Tabletop RPG - Does the story really matter?

[WilliamWhite1]

As unintelligent as I am, I'd like to pose a good question to those who subscribe to these tabletop RPGs, and in the hopes that I can gather some solid evidence from you, the masses on the Escapist.

*For the general question, skip to the bottom.

I'm sure all of you know what a tabletop, paper-and-pencil RPG is. Those who have subscribed to Unforgotten Realms can get a pretty good idea of what it's like; most may be fine-tuned in the Dungeons and Dragons realm, and I can assuredly respect that. Deviations and stone-cold fanboys alike, all I can contemplate and respect. In the past, my friends (and some colleagues) have tried their hands at deviating from the traditional DND, dice-rolling, strategy-creating craft and have attempted to make something different from the traditional quest-quest-quest mantra. Wrath2142 from SA has created a tabletop much like DND, in a different realm, an established storyline, and et cetera. Unlike he, Kaesoflare from SA has taken a storyline (Pokemon) and created an alternate storyline to base his dice-rolling adventure on, and has dragged us all into it. I have made a game with virtually no storyline, called Gunzone, which has proven successful on account of appealing to the MMORPG fan-catcher: the grinding system.

What I've realized is that true roleplayers take the campaigns into very little consideration, because they could delve into stories by reading books or joining roleplaying forums. Understandably, a campaign in which the game could consist of fifty-percent turn-based gaming may not appeal to a roleplayer, unless this person is also a gamer, but bear with me in the fact that it would appear most campaign-makers and players focus a lot on making a formidable, awe-worthy battle system. Roleplayers love storyline, but it would appear that when gamers try to throw storyline into the mix, they focus on it very little, and create that battle system that really catches their attention. Mixed audiences are confused as to what the point is: gamers want to skip storyline and focus on the game, whereas roleplayers want the storyline and couldn't care less about the game, unless the game somehow has a large effect on a riveting storyline.

My success in being a DNDD (dungeons and dragons deviation) GM spouts from my ability, as a gamer, to create an unorthodox battle system involving many D6 and allowing plenty of players to incorporate mass strategy into grinding. I even host some events for 2x experience, or 40% off market prices, all on a tabletop RPG with no established story. They make their own, and it becomes hilarious to them.

The question is simply this:

Should tabletop RPG creators, from DNDD GMs to entirely new simulators, focus on storyline, when it's not necessary? I've taken the affirmative by stating that storyline makes little difference: it is my belief that, unless the audience is composed 100% of hardcore roleplayers or a hybrid of roleplayer-gamers, the RP in the G is much overrated.

 

[Yog Sothoth]

story is paramount to table-top RPGs, whether it's driven by the game master or the players... depends on the group though, as you mentioned... really, as long as everyone has a good time, that's all that matters...

 

[elricik]

Well to me, as both a hardcore RPG player and gamer, the story and system of a RP need to both be top notch to make it good. Sure you don't have to have a good story but you have to have a good combat system. But if the stories not good then why play the game? For the system? That seems pointless to me. But that's just my opinion.

 

[kdragon1010]

To me the "mechanics" of any tabletop rpg boils down to rolling dice...not a whole lot of fun to me, but the most fun I ever had was with a GM who changed his story based on the actions of our characters and we could tell what we had our characters doing made a difference in the world that he had created. Other GM's I had played with made it un-fun simply by telling the story the way he had written it no matter what we did.

 

[WilliamWhite1]

The story and system of a RP need to both be top notch to make the RP good [...] if the stories not good then why play the game? For the system? That seems pointless to me.

I agree on that a great story can make the system highly invigorating to participate in. Believe me; I advocate good storyline whenever I can get the chance -- the tabletops are much more than mediums of using games. It just appears to me, from an experimenter's perspective, that the gaming community seems to make up a wide percent of these 'party goers,' if you will.

But I do see your point, and I definitely agree. It's just that, it seems like for some, the tabletop could be as addicting as Pac Man (no story, just game = huge success?). Perhaps it's just my audience...it's always a possibility.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

Yes, Yes, good god yes.

 

[magic8BALL]

I don't know much about other TT-RGP's, but D&D v3.x and d20 modern are basically the same: without a story line, the game turns into a bunch of arbitary dice rolling. In the end, it deteriates into whoever has a bigger number on a page wins: not fun at all.

That said, rolling dice is the fun part of the game, and I have played some sessions without rolling a single die becouse the game was too story based: not fun at all.

A good d20 system gaming session requires a fair amount of dice rolling, both in and out of combat, as well as an acceptable purpose in the form of a story. This balance will sway to either side depending on how the GM/players like to play the game.

Rule of thumb:
If there's so much talking people are bored, roll some dice.
If there's so much rolling people are bored, tell some story.

