatant lies.

The core of the problem is that John Wick didn't design system that rewards PCs for following their motivations, nor does he want to. And so he makes excuses that it is somehow wrong for players to follow motivations of their characters as they are presented by the system.

And since John Wick cannot be bothered to make a real system about characters falling in love, it's the duty of GM to make the whole system from scratch, on the spot, in the middle of the session. And if this somehow doesn't happen - it's the fault of GM and players!

When Ford made their Fiery Pintos, nobody tried to push blame on the drivers and claim that it was their fault that they burned alive after gas tank exploded (at least, Ford's lawyers couldn't make it stick). But John Wick somehow gets a free pass, eh?

[Lazymancer]

I've said it before, probably on this site, and possibly on this thread.

I've seen three basic interaction types in RPGs.

...

Few games are strictly one type, and many switch types based on what's going on at a given time.

They are all, I think, roleplaying, at least so long as each player nominally has control of a (or even a few, think Ars Magica) primary characters.

Those are not game types.


First and foremost, let's make a thought experiment: can you have chemically clean types (as with story-telling and role-playing)? I don't see this.

For example, in every role-playing game there is a GM (sometimes "collective GM") that adjudicates the process. You need some final authority to confirm events in the virtuality of RPG campaign if there is a disagreement. You may have to rely on GM a lot ("mother, may I"), or not ("crunchy" system or old group that developed shared understanding), but it's always there. Consequently, every RPG is a type 1 game. No exceptions.


Those are, as you said it, interaction types. Types that define short exchanges of information.
1) [Player]: We do not have an understanding here, I require GM to resolve situation.
2) [Player]: Since we already have an understanding, I will don't require intervention.

Imo, number 3 is not a separate type, but a compound of #1 and #2, since Players seem to have collective authority of GM.

[Koo Rehtorb]

For example, in every role-playing game there is a GM (sometimes "collective GM") that adjudicates the process. You need some final authority to confirm events in the virtuality of RPG campaign if there is a disagreement. You may have to rely on GM a lot ("mother, may I"), or not ("crunchy" system or old group that developed shared understanding), but it's always there. Consequently, every RPG is a type 1 game. No exceptions.

Edit - it's late and I missed the "collective" bit. Never mind.

[Knaight]

For example, in every role-playing game there is a GM (sometimes "collective GM") that adjudicates the process. You need some final authority to confirm events in the virtuality of RPG campaign if there is a disagreement. You may have to rely on GM a lot ("mother, may I"), or not ("crunchy" system or old group that developed shared understanding), but it's always there. Consequently, every RPG is a type 1 game. No exceptions.

Microscope. Fiasco. The bulk of this list.

For every role playing game having a GM there sure seem to be a lot of GMless games.

[2D8HP]

...since John Wick cannot be bothered to make a real system about characters falling in love, it's the duty of GM to make the whole system from scratch, on the spot, in the middle of the session....

I did say it was "Fodder for thought", I didn't say, "This is the whole truth!" (My having played both, the logic of "Call of Cthullu is a role-playing game, but pre-5e D&D is not" eludes me).

Anyway, I admire 7th Sea for its setting, but (full disclosure), reading the rules "crunch", puts me to sleep, so I don't really know them.

Some rules "crunch" that I really studied and admired were 1985's Pendragon, which I have oft praised in this Forum, which does have "crunch" for Romance.

The Pendragon "Traits and Passions" (PDF) system does take some control of the PC's out of the hands of (so you can play out "Gawaine and the Green Knight" types of temptation scenarios).

Does that make Pendragon more or less of a "role-playing" game?

[Max_Killjoy]

You don't. It's simply regular role-playing.

If not for the story-telling circus of narrativists, there wouldn't even be any other position. Unfortunately, that is not the case, and we have to deal with clowns like John Wick and other vocal members of narrativist cargo cult.




That's because that's what role-playing is - decision-making.


Are you serious? Or is this another attempt at being sarcastic? Because it's not an interesting take. It's a horrible mess of excuses, distortions, and blatant lies.

The core of the problem is that John Wick didn't design system that rewards PCs for following their motivations, nor does he want to. And so he makes excuses that it is somehow wrong for players to follow motivations of their characters as they are presented by the system.

And since John Wick cannot be bothered to make a real system about characters falling in love, it's the duty of GM to make the whole system from scratch, on the spot, in the middle of the session. And if this somehow doesn't happen - it's the fault of GM and players!

When Ford made their Fiery Pintos, nobody tried to push blame on the drivers and claim that it was their fault that they burned alive after gas tank exploded (at least, Ford's lawyers couldn't make it stick). But John Wick somehow gets a free pass, eh?

