The presence of the word 'role' in 'roleplaying game' is not conclusive evidence of what the games are.
Warren J. Dew
have missed it on .misc. My first reaction is that it fits in with the
narrative stances model, but on further thought, I think perhaps it fits in
better with Glenn Blacow's fourfold way. Opinions from other .advocacy
regulars?
Warren Dew
----
From: <A HREF="mailto:bra...@concentric.net ">bra...@concentric.net </A> (Bradd
W. Szonye)
Date: Mon, Jun 12, 2000 5:06 PM
Message-id: <slrn8kak1r...@hpcll180.cup.hp.com>
<snipping heavily--okay, snipping everything>
I have just a couple of things to add here.
First, I think that the important distinction between storytelling and
roleplaying is that the object of storytelling is to *relate* a story,
while the object of roleplaying is to *experience* a story in some
fashion. I think that's a distinction that is both useful and intuitive.
Actually, I'd like to go a little further than that. The object of
roleplaying is to experience an event by means of taking on a role. The
event may be connected to other events, such that altogether it forms a
story (which is typical for most roleplaying games), or it may stand
alone as a single "scene" rather than a story (which is typical of
therapeutic or sexual roleplaying). Also, the role may be as "thin" as
simply portraying yourself in a fictional but believable situation, or
as "deep" as portraying something non-human in a make-believe world.
However, the whole point of playing a role is to experience that role!
That is, to do things that for one reason or another you couldn't or
wouldn't in real life. Or to demonstrate (for example) to a therapist
how you might deal with a hypothetical situation.
Now, in the context of role-playing *games*, the roleplaying usually
takes place in a story framework, often a long-running series of
stories. The story isn't absolutely necessary, however; some roleplaying
games, especially "experimental" ones, focus very narrowly on a single
scenario such that I would call them "stories" only in a very liberal
and metaphorical sense. Calling them... well, scenarios! or scenes would
be more apt.
Speaking of metaphors, this brings me to my second point. I believe that
calling Steven Spielberg a "storyteller" is metaphorical. A storyteller
is somebody who relates a story through oral or written narration (and
possibly other techniques). Calling a movie produce or director a
"storyteller" is saying: "This man creates drama evocative of the way
that the ideal storyteller crafts plots and brings forth imagery through
words alone." In other words, a great storyteller transcends the
limitations of verbal media to put the story directly into your head. A
great "storyteller" in drama manages the same thing, but transcends the
limitations of stage or cinematic media. JMHO.
Okay, back to the first point. A primarily role-playing game has the
object of letting its players experience (fantastic) events, whereas a
primarily story-telling game has the object of creating memorable or
entertaining tales. Examples...
Dungeons and Dragons is a roleplaying game, with the point being to take
on the personae of questionably-ethical heroes who go around beating
people up and taking their stuff.
Baron Munchhausen is a storytelling game, with the point being to make
up stories that entertain your friends and withstand their scrutiny, by
cleverly concealing and covering up the plot holes.
Feng Shui is a roleplaying game with some elements of a storytelling
game. While the main part of the game involves taking on roles and
experiencing events, it does have storytelling aspects. Some that come
to mind: describing stunts, describing how you disable or kill minor
characters, and "creating" setting elements for your convenience in a
scene. All these things are more inclined toward telling the other
players a story than they are experiencing the story.
The parts of Feng Shui that strike me most obviously as "storytelling"
rather than "roleplaying" are the times when players are given license
to describe an event in any way they like after they already know they
will succeed. The main example: When you knock out a minor character,
you can do it *any* way you want. Since the player has already
succeeded, there's no real "experiencing it" factor here, only
"impressing your friends with cool imagery." To me, that's more
storytelling than roleplaying.
In general, I think that the more authorial control a game gives the
players, the more it is a storytelling game than an RPG. Conversely, the
more a game requires risk and consequences for a player's decisions, the
more it is like "experience" rather than "storytelling," and those games
lean more towards being roleplaying games.
I definitely don't think that storytelling is a subset of roleplaying or
vice versa, whether in a game context or otherwise.
--
Bradd W. Szonye Work: br...@cup.hp.com
Software Design Engineer Home: bra...@concentric.net
Hewlett-Packard Cupertino Site, iFL Phone: 408-447-4832
apoweyn
initial reaction:
I think the distinction is in the playing style of individual
gamers rather than in the design of the games themselves (though
it does seem that some systems lend themselves more readily to
one style or another).
If I had to distinguish between roleplaying styles, I'd say that
one style involves getting fully into character and processing
events through that character's eyes. The other style is more
distanced, describing a character's interaction with its
surroundings as a director might direct an actor in a film.
In terms of semantics, I'd say it's more appropriate to refer to
the former as roleplaying. That player is quite literally
playing a role, as an actor would.
I am not a good roleplayer. I maintain more distance from a
character than that. I think I do a good job of envisioning what
my character does, what tactics he uses, where he puts himself in
relation to other people, etc. But I don't do a good job of
portraying his feelings, motivations, reactions, etc. So I'm not
playing my character in any realistic fashion. My style is more
that of a storyteller, someone who controls the actions of the
character from without, but lacks the closer insight.
Partly, I think that's a reaction to fear. I know what motivates
my character, because I came up with him. But breathing life
into that character from a first-person perspective requires a
level of commitment and openness that, frankly, makes me a bit
uncomfortable. I'm too aware of the possibility of making an ass
of myself to really play a character.
One of the people I play with, though, is a former theatre actor.
