Today, a new video: If you're a newer #DnD player, you might have been taught wrong about the GM being a 'storyteller'. What you do is much more interesting than that.

[video=youtube_share;g_vTkXro56M]https://youtu.be/g_vTkXro56M[/youtube]

Totally agree. The important, even fundamental difference between an RPG and a book or movie is that it's interactive, and the player characters are acting and reacting to scenarios. Trying to force it into a story defeats the whole point of the game.

And good observation on what makes the youtube sessions not capture that. I don't know for sure if they're scripted, or to what extent, but I wouldn't be surprised.

I've said it before and I'll say it again;

You can get fantastic stories out of RPGs... when you recount what happened during the game session later.

Quote from: Chris24601;1065838I've said it before and I'll say it again;

You can get fantastic stories out of RPGs... when you recount what happened during the game session later.

Exactly. Events first, story after.

Would you call this method sandboxing?

This is absolutely sandboxing. It doesnt take a very sensitive player to realize when they're in the truman show and gods finger directs traffic, telling them what roads are open and what roads are closed.  While i'll admit i have sometimes fallen back on illusionism, schroedingers, and xanatos when I'm in an underprepared pinch, simulationist sandboxing is the way to play.  The best stories, and by best I mean the most memorable stories for the players, is when they know the poetic or poignant or heavy or hillarious moments were a result of their own unique contribution to the events at the table in that moment, and even the gm didn't see it coming.

Its why I gravitate to gonzo systems like palladium's heroes unlimited.  Its foundation is old school D&D turned up to 11, and its foundation is the characters.  Most of what the books cover is character creation.  The unpredictability of gonzo in play means every great moment is a surprise not just to the players but also to the gm.  The kind of gm I enjoy the least is the one who doesnt want any surprises on his side of the screen or any changes to the plot or setting or npc's lives from the pcs' who's characters take center stage.

Quote from: RandyB;1065842Exactly. Events first, story after.

"Story after" is a good motto - I used "story later" when trying to defined old school:

I believe this happens during old school games as well. Even if you character doesn't have a name, or dies in the first "scene", you will usually be thinking about what happens next, and will inevitably create a narrative to suit the events.

The difference, then, is one of focus. Old school players, the way I see it, aren't focused on creating a story during play, but they subconsciously create a narrative during the story anyway.

The question that arises is: are there any guarantees that the story will be "coherent" and "dramatically satisfying" enough? For me, the answer is NO, not necessarily - specially if viewed from the outside. In fact, games focused on creating stories might, well, create better stories (and that is a whole different thing, one I can enjoy too).

Think of it this way: I'm a regular guy. If I tell you some stories about my life, it might bore you to tears. Still, these stories are interesting to me because they happened to me. I didn't find a soul-mate, got a job, traveled around, etc, to create stories, but, ultimately, to be a part of something. If I were focused on creating a narrative during the events, I think it might detract from the whole experience; but the stories I can tell about such things are usually easier to remember than most stuff I have read from C.A Smith, R.E Howard and others.

Old school gaming, for me, is like that: it creates interesting stories not because they follow a three-act structures or use effective plot devices, but because we are focused on participating as they as they happen.

We have fun now, and tell stories later.


https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2015/11/old-school-ramblings-1-play-now-story.html

Quote from: DocJones;1065850Would you call this method sandboxing?

Quote from: VincentTakeda;1065851This is absolutely sandboxing. It doesnt take a very sensitive player to realize when they're in the truman show and gods finger directs traffic, telling them what roads are open and what roads are closed.  While i'll admit i have sometimes fallen back on illusionism, schroedingers, and xanatos when I'm in an underprepared pinch, simulationist sandboxing is the way to play.  The best stories, and by best I mean the most memorable stories for the players, is when they know the poetic or poignant or heavy or hillarious moments were a result of their own unique contribution to the events at the table in that moment, and even the gm didn't see it coming.

Its why I gravitate to gonzo systems like palladium's heroes unlimited.  Its foundation is old school D&D turned up to 11, and its foundation is the characters.  Most of what the books cover is character creation.  The unpredictability of gonzo in play means every great moment is a surprise not just to the players but also to the gm.  The kind of gm I enjoy the least is the one who doesnt want any surprises on his side of the screen or any changes to the plot or setting or npc's lives from the pcs' who's characters take center stage.

I'd disagree; from the same post I linked above, I think there is a distinction:

The important thing to keep in mind for the folks that eschew "story" is that railroading is not the only path to story creation. The "modern" games I mentioned above are great example on how to encourage story "flow" without resorting to railroads (some would say that they are incompatible, as there is no story creation if the story is already written). I would even say that this methods are better than the ones originally used by Dragonlance, at least for my tastes. The downside is that the "climaxes", resolutions", etc, aren't guaranteed without previous planning, but clever mechanics may enhance the probability that they should happen at the right time.

