Group Storytelling vs. Role-playing

[Gordon C. Landis]

OK, my two main thoughts on the matter are already on the board - that there IS something important/identifying about the primacy of "from the character(s) perspective" to RPGs, but that even taken very generously(allowing for GMs to switch between characters, players to possibly have more than one, either simultaneously or sequentially, and etc.), it is unlikely to be a sole, defining attribute.

And if we want to use "being rules-based" as that definitional attribute, we're going to have to say what we mean by "rules": even the most "freeform" activity has social conventions/contracts.  Can we use explicit vs. implicit as the descriminator?  That is, all RPG-like activities have implicit rules, but only a "true" RPG makes them explicit?  That does NOT strike me as true . . . how about abstraction?  I mean, CS/IF are characterized (mostly) by direct use of language (a form of abstraction itself, admittedly), but RPGs create additional abstractions that BECOME the basic tools of the interactions . . . ugh.  Brain hurts.

If we really want to expore this issue, I confess I see no direct route to resolution.  I'd say let's get all the candidate-attributes identified (number of characters, degree of character identification, rules, play structure, abstraction type/degree, play medium, and probably a ton more) and see where it leads, without any presuppositions.  Socially/operationally, CS/IF and RPGs are practiced by basically distinct groups, and maybe the only valuable way to look at this is in terms of why (psychologically) people like one and not the other.  Or maybe there is a foundational, analytical difference.  I'm not sure.

Certainly, some of my earliest participation here at the Forge involved connecting roleplaying-like behavior with wargames . . . when you start from "imaginative social interaction practiced in order to be enjoyed" (or something like that), *everything* starts to blur together.  As has been said before, it's like defining "Art" - some consider it a pointless activity, some find great value in the discussion even if there is no resolution, and other actually decide they've found an answer that is "correct" (to some degree).  At the moment, I see no reason to expect anything better (or worse) from an attempt to define RPGs.

Gordon

[Lance D. Allen]

On the topics of Freeform RP -vs- RPGs: No, for the most part, we don't consider it a game, though we do "play" it. It is a fairly appalling concept to consider rolling dice as a method of determining what happens in our FFRP... But at the same time, we've done it, and enjoyed the hell out of it, on various specific occasions. One such occasion was the Tivili Games, in which very basic die rolls were made (no skill mods, nothin') to determine outcomes of the various events. It was such that we had some truly strange but very entertaining results. My scrawny, one-handed troubadour won the pie eating contest, a 50+ retired knight won the joust, a stableboy won the horse race, and a dwarven ranger (yes, a dwarven ranger) won the archery contest.

I think, however, the main determinant if something is an RPG as opposed to CSRP is the game aspect. I also think that there are at least 3 categories, rather than the two being discussed here. Some are explicitly roleplaying games, without doubt. Others are explicitly Cooperative Storytelling, without even the vaguest nod toward roleplaying. Then there is the hybrid, composed of people who usually enjoy going either way, and that is Cooperative Storytelling/Roleplaying, or more commonly called Free-form Roleplaying.

On this same note, Lyran Tal is, I believe, going to have a booth set up at GenCon specifically for the purposes of running a game set in Lyran Tal, using D20 rules. It will use currently existing player's characters, and will be rather free-form in character creation, but what happens in this RP session will happen in the setting we freeform RP in. The forum creator will be running the game, has stated this, and oddly no one has complained that die rolls will be used to effect a major series of events in Lyran Tal.

Anyone heading out to GenCon, keep an eye out for a Lyran Tal or Crosswinds Tavern booth. If you feel like visiting it, tell 'em that Lance sent you. I won't be able to attend, but it would be nice if my presence was felt somehow, even if in such a small way as this.

[joe_llama]

Since I have little material written and even less time, for now I can only suggest reading the GNS Showdown thread I started a while ago. I believe it touches exactly the points being discussed here and provides a way for a more coherent model for understanding the role playing element specifically and game design in general.

Warning: The GNS thread is very condensed and somewhat incoherent itself, so it might be difficult to see the relevance to this discussion, although I assure you there's a lot of connection between the two, just look a little harder.