She does a very good job of actually playing her role. She
doesn't have those reservations about putting herself out there
like that. So I'd say that she's probably a better roleplayer.
But if the distinction between storyteller and roleplayer is, as
the last post suggests, a question of allegiance to either the
story or the character, respectively (which I think was a good
distinction, by the way), then I'd say that both my friend and I
are roleplayers. Regardless of the the perspective from which we
play, we both play with the welfare of our gaming alter egos in
mind. If we get into a battle, for example, we are both going to
direct our characters in a way that promotes the characters'
success, survival, etc.
I do think of roleplaying as a narrative, in a sense. If I'm
going to die, I want it to be dramatic. I'm not going to kick
and scream about it as long as I went down in cinematic fashion.
So in that sense, I think I feel some loyalty to a story. But my
role as a player is to act on behalf of a character. The GM's
role is to facilitate the story.
Perhaps that's another dimension to the term "roleplaying."
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Christopher Pound
Warren J. Dew <psych...@aol.com> quoted ...
an article I will briefly analyze in terms of Kenneth Burke's pentad,
which I've described several times in this forum as an alternative
to the threefold.
To summarize the pentad:
The SCENE is the setting, considered as a motivating force.
The AGENT is the person or actor, considered as a motivating force.
The AGENCY is the means, considered as a motivating force.
The PURPOSE is the end (what is projected into the future), as a motive.
The ACT is the event itself, considered as a motive in itself.
The elements of the pentad are combined into ratios (e.g. SCENE/PURPOSE)
to summarize how someone else talks about the causes or motives of action.
>From: bra...@concentric.net (Bradd W. Szonye)
>
>The object of
>roleplaying is to experience an event by means of taking on a role.
Possible translation: ACT/AGENCY, i.e. to do + by means of.
Better translation: ACT/(AGENT-as-AGENCY), i.e. the agenthood of
the characters has been construed as a means of doing something.
The usual construction of the game rules as agency has been omitted
(displaced by talk of the AGENT as the means of experiencing the ACT).
The final cause (the telos or final PURPOSE) of the game has been omitted.
Any interest in the setting (the SCENE) has been omitted.
>The event may be connected to other events, such that altogether it forms a
>story (which is typical for most roleplaying games), or it may stand
>alone as a single "scene" rather than a story (which is typical of
>therapeutic or sexual roleplaying).
Translation: The ACT may drive at a narrative telos (a PURPOSE in
Burke's terms), or the ACT may simply be an ACT.
Szonye's use of the word scene is not to be confused with the Burkean
SCENE. Szonye really continues not to care about the setting of the
act as the motive for the act.
>Also, the role may be as "thin" as
>simply portraying yourself in a fictional but believable situation, or
>as "deep" as portraying something non-human in a make-believe world.
>However, the whole point of playing a role is to experience that role!
Translation: the AGENT varies widely in its constitution, but it too
is an essential motive in the game.
Note: it's not an essential motive for me. I usually GM, and when I do
play, I create characters that other players will like or that will
spur the GM to tell me more about the setting. I don't really care
about experiencing the character's role.
>Now, in the context of role-playing *games*, the roleplaying usually
>takes place in a story framework, often a long-running series of
>stories. The story isn't absolutely necessary, however; some roleplaying
>games, especially "experimental" ones, focus very narrowly on a single
>scenario such that I would call them "stories" only in a very liberal
>and metaphorical sense. Calling them... well, scenarios! or scenes would
>be more apt.
Translation: not all games project a narrative telos (PURPOSE), but
they are all at least ACTs. Therefore, the PURPOSE is not essential,
whereas the ACT is essential.
>Okay, back to the first point. A primarily role-playing game has the
>object of letting its players experience (fantastic) events, whereas a
>primarily story-telling game has the object of creating memorable or
>entertaining tales. Examples...
Translation: the AGENCY (the game) can create ACTs (fantastic events),
in which case it is primarily a role-playing game, or it can project
a futural PURPOSE (narrative end), in which case it is primarily a
story-telling game. So, the AGENCY is there, but what the AGENCY is
and how it should be characterized is all determined by the difference
between ACT and PURPOSE.
>In general, I think that the more authorial control a game gives the
>players, the more it is a storytelling game than an RPG.
Translation: if the AGENTS determine the PURPOSE (end), then the game
is more of a storytelling game than an rpg.
In other words, AGENT/PURPOSE == Storytelling.
>Conversely, the
>more a game requires risk and consequences for a player's decisions, the
>more it is like "experience" rather than "storytelling," and those games
>lean more towards being roleplaying games.
Translation: if the AGENTS simply ACT, then the game is more of an
rpg than a storytelling game.
In other words, AGENT/ACT == Roleplaying.
So, this article turns on the distinction between PURPOSE (what is projected
into the future of the game) and ACT (what is experienced as the present
of the game), relative to the AGENTs (the players and/or the PCs). That's
not a bad way to characterize the difference between "storytelling" and
"roleplaying." In fact, that's more or less how I characterized the primary
differences between Dramatist and Simulationist in the Threefold.
However, Szonye largely omits discussion of the SCENE and the AGENCY
as motive. I can easily imagine a discussion of roleplaying vs. storytelling
that turns mostly on the construction of the AGENCY, e.g. the rules that
encourage narrative digression with or without PURPOSE and rules that
enforce strict attention to the ongoing series of ACTS and rules that
encourage enjoyment of the rules (strategies, resource management, etc.).
I can certainly imagine styles of play, focusing on the SCENE (the setting
of the game), that disregard the roleplaying/storytelling distinction
made here in terms of PURPOSE and ACT.
