Semantics: Roleplaying vs. Storytelling

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Guys,

Sorry, Ron and Jack, respectfully, I don't buy it.

As Harlen Ellison put it some time ago, if you submit a story called "The Box" to a magazine editor, and a story called "Dead by Dawn" to the same editor, you can guess which is going to end up at the top of the read pile and the bottom.

The assumption that only the content matters (a noble view, though sad in a kind of nostalgic for chivalry kind of way), and the packaging does not, assumes that people are able to automatically see past the packaging and into the content right off the bat.

Most people do not do this.

I don't think anyone here is going to be able to find the "right" term, or should try to, but I think anyone who thinks the term RPG is not so loaded with connotations for the "mainstream" audience has his head up his education.

I remember sitting in on a meeting with Carl Sagan while he was producing the Cosmos series years ago.  (My dad did the PR for the show -- and did a great job.)  Apparenlty PBS and the publisher of the companion book couldn't agree on the same logo.  Sagan said, "What does it matter?  The audience for this show will be bright enough to know it's the same thing."

Even as a kid I simply laughed out loud at that though.  Yes, I laughed at Dr. Sagan as a child -- not something I'm thrilled about now.

The truth is, it does matter...  You want that immediate tie in because you're making an impression on both TV viewers and Readers and you want them to cross over... Because that sends the Word -- and you get more of an audience on both ends.

Ron, I think you are absolutely wrong, wrong, wrong about the graphic novel issue.  Yes, some of the content was better.  But what allowed the break out was the fact that there was this "new" thing with a new term -- which allowed critics and writers in Rolling Stone and other publications across the country to write about a New Thing -- and, most importantly, not be writing about "comic books."  This spread the word, and thus people encountered better than average comic book content.

Shallow?  Sure.  Hello?  Welcome to the human race.

Like Dr. Sagan, I think many of the folks around here think like Dr. Sagan -- meaning they think everyone else thinks like they think.

No.  They don't.

And I don't think there's anything wrong with this.

I also think, for my own concerns, I'd rather have something on the shelves of my bookstore called a story game rather than a roleplaying game (and pitch it as such to possible players) for two reasons:

a) my concerns these days are much more about the group story, and not the "roleplaying, so I want a terms that launches us on the right path from the get go (should I call it "Star Wars" or "Boredom" -- hmmmm);

b) most people don't have a clue what roleplaying is, but they sure as hell know what "story" is.  One is going to be a null set for a lot of poeple, the other is: books, movies, comics, tv shows (in other words, "Things I already know and love.")

Whether or not people should respond more eagerly to what they're already familiar with rather than to ideas, terms and whatnot they're not  familiar with is moot... The truth is they do.

This is one of those moments where folks on the Forge have to leave the safety of the lab, get in the car, and drive on actual asphalt.  

No offense guys, but it's time to give up the ghost on at least some of the baggage if you really desire to hit this "mainstream" thing.  To hold on to language because "that's the way it's been done," or "that's how we do it in my field" is a by-product of the 20th century's annoying love affair with specialization -- which, by definition, is the opposite of mainstream.

Take care,
Christopher

[edited to clean up at least one of my awkward sentences]

[Ron Edwards]

H'm,

The floor is open for suggestions!

Best,
Ron

[quozl]

Ron, you said this over in The Store thread:

Hey,

Funny accents and "playing a role" are not actually what we do when we role-play, not fundamentally, anyway. The fundamental is shared Exploration, socially mediated, with a group goal (GNS). Any bite-sized notions for that?

Best,
Ron

If "playing a role" is not what we actually do when we role-play, what is it that we do?  Social exploration?  Should roleplaying games be called social exploration games?  What is the label that best describes the activity?

[Seth L. Blumberg]

Should roleplaying games be called social exploration games?

Only if the target market is grade-school teachers and pediatric psychologists. Ugh.

Christopher is right. This is a marketing issue at least as much as an issue of factual accuracy.

[Jonathan Walton]

Trying to nail down factual accuracy before tackling "neatness" and marketability... I agree that the terms "social exploration game" and "collaborative storytelling game" are both flawed, they're trying to illuminate similar concepts.  Namely,

a) this is something that requires interaction with other people (social, collaborative, etc.)

b) there is some ultimate objective, be it telling stories or exploration of concepts or whatever.

c) this is a game.

"A" & "C" seem pretty incontroversial, but even they break down at some points.  Were the Lone Wolf books roleplaying games?  What about solo roleplaying in general?  That seems to mean "A" is suspect.  Also, saying that all roleplaying involves "games" seems to restrict roleplaying from ever becoming something more, art or literature or whatever.  There may not be any danger of us running out of space within the limits of "A" & "C" anytime soon, but it we're thinking long term...

The real crux of the matter is "B."  As Ron's GNS essay lays out, there often isn't a single shared objective for roleplaying.  Calling them "storytelling" games seems to create a strong Narrativist focus, now that I think about it.  It doesn't seem completely honest to call strongly-Gamist play "collaborative storytelling," considering the dynamics involved.  Still, "role-playing" seems in imply Actor or Author Stance, and excludes the GM from the activity being practiced.

Anyone want to take a shot at coining a meaningful term?  I'm still pondering this one.

