Is there a Difference between U.S. and U.K. Players and GMs?

[Erland Hakon]

[...]
--maybe for you it is voluntary, maybe for others it is subconscious.
[...]
I doubt any of us really suspend disbelief--that is, in simple terms, enter an imaginative/creative state--voluntarily
[...]

As far as I know voluntary in voluntary suspension of disbelief or willing suspension of disbelief (I have found it both ways) does not necessarily indicate the conscious realization of any act (oh, I’m going to play TOR, I have to stop believing hobbits, elves, dwarves do not exist… emmmmmmm... all right, I stop believe it right this moment.), it is only part of the name (which is why all it is written in italics).

[Stormcrow]

On the one hand I agree--yes, who would want the pressure of playing out an entire game in character? Or even, in an in-person game, of coming up with Tolkien-like prose and dialogue on the spot? I'm not clear that this was what the previous discussion had been about.

The topic veered into how suspension of disbelief affects play-style. "Suspension of disbelief" is usually a literary topic, so I wanted to contrast literature and role-playing games.

For my part, I was talking about being able to inhabit a character and make decisions realistically, according to the character's circumstances/knowledge/the current story, rather than meta-gaming and goal--reward gaming. Talking about empathy, not acting ability. Maybe you were just being rhetorical?

I wasn't accusing anyone of being a hack, if that's what you mean. I'm saying that the skills and processes involved in gaming are different than the skills and processes involved in storytelling. Using the tools of analysis for the one is not necessarily useful for the other.

On the other hand I don't think you can separate the source material that the game and the players are clearly evoking from the game itself. Different 'Arts' they may be, but it's clear that you couldn't have a 'successful' game of TOR that was irreverent towards the canon--it would literally be game breaking.

No, that's not what I was suggesting.

and at its heart, yes, I do think roleplaying games are a form of storytelling. At least, I think those that set out to be highly narrative based, like TOR, are!

I disagree with this. Storytelling is what happens after you play. You relate the tale of your characters' adventure. Here''s a short bit from the example of play in the One Ring rule book:

Nick (the Loremaster): Okay, at the end of the last session you had arrived in Dale with the message of warning that King Thranduil demanded you deliver to King Bard. You emerge from the Traders’ Gate into the Merchants’ Quarter. Large warehouses line the street ahead of you, and carts laden with goods are heading in both directions. From a gap between warehouses to the right, you can see a large boat tied to the jetty on the river – you can hear its timbers creak as it heaves on its moorings. Which way are you going to head?

Jennifer (playing Lifstan, a Barding): Lifstan grew up in Dale, so he’d know where we should go, wouldn’t he?

Nick: Yes, he would know that King Bard’s Royal Palace is near the centre of the town – straight ahead to the market
square then off to the left a bit.

Jennifer (as Lifstan): “Follow me; I’ll take us to Bard’s palace.”

Stuart (as Trotter): “Lead the way.”

Jennifer: I lead everyone up the street towards the palace.

Claire (playing The Bride): I’m following.

A perfectly serviceable sample of a role-playing game, and it is not storytelling. If the players had not spoken when the characters were not speaking, that is still not storytelling. If, later, Jennifer relates how she brought the company to the palace, that's storytelling.

Jennifer employed no art in asking about Lifstan's knowledge of Dale or in speaking to the other characters. Nick used no art in describing Dale. Nick's art comes in deciding what's going on, in improvising encounters and events he hadn't planned for, in speaking as non-player characters—in selling the players on the idea that they stepped inside Middle-earth and are taking actions there. Both role-play gaming and storytelling involve secondary belief, but the art and end result are very different.

I also think you might thoroughly offend people that do play in the style you're talking about, who tend to the more fan-fiction end of play-by-post etc. Not really sure this kind of judgement is ever warranted. Let's keep this to a discussion.

I wasn't talking about a particular play-style. Whether you never break character and speak in thees and thous, or you spend the whole evening laughing, scarfing pizza, and hacking orcs, this is role-play gaming, not storytelling.

[cuthalion]

The topic veered into how suspension of disbelief affects play-style. "Suspension of disbelief" is usually a literary topic, so I wanted to contrast literature and role-playing games.

Yeh, I guess there we disagree.

A perfectly serviceable sample of a role-playing game, and it is not storytelling. If the players had not spoken when the characters were not speaking, that is still not storytelling. If, later, Jennifer relates how she brought the company to the palace, that's storytelling.

Ok I see what you're saying. I think that maybe your holding to a pretty finite definition, but if that works for you, you're totally entitled to! See here for just one example:

Jennifer (playing Lifstan, a Barding): Lifstan grew up in Dale, so he’d know where we should go, wouldn’t he?

I can think of whole stories told in the this kind of voice and tense if that's what's throwing you.

But I suppose at this point the discussion isn't really getting anywhere, so I'm gonna jump off the thread and stop hijacking it.

I'll definitely have to check out On Fairy Stories again. I don't remember reading that, I think it's gonna take me a while to chew over what he's saying there.

[Stormcrow]

I think that maybe your holding to a pretty finite definition, but if that works for you, you're totally entitled to!

I could turn your statement around: "I think that maybe you're holding to a pretty broad definition, but if that works for you, you're totally entitled to!"

RPGs and stories have many of the same elements and are created with many of the same tools. Both have characters, both have narration, both have pacing, for instance. This is why people so often equate RPGs and stories. But they use these tools in very different ways, to very different effect. You come away from an RPG—even the most narrative-driven, acting-filled one—with a very different experience than you come away with from a story.

Jennifer (playing Lifstan, a Barding): Lifstan grew up in Dale, so he’d know where we should go, wouldn’t he?

I can think of whole stories told in the this kind of voice and tense if that's what's throwing you.

Let's be clear: I'm not being thrown. This isn't you're-right-and-I'm-wrong territory.

Voice and tense have nothing to do with any of this. Mood and person have nothing to do with it. You can recite the loftiest of poetry or read the basest gutter-trash, and you're still engaging in storytelling. You can play an RPG in any style, voice, tense, mood, or person and it's still not storytelling.

Storytelling is a form of expression. Role-play gaming is a form of pretending. RPGs have adopted many of the tools and elements of storytelling, and both can be considered art forms, but that doesn't make them the same thing. The goal of storytelling is to exchange a satisfying or meaningful narrative among the participants. The goal of RPGing is to allow the participants to experience being an imaginary character under their own agency. The two are definitely related, but they are not the same thing.

And this relates back to the original topic in that it was being suggested that whether one was American or British might color how one relates to literature and willing suspension of disbelief. I contend that such an analysis is not necessarily valid, even if you find differences, because despite RPGs having elements in common with literature, playing RPGs is not the same as engaging with literature.

[cuthalion]

Let's be clear: I'm not being thrown. This isn't you're-right-and-I'm-wrong territory.

Agreed--and I apologize if this came off aggressively. Not trying to make you feel bad, but am trying to say let's try to remember that people thinking and viewing things differently is a good thing. There's always something to learn.

What I'm trying to say is that we aren't really at the point of contributing to a discussion at this point. I respect that you have a different opinion. No hard feelings.