--
Christopher Pound (po...@rice.edu)
Dept. of Anthropology, Rice University
Justin Bacon
writes:
>an article I will briefly analyze in terms of Kenneth Burke's pentad,
>which I've described several times in this forum as an alternative
>to the threefold.
>
>To summarize the pentad:
>The SCENE is the setting, considered as a motivating force.
>The AGENT is the person or actor, considered as a motivating force.
>The AGENCY is the means, considered as a motivating force.
>The PURPOSE is the end (what is projected into the future), as a motive.
>The ACT is the event itself, considered as a motive in itself.
I'm unfamiliar with this and my efforts to coax any info out of Deja has failed
utterly (their servers are still full of holes as far as I can tell). More
info?
At the moment I don't really see how this is an alternative to the Threefold at
all. It seems to be dealing with a radically different segment of the RPG
experience.
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Justin Bacon
<bowensN...@westat.com.invalid> writes:
>I think the distinction is in the playing style of individual
>gamers rather than in the design of the games themselves (though
>it does seem that some systems lend themselves more readily to
>one style or another).
It is impossible to play Baron Munchausen as anything except a storytelling
RPG. Once Upon a Time, while being a storytelling game, isn't an RPG at all.
And I'd argue that D&D , while being an RPG, is not a storytelling game.
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Christopher Pound
Justin Bacon <tria...@aol.com> wrote:
>I'm unfamiliar with [the pentad] and my efforts to coax any info out of
>as I can tell). More info?
My most recent description must not have propagated well. I'll repost!
(I hope the modified Subject line will discourage repeat readers.)
>At the moment I don't really see how this is an alternative to the Threefold
>at all. It seems to be dealing with a radically different segment of the RPG
>experience.
Well, the pentad fundamentally has to do with what people say about
what they do, not with what they actually do, so it is very different
from the Threefold. It's a way of analyzing rhetoric, where rhetoric
means the practical deployment of language. On the other hand, rpgs
exist primarily as practical deployments of language -- as rhetoric --
so when I use the pentad to talk about rpgs, I guess I sometimes slip
back and forth between analyzing the rhetorical structure of the game
and analyzing the rhetorical structure of the description of the game.
I do think the pentad comprehends the threefold, though, and provides
an alternative to it. Here's a repost ...
+ From: po...@is.rice.edu (Christopher Pound)
+ Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
+ Subject: Re: Any models competing with the Threefold?
+ Date: 10 Jun 2000 22:57:03 GMT
+ Organization: Rice University, Houston, TX
+
+ In article <393F5242...@knutsen.dk>,
+ Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk> wrote:
+ >So if there are any good, serious and well-written models
+ >competing with the Threefold, I'd like to be informed of them.
+
+ I like the Threefold, but I explain it in terms of Kenneth Burke's
+ pentad. Burke was a rhetorician, interested in how people use
+ language, and his pentad is a scheme for quickly identifying
+ different emphases in different explanations of an event.
+
+ For example, the Columbine High School shootings were instantly
+ the object of much discussion by TV commentators. I was amazed
+ at how quickly the soundbites after the event hit on all five
+ elements of the pentad.
+
+ First, there were "conservative" commentators who instantly blamed
+ "the culture," which was a codeword for violence in media and for
+ the lack of a coherent set of values in America.
+
+ Second, there were the many commentators who explained the event
+ by focusing on the shooters, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris. A lot
+ of people figured these kids must have been insane.
+
+ Third, there were "liberal" commentators who explained that the
+ event was made possible by the availability of guns. Instead of
+ looking for a direct cause, these folks made a transcendental deduction
+ and found a condition of possibility in the means of the event.
+
+ Fourth, there were a few friends of the shooters who instantly
+ comprehended the act as motivated by a purpose. They said, "I guess
+ those guys finally made their mark on the world."
+
+ Finally, there were a lot of people who considered the event to
+ stand out starkly and realistically amid the facts of the matter: high
+ schools are full of tortured and torturing kids; some people are
+ not as stable as others; the kids did have access to guns; they
+ probably hoped for some particular outcome, but so what; etc., etc.
+ But they said none of these external factors could override the obvious
+ fact that this event happened in its own particular way, that it really
+ didn't make sense translated into one or another of these other factors.
+
+ OK, these five positions map very well onto Kenneth Burke's pentad:
+
+ 1) People talking about "the culture" feature the SCENE.
+ 2) People talking about the killers feature the AGENT(s).
+ 3) People talking about the guns feature the AGENCY (the means).
+ 4) People talking about the goals/ends of the killers feature the PURPOSE.
+ [Purpose is not synonymous with motive; purpose is a kind of
+ motive located at a recognizable point in the future.]
+ 5) People talking about the act in itself or by itself feature the ACT.
+
+ The elements of the pentad may be combined into ratios to deal with
+ slightly more complicated arguments. For example, I watched an extremely
+ "liberal" video about media violence that agreed with "conservative"
+ commentators to some extent, arguing that the SCENE did in fact produce
+ an image of "toughness" that AGENTS such as Klebold and Harris would
+ of course try to live up to in some way. That's a simple SCENE/AGENT ratio.
+
+ Likewise, a common complication of the AGENCY argument is to say that
+ our society does not lack coherent value systems: our technologies _are_
+ value systems, creating the world we live in. The differences between
+ Windows and Linux, for example, are seen as values built into technologies
+ and creating different ways of living. The differences between hunting
+ rifles and handguns similarly embody and produce different ways of living.
