This is another by-product by the recent emphasis on "going mainstream" in design, publication, and publicity.

Now, I know Ron has said he's not too fond of the term "storytelling game" because of it's connection with White Wolf products, but I've come to realize, especially in working on recent projects, that the term "roleplaying game" isn't as inclusive as I'd like. I'm wondering whether the "storytelling" term could be reappropriated from White Wolf and freed up for general use, since it might, in fact, be more appropriate to describe the directions that "roleplaying" may be heading in the future.

Take, for example, Universalis, which is becoming the poster-child for a non-traditional game. In many Universalis games, very little role-playing will go on. Players will be creating setting and conflict, manipulating characters in Pawn (and the occasional Author) Stance, but the bulk of the game has very little to do with the players taking on various roles. Is it really a "role-playing game" at all, then? I'm not trying to argue that Ralph and Mike's game is a different breed, just that it pushes the envelope in several ways and has outgrown the term "roleplaying." It does, however, still seem to be a "storytelling game."

Likewise, all three of my current projects (Storypunk, The GM is Dead, and a new Harry Potter game I may be starting soon) have players take on the roles of themselves, blantantly making the characters avatars of the players. In these kind of games, the "roles" are barely even there, serving as merely a thin layer of seperation where they exist at all. Are these "role-playing games"? Maybe. Maybe not. But they are still clearly "storytelling games," in my opinion.

So my question is this: if we're going to continue to push the envelope of game design, if we're going to try to gain mainstream recognition and credibility, and if roleplaying is not always going to be characterized by "playing roles," wouldn't "storytelling game" (once divorced from its origins) serve our purposes better?

Jonathan Walton wrote: So my question is this: if we're going to continue to push the envelope of game design, if we're going to try to gain mainstream recognition and credibility, and if roleplaying is not always going to be characterized by "playing roles," wouldn't "storytelling game" (once divorced from its origins) serve our purposes better?

Hi there,

I've been searching all over for the thread in which this issue was beaten to death with a thorny stick. Can any of the old-timers help me find it?

Best,
Ron

Ron,

Are you talking about this thread, "Group Storytelling vs. Roleplaying"? I just found it.

Having just read the entirety of that older thread, I think I'm asking a significantly different question, partially because this is a "publishing" thread and not a "theory" one.

I'm not asking what the terms "roleplaying" and "storytelling" mean to gamers. I'm asking what they sound like they mean to Joe Average. If you forgot all the esoteric socialization that makes you part of the roleplaying community, and I tried to sell you a "roleplaying game" that had no roles in it for you to play, wouldn't you think I was on crack? Sure, the Holy Roman Empire may not have been holy, Roman, or an empire, but that's confusing as hell too :)

If I'm writing roleplaying games for a mainstream audience, but they don't contain much that is obviously recognisable as "role-playing," would it not be better to call them "storytelling games"? If the shoe fits...

Hi Jonathan,

That's an interesting thread, but it's not the one I was thinking of. The one I'm thinking of (but cannot find, or rather have been too swamped without further memories, like which forum, who started it, etc) began with an identical query to yours.

Best,
Ron

Hi, Ron.

It might not be the thread you had meant, but this issue came up at the end of the Mainstream thread and my comments on the issue were posted there just before you shut down that thread.

I don't know, Jack. I think the issue I'm addressing is a little different from the one you talked about in "Mainstream." White Wolf games were obviously just "roleplaying games" with the pretentious title "storytelling game" tacked on to them. At the core, once you ignored the high-falutin' talk that disguised their Gamist foundations, they weren't much different from the things that had come before.

But I'm talking about things that, 20 years ago, wouldn't have been considered roleplaying games at all. Like Baron Munchausen. Nobody would have put the Baron in the same category with D&D. This isn't really trying to take a roleplaying game and give it a pretentious, sellable title to make it appeal to the masses. This is about finding a meta-category that all these games can belong to, since they're thematically associated with roleplaying.

If your standard D&D junkie picked up something called The Baron Munchausen Roleplaying Game, he'd find that it was nothing like what he expected "roleplaying game" to entail. In fact, on the Hogshead site, the blurb for the Baron says "is it really a roleplaying game at all?"* These are the type of games I'm trying to classify, because, when we begin to push the envelope, we'll end up with many, many more like it, games that seem to defy the definition of roleplaying.