 

[Yog Sothoth]

you're topic has piqued my interests, and got me to thinking...

essentially, you're situation boils down to role-playing versus power gaming... ideally, i think i good campaign will incorporate aspects of both of these play styles. as someone else already pointed out, they can not exist independently of each other - you can't justify one without the other.

in and of itself, the term 'role-playing' is rather loose and can be defined many ways. for some, it means stepping into a character and inhabiting that persona fully. for others, their only motivation may be hunger for power - power over the campaign world and the NPCs who reside within it, and thus power over their own character's destiny.

but ultimately, characters need motivation and conflict (read: drama) in order to justify their existence. grinding out levels just for the sake of leveling-up seems rather hollow and pointless, and i think that even the most hard-core of power gamers would eventually tire of that.

 

[Meatstorm]

I don't know much about other TT-RGP's, but D&D v3.x and d20 modern are basically the same: without a story line, the game turns into a bunch of arbitary dice rolling. In the end, it deteriates into whoever has a bigger number on a page wins: not fun at all.

That said, rolling dice is the fun part of the game, and I have played some sessions without rolling a single die becouse the game was too story based: not fun at all.

A good d20 system gaming session requires a fair amount of dice rolling, both in and out of combat, as well as an acceptable purpose in the form of a story. This balance will sway to either side depending on how the GM/players like to play the game.

Rule of thumb:
If there's so much talking people are bored, roll some dice.
If there's so much rolling people are bored, tell some story.

I have to disagree with you. I believe the story is more important, as best TT-RPG's i've played included no rolls or very few.

 

[Yog Sothoth]

I don't know much about other TT-RGP's, but D&D v3.x and d20 modern are basically the same: without a story line, the game turns into a bunch of arbitary dice rolling. In the end, it deteriates into whoever has a bigger number on a page wins: not fun at all.

That said, rolling dice is the fun part of the game, and I have played some sessions without rolling a single die becouse the game was too story based: not fun at all.

A good d20 system gaming session requires a fair amount of dice rolling, both in and out of combat, as well as an acceptable purpose in the form of a story. This balance will sway to either side depending on how the GM/players like to play the game.

Rule of thumb:
If there's so much talking people are bored, roll some dice.
If there's so much rolling people are bored, tell some story.

I have to disagree with you. I believe the story is more important, as best TT-RPG's i've played included no rolls or very few.

it's all subjective, in the end... each group is unique, and will therefore have unique goals and ideas about what makes a successful gaming session. i think that's actually one of the greatest things about table-top RPGs: no two groups are the same, and each have unique characteristics and idiosyncrasies...

 

[Draygen]

Personally, I prefer Whitewolf system, and in interest of my own misguided sense of superiority, I'll reference it.

The game has to be tailored to the group somewhat. My group tends to be a "kill it first, and have the Death mage question it when we're done," type of group. I had a hard time getting them into a story type of game, namely because if it didn't revolve around ripping some poor sap's throat out and drawing graffiti in his entrails, they got bored and started doodling. I did finally manage to catch their ire when I had them stalked by hunters not intent on killing them, but rather posting their exploits on YouTube!

If you have a group that wanders off to find a cold soda when you talk about the backstory of some enchanted weapon, but are all set to throw lots over who actually gets to use it, obviously story is not important. Conversely, if your group confronts the big bad dungeon boss and actually tries to engage him in conversation rather than call out their initiative numbers faster than you can jot them down, you might want to incorperate some dialog. It all depends on the group, and it has to be tailored to their tastes.

 

[Mechamorph]

Its a bit like asking which wing of an aeroplane is more important; the left wing or the right wing? A bit of an academic question when on the ground but a most pressing one while in flight. Others have spoken at length about how important both sides are but I do wish to mention that a good GM should also know what sort of system to run when playing a particular campaign. Game mechanics like AEG's "Roll and Keep" are a lot less forgiving than say, D&D 4E or Tristat. If you wish to play a campaign high on cinematic stunts or fantastic adventure then choose the right system for it like Feng Shui or d6. If gritty realism is your cup of tea maybe Shadowrun or d20 modern. Think of game mechanics as facilitating the kind of story your group wants to tell and run with it.

 

[bkd69]

Without the story and the roleplaying, what you have is a tactical miniatures wargame. Not that there's anything wrong with that, in and of itself.

That is after all, what D&D was spawned from, and is still an awesome example thereof.

As long as you've got the right mix of roleplaying and gaming for your group, it doesn't really bother me how you play, but I prefer more roleplaying, with dice rolling providing punctuation.

 

[Alex_P]

In a tabletop RPG, the fiction is definitely paramount.

"The fiction" is a lot broader than what people are talking about when they talk about "story". Even in a highly boardgame-battle-oriented RPG, identifying a articular game tokens as "my character" and imagining a guy with a sword or an awesome fire-spewing wand is a critical component of the fun. This is the basic kernel of "roleplaying" that even video-game RPGs copy. At its simplest and basest, it's not much more than dress-up or playing with dolls, but, hey, those things are fun, too.

