When you are more concerned with what you will tell your non-gaming friends that you did last weekend than what your character does while playing?
=

Quote from: Omega;1065978Have to disagree here. Good storytelling can be relevant to bringing things to life in the minds of the players. Assuming the players care of course. But as noted before. The DB is the players senses in the game. Good descriptive skill can really help here. The difference between "You see a stone room with a table and a chair in it." vs "You see a plain grey stone room with a carved wooden table, thick enough to suggest drawers, sitting in the center. Behind the table and facing the door you just opened is a matching wooden chair with a red padded back and seat."

Good storytelling and being able to describe things in a way that is useful and interesting are not synonymous skills. A storyteller could benefit from the latter but their focus is on weaving a cohesive narrative orally. While a traditional tabletop role playing referee focuses on being a scout or observer for the players of the campaign.

While it may come up that a story needs to told within the campaign as the result of interacting with a NPC. That is part of bringing the setting to life. The campaign will bog down if the referee insists on turing every description into a narrative just the same as an RPG adventure being a slog to read and more importantly use if the author turns every description into a short story.

I would say Storytelling is one of the DM's jobs. Whether it be from NPCs, ancient documents, or the environment, the DM has stories to tell.

Only gamers could weaponize the word "story." :-P

Quote from: RandyB;1065982The difference is that the story emerged from gameplay, rather than gameplay emerging from a planned story.

Yep. An adventure can go against expected storytelling techniques and still be a fun session. Sometimes storytelling techniques can be useful, (put the dragon at the "end" of the dungeon for an exciting climax to the session) but trying to cram adventures into a narrative framework is where many DM's go "railroady".

Quote from: RandyB;1065982The difference is that the story emerged from gameplay, rather than gameplay emerging from a planned story.

But that's not what I meant, I meant STRUCTURE, TOOLS used in story telling.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1065987I would say Storytelling is one of the DM's jobs. Whether it be from NPCs, ancient documents, or the environment, the DM has stories to tell.

That's not story, that's narrative and background information.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1066010Yep. An adventure can go against expected storytelling techniques and still be a fun session. Sometimes storytelling techniques can be useful, (put the dragon at the "end" of the dungeon for an exciting climax to the session) but trying to cram adventures into a narrative framework is where many DM's go "railroady".

Not really.  You have a starting point:  The Inn, the village, the castle, etc. which has the players either decide to go adventure, or have an adventure come to them.  Then you have the middle, how they deal with this, even if it's to completely ignore it.  Then you have an end, when the players decide they go to sleep, go back to drinking, whatever.

Other elements useful from story telling (FROM, not MAKING INTO) are things like pacing, you want some consistent peaks and valleys of action, because if it's all action all the time, players get numbed and bored, but burst of action in the right moments, like the ubiquitous 'Ninjas Attack!' to break out of a lull is a useful story tool.

Using elements of story telling can make a game better, but it's not the same thing as making a game into a story.  The 'Adventure Coupon' is a story telling device used in RPG adventures all the time.

Let's take...  Naked Doom for Tunnels and Trolls by Buffalo Games.  The Beginning of the Adventure has you chased into a dungeon, for a crime you may or may not have committed.  The middle of the adventure is you running around trying to find a way out and the various conflicts or traps you need to deal with.  The End is when you leave the dungeon, whether that's alive or dead, free or conscripted, or whatnot.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1066015Not really.  You have a starting point:  The Inn, the village, the castle, etc. which has the players either decide to go adventure, or have an adventure come to them.  Then you have the middle, how they deal with this, even if it's to completely ignore it.  Then you have an end, when the players decide they go to sleep, go back to drinking, whatever.

Any series of actions has an arbitary beginning, middle and end. I clipped my toenails. The beginning was me getting the clippers and file out. The middle is how I clipped my toenails shorter, and then filed the nails down. The end is where I cleaned up.

I need to clip my toenails, BTW. This might have influenced my choice of analogy.

QuoteOther elements useful from story telling (FROM, not MAKING INTO) are things like pacing, you want some consistent peaks and valleys of action, because if it's all action all the time, players get numbed and bored, but burst of action in the right moments, like the ubiquitous 'Ninjas Attack!' to break out of a lull is a useful story tool.

