Storygaming and Verisimilitude


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I recently made a brief foray into some other gaming forums. I referred to my desire to "be a better GM, to be a better storyteller" and...things kind of exploded.

Apparently, there is a deep and painful rift between certain groups of the ttrpg community. Once upon a time, one group said "all ttrp's are collaborative storytelling, which means that you have to do what's best for the story and use mechanics that engage the narrative directly."
Another group said "we don't want to do that. We want games that focus on verisimilitude, where our characters take actions based on the world around them and themselves and that's it."

I felt like the issue was that the first group seemingly accused the second of "playing it wrong", and that they were using their definition of storytelling to force their preferences on others.
But staunch defenders of the second group have told me that no, all ttrpg's are not in any way a form of storytelling at all, and that my insistence of any other view was oppressive.

I...feel like they ended up doing to me exactly what they were afraid of me doing to them.

But at any rate, I'd never heard of this debate before, much less the fervor that some seem to take a stance within it. Have any of you ran into this thing? I guess aot of it started with the forums at The Forge, but that was quite a while ago if I'm not mistaken.

I'd never considered the difference between roleplaying and storytelling games before, or how not understanding the subtle difference could be so inadvertently hurtful. What's the take over here?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it's just the latest expression of a long-running 'thing' in roleplaying where people find a game that they love and believe that this is the best way to play RPGs, and think that 'the other way' is out of date or just not as good as their favourite game. Over the years I've seen all of these various debates;

- Rules lite vs rules-crunchy
- High fantasy vs grity realism
- World of Darkness vs other RPGs
- AD&D vs Runequest
- And of course the dreaded D&D edition wars.

Currently 'collaborative storytelling' games, such at the PbtA systems seems to be the new thing, and a lot of peoople are very evangelical about how great these games are, possibly because if there is a finite pool of gamers out there you want enough playing 'your' game to be able to get a group together.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've seen that split before. Generally speaking the first group are in favour of rules-light games and the second like the more complicated games, possibly including PF. Old School Rules games generally get lumped in with the complicated games. And yes there are people who like some of each, but you want to keep your head down about that when you're somewhere that the fanatics claim.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That all makes sense.

I tried to make my case as civilly as possible; that I considered playing even a game like Pathfinder to be a form of storytelling, just by my working definition of the concept. But I was essentially accused of telling people how to play their game/what to do/how to think.

I think the storytelling games are interesting--having mechanics that deal with the narrative itself rather than as abstractions of in-world phenomenon can be cool. But I definitely enjoy games without them. Maybe more so, but it's hard to tell.

It sort of felt like the difference between U.S. pudding (the gooey stuff that tends to come in little cups and such) and English pudding (a term for desserts in general). If someone from the UK told me that the brownie I was eating was "pudding", I wouldn't think that they were trying to oppress my views and control how and what I ate. I would just think that they had a different definition of a term. And I'd agree with them, considering their definition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It seems like there's an extra element to the discussion that's missing. It's certainly desirable to use a set of rules that support the narrative, and to have those rules animate the world in a way that reinforces verisimilitude. The two conflict when the rules are too ambiguous for the players to know how to interact with the story, or the rules get in the way of the story. How to resolve that problem and which direction to go is a hard problem to address and probably depends on the group you're running for, I'm not sure taking a hard stance would make sense unless you've only experienced an error in one direction.

I could see players of games that did a poor job of simulation, or had a flexible rule set, being adamant that playing to the game's strengths was necessary.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Extremists in any direction are a bit of a lost cause. The moment someone raises their hackles at even the remote possibility of a differing viewpoint or opinion, the conversation is dead.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, could you give an example or two of the divide? I'm not sure I fully understand the difference in this squabble since both sides talk about mechanics.

I'm also inclined to call shenanigans on group two. Any group can play any game however they choose. Unless you've voluntarily signed up for society play or some type of tournament, there is no governing body enforcing how we play. However, no matter how flavorful or bare bones you make it, YES, all role-playing games are a form of storytelling . Unless you are actively engaging in an activity, any description or narration of events is telling a story. Technically even a police incident report, a news article, or a war game simulation, are all still telling a story.

So, I'm legitimately confused over what the point of contention here is. Even if one side is telling the other "you're doing wrong!", which is NOT okay, it seems like the other side is arguing fake vocabulary. At the very least it seems an apples and oranges debate.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

There's nothing wrong with a game where the players have the agency to create their own stories.

There's nothing wrong with a game where the GM is creating a great story that the players can interact with.

There's nothing wrong with a game where there's barely a story but which is packed with exciting mechanical challenges.

There is everything wrong with people telling you there's only one way to play.