That's all I can give at the moment. I hope to post more when I can spare the time.

With respect,

Joe Llama

[Bob McNamee]

On the plus side for me...
It sounds like my Tarot Game would classify as a Role Playing Game, regardless of whether the players are playing exclusive with the protagonists or GM style with equal access for all.

Bob McNamee

[Mike Holmes]

On the plus side for me...
It sounds like my Tarot Game would classify as a Role Playing Game, regardless of whether the players are playing exclusive with the protagonists or GM style with equal access for all.

I'm fairly certain Bob, that almost everything that's done here is RPG stuff. That's my point. If someone wants CS support, it can be found elsewhere.

OTOH, while I'm a partisan of the RPG side, I have nothing against CS, and have even dabbled in it occasionally.

As to the points that Gordon made about abstractions, etc. Yes, this is a hard line to define. Intuitively, though I know where it is. Certainly CS activities have "rules" and systems. But the point is that they only regard social contract issues (politeness, subject matter, etc) or organization of player ability to contribute. Essentially, when and for how long (how much) a player can contribute. What these systems do not include is any rules or mechanics that involve creation of in-game information. In CS the player is responsible for all of that. There are no Hit Points, becasue to have such would limit the participants creativity. Which is the prime rule. Essentially, once the social contract is set in CS, the participant is free to describe anything within those boundaries. In RPGs the players are restricted by what the mechanics produce. Even if the production is minor or minimal.

Again, people who engage in these activities know when they are being asked to cross this line. In the case of Lance's experience, these were obvioulsy the crossover people I mentioned (they'll be at GenCon, so...) which is why they didn't mind injecting a small taint of RPGs. And why its a very borderline example, they are hopping back and forth over the line. Again these people are probably representative of the sorts of people that started with RPGs and figured to hell with rules for resolution and such. Some of these people become militant in their views and would object to a reintroduction of such RPG rules. Other people start in CS and never get to RPGs, and find the notion of such rules confusing.

Does that help?

Mike

[Lance D. Allen]

Again these people are probably representative of the sorts of people that started with RPGs and figured to hell with rules for resolution and such. Some of these people become militant in their views and would object to a reintroduction of such RPG rules. Other people start in CS and never get to RPGs, and find the notion of such rules confusing.

Does that help?

Mike hits the types on the head, here. In my group, most who came from RPGs to FFRP are generally willing to cross back, and those who have never played an RPG are generally interested.. But my group is exceptional. Most others are either militantly against any sort of dice or rules other than Free-form courtesy guidelines, or those who know nothing of RPGs are leery of them, because they seem so much more intimidating. It also doesn't help that the "bad" roleplayers draw so heavily from existing RPGs, which makes V:tM and D&D akin to swear words in the FFRP community, despite the heavy numbers of people who still enjoy such games.
I seriously think, however, that groups like the CWT forum and various other "Advanced Roleplaying Settings" on AOL are beginning to narrow the margin between roleplaying games and cooperative storytelling. Many of the games discussed here on the Forge, while still solidly on the RPG side of the line, are working to narrow the gap as well. I'm curious and faintly excited to see what might happen when and if that gap disappears entirely.

[Mike Holmes]

I'm curious and faintly excited to see what might happen when and if that gap disappears entirely.

There is no gap. We are there now, with systems on both sides that are so close to the line that the line blurs. I think that a spectrum of freedom versus rules will continue to exist indefinitely. There is no optimum point because different people have different opinions on these things. Just as G and N and S games will continue to exist as different people prefer each.

Mike

[Le Joueur]

I've been giving this topic a lot of thought since my first addition to the discussion.  The themes of character and system have risen time and again, but we've really been struggling to see how they relate to the difference between collaborative storytelling and role-playing gaming.  I would like to take a moment and think it out, out loud, if you don't mind.

I think what has been confusing the argument is how I've begun to see 'system' and 'character' inextricably linked in this consideration.  My thoughts on character identification and emotional response are a matter of record.  I think this underscores how some kind of system (any kind really) becomes necessary when one begins to focus one's attachment to a specific character or characters.