Could you provide some context for this commentary on Mr Wick? What system is this, or where the comments are that you're responding to, or...?

I don't think there's any need at all for system/mechanics for characters falling in love, but if the game designer is going to insist that they're necessary, then it's the game designer's responsibility to provide them in the game.

[Cluedrew]

I also dislike that Storytelling Game has become a sort of instant write-off for systems that people don't really understand. That bugs me, but it's a fairly small issue most of the time.

Which ignores the fact that most role-playing games are story-telling games. They may approach creating a story from an in-character or out-of-character way, they might have various amounts of pre-planning, but I don't know any role-playing games which aren't also about telling a story. Which seems like the definition of story telling game, so I think they qualify. Actually I have seen arguments that role-playing games are a subgenre of story-telling games where the primary means of shaping the story is by controlling the actions of particular characters (PCs). Which makes some sense, I'm not sure if I would write it a dictionary though.

You don't. It's simply regular role-playing.

If not for the story-telling circus of narrativists, there wouldn't even be any other position. Unfortunately, that is not the case, and we have to deal with clowns like John Wick and other vocal members of narrativist cargo cult.

As I understand the argument, it was about story as the things that will happen, or as the things that have happened. I argue for the latter, I think ImNotTrevor was as well as do most of the narrativists I know. How much pre-planning is used in the story is semi-independent of how narrative the system is, although given players narrative control tends to work against that so the semi- part is negative. Or has been in my experience.

[Tanarii]

Which ignores the fact that most role-playing games are story-telling games. They may approach creating a story from an in-character or out-of-character way, they might have various amounts of pre-planning, but I don't know any role-playing games which aren't also about telling a story. Which seems like the definition of story telling game, so I think they qualify. Actually I have seen arguments that role-playing games are a subgenre of story-telling games where the primary means of shaping the story is by controlling the actions of particular characters (PCs). Which makes some sense, I'm not sure if I would write it a dictionary though.

That's like saying the point of living your life is to create the story of living your life. It ignores both the actual purpose (to live life) and the actual result (having lived a portion of your life) in furtherance of something that has nothing to do with either (creating a story from the things you experienced while living life).

[Max_Killjoy]

That's like saying the point of living your life is to create the story of living your life. It ignores both the actual purpose (to live life) and the actual result (having lived a portion of your life) in furtherance of something that has nothing to do with either (creating a story from the things you experienced while living life).

Yeah, I don't think that a game where story isn't the intent, but rather just a byproduct, is really a "Storytelling Game".

[Cluedrew]

To Tanarii: I'm sure you could create some good motional sayings out of that, that wasn't what I was going for. I wasn't saying that any game that creates a story is a story telling game, nor is any game where you talk a role* a role-playing game (*for a broad definition of the word). I played a board game recently where we referring to each other by character names, but it wasn't a role-playing game, we weren't actually in character or anything like that.

No, what I am saying is that most role-playing games are also about telling stories. Perhaps that is merely a coincidence.

That is also separate from the definition of role-playing games as a type of story-telling game that uses character action as the player's tool. It has some merit but it feels just a bit too restrictive for the definition of role-playing games, if such a definition exists.

[Lazymancer]

I did say it was "Fodder for thought", I didn't say, "This is the whole truth!"

And I said that there isn't anything worthwhile. It's not a fodder for thought, it's not a viable position, it doesn't contain any interesting arguments, it's not useful in any way - other than proof of author's personal qualities (which is not relevant to the discussion).

To rephrase: attempts to frame me as being needlessly contrarian due to misunderstanding something and being blind to some middle ground will not work. My opinion is that John Wick's article is unambiguously bad and there is no compromise to be had about it. I agree with neither "that's absolute truth" and "there are interesting points being made". It's a noise.

Could you provide some context for this commentary on Mr Wick? What system is this, or where the comments are that you're responding to, or...?

There are links embedded in each comment. Little arrows near the name.

Which ignores the fact that most role-playing games are story-telling games.

There is no such fact.

I don't know any role-playing games which aren't also about telling a story.

Frankly, I don't even know why I post this. We've been over this already more than once.

Every single roleplaying game is not about telling stories. Stories are an emergent quality. As I had already written several times (and in much more detail): role-playing games are about making decisions in the pre-digital virtual reality run by our brain cells. Something commonly known as "immersion".

Telling stories is not role-playing. Stories are told about role-playing. Later.

Substituting role-playing with telling stories is like substituting skydiving with telling stories about skydiving.

You may have fun watching youtube videos of someone playing game, but it's not playing the game itself.

Just because you can tell a story about some character, you don't actually role-play as the character.

Am I getting through? Or is this completely impenetrable barrier of "don't make me leave my comfort zone where everyone is equally right and wrong"?