However, the term 'storytelling' is best avoided, because telling a story is not gaming. It carries implications of, "Sit down in silence and listen to me talk." That might not be what you mean, but someone who has in the past been aggressively railroaded by a bad GM will probably make negative assumptions about you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:

There's nothing wrong with a game where the players have the agency to create their own stories.

There's nothing wrong with a game where the GM is creating a great story that the players can interact with.

There's nothing wrong with a game where there's barely a story but which is packed with exciting mechanical challenges.

There is everything wrong with people telling you there's only one way to play.

However, the term 'storytelling' is best avoided, because telling a story is not gaming. It carries implications of, "Sit down in silence and listen to me talk." That might not be what you mean, but someone who has in the past been aggressively railroaded by a bad GM will probably make negative assumptions about you.

Agree with almost everything you said. However, I do have to respectfully disagree with the last point. Words have meaning, and I realize they can also carry connotations and attached experiences, but context matters.

In the context of table top games (even most videogames), there is at least an element of storytelling. In a game, it is collaborative or "group" storytelling. Those adjectives make a world of difference. We don't protect people or facilitate communication by avoiding words are their meanings. Instead we have to use words in their proper form, and make the effort to make sure we all understand what is meant.

I'm not trying to accuse you of anything, but when any of us avoids words or tries to dance around terms, we quite unintentionally obfuscate our own meanings. We are literally "shifting the goalposts" on our own conversations.


Sysryke wrote:
In the context of table top games (even most videogames), there is at least an element of storytelling. In a game, it is collaborative or "group" storytelling.

No there isn't.

There sure can be. But it should no means be assumed.

I saw that last thread, and my understanding is that this was the issue.

Storytelling is intentional and nobody else gets to tell a hack n' slash group that this is what they're doing when it manifestly isn't.


Quixote wrote:

That all makes sense.

I tried to make my case as civilly as possible; that I considered playing even a game like Pathfinder to be a form of storytelling, just by my working definition of the concept. But I was essentially accused of telling people how to play their game/what to do/how to think.

Your working definition makes assumptions about the hows and whys of other people's interactions with the game.

It is how I play the game, but it's not how everyone does.

There is an element of 'one-true-wayism' in assuming otherwise which I know wasn't your intent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Carrauntoohil wrote:
Sysryke wrote:
In the context of table top games (even most videogames), there is at least an element of storytelling. In a game, it is collaborative or "group" storytelling.

No there isn't.

There sure can be. But it should no means be assumed.

I saw that last thread, and my understanding is that this was the issue.

Storytelling is intentional and nobody else gets to tell a hack n' slash group that this is what they're doing when it manifestly isn't.

I'm not quite sure you take my meaning. Even a hack in slash game involves storytelling. If that's all there is to the story, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But, the characters are not real people. The players are not all in a dungeon somewhere hacking with real swords into real monsters. The GM is presenting the enemies, the terrain, and the action. The players are all describing and declaring their actions. The dice are helping to arbitrate and inject the elements of random chance. Even if it's all just described in numbers, the story of the fight is being told, because it's not real. The lack of exposition, acting, or figurative language doesn't stop something from being a story. As I've said before, a police report of a traffic accident is still a story too.

Their is no right or wrong in these games as to how, why, or to what degree a story is being told/created, but there is a story in play.


Carrauntoohil wrote:
Quixote wrote:

That all makes sense.

I tried to make my case as civilly as possible; that I considered playing even a game like Pathfinder to be a form of storytelling, just by my working definition of the concept. But I was essentially accused of telling people how to play their game/what to do/how to think.

Your working definition makes assumptions about the hows and whys of other people's interactions with the game.

It is how I play the game, but it's not how everyone does.

There is an element of 'one-true-wayism' in assuming otherwise which I know wasn't your intent.

The words, terms, and ideas have existed before most of (if not all) us were even conceived. The definitions are what they are. Using a word in its proper context doesn't make any assumptions, it's just language based communication. Just because somebody approaches a word, activity, or idea in a new manner doesn't invalidate the original meaning. A word and its meaning just is, it can not make assumptions, only people can. That is why communication about terminology is important. Otherwise, we never have meaningful conversation, we just sit around arguing semantics.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

People in rec.games.frp.* used to talk about the Threefold Way, the divide between Storyteller, Simulationist (=verisimilitude) and Gamist.

Storyteller is (by that definition) about the GM and players creating a narrativist story about their characters. It has a plot with High Drama and Character-Shaping Conflict and Emotional Resonance and Acting and all that fun stuff. Without which it's just a boardgame.

Simulationist is the GM creating a world which makes internal sense, and players doing what they "realistically" can within that coherent world. Balance is not relevant. If there should be a dragon or a giant or a peasant there, that's what's there. Without this, the game is just incoherent babble with dice.