From a collaborative storytelling point of view, I do not believe (relatively speaking) intense character identification is of any note (not that it does not happen, simply that it is irrelevant to their practice).  If one were to transition from collaborative storytelling to role-playing gaming, I believe it goes from being irrelevant to being a requirement.  The offshoot of this is that, especially because we're dealing with intense emotions, a system becomes necessary to prevent all manner of 'taken advantage of' feelings from becoming hard ones.  (The 'Hey! That's my character' effect is prevented through impartial systems in role-playing games.)

From a role-playing game point of view, one begins to 'give up' such claims on the propriety (and emotional attachment) to their character(s) when they transition to collaborative storytelling.  At first systemic appliances will be added to the mix that de-emphasize single character focus and empower more equal collaboration.  The crucial point, I believe, comes when one shifts away from the emotional attachment to the singular.  While many collaborative storytelling schemes have systems either explicit and implicit (and both), they are not nearly as necessary as when one needs to have their emotional investment in a single character protected.

This is why system becomes such a stumbling point.  Systems do exist in collaborative storytelling, but primarily (and sometimes unnecessarily) to enforce the 'collaboration.'  Role-playing games, on the other hand, almost require systems to promote and protect the (often) single character focus of emotional investment.  (This can be taken to a high regard in things like usual pawn stance, where the player is only able to affect events via a single driver in the narrative and such is rigidly protected by a system.)

Ultimately, I do not think we will arrive at a single guiding principle for differentiating between collaborative storytelling and role-playing games because each of us has different standards to apply across the continuum between purely storytelling and purely gaming.  I might say that anytime 'players' are each accorded on character, as protected by system, it is a role-playing game.  Someone else may consider it a matter of the systemic 'rights' to affect the narrative with their limited 'personal cast' of characters.  Either way the judgment seems to come down to personally fixing a point on the line described by the companionship between character (emotional) identification and systems reinforcing that; each person sets their own criteria.

Rather than arguing over what point of demarcation is indicated on that continuum (because it differs from individual to individual), can we at least agree that these are the only relevant factors in the differentiation?

Fang Langford

[Mike Holmes]

Rather than arguing over what point of demarcation is indicated on that continuum (because it differs from individual to individual), can we at least agree that these are the only relevant factors in the differentiation?

Character association and system protection? Hmm. You make a decent argument, and these are the only topics that have come up, but I'm not sure that character association is important.

Certainly it makes for an easy way to discuss the matter, but I'm not sure that it associates with the actual activities well. You yourself point out that some players playing collaboratively do associate very much with their characters. So, if everyone associates with their character and a "system" is called for that says that nobody can mess with another players character (this is often the case in CS, or at least agreed to tacitly as a social contract issue), does that make it a RPG? I think not. Again, the behavior does not associate with the activity.

And I think that it's also possible for a player in a RPG, even a classic one such as D&D to disociate from his character relatively completely. In fact Narrativist play is a disociation of interest in the character's well being to the well being of the story as it relates to the character. I don't think that the next step, complete dissociation with particular characters would be all that far off.

This is what Universalis does. My continuing point is that where I see the demarcation is not so much with character as with system. Again, I think that looking at actual behavior, most CS players looking at Universalis would call it a RPG. Emphasis on the Game. Because despite a complete discociation from specific characters, it still has all sorts of rules on how players are limited in play, and what sorts of outcomes of actions are, etc.

The point being that I'm trying to create a practical definition. Yours will leave the player not knowing where to go for help on the sort of system they are looing at, and since both sorts of cahracter associations seem to be going on at each site, that doesn't discriminate for them at all.

I think we can instead come up with a separate jargon that speaks to character association. Perhaps Single Character Association, Multiple Character Association, and Non-Specific Character Association (you can if you want), or Character Disassociation (character association discouraged).

Or perhaps this is all just my bias showing through. Universalis could indeed be a CS game by some definitions, but it would be one that appealed more to RPGers than CSers, I'd think. Or am I missing my target audience?

Mike

[Le Joueur]

The point being that I'm trying to create a practical definition.