+ This is a typical AGENCY/SCENE ratio, featuring agency as the determinant
+ of the scene, but omitting discussion of the other elements of the pentad.
+
+ What people leave out of their arguments is interesting. When you look
+ at competing arguments in terms of the pentad, it's often clear that
+ people are arguing from different ratios -- sometimes intentionally
+ shifting ratios to _avoid_ common ground -- and arguing things that
+ may or may not be mutually exclusive but that are definitely not comparable.
+
+ OK, now for the Threefold. If it at first seems like I've bought into
+ the caricature inherent in the Threefold, bear with me.
+
+ The way I see it, the Gamist stance focuses on the means of play: balanced
+ rules, cost/benefit ratios for optimizing characters, solutions to problems,
+ strategies for dealing with challenges, etc. I mean, the game is the
+ means to role-playing, and Gamists emphasize the game. In terms of the
+ pentad, that'd mean they feature the AGENCY.
+
+ For Dramatists, well, the FAQ says it best: "It is the end result of the
+ story which is important." A Dramatist game projects itself as having
+ a dramatic conclusion. Everything in the game builds and releases tension
+ in expectation of a payoff. Everybody knows the events of the game are
+ leading up to something. That means Dramatism features the PURPOSE.
+ (BTW, Kenneth Burke used the word Dramatism to characterize his theory
+ of rhetoric! It doesn't mean the same thing for him.)
+
+ Finally, Simulationists focus on the ACT itself. Every event should just
+ happen in accord with some principle of realism, and whatever happens
+ happens. The FAQ assimilates Simulationism not to a principle of realism
+ but to "game world" considerations. So, it could be argued that
+ Simulationists privilege the SCENE. However, I'm thinking that the
+ designation "Simulationist" itself points to simulating the ACT, which
+ will of course involve some scene, some agent, some agency, and some
+ purpose, but the key is to consider the event of their intersection
+ realistically in terms of the ACT.
+
+ Compared to the pentad, I find the Threefold to be slightly
+ impoverished. I mean, it's incredibly interesting to me that it evolved
+ along lines that make it a lot like the pentad, but even the FAQ
+ says the Threefold shouldn't be used to pigeonhole anyone. I take
+ that as an admission that it's not a very good scheme. ;-)
+ Well, jokes aside, the Threefold might be better off with a couple
+ more terms and a principle for combining them. There's no need to
+ pigeonhole anyone who's unhappy with being pigeonholed, but the "mix"
+ of possible stances mentioned in the FAQ could be more actively described.
+
+ Like I said before, I think the current description of Simulationism
+ is problematic, folding a guiding interest in SCENE into a stance that
+ for the most part privileges ACT. I also think there's a _serious_
+ gap in the Threefold, given the number of folks out there who cherish
+ a favorite character and little else in the game (also, the number of
+ people who always play the same basic character type).
+
+ Revising the Threefold to be more like the pentad would give the
+ following basic elements:
+
+ 1. SCENE... What's happening in the gameworld guides your thought of
+ what's happening in the game. Perhaps your game features an elaborate
+ setting, and your adventures are essentially tours of that setting.
+ Perhaps you determine the ongoing events in the world independent of
+ character action, and the players get involved incidentally. Perhaps
+ you create characters primarily with the thought of opening a perspective
+ onto a strange world (a SCENE/AGENT ratio?). It's quite possible you
+ decide what happens in a game based on what you think is most interesting
+ for that setting, rather than what is most likely in that setting.
+
+ 2. AGENT... Who your character is matters a lot. You think about your
+ characters feelings and emotions frequently. You like designing characters.
+ Your actions in the game are generally guided by the question "what would
+ this character do?" Etc. (Maybe you can tell, I do _not_ have an agent
+ focus myself. It's that difference between me and folks who invest
+ heavily in their characters that tells me we need an AGENT category!)
+
+ 3. AGENCY... More or less the same as Gamist. Note that "gearheads"
+ who build GURPS Vehicles and whatnot would probably have an agency
+ component to their ratio, though they might primarily be interested
+ in realistically playing out the combats between their designs. I'm
+ just pointing out the strange convergence between an interest in
+ technology (a major part of the category of "agency") and an interest
+ in the game (the means, also part of the category of "agency"). Of course,
+ some people design characters the way gearheads design vehicles -- they
+ might speak in terms of an agency/agent ratio when talking about their
+ motives and interests in a game.
+
+ 4. PURPOSE... More or less the same as Dramatist. I'm tempted to
+ put all social gameplay here too, from social gaming to cathartic
+ gaming. Someone who just plays a game to pass the time (purpose/act?)
+ is not as involved in it as someone who plays to experience catharsis
+ through their character (purpose/agent? agent/purpose?), but like
+ "storytellers," they expect a big payoff. The same is true for
+ Gamists who describe an agency/purpose ratio when they talk about
+ the rules a lot in expectation of reaching imagined victory conditions.
+
+ 5. ACT... Your interest in the game is pulled along not by the backstory
+ for the setting but by the unfolding events to which you are witness and
+ by their fundamental adherence to a locally-defined reality principle.
+ The outcome is not as important as the event. The relationship of the
+ event to the setting details is not as important as its relationship
+ to a reality principle.
+
+ OK, that extends the vocabulary for describing how people talk about
+ their motives and interests in a game. Obviously, these terms were
+ _designed_ to be combined. If someone says, "my current game is built
+ around a particular storyline I envisioned, which led me to create
+ such and such a gameworld; the characters are minor players in this
+ story, but they have a chance to influence the outcome," that would
+ pretty clearly be a purpose/scene ratio, even though there's room for
+ the agents (the characters) to interact with the guiding ratio.