Gamist is about balance, action, risk, rules and fun. It's what ensures a 1st level party doesn't face a mob of fire giants or carry a truckload of Holy Avengers. Without this it's not a game, it's just collaborative storytelling and/or railroading.

Different groups want, and different game systems provide, a different balance between these 3 elements. One session of a campaign may have an entirely different balance from the next. Amber (very Storyteller) and Living Steel (very Simulationist) and 4e (very Gamist, IMHO) will inevitably give different experiences, and some people won't like some of them for that reason.

The trick (which needs a good system and an expert GM) is to get lots of all three. Of course, some GMs are just bitter, spiteful railroading incompetents, and they tend to provide not enough story, verisimilitude or game.

But calling someone else's game badwrongfun because you prefer a different balance is elitist, fallacious and arrogant.


Sysryke wrote:
...could you give an example or two of the divide? I'm not sure I fully understand the difference in this squabble since both sides talk about mechanics.

I can try. But I have the information third hand at best:

I used the term "telling stories" as synonymous with "running games". This is what sparked the whole thing. I had a conversation very similar to the one above between you and Carrauntoohill. It got...rather heated.
Eventually, it basically felt like several someones were screaming at me, telling me I was wrong and to stop oppressing them.

So I asked for some details.

From what I understand, there came a point in ttrpg design where a group of people said that, because all ttrpg's were a form of collaborative storytelling, every system and every session should be dedicated to telling a better story. And this involved certain approaches in gamemastering and certain designs in systems. Like adjudicating player action "for the sake of the story" and mechanics that allowed you to control the narrative directly. And if you aren't doing those things/using those mechanics, then you're doing it wrong/playing the wrong system.

Which is stupid and elitist and the sort of claptrap I would happily defend anyone against.

But, in my insistence that any kind of ttrpg--even ones that focus on verisimilitude and have no mechanics that affect the narrative, etc.--are at least a form of storytelling, or involve it in some way, I was accused of telling these people that they were playing the game wrong or telling them that they were engaged in an activity they weren't.

Which...I disagree. It's a matter of definition. If your definition is different than mine, that doesn't mean that my definition is in any way exerting control over you or oppressing you. Right? I mean. It's like...you're eating a sandwich. It's 11:45am. I could call that lunch, but maybe you just consider it a snack. Or brunch. Or second breakfast. -- at no point am I telling anyone whether, when, what or how they can eat.

Honestly, it feels like I accidentally reignited an old argument that I was never a part of. Something I said seemed similar enough to stuff other people have said in the past that it struck a chord, and some people are apparently so traumatized by these past arguments that they responded to me by...well, essentially by doing to me exactly what they had done to them.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Having played and run multiple systems and versions of systems over 40 years or so, my opinion is this:

The game system is a tool kit used to build the in-game experience. Like any tool kit, it will do some things better than others. The extent that the system's strengths and weaknesses match the preferences of what a particular group considers important determines how "good" they think that system is.

Anything else is just noise.


So, did you learn your lesson about having an opinion on the internet?

*Kidding*

Honestly, it sounds like an overreaction to a choice of words.

I would call a GM a storyteller/narrator/arbiter/whatever, all it means to me personally is that he is running the game.

I, as a player, react to the world the GM designs/builds/reads/whatever.

These are "facts" as in, this is how the game works.

What you call what is happening is irrelevant.


Sysryke wrote:

I'm not quite sure you take my meaning. [...] Even if it's all just described in numbers, the story of the fight is being told, because it's not real. The lack of exposition, acting, or figurative language doesn't stop something from being a story. As I've said before, a police report of a traffic accident is still a story too.

Their is no right or wrong in these games as to how, why, or to what degree a story is being told/created, but there is a story in play.

I absolutely do take your meaning.

It's just incorrect.

A story is not being told. Actions are happening which might result in a story but if your definition of story-telling is vague enough for your examples to qualify, every time I make a bowel movement qualifies as storytelling because things are happening that have the potential to be recounted later.

Stories can arise organically but "Storytelling" isintentional. Telling someone who doesn't play to tell stories otherwise is counterproductive at best and patronising at worst.


Sysryke wrote:
The words, terms, and ideas have existed before most of (if not all) us were even conceived. The definitions are what they are.

They sure have and they sure are.

But you're not using those words or terms accurately.


Sysryke wrote:
The words, terms, and ideas have existed before most of (if not all) us were even conceived. The definitions are what they are.

As I said early, Sysryke. This is EXACTLY the same conversation I had. And your/my stance is VERY offensive to some people.

Carrauntoohil wrote:
Telling someone who doesn't play to tell stories otherwise is counterproductive at best and patronising at worst.

I still don't quite grasp it. I'm sorry. I want to. But it's like...I don't know. Call it whatever you want? Right?