You left out:

Ultimately, I do not think we will arrive at a single guiding principle for differentiating between collaborative storytelling and role-playing games because each of us has different standards to apply across the continuum between purely storytelling and purely gaming.

I'm not trying to create a practical definition; what I am trying to deal with is how the discussion seems to be grinding to a stop over a confusing array of personal tastes.

Rather than arguing over what point of demarcation is indicated on that continuum (because it differs from individual to individual), can we at least agree that these are the only relevant factors in the differentiation?

Character association and system protection? Hmm. You make a decent argument, and these are the only topics that have come up, but I'm not sure that character association is important.

And I think that it's also possible for a player in a RPG, even a classic one such as D&D to disociate from his character relatively completely. In fact Narrativist play is a disociation of interest in the character's well being to the well being of the story as it relates to the character. I don't think that the next step, complete dissociation with particular characters would be all that far off.

This is what Universalis does. My continuing point is that where I see the demarcation is not so much with character as with system. Again, I think that looking at actual behavior, most CS players looking at Universalis would call it a RPG. Emphasis on the Game. Because despite a complete discociation from specific characters, it still has all sorts of rules on how players are limited in play, and what sorts of outcomes of actions are, etc.

The "what's possible" argument doesn't really carry in finding a practical definition.  "What's possible" is either can perfectly emulate the other.  What's neccesary for a practical definition is a guiding principle for people to make their own decision over what is or isn't either of these.  I seriously doubt a 'fixed point' can be created that will even satisfy a majority.  What I am trying to say is that the only relevant continuum seems to be a connected character/system concept.

Take Universalis as an example.  Does it have a separate character creation section?  How does it put things in terms of character?  I know my copy is a few iterations behind, but it's full of language like, "A player is not limited to generating Story Power solely through his own character’s Traits."  That pretty clearly says the central design of the game is for the player to work through their character, just not that that is a hard limit.  This pretty much says to me that Universalis is about a character/system combination.

Universalis aside, my point here is that you obviously have opinions that system is heavily important (I can only imply the centrality of the player to character connection from Universalis) meaning that your standard for system requirement is higher than mine.  (Perhaps even higher than your requirement for character 'protection.')  The deal is we agree what is important, just not how much.  (And collaborative storytellers probably shy away from the intense character-centric rules language - 'it looks like a game' - of Universalis rather than noting it's non-character-specific intent - 'it is written for story.')

I think we have the continuum right, but that this discussion is breaking down over personal tastes.  (Unless you completely discount player to character relationship in role-playing games, we essentially agree.)

Fang Langford

[Mike Holmes]

You have a point, Fang, but my "what's possible" was value added. I was mostly focusing on the the examples of CS players who play character associated. Who I believe are a substantial portion of the demographic, possibly even the majority (especially given the number of people who come from RPGs where its almost all of play).

In any case, later versions of Universalis have dropped PCs alltogether, and characters are now no longer any more important mechanically than stones. The text does imply the importance of characters in terms of story, but not to any specific player at all. This is not to say that players won't latch on to particular characters (probably the ones they created most often), but this is no different than what happens in any CS game.

My apologies for discussing Universalis with so little public disclosure. I don't mean to sandbag anyone. From now on if we want to discuss the "what's possible" I suggest "System X", a theoretical system that is heavy into producing results through mechanics, but in which no character association exists. I, of course, think that such systems are eminently viable, and just haven't been looked at much.

There is a possibility that such an activity is so new as to merit its own category I suppose. Um, Mechanical Storytelling? I just thought that such a game would fall into the RPG category as that would be the more likely market.

And as to this only being my opinion, well, yes. It's very unscientifically based on my own admittedly limited observations of CS play. I must look to someone like Lance who has more experience, therefore for evidence to back me up. Which his observations seem to me to do.

Can anyone with more experience or better evidence speak to this? If you are out there, pipe up, please.

Are your observations based on any scientific evidence, Fang? Or just your preference to make character association the primary qualifier?

Mike

[Paul Czege]

Hey,

Ultimately, I do not think we will arrive at a single guiding principle for differentiating between collaborative storytelling and role-playing games...