[Le Joueur]

Jonathan,

With all due respect, I'm going to have to stay with "Who Do You Want to Be" games.  Do you wanna be a character in a story with a great thematic message = Narrativism.  Do you wanna be a character who has great adventures during epic travels = Swashbuckler or Simulationist: Exploration of Setting.  Do you wanna be a character who solves the mystery in the nick of time = Joueur or perhaps Gamist.

I think the point about 'what is the premise' shouldn't be a component of a group description; it should be particular to each product.  That there is a premise should scream from every inch of the cover, so putting it in the one-sentence-description would be redundant.

Is that any help?

Fang Langford

[Jonathan Walton]

That there is a premise should scream from every inch of the cover, so putting it in the one-sentence-description would be redundant.

Is that any help?

Maybe.  There seems to be some repetition of the idea that putting "roleplaying game" or the like on the cover of a product may, in fact, be redundant and unnecessary.  Though this is not exactly what you meant (I don't think), maybe that's the ultimate answer.

If I'm writing a product that I don't think fits the name "roleplaying game," then I could either call it something else or not call it anything.  The downside would be less attention from the standard roleplaying crowd, but if I'm not targeting them anyway it would seem silly to advertise my product as a "roleplaying game."  Maybe I should just say what my product is, individually, without really worrying about what categories it fits into.

[quozl]

It's branding.  Saying your game is a roleplaying game associates your game with all the other games calling themselves roleplaying games.  White Wolf wanted to differentiate themselves so they created a new brand called "storytelling game" which was only associated with their games.  Hogshead did this too with their "New Style" games.  People at The Forge who make games have their games branded as "indie rpg" (sometimes willingly, sometimes not).

The question is do we need a new brand in order to differentiate these type of games and to create an association of these type of games.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

As Harlen Ellison put it some time ago, if you submit a story called "The Box" to a magazine editor, and a story called "Dead by Dawn" to the same editor, you can guess which is going to end up at the top of the read pile and the bottom.

Well, that would depend on what magazine the editor works for, I think.

I don't think anyone here is going to be able to find the "right" term, or should try to, but I think anyone who thinks the term RPG is not so loaded with connotations for the "mainstream" audience has his head up his education.

I don't disagree with this. I personally just thing that it's just as good to stick with the term we know, loaded though it may be, than to try to coin a new term that you also think we won't find nor should try to.

I think the best way to find a new term is for those with the inclination to coin terms, put them on their product, and see which ones wind up being used by other people. That's how words work their way into the language. This is probably why I think it's kind of a waste of time to actively try to coin a new term. It will happen on its own IMO

(should I call it "Star Wars" or "Boredom" -- hmmmm)

....

most people don't have a clue what roleplaying is, but they sure as hell know what "story" is.  One is going to be a null set for a lot of poeple, the other is: books, movies, comics, tv shows (in other words, "Things I already know and love.")

I can buy this, I guess. Roleplaying is becoming a business tool where they make employees "roleplay" situations they might encounter to learn how to handle them (sales, firing someone, etc.) So roleplaying is not quite such a null set, I think. Maybe not as widely known as story, but still known.

[Jonathan Walton]

So roleplaying is not quite such a null set, I think. Maybe not as widely known as story, but still known.

The mainstream connotations of roleplaying would probably include:
• D&D
• kinky sex stuff, where you pretend to be other people
• business/educational training
• certain computer games

...and that's all that I can think of.  None of these, in my mind, are particularly helpful.  I guess I just think the connotations of "story" or "storytelling" would be more positive and more useful in explaining what my products are.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

[quote="Jonathan Walton... I guess I just think the connotations of "story" or "storytelling" would be more positive and more useful in explaining what my products are.[/quote]

The go ahead and do what you want and I hope it works out for you. And hey, let us know if it does. I think I've contributed all I can to this topic.

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Jack,

Thanks for your reply.

I think I agree with you on your major point:  I don't think hashing out a new term on the Forge makes much sense.

I just think it's vital who might want to hit that mainstream to make up their own term/branding for their products.  (For all the reasons I listed.)

Take care,

Christopher

[John Wick]

A buddy of mine and I just had a discussion. Went something like this.

HIM: Roleplaying games aren't books, they're games. Games in which story happens.

ME: Roleplaying games are tools for cooperative storytelling. Storytelling games.


No. It's a game first. Story happens within the context of the game. It isn't a novel, it isn't a story, it isn't a movie. It's a game.

No. It's not "just" a game. It's a storytelling game. The emphasis is on telling the story. In fact, a roleplaying game isn't a game at all. In order for it to be a game, there must be a winner and a loser. Without that, it isn't a game. It's an activity. Or a puzzle. Or a toy.

I just realized I could write 8,000+ words on this subject. Maybe I should... :)

But that's just me,
John
---

The Wick is Dead!
John is alive and well.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi John!

'Course, in some of'em, you do win or lose. But that's not to the point, right? If I'm reading your point right, the key is that the word "game" is perhaps more problematic to the potential customer than the word "role-playing."

Wowsers - that's kind of a big deal, isn't it?

Best,
Ron

[Jared A. Sorensen]

Hi John!

'Course, in some of'em, you do win or lose. But that's not to the point, right? If I'm reading your point right, the key is that the word "game" is perhaps more problematic to the potential customer than the word "role-playing."

Wowsers - that's kind of a big deal, isn't it?

Best,
Ron

So if we leave it to "telling stories, playing characters" we run into the standard average person's rant of "I'm not creative enough."