I can see how this issue of definition was used to cause problems in the past, but I don't think that means the definitions themselves are problematic or threatening. They were used for an ill-intended purpose--that's where the problem lies.

People have been telling stories since they first huddled around a campfire. It's a primordial aspect of our nature.
A storyteller makes up a narrative about some mighty warriors doing battle with their foes. There's magic and wonder and terror and honor and betrayal. The audience listens and enjoys it.

I don't see enough of a difference between that and a ttrpg where the mighty warriors are all portrayed by the players.
The mechanics are a whole 'nother thing. Those are there to add a neutral uncertainty and to engage the group on more levels that just listening to a story does.

I favor games that are mostly simulatory. I don't use systems that give the players control of things beyond their characters. I prefer associated mechanics. The structure of the game is focused on the character's actions and the consequences of such. From my understanding, those are all traits of role-playing games, not storytelling games.
But I would still say that it's not *so* different from that guy telling a story around a fire that they're totally unrelated. They're different manifestations of a very big, very vague body. At least, part of the game is. The game is a complicated thing with multiple parts. But one of those parts is* a form of storytelling.
(*to me)

I'm not really sure what people mean when they say they're "not playing to tell stories". So...what is the goal, then? And how does it differ so much from mine?
I mean. I want my games to be exciting and memorable. That they make my players *feel* something. And aside from that, I want that mechanical/crunchy/big numbers and well-executed plans-type satisfaction, too. They feel...pretty separate. The second one I can get from video games and such, the first I can get from a good book, but getting them together is strictly ttrpg territory.
From what I understand, my expectations out of this hobby aren't so alien to others, even those who seem ranked by my definition of storytelling. So where is the rub then, really?

And hey. I definitely pay attention to things like tone and pacing, because I believe that, roleplaying game or storytelling game, a game that is run with these things in mind will be more satisfying--on a subconscious level, usually--than one that isn't.
Like, know when to end a scene so the players don't get lost or bored.
Or, make sure to alternate fast and slow scenes so your players don't get exhausted/disinterested.
Or, use transitions to minimize how the mechanics of the game slow things down and break the tension.

But none of that is a mechanical aspect of the system. It's just...how the game--any game--is run. The core of the game is untouched (that being: character/player choices and their choices). That is never compromised "for the sake of the story" or anything.

So I don't know. I don't want to offend anyone with my definitions, but who's to say their definition has any more authority than my own? If they're upset that I'm "oppressing" them, then their insistence of the opposition is equality oppressive to me. I'm willing to just chalk it up to perspective and a difference of a very minor and unimportant opinion, but some people are apparently not. And at that point, I feel like I've become the target of exactly what they're saying I'm doing to them.


I am confused. I thought I wasn't, but I think I am...

For starters, people get butt-hurt over calling their game a storytelling game? Who has time to possibly care what others might refer to your game as? Call it whatever you want, I am still going to enjoy playing it. Lol.

Second, the term "storytelling", itself, is somehow controversial enough to cause both argument and offense? Me big, strong murderhobo... how dare you say me tell sissy stories... grr.

Opinion [mine]:
If you don't play the game for the story, I can just hand you some math homework and a few dice... every time you see this (X) variable, roll that (d20) die... exhilarating, I'm sure.


Carrauntoohil wrote:
Sysryke wrote:

I'm not quite sure you take my meaning. [...] Even if it's all just described in numbers, the story of the fight is being told, because it's not real. The lack of exposition, acting, or figurative language doesn't stop something from being a story. As I've said before, a police report of a traffic accident is still a story too.

Their is no right or wrong in these games as to how, why, or to what degree a story is being told/created, but there is a story in play.

I absolutely do take your meaning.

It's just incorrect.

A story is not being told. Actions are happening which might result in a story but if your definition of story-telling is vague enough for your examples to qualify, every time I make a bowel movement qualifies as storytelling because things are happening that have the potential to be recounted later.

Stories can arise organically but "Storytelling" isintentional. Telling someone who doesn't play to tell stories otherwise is counterproductive at best and patronising at worst.

Nope, you have either accidentally or quite intentionally completely missed my meaning. This is a matter of definitions. A story is merely an accounting of an event that has a beginning, middle, and a end.

You having a bowel movement, is not a story, because you are actually participating in the physical act, in the real world. The moment you relay the account of that activity to another person, the account, the actual passed on information is the story.

In my example, the traffic accident itself, the collision of vehicles in the real world is not the story. When the officer interviews witnesses or takes statements, those statements are stories. When the officer writes his incident report, the report is the story. In this case, a story about true events. Probably also a very bare bone, cut and dry, straightforward kind of story, but still a story.