+ When I write the ratios, I do so in order: the primary or determining
+ element of the pentad comes first. I don't recall that being something
+ Kenneth Burke did in _A Grammar of Motives_; maybe I'm not remembering
+ it well, or maybe Burke had a good reason not to do what I'm doing!
+
+ In addition to all this, there ought to be a parallel concept of
+ INVESTMENT. If a particular ratio clearly describes the stance
+ someone has taken in describing their game, then that person is
+ probably a high investor in that stance. An awful lot of gamers
+ are low investors, or invest in something "external" to the game
+ such as hanging out with their friends who happen to like games.
+ Whether that's really external to the game is a question for another
+ day (it's not, IMHO, but it sits too uneasily with the pentad-stances
+ for me to want to talk about it right now :-). Anyway, it does
+ seem like you could easily gauge your investment in different elements of
+ the pentad (and the game as a whole), whereas it seems like the
+ Threefold is not such a flexible way of talking about gamers' talk
+ about the motives of their games. _Very_ interesting, but not
+ what I'd call flexible.
Christopher Pound
apoweyn <bowensN...@westat.com.invalid> wrote:
>I haven't ironed out my feelings on the subject, but here's my
>initial reaction:
I hope you don't mind if I try out a pentadic analysis on you!
>I think the distinction is in the playing style of individual
>gamers rather than in the design of the games themselves (though
>it does seem that some systems lend themselves more readily to
>one style or another).
Translation: I'm going to talk about the agents (gamers) rather than
the agency (the game), though I recognize the possible relevance
of the agency.
>If I had to distinguish between roleplaying styles, I'd say that
>one style involves getting fully into character and processing
>events through that character's eyes. The other style is more
>distanced, describing a character's interaction with its
>surroundings as a director might direct an actor in a film.
Translation: Some agents invest a lot in the agenthood of their
characters; other agents don't.
>In terms of semantics, I'd say it's more appropriate to refer to
>the former as roleplaying. That player is quite literally
>playing a role, as an actor would.
Translation: roleplaying, properly speaking, involves agents
investing a lot in the agenthood of their characters.
>I am not a good roleplayer. I maintain more distance from a
>character than that. I think I do a good job of envisioning what
>my character does, what tactics he uses, where he puts himself in
>relation to other people, etc. But I don't do a good job of
>portraying his feelings, motivations, reactions, etc. So I'm not
>playing my character in any realistic fashion.
Translation: My own focus on the act, rather than the agent,
makes me something less than a good roleplayer.
>My style is more
>that of a storyteller, someone who controls the actions of the
>character from without, but lacks the closer insight.
Translation: A storyteller directs the act and isn't really
moved by the agenthood of the character.
>Partly, I think that's a reaction to fear. I know what motivates
>my character, because I came up with him. But breathing life
>into that character from a first-person perspective requires a
>level of commitment and openness that, frankly, makes me a bit
>uncomfortable. I'm too aware of the possibility of making an ass
>of myself to really play a character.
Translation: My own qualities as an agent prevent me from investing
a lot in the agenthood of the character.
>One of the people I play with, though, is a former theatre actor.
>She does a very good job of actually playing her role. She
>doesn't have those reservations about putting herself out there
>like that. So I'd say that she's probably a better roleplayer.
Translation: My friend, however, is a different sort of agent
who thoroughly comprehends the agenthood of her characters.
>But if the distinction between storyteller and roleplayer is, as
>the last post suggests, a question of allegiance to either the
>story or the character, respectively (which I think was a good
>distinction, by the way), then I'd say that both my friend and I
>are roleplayers. Regardless of the the perspective from which we
>play, we both play with the welfare of our gaming alter egos in
>mind. If we get into a battle, for example, we are both going to
>direct our characters in a way that promotes the characters'
>success, survival, etc.
Translation: Both my friend and I have agent and act foremost
in mind, relative to any other concerns.
>I do think of roleplaying as a narrative, in a sense. If I'm
>going to die, I want it to be dramatic. I'm not going to kick
>and scream about it as long as I went down in cinematic fashion.
>So in that sense, I think I feel some loyalty to a story. But my
>role as a player is to act on behalf of a character. The GM's
>role is to facilitate the story.
Translation: I am aware that roleplaying sometimes involves
the projection of a purpose (a narrative telos), but players
are primarily agents relative to the agenthood of their
characters; the GM is the agent relative to the purpose
(narrative end).
>Perhaps that's another dimension to the term "roleplaying."
Translation: The previous discussant didn't talk about the
agent so much!
Obviously, this is potentially the meanest sort of translation --
putting words into someone else's mouth. But I've not done it
to make you look bad. Here's the translation re-assembled:
Translation: I'm going to talk about the agents (gamers) rather than
the agency (the game), though I recognize the possible relevance
of the agency. Some agents invest a lot in the agenthood of their
characters; other agents don't. Roleplaying, properly speaking, involves
agents investing a lot in the agenthood of their characters. My own focus
on the act, rather than the agent, makes me something less than a good
roleplayer. A storyteller, like me, directs the act and isn't really
moved by the agenthood of the character. My own qualities as an agent
prevent me from investing a lot in the agenthood of the character.
My friend, however, is a different sort of agent who thoroughly comprehends
the agenthood of her characters. Both my friend and I have agent and act
foremost in mind, relative to any other concerns. I am aware that
roleplaying sometimes involves the projection of a purpose (a narrative
telos), but players are primarily agents relative to the agenthood of their
characters; the GM is the agent relative to the purpose (narrative end).