It would be unprecedented if you did. The hobby is full of attempts to define roleplaying...in the content of online discussions, and in the "what is roleplaying" sections of hundreds of games.

The problem facing you, in my mind, is that there's a high degree of creep at the edges of the hobby. When you walk into GenCon this summer, you'll see a few dealers who're displaying only anime and manga toys and posters, or just military history books. There's enough of a general correlation between the interests of gamers and the products these retailers sell that it's worthwhile to the retailers to be at the convention. Roleplayers often like board games too, and some like chess, and some like card games, etc. And in a hobby where a high percentage of the consumers are also the producers of product (even if it's only house rules and variants) the membrane around the hobby is pretty permeable to external influences. So suddenly you have roleplaying games with playing cards integrated into the mechanics, and card games with roleplaying elements.

So to me, trying to define what is and isn't roleplaying is like trying to map the moving sands of the desert. And I'm personally not sure there's value in sinking time and energy into it. What benefit is to be had from having such a definition, even if can be done? I don't see the hobby is suffering from the general lack of consensus among attempts to define roleplaying. A little GNS theory teaches you to know your preferences. Isn't that all you need?

Paul

[Le Joueur]

You have a point, Fang, but my "what's possible" was value added. I was mostly focusing on the the examples of CS players who play character associated. Who I believe are a substantial portion of the demographic, possibly even the majority (especially given the number of people who come from RPGs where its almost all of play).

I may have a point, but you're missing it.  I wasn't saying that a collaborative storytelling game with high character identification was role-playing gaming (unless you put in about as much system).  I am saying that just "character association" is no more signate of role-playing gaming that just "system" is.  It's when both 'rise' together that you find the continuum of which I speak.

From now on if we want to discuss the "what's possible" I suggest "System X", a theoretical system that is heavy into producing results through mechanics, but in which no character association exists. I, of course, think that such systems are eminently viable, and just haven't been looked at much.

Ah, but then the question goes right back to, "Who does this appeal to."  That's the problem here.  First we're trying to decide what's collaborative storytelling or not, using examples; now we're were trying to use vaporware product to decide people's preferences.  It's just going around and around.

There is a possibility that such an activity is so new as to merit its own category I suppose. Um, Mechanical Storytelling? I just thought that such a game would fall into the RPG category as that would be the more likely market.

We're really talking 'gray areas' now.  I think who it would appeal to would depend heavily on who it was written for and how it was marketed (and little else, it is vaporware after all).

Honestly, if System X produces character-scale results (as in single-action simulation; I hit!) then it would probably appeal to role-playing gamers; if it produces story-scale results (as in climactic-ending; they riddled until sunrise.) then it would probably appeal to collaborative storytellers.  The problem is defining what you mean by "results."  The scale and accessibility of those "results" probably defines whether System X is a role-playing game or a collaborative storytelling game.

But what is the point of discussing this theoretical System X?  Aren't we already mired in a complex of who thinks what rises to the level of role-playing game?  My main point, and I'll say it again, is you will not be able to find an answer that satisfies everyone.  Why try?  Wouldn't it be easier to determine what 'measuring sticks' are commonly used as opposed to the 'measurements?'

Are your observations based on any scientific evidence, Fang? Or just your preference to make character association the primary qualifier?

Are yours?  How does science matter in this discussion?  My preference isn't "character association."  It isn't system-only either.  I have yet to even settle on what preference I have for the threshold between the listed categories (I must disqualify myself from even having a valid choice in the matter as I don't practice collaborative storytelling, nor have I).

I believe, by looking at this thread alone, that people are reacting to it being some kind of fusion between "character association" and system, in a way where one supports the other.  No one seems willing to throw either out (saying effectively that collaborative storytelling cannot use system or that role-playing gaming cannot lack "character association"), so I have to say, looking just at this conversation alone, the determiner has some bearing on the wedding between character-focus and systemic reinforcement.

Personally, not that I know much about collaborative storytelling, but I don't imagine placing focus on character and having a system that reinforces that, would be conducive to the practice, but I am only guessing.

