[RPG Theory] RPGs Are Writing, Not Reading

[stevekenson]

It occurs to me that, in many regards, the lauded goal of “creating stories” in RPG play often leads to the mistaken belief that playing a good RPG should be like reading a good story of the same genre, whether fantasy, four-color comic book, cosmic horror, or whatnot.

However, in my experience, the “story” part of an RPG actually comes after the game is over, when you and your friends are recounting the cool story of what happened to each other or to someone else (”Hey remember that time we saved the world from the Overshadow?”). Playing the game is actually more akin to writing a story, including all the missteps, edits, typos, mistakes, unexpected turns, and revisions that go along with that process. It’s when GMs and players expect the game to play like reading a novel or watching a show—where the author (GM) has done all the work in advance—that things become railroady, frustrating, and disappointing.

Comments

[viktor-haag.livejournal.com]

I would completely agree with you, Steve, except where you use the word "writing", I would use the words telling or sharing. Why? Because, to me, writing is a solitary activity that only admits contribution from others at very restricted points. When you tell to or share a story with a group of people verbally, it's a lot more like what I actually experience during play. People interject; they amplify or kibbitz, and all that meta-information becomes part of the sharing experience, if not the narrative that's being formed itself.

To a large extent, I see roleplaying as a really fun night out over beers, telling stories, only with some rules structure to help you determine "what really happened" when that distinction becomes important.