*Strangely enough, the Baron's game is all about role-playing, really, but it still gets placed outside the box.

Hi Jonathan.

I think my point is, or was supposed to be this: I don't see too much reason to cook up a new name for RPGs, even RPGs that seem to break the mold like Universalis or Baron Munchausen.

I mean, there was a time when it was not impossible for someone to think that an RPG had to be set in a quazi-medieval fantasy world, right? This is obviously false. Now the question is when does it cease to be an RPG and then requires a new term. I, for one see it from a fairly different angle.

I think that the term "roleplaying game" or "RPG" has long since outgrown the definitions of the individual words. What I mean is the meaning will stretch to include whatever game the publisher decided to designate "RPG" within reason. This is also confounded further by computer gaming which has all but stolen the term roleplaying and RPG from us.

There are probably plenty of words out there in the English language that no longer add up to be the sum of its parts (e.g. awful does not mean "full of awe" anymore but really bad) Why shouldn't RPG no longer mean "playing a role?" I think this is already happening and people are dealing with it, as they always do.

...

What I'm getting at is I don't think we really need to consider a term for new games that push the boundaries of what an RPG is. I, personally, think it's a waste of time, really. I personally would leave that up to the individual publisher to try to come up with a new term for their RPG they may not think is an RPG anymore and let history tell if they're as foolish as Pacesetter or White Wolf about it.

I mean, it can be fun to come up with a taxonomy (is that the word I mean?) for this. But it's useless, really unless you have something to go into that category and then you get people to actually use it.

I mean, I'll bet that most people, when they have cause to, call Sorcerer an RPG or a Roleplaying game, not "An Intense Role-Playing Game" even though it says that on the cover. (and this may not be the greatest example and, no, I'm not picking on Sorcerer. It just happens to be the game I have handy)

So, what I'm saying, or trying to say is that this really is a non-issue. I mean, look at Pepsi Blue or Code Red Mountain Dew. I don't really taste the original product in those, but the name recognition got people to buy it. So I say, call Universalis and Baron Munchausen RPGs. Who cares if they're not like anything that has been called an RPG before? I just think that this is an issue that tends to resolve itself and the time and energy it takes is better spent on the actual project. But that's my opinion.

Hi Guys,

I'd really like to get a chance to read that original thread -- casue I think this is a vital issue. (Even if others have beaten it with a thorny stick, I suspect it might be gently cared for and nursed back to health.)

Anyone have any clues about it's whereabout?

Christopher

Dammit, I'm sorry I mentioned it now. We've spent a whole lot of posts on this thread about some other damn thread, and I apologize for that, Jonathan.

In the meantime (as I wade through the forums, cursing), I find all of Jack's post completely convincing. I also think that to the interested almost-gamer-who-doesn't-know-it (can we invent a word for this person?), any terminological ambiguity is off-putting.

I'm speaking as a long-time comics reader, and following my observation -or perhaps inference - that it wasn't the term "graphic novel" that did the job for comics, but rather critically-undeniable content, a shift in content from fringe (superheroes, which I again repeat that I really like, but they are fringe) to mainstream (most especially Sandman), and in some stores (the ones who've prospered) a different approach to sales and presentation. My accompanying observation and inference is that insisting on "graphic novel" was widely - if not universally - perceived as pretentious.

Ideally, I suppose, the cover shouldn't say anything. Maus wasn't presented as a comic or as a cartoon or a graphic novel, or anything - it was just "Maus." However, I'm not sure this is wise regarding role-playing games, for which the activity is being advertised. One doesn't have to sell "reading" for a comic, whether it's Maus or the latest issue of Flash, but at this time, one is selling "role-playing" as well as whatever title is being offered.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: I'm speaking as a long-time comics reader, and following my observation -or perhaps inference - that it wasn't the term "graphic novel" that did the job for comics, but rather critically-undeniable content, a shift in content from fringe (superheroes, which I again repeat that I really like, but they are fringe) to mainstream (most especially Sandman), and in some stores (the ones who've prospered) a different approach to sales and presentation. My accompanying observation and inference is that insisting on "graphic novel" was widely - if not universally - perceived as pretentious.

Best,
Ron

Hi Jon,

H'm, I should have clarified. By "perceived as pretentious," I am referring specifically to those people who were not comics readers but were potentially so, and interested in it just enough to get turned off by the pretentiousness.

I recognize that you did fall into this category, but don't fit my profile at all, which is why I'm emphasizing that this is an observation and inference on my part, not a blanket description nor an established trend.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Hi Jon,

H'm, I should have clarified. By "perceived as pretentious," I am referring specifically to those people who were not comics readers but were potentially so, and interested in it just enough to get turned off by the pretentiousness.

I recognize that you did fall into this category, but don't fit my profile at all, which is why I'm emphasizing that this is an observation and inference on my part, not a blanket description nor an established trend.

Best,
Ron

quozl wrote: Obviously, it's pretentious to those who are already fans of the medium.

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]

H'm,

The floor is open for suggestions!

Best,
Ron

Ron, you said this over in The Store thread:

Ron Edwards wrote: 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

quozl wrote: Should roleplaying games be called social exploration games?

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.

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

Le Joueur wrote: 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?

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.

Christopher Kubasik wrote: 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.

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.

(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.")

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

quot;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.

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

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.

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

Ron Edwards wrote: 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

Jonathan Walton wrote:
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

Hey Jared, Ron,

Jared A. Sorensen wrote:

Ron Edwards wrote: '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?

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."

Ron Edwards wrote: 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

Ron Edwards wrote: In the meantime (as I wade through the forums, cursing), I find all of Jack's post completely convincing. I also think that to the interested almost-gamer-who-doesn't-know-it (can we invent a word for this person?), any terminological ambiguity is off-putting.

Ron Edwards wrote: I'm speaking as a long-time comics reader, and following my observation -or perhaps inference - that it wasn't the term "graphic novel" that did the job for comics, but rather critically-undeniable content, a shift in content from fringe (superheroes, which I again repeat that I really like, but they are fringe) to mainstream (most especially Sandman), and in some stores (the ones who've prospered) a different approach to sales and presentation. My accompanying observation and inference is that insisting on "graphic novel" was widely - if not universally - perceived as pretentious.

And one more thing.
Most video games are not games. They are complicated and sophisticated puzzles.

Here's my definitions.

A puzzle is something the designer makes then hands over to the player. Once he does that, his participation in the puzzle is over. The player interracts with the puzzle, not the designer. The player cannot "win" a puzzle; he "solves" the puzzle.

Most video games are puzzles. You do not actively participate with the designer. HALO (my favorite video game) is a puzzle. The designers mapped out the levels, programmed the AI, placed the easter eggs, but once that game is shipped, they do not actively oppose your efforts to "solve" the puzzle.

If you engage HALO in a PVP format (playing against another live player), you've engaged in a game. You are in direct competition against another player. Using the environment the puzzle provides to play a game.

A roleplaying game, then, is not a game at all, but an activity. You do not actively play against another player to win (unless you subscribe to the Antagonistic GM approach). When you finish, there is no winner or loser; and there must be both in order for our subject activity to be a game. At least, as far as my definitions go.

Thus, a roleplaying game, in my eyes, is not a game. It is, has, and always will be (as long as I'm the GM) "cooperative storytelling." That's how I pitch it when I explain it to folks who have no clue what I'm talking about. And, generally, because they really don't know what D&D is really about anyway, I can describe roleplaying without ever bringing up D&D.. and make it sound sexy rather than geeky.

(Another) By the way,

Matt is the guy I mentioned above.
Good to see you, man!

Hey John!

Here's why John's wrong.

It's fun to think like a Hacker and use language in ways is was not meant to be used ("Are you staying or going?" "yes.") I do it all the time. I have what I consider a funny rant on Sport. Here it is;

Golf is not a sport. Here's why. A sport needs the following things. 1) a ball. 2) at least two opposing teams. 3) Each team needs to be able to actively oppose the other team from acheiving some goal.

This includes everything we all agree is a sport (baseball, basketball, football) and excludes all the things we all agree it's ridiculous to call a sport (synchronized swimming.) I have a lot of fun going over this with friends because invariably some people 'get it' and see that I'm being funny while often agreeing with my principle while others don't get it and get really worked up and argue with me.