I 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.

You say you'd disagree, but I'm still not clear on what in particular?  When you say 'Old school gaming, for me, is like that: it creates interesting stories not because they follow a three-act structures or use effective plot devices, but because we are focused on participating as they as they happen.' I definitely call that sandboxing and emergent story.  I would agree that the stories that arise from this style of play are less fullfilling to an outsider from a critical literary standpoint, but since the point of old school gaming isn't 'story first', the more important point of any memorable story that arises is, to me, not a literary one, but one of impact to the individuals involved, and to them I find emergent play consistantly more enjoyable than any carefully crafted narrative the gm has in store for them.

Players always find how they handled the situation more memorable than the situation itself.  I'd even go so far as to posit that even if a story were built such that starting at point a inevitably ended up at a preordained point b no matter what the players did, players who, for example enjoy adventure paths, are quite more apt to remember and enjoy their own individual choices in how to deal with the situations than again, the situation itself.  The emergent part of the play, the zany character antics are always more memorable even if the train always pulls into the same station.

I tend to think of sandboxing as starting at point A and blasting off in infinite directions, storygaming as ending at point B from infinite original points, and wargaming as starting and point a and not heading in any vector at all, but simply jammin around in orbits with no discernable direction.  But no matter what kinds of gaming I've had, the players have always 100% cared more about how they handled the situations they were in than the situations themselves, so for me the wave of gamers out there that care more about crafting a literarily fulfilling narrative as more important than the journey itself feels strange and alien, but thats just because i'm used to the players role in the structure of the game to be as characters alone, where in storygames their role is more 'co author' of plot and setting.

To me, all of that sounds exactly like what you're saying, but you say you'd disagree?

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.

Right. In this case storygamers use the term a bit differently and push either for a more narrative focused adventure from the DM, or the other faction hates the DM and wants to put all the narrative in the players hands and the DM is just there as a vend bot, if even that. See that thread from a year or two ago about the whole "I jump behind the bar and grab a shotgun!" player dictating sceenery rather than the DM.

The DM moves things along and is the players senses in the game. You ask the DM "I look around the room. What do I see?" and the DM tells you these things and likely embellishes as needed. The things you see, hear, feel, etc. Or you tell the DM you are attacking the orc and roll the dice. The DM might narrate your characters actions based on the roll, or let the player describe it and only narrate what the orc does. Lots of different styles.

I think some people have heard tales of say Dragonlance which while it is VERY story driven. It is at least in the first few modules very NOT a railroad and the PCs can through action or inaction literally bring the campaign to complete ruin. Though from what I have heard, some newer modules, or 'Adventure Paths' as they seem to be termed now, have more linear construction. But even here the adventures are still one of action and the unknown rather than things must happen as the plot demands.

Which is the real issue probably. Plot vs Story. Or how they are used in RPGs. Pot tends to end up rather railroady, or alot railroady. Story is the things that happen and the overall plot (lowercase). The original and new Ravenloft are really more story than plot. The PCs are free to do whatever within the region. But there is stuff going on in the background and they may well get entangled in it. Or. They could ignore it all and things go totally unexpectedly as the NPCs go about their business and that might well prove disastrous.

So keep DMing as you have. Theres all sorts of styles out there.

Quote from: Omega;1065863Right. In this case storygamers use the term a bit differently and push either for a more narrative focused adventure from the DM, or the other faction hates the DM and wants to put all the narrative in the players hands and the DM is just there as a vend bot, if even that. See that thread from a year or two ago about the whole "I jump behind the bar and grab a shotgun!" player dictating sceenery rather than the DM.

The DM moves things along and is the players senses in the game. You ask the DM "I look around the room. What do I see?" and the DM tells you these things and likely embellishes as needed. The things you see, hear, feel, etc. Or you tell the DM you are attacking the orc and roll the dice. The DM might narrate your characters actions based on the roll, or let the player describe it and only narrate what the orc does. Lots of different styles.

I think some people have heard tales of say Dragonlance which while it is VERY story driven. It is at least in the first few modules very NOT a railroad and the PCs can through action or inaction literally bring the campaign to complete ruin. Though from what I have heard, some newer modules, or 'Adventure Paths' as they seem to be termed now, have more linear construction. But even here the adventures are still one of action and the unknown rather than things must happen as the plot demands.