When pen-and-paper RPG players say "roleplaying", though, they're thinking about something else. Usually it involves the image of acting out scenes in-character. Is all that stereotypical stuff that we call "roleplaying" necessary? Nope. I think it's a bigger draw in theory ("Hey, this sounds cool!") than it is in practice ("I like doing this!"), to be honest.

But some degree of fiction-building? Definitely required.

...

Okay, now I'm done with reasonably-argued common-sense stuff. Time for spotty opinions!

One problem with pen-and-paper RPGs (D&D) is that the messy, haphazard, make-it-up-as-you-go-along mechanics of yesteryear have changed into big sets of complex, detailed, mostly-consistent rules that only do one thing well. And that thing is hitting trolls with swords. So, whenever you're not hitting trolls with swords, you're suddenly thrust back into the woolly wilderness of make-it-up-as-you-go-along gaming. And without the same kinds of beefy mechanics underpinning it, the "roleplaying" feels like fluff that's just there to dress up the fighting bits, a kind of side dish to the game's crunchy mechanical main course. The structure of a game like one of the modern D&D variants is encouraging you to think about it in Final-Fantasy-ish battles-plus-cutscenes terms, in other words -- and even the people who enjoy the cutscenes most, the "roleplaying", will make bigger and bigger cutscenes but often they'll be quite resistant to actually making them more interactive or more flexible or more impactful than just cutscene. So even when the "roleplayers" "roleplay", they're doing a lot of boring trivial fluffy stuff. Because that's what "roleplaying" means to them, too. Yawn and boo-hiss!

Of course big meaty combat scenes are more important and more appealing than that kind of spotty, quiet, lets-talk-to-shopkeepers-and-follow-the-preplanned-plot style of "roleplaying"! What we've got here is a fundamental failure to support worthwhile roleplaying or even show you what it looks like.

-- Alex

 

[Fightgarr]

I rarely use the rules. I rarely use a battle grid. I'm rarely very particular about battle systems or spell specs. The reason for this is that when I am GM its about entering a new world, attaching too many statistics to this world ruins immersion. An interesting and involving story gets the players excited. When I've played its never been about leveling up, its been about the journey. You may think its overrated but for me the story is a make or break element. Of course with a good story comes effective use of character integration into the plot. I'm sorry but a GM who is unable to come up with a story and develop interesting gameplay is not being a very good GM.

 

[Optimystic]

Without the story you're all basically rolling a dice for hours on end. So yeah, story is vital.

I'm very much looking forward to the future however - when games like NWN can actually implement all the things you can do in tabletop D&D, like climb, run, jump, swim, etc.

 

[Alex_P]

If you have a group that wanders off to find a cold soda when you talk about the backstory of some enchanted weapon, but are all set to throw lots over who actually gets to use it, obviously story is not important.

I love stories but loathe backstories.

-- Alex

 

[Optimystic]

I love stories but loathe backstories.

-- Alex

But how will you ever be able to identify with my catgirl half-dragon vampire unless you help her overcome her crippling amnesia???

 

[WilliamWhite1]

So far, it seems like I'm getting plenty of systems which respond with either 'balance the dice-rolling and storyline,' 'appease your audience, with whatever they may be inclined to respond to,' and especially, 'be prepared to balance out the system.'

magic8BALL brings up the point of balancing the system with a sort of reward/punishment complex. I.E. if there's too much dice-rolling, throw in story, and vice-versa. Yog Sothoth brings up the point that too much power-crave without meaningful back stories could lead even the most hardcore of gamers into a void of no self-satisfaction. Which I think is also very true, but I also think that most tabletops of today have trouble balancing the story with the game. I think most of them succeed, but merely because the diversity of the audience creates the likeness of a mob-mentality: the idea that, hey, "if the majority can /accept/ the game, then I might as well, too."

Is this also a false assumption? The best way to appease a roleplaying group is to respond to the masses, despite that some members may have conflicting wants -- this, I believe, remains true. Mob mentality could play a role in how the game is perceived, I think, which compromises which is, in fact, more important: story or game.

Our best bet is to appease the audience, right? The next question I would pose is: are we always sure that the audience knows what it wants?

 

[WilliamWhite1]

When pen-and-paper RPG players say "roleplaying", though, they're thinking about something else. Usually it involves the image of acting out scenes in-character. Is all that stereotypical stuff that we call "roleplaying" necessary? Nope. I think it's a bigger draw in theory ("Hey, this sounds cool!") than it is in practice ("I like doing this!"), to be honest.

[...]

Of course big meaty combat scenes are more important and more appealing than that kind of spotty, quiet, lets-talk-to-shopkeepers-and-follow-the-preplanned-plot style of "roleplaying"! What we've got here is a fundamental failure to support worthwhile roleplaying or even show you what it looks like.

-- Alex

I actually think you've nailed the problem with most RPs on the head. Some roleplaying is the cheap imitation of what audiences are actually, well, looking for. They say that not all storytellers are created equally, and I'm bound to believe that to be truth. Well-said.

Not a delicate balance of RP and game, but a delicate balance of worthwhile RP and moderated game.