GM: There is X monster in front of you.
Player: I take Y action, with Z weapon/spell.
Dice Rolls --> Numbers and Checks --> Results
GM: You hit monster X for # points of damage. The monster is out/dead.

That was a very short story. Boring by many people's standards. No flavor, or scenery, or dialogue. But actions that never really occurred were narrated, were given voice and conveyed from a teller to a recipient. That is storytelling. And no one playing the game can be told that their actions, their play, or their story is wrong.


Quixote wrote:
Sysryke wrote:
The words, terms, and ideas have existed before most of (if not all) us were even conceived. The definitions are what they are.

As I said early, Sysryke. This is EXACTLY the same conversation I had. And your/my stance is VERY offensive to some people.

Carrauntoohil wrote:
Telling someone who doesn't play to tell stories otherwise is counterproductive at best and patronising at worst.

I still don't quite grasp it. I'm sorry. I want to. But it's like...I don't know. Call it whatever you want? Right?

I can see how this issue of definition was used to cause problems in the past, but I don't think that means the definitions themselves are problematic or threatening. They were used for an ill-intended purpose--that's where the problem lies. . . .

*a lot more well articulated stuff, that I agree with*

I'm curious what you mean when you describe a "storytelling game" as distinct from a "role-playing game". Using the terms as I do, (and I think I've got decent academic standing for the usage), storytelling is a very wide umbrella term. This is similar to mathematics; when discussing shapes, there are many polygons, some polygons are rectangles, and some rectangles are squares, but all squares are both rectangles and polygons.

So, as I've said, a report is a story. Acting and/or role-playing is also a form of storytelling. Your helping to tell someone else's story perhaps, the writer or director, but you're still participating in the telling of a story. I'd say that many videogames are also a form of storytelling, though the lines do blur more here. You are controlling the actions of the character you play via the control interface. But the data input coming from the buttons you hit is relaying info to the computer, which in turn is providing you a narrative (visual as well as audio) of the outcomes of the actions. Reading a book or playing a game is a form of time delayed storytelling. The storyteller is the author or game designer, but you as player or reader are both recipient/audience, and possible participant. Hence the important, linked, and lost in the conversation word "INTERACTIVE". Gaming is a type of storytelling, and genre or sub genre if you will.

I'm not trying to argue with you Quixote. If anything I'm preaching to the choir. Just using this response and question as a natural continuation of the conversation.


Sysryke wrote:
I'm curious what you mean when you describe a "storytelling game" as distinct from a "role-playing game".

If I recall correctly, the difference was that roleplaying games have players fulfill a role, whereas a storytelling game has specific mechanics in place to help *tell a story*.

For example, in a roleplaying game, you play a role when you decide your character casts a spell instead of swinging his sword, or when you spend your time in town in an arm-wrestling tournament instead of picking pockets or playing a lute at the local tavern. You make decisions based on your character's abilities and the environment.

In a storytelling game, you can make decisions based on things more meta than "what would my character do". Like...I think it's the FATE system? Your character has certain traits like stubborn or cowardly or old-fashioned. And when a situation comes up where the GM thinks your character's trait might come up, you can either spend a chip to avoid being true to your trait, or you can buy into it and get a chip instead. And chips give bonuses to rolls or whatever.
It's a dissociated mechanic that's tied, not to your character or the in-game world and it's laws, but to the story itself.

You can obviously tell a story or play a role in either type of game. But you can do that when you play checkers, if you so wanted. It's more a matter of what the game is designed to do.
It's a fairly small difference in the tabletop gaming community, but it's one some people felt would be beneficial to define. And within those parameters, I certainly agree. Categories are nice. They help us talk about stuff more accurately.

It seems that some people think you can divorce role-playing games from storytelling entirely. And by saying that even a pure role-playing game with no baked-in storytelling elements or specific effort by the group to tell a story is still, in fact, some manner of storytelling, is bringing up unpleasant memories where "storygamers" were being elitist jerks and telling "role-players" that they were doing it wrong.
So I can see where the offense lies. But it feels entirely due to misunderstanding. I'm not those elitist jerks. I just refer to the thing we both do differently than they do. I have no intention of ever trying to tell them how to play their game.

Not that I think there aren't better and worse ways; this whole "badwrongfun" thing has had an unfortunate side effect in the community, I think. Not all sessions are created equal. The sooner we can get these controlling style/system elitist types to shush, the sooner we can move past this and grow as a community.


Personally, I build characters that can contribute to a multitude of scenarios... both in, and out, of combat. I do this specifically so my character can be involved in whatever is going on at the time. I play to be engaged in the story that is being told.

Or whatever you want to call the underlying narrative that drives that sequence inwhich the party encounters the world around them, and what/whom fills that world.