Which is the real issue probably. Plot vs Story. Or how they are used in RPGs. Pot tends to end up rather railroady, or alot railroady. Story is the things that happen and the overall plot (lowercase). The original and new Ravenloft are really more story than plot. The PCs are free to do whatever within the region. But there is stuff going on in the background and they may well get entangled in it. Or. They could ignore it all and things go totally unexpectedly as the NPCs go about their business and that might well prove disastrous.

So keep DMing as you have. Theres all sorts of styles out there.

Greetings!

Hey Omega! I'm kind of confused now. At the risk of sounding *heretical*--I suppose I have to say that I love "Sandboxing". I use it all the time. However, at the same time--simultaneously--I use stories throughout the campaign. In any given region, farm, town environment, whateever, I have lots of "stories" seeded throughout. The players of course, choose what ever it is they want to do and pursue--but that doesn't mean that there aren't stories there for the players to get involved with--or not. For example, if the player group runs across a wounded White Deer in the ancient forest, and decide to help the White Deer, there's a story there. There's someone or something that hurt the White Deer to begin with--perhaps some dedicated enemy, a fierce hunter, some evil cultists, a maniacal group of sadistic, greedy fur trappers, and so on. The White Deer may have a family, and or some very interesting friends, such as Elves or Fey creatures, all quite concerned about the fate and care of their noble friend. Then, of course, if the players rescue the White Deer, and go after whoever the enemy is--well, they have a larger story involving them as well. Maybe also there's a local Ranger that also becomes involved, or an agent of the King. After all, endangering such a noble and holy beast may be of considerable concern to the King, for a variety of philosophical and religious reasons. Then also, the enemies may have some kind of patron, leader, or sponsor behind them, with a particular plan--and story--of their own, as to why they wanted the White Deer killed.

As the player group brings the White Deer into town to help him more or to protect him, well, there can also be a young cleric girl or a young Ranger that allies with the group for such a noble and virtuous deed. She may also fall in love or seek to develop a romantic relationship with one of the player characters, drawn to their nobility, valour and leadership. All of which embraces all kinds of stories, you see? Am I making any sense? I see stories all over the place, flowing like rivers through the environment, and through the lives and actions of the NPC's--just as much as whatever it is the players are doing. I understand that the "game" element is crucial to our hobby, but "Story" is just as crucial and an essential component of everything the players are surrounded with.

I don't know. Maybe I've been playing with women for too long. LOL. I've noticed a difference between the guys, and the women. The guys often times want heroism and glory, and treasure and to kill things. Exactly why or who and all that...isn't as important many times to them. The men are much more "equipped" for the game to proceed like a dungeon-crawl hack-fest, with only the barest "story" necessary. The women, however, well, they love all that stuff. In fact, they often grow frustrated with a too-steady diet of the stuff the men usually like. The women enjoy it--to a point. Then, they need more socially meaningful and relationship "crunchy" stuff to be happening, or they let me know about it. The women dearly love the "story" stuff--and they don't necessarily make all that happen by themselves. They want deep characters to interact with--people that have passions, goals, fears, ambitions--stories to tell them, and get them involved somehow. Yeah, I've had more than one woman player tell me they like lots of drama and romance--they see D&D as...like a big romance novel, but with some monsters and more fighting and death in it. But still, there needs to be romance, roleplaying, and stories there for them--they see the blood and fighting not as their goal lots of times, but merely the sideline stuff or interludes between what they are *really* interested in pursuing.

Which is typically shopping, politics, drama, social and relationship intrigue and romance. I have certainly had to learn to blend in various kinds of elements to keep the different groups happy. I know there's always people that claim, "well, I've got a girl player, and she loves slaughtering everything with her axe and taking the loot." Ok, cool, you know? But the women I've been dealing with for years--have been, well, more feminine I guess in what they want from the game, and how, in-game, they like to go about getting what they want. Which is, as I mentioned, not necessarily *opposite* from or *contrary* from what the men players want--but what the women players seek often embraces stuff that is quite different from what the men want. I guess a simplified answer on that would be like, the Men want A and B, and a little of C. The Women want A, a little of B, lots of C, and some D as well. Maybe that makes more sense. What do you think, my friend?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Out of nostalgia, I prefer the title Dungeon Master or Game Master, but I get why the OSR likes "referee". I don't think its accurate, but its in direct opposition to "storyteller". Storyteller puts the players into passive role of audience where AT BEST they can play AdLibs or Choose Your Own Adventure. Referee puts the players into the action and lets them know there is another side (the game world) they are competing against.

Quote from: SHARK;1065874Greetings!

Hey Omega! I'm kind of confused now. At the risk of sounding *heretical*--I suppose I have to say that I love "Sandboxing". I use it all the time. However, at the same time--simultaneously--I use stories throughout the campaign. In any given region, farm, town environment, whateever, I have lots of "stories" seeded throughout.