Fang Langford

[Mike Holmes]

Your disbelief that I am not seeing your arguments is only exceeded aparently by my belief that you are ignoring mine.

First, What I am saying is that I disagree that character association has anything to do with the defining criteria of RPGs/CS. Second, I am perfectly comfortable not looking at System X (or Universalis for that matter). I only put it out there for anyone who wanted to go that direction, or may have been interested.

Further, it seems to me that we have is four possible combinations that form these activities given your two criteria.

1. High character association, high system interference - everybody agrees that this is RPG territory.
2. Low character association, high system interference - Fang says we can't talk about this one as nobody does it. OK.
3. Low character association, low system interference - everybody agrees that this is CS territory.
4. High character association, low system interference - so what is this?

I posited that number 4 is just as common as number 3 amongst people who claim to be CSers. In which case, character association is not a factor in determining what makes the activity one or the other, only system is important.

I then pointed out that my evidence was not  scientific, which makes me wonder why you asked. My point was that your idea that character association is important in this search for criteria is merely a preference, too. I am asking if anyone can confirm or deny my suspicions, other than Lance, who I contend supports my position with his experiences. Yes, people have pointed to character association in this thread as important, but I think that merely reflects the RPG bias. If you look at the activities both as a whole I think it loses any importance as part of the criteria.

And, yes, the exact point at which the system becomes resolution of in-game events such as it causes the game to go from an RPG to CS is probably preference. I have not implied otherwise. I have repeatedly said the line is blurry and whatnot. My demarcation is a spectrum as well, one simply devoid of ant reference to character association.

You do bring up an intresting new possibility for a criteria with the scale of result thing. But I think that the case of the smaller scale results are limited to RPGs, but do not define them. That is, if you have round-to-round resolution, you have an RPG. But if you have any other scale you could have either activity. Or rather scene-resolution or any scale larger than round-to round does not automatically mean that the system is CS. I can say for certain that lots of people play RPGs with very large chunks of resolution. Look at Aria, which has systems that can resolve eons at a roll. Most RPGs caveat against "rolling for everything" which means in general terms that resolution rolls can occur at long intervals, potentially. No, I'd say that round-to-round resolution is only indicative of RPGs for exactly the same reason I said before. Because it indicates that there is a system which produces some sort of results in terms of in-game events (cahracters only hit each other once every ten seconds, this would never fly as CS).

In any case, I will agree with Paul that this discussion may not be very important. And barring any information coming in from a very reliable source on the actual nature of CS, I don't think that there is much to say, personally. I am starting to regret getting into it.

Mike

[Lance D. Allen]

1. High character association, high system interference - everybody agrees that this is RPG territory.
2. Low character association, high system interference - Fang says we can't talk about this one as nobody does it. OK.
3. Low character association, low system interference - everybody agrees that this is CS territory.
4. High character association, low system interference - so what is this?

1. Agreed, please drive through.

2. Wargaming? Boardgames? Friggin' Monopoly? Given that the idea is to create a story, perhaps they don't apply... But then again, perhaps they do. I've told the epic tale of an intense game of Risk before, so why the hell not?

3. Again, agreed, please pay your server before you leave.

4. Free-form roleplaying. Plain and simple. No real system other than simple agreement of all parties, and it's all about playing the role. The most intense roleplaying sessions I've ever experienced were freeform, because there were absolutely no rules to get in the way of playing the role.

I think this actually works as a basic "yardstick" like Fang wants. It doesn't necessarily say that every single one of them is hard-and-fast, set and immutable, but it does give good guidelines to what it commonly perceived. However, I also think that there are more than simply RPG and CS. These two might only be considered the extremes of the scale. In the grey areas you'd have FFRP and something else, perhaps unexplored.. A systemic way of telling stories without direct character association.

To close, I'll offer some of my own hard and fast definitions, which I don't think can be disputed (though I've been wrong before..)
1. If you are not directly playing a role, then you are not roleplaying, period.
2. If what you are doing doesn't have a defined set of rules, you are not playing a game, period.
3. If the results of your activity do not include a story, then you are not storytelling, period.

Out.