I, personally, weigh almost every single decision my character makes against the greater good of continuing that aforementioned narrative. If it means NOT being a murderhobo this instant, sobeit. I can abstain from smashing @$$ if it means something more important [overall, not just important right meow to MY character] is going to happen. And I can still do stuff because I didn't build my character to be a moron, or build my character like a moron...

I don't know what exactly is being argued at this point, though. We may not all be in the same boat, but we are all in the same storm. There is literally nothing to argue about. No group is any worse than any other group... there are no groups... we are all playing the same BS games.

You wanna put on your robe and wizard hat, maybe throw some dice? Cool, I'll meet you on Thursday... don't stink, don't be an @$$hole... did we just become best friends?

There is a story. A narrative, whatever you may call the reason your character is with other characters, and all your characters are doing SOMETHING together. Otherwise it's just math homework... with dice. Whatever that something is your characters are doing, the reason your characters are together right now in this world, the reason your characters happen to exist [at all] in this world... ALL THAT is usually some form of story.

There's usually some form of narrative to explain why good is good and evil is evil, who or what is the source of magic, or possibly why there is no magic... a lot of times, your character can find these things out by asking... sometimes that takes skill checks. You can build a character that has those [skills]. There are even times when finding out useless story crap leads to XP/loot/$#!+ to kill, yay! Hacking beasts to bits is fun everyone can enjoy, but that's only part of a larger story... don't interupt or be a distraction/hinderance to the GM's narrative.

Or whatever you want to call it.

Are we roleplaying roles in a story? Yeah, kind of. At the end of the day, as long as you want to play some DnD, we will probably be ok. Lol. Don't smell obnoxious. Don't BE obnoxious. Don't be judgemental or racist. Send it.


I've never understood this debate. TTRPGs aren't a story in the sense that there's a singular narrative and the audience claps. Player interaction dictates that on some level players have control over the story; any TTRPG, on SOME level is OUR game, not MY game.

Some GMs don't like that concept. They want 100% control of the narrative. To them I say: go play the Fantasy Flight board game Descent.

Some players on the other hand specifically seek out GMs that lead them by the nose and give them railroad plots that they don't have many decisions to make. While there's nothing inherently wrong with this, those players might be more comfortable playing Diablo or something.

On the other extreme of the spectrum you've got diceless games like Amber or nearly diceless stuff like Trophy Gold where the GM paints a word picture and the players interact with it until they feel some completion of a goal or everyone gets bored. Games like this always reminded me of that card game I used to play with my kids, Ever After, where we deal out a hand of fairy tale tropes and we all take turns placing cards and telling parts of the story until someone's out.

The central conceit of TTRPGs though is that, regardless of the level of crunch, some level of the story is as much in the hands of the players as it is in the GM. So, whether or not I'm playing a Story game or a Gamist game or a whatever is simply a matter of perception and group buy in. Its personal to the assembled group playing. It might be informed by system, but any TTRPG is going to have at least SOME rules so depending on adherence to those and how the story is being told, those assembled players will decide what kind of game they're playing.

That's my opinion anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
VoodistMonk wrote:
I don't know what exactly is being argued at this point...

I mean. I've tried to outline just that a few times now.

I caught a lot of flak for referring to ttrpg's as a form of collaborative storytelling. I discovered the history that lead to what seemed to be such a volatile reaction. I was curious if other people had encountered this particular issue before.

The debate between the two sides (that is, currently. Not the old debate between the two old sides) seems to essentially be: what constitutes "a story" and whether or not it is morally wrong to insist that someone can be engaged in an activity that they say they are not. Or something like that.

There are still some aspects of the offended party's arguments that I don't really understand. Or maybe it's that I feel like I'm not making myself understood.
But the concensus of the original post is that yes, some people have encountered it, but not many. It seems to be just one more facet of the wars people get into regarding this hobby.

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:
I've never understood this debate.

I've really tried to explain it as I understand it. Does it still not make sense or what?

Once upon a time, some elitist jerks said that their artsy, indie games were better than D&D and all it's kin because all ttrpg's are storytelling and their games were the most focused on the story, therefore their systems were best.
Other people said that they wanted verisimilitude over story and eventually drew a line in the sand to differentiate their games from those of the elitist jerks. The categories are storytelling games and roleplaying games.

At this point, I think it's safe to say there's elitist jerks on both sides, accusing each other of being number-grabbing munchkins or fluffy hipsters.

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:


Games like this always reminded me of that card game I used to play with my kids, Ever After, where we deal out a hand of fairy tale tropes and we all take turns placing cards and telling parts of the story until someone's out.

Yes! Exactly. Ever After is a (very simple) storytelling game. That's the difference.