The previous discussant didn't talk about the agent so much!
This is a perfectly coherent and reasonable position. The agent is
very consistently the cause/motive/reason in this discussion. You
basically give three kinds of agents:
Storytellers are agents with an act focus.
Roleplayers are agents with an agent focus.
Gamemasters are agents with a purpose focus.
You also very reasonably point in the direction of the agency (the
game rules) and the purpose (any dramatic concerns) as possible
incidental motives.
Now, the other guy talked a lot about act vs. purpose, but had it
something more like this, IIRC:
Storytelling is an act with a purpose focus.
Roleplaying is an act with an act focus.
These two activities are undertaken by different types of agent.
OK, so I could talk about scene and agency again as motives
more or less undeveloped in your post and the other guy's,
but the omitted ratios are not as interesting as the two
sets of ratios now in juxtaposition. I think it's pretty
cool that, instead of putting the two articles into some
horrifying columbarium, a pentadic analysis foregrounds
their contrastive interillumination.
*Shrug* Or maybe it just restates the obvious in a way
that makes it easier for me to remember what's being said. :)
Carl D Cravens
> It is impossible to play Baron Munchausen as anything except a storytelling
> RPG. Once Upon a Time, while being a storytelling game, isn't an RPG at all.
I tend to say the same thing about BM. The only "role" you take on is
that of a storyteller telling a story... there is no real interaction of
the "characters" you play except in formal objection to points in your
story. It doesn't really count as roleplaying in my book... it's just a
storytelling game.
--
Carl D Cravens (ra...@phoenyx.net)
Bad Command! Bad, Bad Command! Sit! Staaaaay...
apoweyn
Being translated according to the pentadic analysis wasn't as
painful as it initially sounded. [smile]
I think your translation was pretty good. Clearer than my own
explanation on a couple of key points.
Thanks.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
apoweyn
games like Baron Munchausen and Puppetmaster. Before that, my
experience was limited to things like D&D, where it could go
either way.
I've been out of roleplaying games for a while now, having just
recently started again. They seem to have gotten far more
diverse in the time I was away.
Bradd W. Szonye
Hey, that's a great analysis of what I said! I think it even makes it
clearer (what I said) than the way that I said it. Thanks. You're right,
I do think that a big chunk of the difference between "storytelling" and
"roleplaying" is the result/purpose vs. the act. There was another
one-sentence summary of my point that I also agreed with--I can't
remember exactly what was said, but it was similar to yours, and it
struck a note with me.
Just one comment...
On 14 Jun 2000 19:55:24 GMT, Christopher Pound <po...@is.rice.edu> wrote:
>Note: it's not an essential motive for me. I usually GM, and when I do
>play, I create characters that other players will like or that will
>spur the GM to tell me more about the setting. I don't really care
>about experiencing the character's role.
This reminds me... I've done some more thinking beyond the original post
that Warren brought here. It occurs to me that I also lean toward an
ACT/PURPOSE mix when I play, and that I am much more a "storyteller"
than an "actor" when I am in the GM's chair. I've noticed over the years
that most people are much more comfortable with one of "player" or "GM"
but not both; I am definitely a GM. Some of my player preferences, such
as storyteller content, "creator's remorse" retro-changes, and general
develop-in-play, seem to stem from my GM experience. I'm a heavily
improvisational and gamist GM, so I tend to have fairly competitive, DIP
characters as a player. I also have some other habits that some would
consider obnoxious as a player (eg., ruleslawyering and powergaming)!
Anyway, I think that GMs have greatly different motivations than players
in RPGs, and it's difficult for a "good" GM to avoid a storyteller
aspect of his job, even if it were desirable to do so. Players who spend
a lot of time GMing seem to develop similar "GM" habits.
I wonder--are the same players who are uncomfortable being GM also
uncomfortable with storytelling mechanics? While that's not the only
unpalatable/difficult part of being a GM, I've noticed that the people
who have the most trouble with the storyteller-ish rules in Feng Shui in
my group are also the least comfortable with being GM.
Bradd W. Szonye
>[apoweyn] basically give three kinds of agents:
>
> Storytellers are agents with an act focus.
> Roleplayers are agents with an agent focus.
> Gamemasters are agents with a purpose focus.
>
>You also very reasonably point in the direction of the agency (the
>game rules) and the purpose (any dramatic concerns) as possible
>incidental motives.
Yes, I'd agree with this too, for the most part. Although I think I'd
qualify the first statement above to only apply to storytellers in a RPG
context, and perhaps not even then. I think some storytellers might have
a scene focus (for example, those who feel a need to develop a
character's background fully, even to the point of inventing elements of
the game world during play), and some might focus on the purpose of
entertaining the other players, in the same kind of way a GM does.
My own opinion (a rough stab at it):
Roleplayers are agents with a specific (1st-person) agent focus.
Storytellers are agents with an act, scene, or purpose focus.
Powergamers are agents with an agency and act focus.
Puzzle-solvers are agents with a scene and act focus.
Gamemasters are agents with many responsibilities; this requires
attention to purpose (overarching plots), scene (world-building and
description), act (action and improvisation), agent (taking on roles,
but also an awareness of the other agents, ie., players), and agency
(rules moderation). Different gamemasters will focus on some aspects
more than others.
>Now, the other guy talked a lot about act vs. purpose, but had it
>something more like this, IIRC:
>
> Storytelling is an act with a purpose focus.