It is a feature of RPGs that they can and should frequently diverge from narrative pacing. Perhaps an encounter lasts longer or shorter than storytelling would dictate. Perhaps the "climax" is short-circuted by having the "villian" fail and get captured or killed at the beginning. The DCC adventure "Emerald Enchanter" is a great example of this. The titular enchanter has an encounter where he shows up at the beginning of the adventure. the PCs have a fair shot of defeating him. This happened when I ran the adventure, and the rest was cleanup of the unexplored dungeon. Meanwhile, it's also probable that they never encounter the Enchanter, or encounter him at the end. This breaks up the pacing of the adventure because the player characters choices and actions can have an impact. A three act story might turn into a one act story, or meander around in a 15 act mishmash of nonsense.

Player character actions have concequences. Sometimes these concequences will break an expected narrative framework. This is the "price" you pay for having the player character choices matter.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1066022Any series of actions has an arbitary beginning, middle and end. I clipped my toenails. The beginning was me getting the clippers and file out. The middle is how I clipped my toenails shorter, and then filed the nails down. The end is where I cleaned up.

I need to clip my toenails, BTW. This might have influenced my choice of analogy.

Congratulations, you just had a story.  It's not a good one, but it is one.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1066022It is a feature of RPGs that they can and should frequently diverge from narrative pacing.

But it doesn't.  It never has.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1066022Perhaps an encounter lasts longer or shorter than storytelling would dictate.

But storytelling doesn't dictate time.  It just suggests lulls between bouts of 'action', and that does not mean a fight.  So I have no idea what you mean here.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1066022Perhaps the "climax" is short-circuted by having the "villian" fail and get captured or killed at the beginning. The DCC adventure "Emerald Enchanter" is a great example of this. The titular enchanter has an encounter where he shows up at the beginning of the adventure. the PCs have a fair shot of defeating him.

What happens when it does happen?  Is the adventure over?  Is there more they can discover to prevent what this Enchanter's plan is?  If not, then it's a really short story with a lot of wasted material because they didn't pace it properly.  And any enchanter who doesn't work behind the scenes and use misdirection is a terrible one in my opinion.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1066022This happened when I ran the adventure, and the rest was cleanup of the unexplored dungeon.

So there was MORE to it, and so the players encountered the villain, smote him handily and instead of calling it a day, followed the villain's trail to his 'home' and explored it, to see if there was more to his deeds or to seek out what treasures he had?  Still following the rules laid out by story structure.  You had a beginning, a Villain showed up.  The Middle, after defeating said Villain, our brave heroes decided to 'insert reason here' and go to his dungeon.  The End, satisfied, our Heroes left/went home.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1066022Meanwhile, it's also probable that they never encounter the Enchanter, or encounter him at the end. This breaks up the pacing of the adventure because the player characters choices and actions can have an impact. A three act story might turn into a one act story, or meander around in a 15 act mishmash of nonsense.

Both situations did not happen, just because you thought it did.  And the Three Act story isn't the only way to make stories.  You're mixing up Stage Plays, methinks.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1066022Player character actions have concequences. Sometimes these concequences will break an expected narrative framework. This is the "price" you pay for having the player character choices matter.

Yes, they do.  And those actions are based off the mechanics of story telling, they will always matter because they are the players, but that doesn't change that the GM's job is to make it fun and not overwhelm or bore the players.

Why are you so hung up on conflating two things that aren't the same?  This is not STORY, it's STORY TELLING SYSTEMS.  A framework to make your games flow smoothly and enjoyably.  It has nothing to do with a railroad or a story, they are tools, mechanics for you to help make it better.  If it becomes a 'good' story?  So be it, but it's tools, the basic building blocks that turn it into one.

You seem desperately frightened of the idea that dreaded story word comes anywhere near your games, and yet, all evidence provided shows you use it.  Quite well in fact.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1066022The beginning was me getting the clippers and file out. The middle is how I clipped my toenails shorter, and then filed the nails down. The end is where I cleaned up.

I know what my next campaign is gonna be about!