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:


The central conceit of TTRPGs though is that, regardless of the level of crunch, some level of the story is as much in the hands of the players as it is in the GM. So, whether or not I'm playing a Story game or a Gamist game or a whatever is simply a matter of perception and group buy in. Its personal to the assembled group playing. It might be informed by system, but any TTRPG is going to have at least SOME rules so depending on adherence to those and how the story is being told, those assembled players will decide what kind of game they're playing.

Square. But I can see why some method of categorization within this very broad and growing pool of games and systems is useful.

Like I said before: we could role-play while we played checkers. We could tell a story revolving around Uno or Go Fish. But that doesn't make those games ttrpgs or stg's.


Quixote wrote:
Like I said before: we could role-play while we played checkers. We could tell a story revolving around Uno or Go Fish. But that doesn't make those games ttrpgs or stg's.

For whatever it may or may not contribute to the discussion, I agree with you. If you're playing chess and you're all like "My majestic queen, secure in the knowledge that your loss will not only bring you anguish and pain, but also delivers you one step closer to righteous and inevitable defeat, moves before your bishop. 'Hello pontiff, I've something to confess... YOUR DEATH!' she cackles even as her mighty scepter crumples the zuchetto and splits the man's fragile skull!", you're not playing a TTRPG, you're simply narrating the predetermined moves of the game in question.

In other words, you're reporting what happened. Your decision to take the bishop with your queen advances the game towards a win or loss while your narration adds color commentary to the action.

In a TTRPG, regardless of it being gamist, or storytelling or whatever, there is no set outcome, no win or lose. The beginning, middle and end of the "story" being told by the players and GM is shared, at some level, by everyone in the session.

If either side, GM or players, just narrated everything while the other side listened, that'd be a performance of a story with no game. On the other hand, if you run the Descent 2 board game in campaign mode, all of the decsisions of the story are preset, meaning that all the controller or the players can do is mechanically play a game with 2 fixed outcomes - the players beat the scenario or they don't, so that's all game, no story... or at least, it's not a TTRPG story.

As I mentioned above, the conceit of any TTRPG is that, at some level, the players and GM both have input and ownership of the story.

If that's open to interpretation or debate, like White Wolf is the ONLY story game because they're all about drama from goth kids that grew up in the 90's, or that only D&D is a REAL TTRPG and every other game, even ones outside the fantasy genre are REALLY just poser clones of the one true GOD so only D&D can have story... well, those divides have existed and will exist until the heat death of the universe.

If however the debate is "what is a story" then, I'm sorry to be Mary Mary Quite Contrary over here but I just don't get it still. Story, in the sense of a TTRPG, is the shared narrative created between players and GM. Period. Hard stop.

But, as usual, I'll give it a few minutes to a few hours for someone to prove me wrong :)


Thank you for the explanation.

I have not encountered anyone in this hobby that is overly concerned with defining a distinct difference.

Everyone I seem to meet seems to approach the "issue" similar to me... do you want to play [insert game here]...

If yes... play [insert the same game here].

If no... find someone else to play [insert same game here].

I have never been "corrected" by anyone for using the "wrong" term or whatever to describe any facet of this game, or any game like it. Never met anyone that insisted this game, or any other game, must be described a certain way.

To me, other than the individual letters involved, there is literally, and absolutely, no difference between roleplaying games and storytelling games... and I am just not prepared to ever argue about it, with anyone. Life is too short, gotta pick your battles, and that is a hill I am just not prepared to die on. Lol.

I find it amazing how people will get so entrenched in their arguments... same team, guys. Lol. Literally playing the same game... who cares what the genre of the game is called? Every second spent arguing is time that could have been spent playing. Playtime is precious to me. I don't get to meet and play nearly as often as I would like. I want to spend that time engaged in the story, not an argument about if there is a story at all.

Yes there's a story, otherwise I wouldn't volunteer my time to be here... I don't join recreation math groups.


Quixote wrote:
Sysryke wrote:
The words, terms, and ideas have existed before most of (if not all) us were even conceived. The definitions are what they are.
As I said early, Sysryke. This is EXACTLY the same conversation I had. And your/my stance is VERY offensive to some people.

Like I said, I personally do run a storytelling game.

But I'm also a pedant. See my next post.

Carrauntoohil wrote:
Telling someone who doesn't play to tell stories otherwise is counterproductive at best and patronising at worst.
I still don't quite grasp it. I'm sorry. I want to. But it's like...I don't know. Call it whatever you want? Right?

Not really, noo. Not 'call it whatever you like'. Storytelling is a specific thing and has been the subject of in-depth study in various fields for decades, including literature, sociology, anthropology, education, literacy, history and more (again, see my next post - I'm going to be pedantic enough to include a list of my reference but I am a librarian).

Calling it whatever you want is as valid here as it is in fluid dynamics, string theory or anything else.