And while I actually believe that my definition really does the job an academic definition is supposed to do (includes all the things we all agree a sport is, excludes all the things we're dubious about) I'm not seriously expecing things to change. Language doesn't work that way.

What John's doing is taking the term 'game' and trying to change what it means in spite of how everyone uses it. What I'm trying to do is see what everyone's doing, and see if RPG is the right term for that.

Everyone already thinks HALO and D&D are games. So any definition of game that doesn't include them, is wrong. Usage establishes definition.

Most people, however, think of Roleplaying in terms of theater. Psychology. Not gaming. Of the two terms in the name 'Roleplaying' and 'Game' it's the first that confuses laymen, not the second. Everyone sees that it is a game. But most people who play the game don't roleplay, they decide how they're character is going to act or react. These are not the same.

Saying "I ask him how much it costs" is not the same as "Good sir! What is the price of yonder yak?" or 'Grond want pointy cow-thing. Give."

mattcolville wrote: Hey John!

Here's why John's wrong.

John Wick wrote: McCloud's chief goal with Understanding Comics was to challenge people's assumptions about comic books. He even gave them a new name: "sequential art."

John Wick wrote: Yes, the vast vast vast majority of people think HALO is a game (even says so on the box), but the vast vast vast majority of people also thought blacks were "sub-men" not too long ago. (Some still do.) Just because the public perception is true doesn't make it right -- or correct.

John Wick wrote: McCloud's chief goal with Understanding Comics was to challenge people's assumptions about comic books. He even gave them a new name: "sequential art." He did it, not to create a definition, but to challenge the standing definition, make people think about what they thought they knew.

John Wick wrote: By saying HALO isn't a game isn't challenging the validity of what HALO is. I just think the current definition of "game" is insufficient to describe what a game actually is. "Game" needs a new definition. Maybe a lot of them. Until then, HALO is a incredibly complicated puzzle.

It does when we're talking about definitions. A word means what most people who use it think it means. When that changes, the definition of the word changes.

I don't agree. Certainly introducing the idea that there's more going on here than meets the eye was what McCloud was trying to do, but finding a 'better' definition for Comics was an intellctual exercice, not in defining comics or challenging people's assumption about them, but understanding them. Hence the title of the book. He knew when he wrote it that people would probably always call them Comics and thus, they would always be the definition of comics.

When a product becomes so different from a game that people don't recognize it as such, then a new word will develop for it all by itself. And that's when you know it needs a new word. Until then, the current word's definition will just continue to change to encompass what people mean by it.

John Wick wrote:

It does when we're talking about definitions. A word means what most people who use it think it means. When that changes, the definition of the word changes.

Is that true of pronunciation, too?
Nucular vs. Nuclear?
Aks vs. Ask?

talysman wrote: We know that most rpgamers don't actually play a role, at least not in the theatrical sense. And I think jonathan's point about calling them "what do you want to be?" games has a certain usefulness.

...But we can all pretty much agree that what you do in an rpg is make and play a character. You play an elf or a private eye or a jedi or a cartoon rabbit. It's the real distinction between rpgs and other games.

bad example... the original pronunciation was "aks" ... from the old english verb acsian.

talysman wrote: but we can all pretty much agree that what you do in an rpg is make and play a character. you play an elf. or a private eye. or a jedi. or a cartoon rabbit. it's the real distinction between rpgs and other games.

And just to throw oil on the confusion:

What do we mean by "playing a role"?

When I played Karl in Jesses' Sorcerer game, I made up names for my PC's servents, I invented a statue of the Madona that stood at a cross roads so he could wake up from a week of madness at its feet, and described the typical reaction the townspeople had when I appeared in public?

Certainly I was in charge of much of my character's "screen time," but what I did seems hardly limited to playing a role.

Sorcerer offers a lot of Author stance, and Jesse ran with it. I spent a great deal of time not playing my character, but building the world around him that best illustrated the story he was a part of. I'm with Jonathan on this one: RPGs are a lot more than "playing an elf." Or, at least, they can be.

Take care,
Christopher