That is pretty standard really and how alot of people run campaigns or even modules. "Heres the locale. Stuffs happening? What stuff? Go fourth and find out!" Often with the World-in-Motion style of DMing where there are plots going on and will keep going on unless the PCs interact with them, at which point it may well change a little, or alot.

Variant of my go-to example from a MUD. The rooster crows at morning and wakes the farmer. The farmer putters around the farm for two hours and is open to give a quest to get rid of some crows, then walks into town and interacts with other NPCs before stopping at the tavern at noon. But. If the PCs for example kill the rooster then the farmer wakes up late, give a quest to buy him a new rooster, talks to different people on the way into town, and doesn't get to the tavern till three in the afternoon.

That is the basis of a good sandbox. You have points of interest and things start moving on their own once the clock starts ticking. Even in modules. An example from where I was DMing Hoard of the Dragon Queen. The PCs opted to infiltrate the enemy camp and bluff their way around rather than sneak in. While there they saw some prisoners but opted not to save them then as they had no way to pull it off as they were vastly outnumbered. But they did set some delayed sabotage around the camp before departing with the objective. But once back to town they opted to rest and recover before heading back out and in that time the villain, whom I was playing as very savvy, opted to just pull up and leave once it was apparent what happened. So when the PCs did get back the place was empty topside and the prisoners were gone. The players could have opted to not go back at all. In which case later they'd have had alot harder fight on their hands. And in fact they did totally bypass some things simply by the choices they made. And because of that some things advanced that otherwise would not have. Whereas they took out other encounters in creative ways which left everyone guessing what really happened. Great stuff.

Quote from: VincentTakeda;1065858You say you'd disagree, but I'm still not clear on what in particular?  When you say 'Old school gaming, for me, is like that: it creates interesting stories not because they follow a three-act structures or use effective plot devices, but because we are focused on participating as they as they happen.' I definitely call that sandboxing and emergent story.  I would agree that the stories that arise from this style of play are less fullfilling to an outsider from a critical literary standpoint, but since the point of old school gaming isn't 'story first', the more important point of any memorable story that arises is, to me, not a literary one, but one of impact to the individuals involved, and to them I find emergent play consistantly more enjoyable than any carefully crafted narrative the gm has in store for them.

Players always find how they handled the situation more memorable than the situation itself.  I'd even go so far as to posit that even if a story were built such that starting at point a inevitably ended up at a preordained point b no matter what the players did, players who, for example enjoy adventure paths, are quite more apt to remember and enjoy their own individual choices in how to deal with the situations than again, the situation itself.  The emergent part of the play, the zany character antics are always more memorable even if the train always pulls into the same station.

I tend to think of sandboxing as starting at point A and blasting off in infinite directions, storygaming as ending at point B from infinite original points, and wargaming as starting and point a and not heading in any vector at all, but simply jammin around in orbits with no discernable direction.  But no matter what kinds of gaming I've had, the players have always 100% cared more about how they handled the situations they were in than the situations themselves, so for me the wave of gamers out there that care more about crafting a literarily fulfilling narrative as more important than the journey itself feels strange and alien, but thats just because i'm used to the players role in the structure of the game to be as characters alone, where in storygames their role is more 'co author' of plot and setting.

To me, all of that sounds exactly like what you're saying, but you say you'd disagree?

Well, the part I disagree is that "storytelling" is equal to "railroading". I'm sorry if I misunderstood you point. Form the post above, seems like we are coming from the same point. In any case,m this is what I meant:

Railroad means you have a pre-defined script that will not be significantly altered by your PCs decisions. Something like Ravenloft or Dargonlance - IIRC.

Now, take a game like Lady Blackbird, Fate, or other game where you gain game-currency to fail or spend game-currency to succeed. I.e., the game-mechanics force you (or encourage you) to go from failure to climax. However, WHERE the failure/climax happens depends on the choices of the players. This is, mostly, incompatible with railroading, since it's up to the player to decide when to fail and where to spend their fate points. So, the game is more or less designed to create a story ... but this story cannot be predetermined. Or you can have "story games" where PCs help the GM creating a story on the spot - again, not compatible with railroads. Maybe I can change the story because I spend a fate point or throw a card at the right moment, and the "story" ends when we run out of cards.

OSR, OTHO, has no need of a story. You only call it a "story" in the same sense that I might tell you "the story from when I met my wife", or "a story of a thing that happened at work". There is no plot or climax "per se", it is just something that happened - sometimes by careful planning  (from the PCs), sometimes by dumb luck (a roll of the dice).