> Roleplaying is an act with an act focus.
> These two activities are undertaken by different types of agent.
>
>OK, so I could talk about scene and agency again as motives
>more or less undeveloped in your post and the other guy's...
I still agree with your condensed summary of my position.
Speaking of them, I think that scene and agency are more important foci
for gamemasters and for specific kinds of players.
Also, I'd like to point out the tension between "roleplaying" and
"roleplayer" is not too surprising. It's been long known that different
people approach roleplaying games with different desires and needs.
There's the classic roleplayer/powergamer/puzzle-solver trio. In
considering "what's an RPG?" I didn't consider the powergamer or
puzzle-solver much for my discussion, because they're widely regarded as
being "not roleplayers" in the same way that storytellers are not
roleplayers. As a Gamist myself, I'm often asked, "Why don't you just
play Risk instead, then?" So I tried to restrain myself to "pure"
roleplaying, that is the (player) agent focusing on the (character)
agent.
However, looking at the bigger picture I see that there's room for
storytellers in roleplaying games just as there is room for roleplayers
in storytelling games. An example of the latter would be a very
character-driven, semi-autobiographical storyteller, like Stephen King
is inclined to write.
Still a good analysis, especially in how it shows me where I
overgeneralized and left out some exceptions in simplification. I like
this pentad thing overall, although the "meta" aspect of gaming confuses
things a bit. It's well-suited for distinguising character from game
from world from action from story, but not so well-suited for
distinguishing the meta-worlds (game vs. real).
Christopher Pound
Bradd W. Szonye <bra...@concentric.net> wrote:
>My own opinion (a rough stab at it):
>Roleplayers are agents with a specific (1st-person) agent focus.
>Storytellers are agents with an act, scene, or purpose focus.
>Powergamers are agents with an agency and act focus.
>Puzzle-solvers are agents with a scene and act focus.
Fab, I was hoping it would come to this. I haven't seriously
tried to think through my assumption that the pentad generates
a long list of possible emphases or plausible gaming styles.
Working from the other direction, lemme see how many combinations
really make sense to me (sticking with just 1 or 2, 'cause
it's traditional, though hardly necessary) ...
Ratio Emphasis might be on
-------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------
scene just exploring world details? *shrug*
scene/agent the interesting roles made possible by an unusual setting
scene/agency the tech or game mechanics enabled by setting (e.g. Birthright)
scene/purpose making stories out of cool settings (I'm all about that);
Glorantha-philes seem to explore this ratio a lot,
inside and outside of strict role-playing scenarios
scene/act gaming verite'; follows an almost documentary sequence
of events in a highly detailed and consistent setting
agent/scene exploring background detail that follows from character set-up
agent just exploring a character's psyche; little action, no story?
agent/agency role-playing characters with access to cool gear, cool spells
to manipulate? a friend of mine called Living Steel "the game
where you play a gun" because of the layout of the character
sheet, but I bet even a connoisseur's game like Ars Magica
has a bit of this for some players of some magi ...
agent/purpose primarily focused on character motives, but trying to
work from there towards an interesting narrative end
agent/act primarily focused on character motives, and letting all
the action follow just from that
agency/scene very game-y manipulation of the gameworld (some matrix games?)
or maybe rpgs play out scenes constructed in a minis campaign?
agency/agent manipulating rules to construct cool characters; note,
the original Traveller "solo" game (ha!) was all agency/agent
agency just playing a game; characters might as well be pieces,
setting might as well be abstract, and acts follow game-logic
agency/purpose Theatrix, possibly; a very game-y enforcement of
narrative teleology
agency/act common Hero/Battletech styles come to mind; gameable rules
yield local reality principles to be followed strictly
purpose/scene fleshing out a gameworld to go along with the plot you
have in mind?
purpose/agent filling in character details to go along with the plot
you have in mind?
purpose/agency you're driving at a narrative telos, but you've got some
game-y strategy options or narrative options (a la Feng Shui)
that permit the telos to be achieved in different ways?
purpose a story has a beginning, middle, and end; that's all you need!
purpose/act driving at a narrative telos, but being sure that events
follow logically from one to another nonetheless
act/scene I ran a game like this -- a strange setting where actions
developed the as-yet-undeveloped setting on the fly
act/agent event follows from event which follows from event;
through conflict, character develops
act/agency a stereotype I have about GURPS players: the emphasis is
on realistically-unfolding action (where realism generally
means obeying a locally defined reality principle), but
the fans love to think of new GURPS rules or write-ups
to deal with problems in the action; I wonder if the large
(very large) number of gearhead-oriented books in the GURPS
line doesn't count as evidence of an agency focus by itself
act/purpose a common style -- letting events unfold realistically but
pinching them off at dramatic moments, when the opportunity
arises; note, some writers just sit down and write with no
idea how the story ends, though they know they'll end it
act I'm at a loss; just describing a realistic chain of events?
The list is hardly exhaustive. It's not that sort of scheme.
The point here is to articulate the richness in gamers' possible motives,
interests, reasons, foci, pet theories of gaming, or whatever.
>I like
>this pentad thing overall, although the "meta" aspect of gaming confuses
>things a bit. It's well-suited for distinguising character from game
>from world from action from story, but not so well-suited for
>distinguishing the meta-worlds (game vs. real).
Totally true. I'm kind of interested in how the two intertwine
_rhetorically_ (that is, the actual use of language, which is all "real"),
so I wouldn't go this way myself, but something you could do is
use subscripts to enforce the distinction you're making. For
example, agent-0 would be the player level and agent-1 the character level.