This post is titled:

Can You Tell That This Subject Has Come Up Academically for Me Recently?

Sysryke wrote:
Nope, you have either accidentally or quite intentionally completely missed my meaning. This is a matter of definitions. A story is merely an accounting of an event that has a beginning, middle, and a end.

You are correct, again. It is a matter of definitions.

This is the only reference I'm not going to actually cite but the National Storytelling Network has a handy, if simplistic definition of storytelling that is a start for this discussion.

The basic call-and-response actions you describe here...

Sysryke wrote:

GM: There is X monster in front of you.

Player: I take Y action, with Z weapon/spell.
Dice Rolls --> Numbers and Checks --> Results
GM: You hit monster X for # points of damage. The monster is out/dead.

... do not meet even that definition. And in the various fields I listed in my last post, it is generally accepted that storytelling is far more complicated than even that definition allows. Hell, even management and marketing experts are getting in on the action now. So too, unsurprisingly, is game design both computer and tabletop/board.

Across the various literature, like I said, it is agreed, first of all, that storytelling is intentional. The storyteller(s), yes it can be collaborative, must intend to tell a story.

This means that when you decide that something is storytelling, you are making an assumption about their intentions.

That might be where some of the anger arises from. I certainly don't appreciate people assuming my motives or intentions. Do you?

Secondly, it is generally agreed that what constitutes storytelling can vary wildly from culture to culture (in both the anthropological and sociological senses of the word).

So your personal definition of storytelling as a guaranteed component of all roleplaying games might even be accurate for some groups (although I'm not really aware of any) but that by no means makes it as universally accepted as you seem to think it should be.

Insisting that your definition of storytelling should apply to everyone else's game, is no more valid than if I were to define French as 'a language that includes vowels' and subsequently inform you that you had been playing (and posting) in French all this time and you just didn't know it.

By my own, unreasonably vague, definition I'm technically correct. But contrary to what cartoons have tried to teach us, that is not always the best kind of correct.

That is where we're at with how you have chosen to define 'storytelling'.

.

.

.

I promised references:

Cameron, E. (2012). New geographies of story and storytelling. Progress in human geography, 36(5), 573-592. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132511435000
Crawford, C. (2012). Chris Crawford on Interactive Storytelling (2nd ed.). Pearson Education.
Daniel, A. K. (2012). Storytelling across the primary curriculum (1st ed.). Routledge.
Inside story (Jonesborough, Tenn.). (1992).
Jessica, S. (2020). Transcultural Storytelling. Storytelling, self, society, 16(1), 3-32.
Joan W, S. (2011b). STORYTELLING. History and theory, 50(2), 203-209.
Parkinson, R. (2011). Storytelling and imagination : beyond basic literacy 8-14. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203836408
Polletta, F., Bobby Chen, P. C., Gharrity Gardner, B., & Motes, A. (2011). The Sociology of Storytelling. Annual review of sociology, 37(1), 109-130. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-081309-150106
Rosile, G. A., Boje, D. M., Carlon, D. M., Downs, A., & Saylors, R. (2013). Storytelling Diamond: An Antenarrative Integration of the Six Facets of Storytelling in Organization Research Design. Organizational research methods, 16(4), 557-580. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428113482490
Smith, D., Schlaepfer, P., Major, K., Dyble, M., Page, A. E., Thompson, J., Migliano, A. B. (2017c). Cooperation and the evolution of hunter-gatherer storytelling. Nature communications, 8(1), 1853-1853. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-02036-8
Storytelling, self, society (Online). (2004). STORYTELLING, SELF, SOCIETY.


VoodistMonk wrote:
I don't know what exactly is being argued at this point, though.

For me, like I said, it's about me being a pedant [shrug]

Quote:
We may not all be in the same boat, but we are all in the same storm. There is literally nothing to argue about. No group is any worse than any other group... there are no groups... we are all playing the same BS games.

Largely agree. But there is always something to argue about. Hence the existence of forums.


Pedantry is the exact word I was thinking, but just couldn't get there earlier. I don't mean any insult by that. Having high standards and attention for detail are seldom bad qualities to possess.

I believe it was Voltaire that said "first we must define our terms", or something like that.

Either way, I establish that I will need help [from the players] keeping my narrative on track during Session Zero. I ask the potential players to try understand that there people other than themselves not just volunteering, but often dedicating their time to be here playing this game. I ask that they try understand that being a nonparticipant is often just as distracting as someone being obnoxious. People purposefully gave up their Thursday evening to come play this game, so please at least try engage the world I present.

I ask them to help me tell a story. Maybe not in those exact words, but I ask them to help me by providing engaged participants that react to the world I narrate for them. I ask them to give me something to work with. I literally ask potential players to help me.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Storygaming and Verisimilitude All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion