RPG Talk: The Game Is the Story, Not the Reality

So I was talking to one of my players this week and it got a little meta-textual. He was referencing someone else's house rule that super-critical successes (such as triple-acing in Savage Worlds) become ingrained in the mythology of the campaign world. While that sounded cool on paper, we chuckled remembering the triple+ ace his SW Evernight character had scored slamming a big heavy shovel on a swarm of rats, killing several dozen in the span of a few minutes. Would that be his "mythical" legacy? I'm sure historians will be arguing about it for centuries.

Well, I say yes. Sure, it was a low-level encounter early in the career of a character who would end up on the campaign world's throne, but it can still be the thing everyone talks about. The day the future king rid the kingdom of rats with one mighty swing. If it's going to be mythical, then lay it on thick.

And that got us talking about the gaming session as a STORY. Now obviously, I'm well-known as one of those filthy Narrativists who sees role-playing games AS stories, and puts story well above simulation and adherence to strict rules, but I'm not talking about that. Over the course of any session, there will be many moments that break the illusion of an immersive world. The players are always joking around, of course, and saying things that are out of character, but there'll also be crazy dice rolls or even game rules that will create illogical moments of both success and failure.

And there's the realization. The game isn't what's really happening in the game world; it's how the story was later TOLD. Probably by the characters themselves, possibly by witnesses, but it's one way to explain the gaming experience, and much closer to what's actually happening. After all, what's an RPG session if not a bunch of friends sitting around a table laughing and telling tall tales?

From that perspective, illogical rules like D&D hit points are just characters writing off wounds as mere scratches in their story. They don't dwell on specific damage unless they have a cool scar to show for it. That critical success? Who decides it's "critical", except the storyteller, exaggerating for his audience? And why not do the same with critical failures? Self-deprecation is good for the soul. Alignments? Who really thinks like that? But it's efficient to give your ideology a name (see almost any political party). Who's that stranger who just joined the party? Oh we don't need to go into the details of his back story right now, campfire listener! And all the jokes? Sprucing up the narrative with humor. The bits that aren't so funny where the PCs shop for equipment or explain in detail their camping plans? Some storytellers are boring and tedious indeed! Even the dice rolls can be viewed as drum rolls to create suspense.

All very interesting, but how can that notion be used in games? On the surface of it, it's a magical No-Prize that helps explain away inconsistencies. Instead of having a dispute at the table about the name of some obscure NPC, or whether a house rule was changed, or what have you, gamers are invited to chalk it up to the story as (badly) told. But enterprising gamers can be more proactive with it. If it IS just a story being told, then Narrativist tricks can be inserted into games that don't normally use them (oh, I done and tricked you now): Flashbacks, flash forwards, rewinds to reveal new information that changes the objective present, calling characters out on their lies and rewriting scenes, all sorts of meanwhiles and elsewheres.

The "Tale" could even become the basis for a replay of an adventure, this time telling the "truth". How would that gaming session look with the PCs more flawed, and the dangers not quite so dangerous? Have an extra 20 minutes at the end of a session? Run a scandalous replay where everything's really, really mundane. It's a hoot!

But I see I've gone too far...