Then, you'd have this:
scene-0: the world you live in; the games industry; your gaming table
considered as a motive
scene-1: the gameworld considered as a motivating force
agent-0: the player or GM considered as a motivating force
agent-1: the PC or NPC considered as a motivating force
agency-0: the rules considered as a motivating force
agency-1: the gear/spells/technologies in the game
considered as a motivating force
purpose-0: to have fun, be with friends, hear good descriptions, etc.,
considered as a motivating force
purpose-1: the direction the game narrative is going in; the end of the story
considered as a motivating force
act-0: the event of playing the game considered as a reason in itself
act-1: the events unfolding in the game considered as a motivating force
Combine those into ratios, and add the concept of investment to
one or both levels (accounting for degrees of involvement).
Voila, a vocabulary almost as complex as what it describes. :-)
The problem I have with this (as with any move to a "metalanguage")
is that it's still just language. It's still a translation.
I suspect every shortcut it creates also creates a "longcut"
if you're not asking the "right" questions (the questions, that
is, to which the metalanguage was supposedly an answer).
For example, suppose somebody comes along later and seriously
wants to talk about emotions in gaming. Does the pentad help?
You *could* translate a discussion of emotions in gaming into
this version of the pentad, but I'm not sure that's better than
starting a new discussion, *perhaps* keeping in mind that the
problem of emotion crosscuts the pentad in a new way. If the
problem of emotion was dismissed as "oh, that's all agent-0,"
then that would be a longcut for sure.
Also, if you just look at the game as discourse, the degree 0
and degree 1 distinction doesn't hold up very well. The game
is practically a Brechtian drama where you always have to consider its
socially-mediated production. Linguistically, there is no degree 1,
only topics and registers constrained by a social situation. The
imagination of a degree 1 is also relative to a specific social situation,
e.g. the specific constitution of the imagined degree 0 (who has been
picked to GM this week? what reps do the persons involved have as "players"
and as "GMs"? what memories do these folks share? who in the group is
related to whom how?). You can't imagine a degree 1 without imagining
its contrast in an imagined degree 0. Of course, the difference between
the two is produced through practices for speaking "in character" or "out of
character," through arguments about whether the GM is favoring his
girlfriend, through production qualities (figures and maps and such,
which may be awesomely realistic or obviously just a rough convention),
through supplementary game stories or character diaries (wherein the
social aspects of the game may be erased), etc., etc. But also think
of the production of the supposed "degree 0" in arguments about a GM's
decision or in gimmicks such as whimsey cards -- any mechanic that
relates the game to its social situation also produces its social
situation, in part.
Anyway, I think it's neat how the threefold (Gamist, Drama., and Sim.)
developed as a shortcut so similar to Burke's agency, purpose, and act+scene
(respectively), and that's the main point at which I really see the pentad
being of use -- expanding on the threefold, and for the most part
speculatively rather than empirically. There's a lot of other stuff
both schemes gloss over, right? :-)
BTW, I like the title of this thread. It's the sort of thing the
pentad is all about.
Justin Bacon
D Cravens <ra...@phoenyx.net> writes:
>I tend to say the same thing about BM. The only "role" you take on is
>that of a storyteller telling a story... there is no real interaction of
>the "characters" you play except in formal objection to points in your
>story. It doesn't really count as roleplaying in my book... it's just a
>storytelling game.
This cropped up in this thread before (when it was in a different newsgroup),
but I'll repost here. This is excerpted from my review of Baron Munchausen on
RPGNet:
-----
Finally, the title of the game is no joke: This is truly a "Role-Playing Game
in a New Style". Wait a minute, you say, nothing that you’ve described sounds
like the roleplaying games <em>I</em> know.
Well, duh. It’s in a new style!
Let’s break it down. First, it definitely involves roleplaying: Namely you
assume a character who is inspired by the Baron Munchausen himself. You may
find this limiting at first, but then I realized that the only important thing
here is the element of your character which involves being the type of person
who goes on outrageous adventures and then tells stories about them. Beyond
that things are pretty wide open. I don’t consider that any more restricting
than being told to "design a character who will go on fantasy adventures" or
"design a character who happens to be a vampire". Plus you get to play the
character at two levels simultaneously (something "traditional" roleplaying
games don’t let you do) – both at the immediate level of "telling the
story" and in the events of the story being told.
Second, it’s definitely a game. What makes this unique is that inherits a
different tradition than other roleplaying games do. Most RPGs stem from the
traditions of wargames and boardgames. The game elements of Baron Munchausen
are derived more from card games – involving bidding and wagering.
-----
Of course, you're free to disagree. ;)
My definition of RPG is fairly broad (any game with rules supporting the
playing of a role), and BM falls into it -- although at a very distant corner
of it.
Actually, though, your comments lead me to an interesting thought: Interaction
between PCs in a BM game. Hmmm....
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Warren J. Dew
Anyway, I think that GMs have greatly different motivations than players
in RPGs, and it's difficult for a "good" GM to avoid a storyteller
aspect of his job, even if it were desirable to do so. Players who spend
a lot of time GMing seem to develop similar "GM" habits.
I agree that gamesmasters develop much different motivations and habits than
players. I wouldn't agree that storytelling is necessarily among them,
however. While it's more possible to tell a story as a gamesmaster - because
of greater authorial control - it isn't necessarily more desirable.
I think I'm at least as story averse as my players, yet I'm the one who is
always gamesmastering.
Warren