Quote from: rgrove0172;1065855I dunno, I still consider the GM a narrator, storyteller or whatever you choos to call it. Doesnt mean hes a railroader, only that he weaves the action and events into a cohesive tale. Only way I've ever done it or seen it done and when done well its amazing.

Amazing...As long as the players don't mind you fudging die rolls to get the outcome you want, or use Shrodinger methods to ensure things move according to how you think things should go dramatically.  When the player does mind that, you run into trouble, as you have showed us through some of your anecdotes.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1066028Yes, they do.  And those actions are based off the mechanics of story telling,

No, they aren't. They're based off the design of a scenario and a GM that's flexible and won't try to bend everything to fit some story mechanics.

Quotethey will always matter because they are the players, but that doesn't change that the GM's job is to make it fun and not overwhelm or bore the players.

Why are you so hung up on conflating two things that aren't the same?  This is not STORY, it's STORY TELLING SYSTEMS.  A framework to make your games flow smoothly and enjoyably.  It has nothing to do with a railroad or a story, they are tools, mechanics for you to help make it better.  If it becomes a 'good' story?  So be it, but it's tools, the basic building blocks that turn it into one.

You seem desperately frightened of the idea that dreaded story word comes anywhere near your games, and yet, all evidence provided shows you use it.  Quite well in fact.

Now you're just attributing intentions to me. I don't appreciate it.

My issue is getting hung up on storytelling at the expense of adventure. Just because you can make a story out of any series of actions, doesn't mean story telling is useful to RPGing.
It can be, but don't put the cart before the horse.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1066035No, they aren't. They're based off the design of a scenario and a GM that's flexible and won't try to bend everything to fit some story mechanics.

Which are based of story mechanics and structure.  They just are.  Deal with it.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1066035Now you're just attributing intentions to me. I don't appreciate it.

IT'S NOT AN INSULT!  OR A PERSONAL ATTACK!  WHY ARE YOU SO SCARED OF THE WORD STORY?  NO ONE SHOULD THINK LESS OF YOU BECAUSE OF IT!

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1066035My issue is getting hung up on storytelling at the expense of adventure. Just because you can make a story out of any series of actions, doesn't mean story telling is useful to RPGing.
It can be, but don't put the cart before the horse.

You are desperate to avoid the word Story, aren't you?  Fine.  Facts don't change.  You use story mechanics.

But none of this doesn't answer my original question, Omega mentioned it that he saw something in one of the books that SORTA alludes to it, but I want to know, which D&D edition says that the DM is creating a story?

Page 8 of 3.5 DM guide breaks down style of play into 2 examples of play. Kick in the door and Deep immersion storytelling. Page 40 addresses 'story awards' for xp. Page 129 chapter 4 'campaigns' then says adventures and campaigns can be thought of as 'novels' or 'movies'.  That being said, all of the books up to this point seem to use the word 'adventure' or 'campaign' instead of the word 'story' to a degree that seems both intentional and pedantic.  If we agree that an adventure is a story, then pretty much every edition states that its the gm's job to create an adventure or use a published one.   But it seems to go super out of its way to avoid saying this thing in that specific wording.  Even as far in as 3.5 the focus of the books is still on a dm creating 'setting' and 'cast' and letting the players do what they will, and calling the combination of the three an 'adventure'.

If anyone is desperate to avoid the word story, it looks like the publisher is the one avoiding the word.

I never picked up 4e or 5e so I cant tell ya what they say after that.

Quote from: Omega;1065941Often with those sorts of characters readers like them because they are mysterious. They are the unusual NPCs that you meet. They are interesting because you know so little of them. They oft become less interesting the more you know of them. But not allways.

Or to put it another way. When you are playing an RPG. How often do you pay real attention to the NPCs and their backgrounds, if any. Or the monsters and villains?

Yes this reminds me of Yoda and Boba Fett. Loved them int eh early movies - you knew very little about them, but they were badass dudes. In later movies you learnt all about them and, zzzz, they become rather humdrum.

I'm with VT on his one. #HooksNotPlots. #Gameplay>Story.

Sandboxes all day every day.

Quote from: RandyB;1065982The difference is that the story emerged from gameplay, rather than gameplay emerging from a planned story.

#Gameplay>Story. So very important, yet largely lost with the rise of adventure paths in recent years.