TheRPGSite

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).

Quote from: Eric Diaz;1065918Railroad means you have a pre-defined script that will not be significantly altered by your PCs decisions. Something like Ravenloft or Dargonlance - IIRC.

You IIRC very wrongly then. Especially Ravenloft. Early Dragonlance was fairly freeform and as have noted before. The PCs could through action or inaction bring the setting to abject ruin. Not sure about the later ones but those early ones were not railroads.

Quote from: Eric Diaz;1065918OSR, 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).

So we go from STORY-telling games to ANECDOTE-telling games?

I'm an Anecdotegamer???

Excuse me, I have a question:  I can't get into Pundit's videos, I just don't find him engaging, so I don't know, but does he say which edition of D&D claims that DMs are storytellers?  I can't find any reference of it in any of the editions I own, from the 1e special editions to 5e.

I do kind of wonder about all this in the opposite direction though. My enjoyment as a gamer is always character first, and the memorable of gaming is how characters dealt with situations, with the situation itself or the narrative implications of the situation not being memorable or meaningful to me.  To an extent this may also be how I experience books/novels/stories as well... My favorite and most memorable experience of books is first and foremost characters with traits i like, followed by funny/interesting/bizarre things they do, and again, I find myself pretty unmotivated by 'their character arc in general' or the anecdote/'moral of the story'.

For example I care very little about the story arc of darth vader.  Literary folks seem to eat that up, but I never really got any enjoyment from it.  My enjoyment most resonates with character itself...  I like marvin the android and arthur dent and doctor strange and will hunting.  My like of them overrides the stuff they do or why they do it.  Secondarily I like what they do and my mind remembers cool moments or cool events within their story.  This still overrides the why of what's going on.  The why of it almost never jazzes me as much as the character and individual events do.

So I wonder... Is the opposite more common? Do people like drizzt or raistlin majere or gandalf or vader because those characters had a literarily satisfying story arc? Or like me do they just like them because they're cool in and of themselves, and have some favorite memorable moments those characters experienced?

The only 'why' that comes to mind that I've ever been consumed by is Qui Gon being the one who teaches yoda to manifest after death.  Qui gon jin being like 'chi gung man'.  Breath of life man.  Its the only time I can think of where the arc of the story or 'narrative point of his existance' or 'moral of his story' ended up being as cool for me as the character itself and his 'moments' were.  It overrode even the fact that he died stupid.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1065932Excuse me, I have a question:  I can't get into Pundit's videos, I just don't find him engaging, so I don't know, but does he say which edition of D&D claims that DMs are storytellers?  I can't find any reference of it in any of the editions I own, from the 1e special editions to 5e.

I glanced through mine as well and didn't see anything like that either. Some mention that the DM should be a good storyteller. But that is in reference to describing stuff rather than storygamer type things. 5e though does present a storytelling style as one of the possible styles a DM might use. But I suspect they also are not using the term the same way storygamers do.

Quote from: VincentTakeda;1065933For example I care very little about the story arc of darth vader.  Literary folks seem to eat that up, but I never really got any enjoyment from it.  My enjoyment most resonates with character itself...

Often 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?

Quote from: Omega;1065938I glanced through mine as well and didn't see anything like that either. Some mention that the DM should be a good storyteller. But that is in reference to describing stuff rather than storygamer type things. 5e though does present a storytelling style as one of the possible styles a DM might use. But I suspect they also are not using the term the same way storygamers do.

Well, yeah, cuz games work best as if they follow some story rules, the really basic ones.  A beginning, middle and end, with pacing matching how one would do in a story, with beats and flow, and a denouement.  Which is all you need.  The better adventures are written in that way.

And of course thats not to say that being character focused hasnt bitten me in the ass.  As a character motivated gm, my primary joy comes from rolling the characters around in my fingers to see what makes them tick, test their skills sure, but test their interests and boundaries as well.  I'm always digging creative moments that reveal what makes characters interesting.  Occasionally I find myself at a table where the characters have no depth or distinctiveness... My personal hell is characters that are simple and single minded.  Hammers lookin for nails. Or characters that have strong motivations, but when given what they are motivated to achieve, cannot figure out what happens next.  Why did they want to achieve a thing in the first place?

I think thats why wishes were always so polarizing back in the day.  Is the character wishing for something that will make his life more interesting or less challenging?  Many is the time a character has gotten his wish and suddenly the game is boring.  Players wishing their way out of enjoying the game is a pretty fascinating conundrum.  Easy to come up with something your character would want, but hard to come up with something you'd still be interested in playing afterwards?  Did not see that coming.

I even had the opposite conundrum as well. Player wanted a pet aurumvorax so I made a journey to a dwarven mining village where they bred aurumvorax to help sniff out gold in the mines, so he could purchase one.  After the fact learned the player wasn't happy about his characters interests being made the focus of the campaign even though the rest of the players quite enjoyed the journey and were happy to be along for the ride.  The player was regretting setting an interesting goal and regretted that executing it was taking so much game time.  Wanted to just be able to buy one in the town they were already in, or hunt for a wild one in the surrounding countryside.  Finally picked a goal worth exploring but wanted it over with as fast as possible.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1065948Well, yeah, cuz games work best as if they follow some story rules, the really basic ones.  A beginning, middle and end, with pacing matching how one would do in a story, with beats and flow, and a denouement.  Which is all you need.  The better adventures are written in that way.

One of the best adventures my brother ran was rolling up random crap and trying to make sense of the results. It was an experiment to see how far we could take random encounters as the main content. It was very fun, and did not follow any story structure.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1065954One of the best adventures my brother ran was rolling up random crap and trying to make sense of the results. It was an experiment to see how far we could take random encounters as the main content. It was very fun, and did not follow any story structure.

Yes it did.  You started out in your home location (a beginning) and had a series of encounters (middle) and then the players stopped where ever it was (end.)  Story structure, but not a story.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1065956Yes it did.  You started out in your home location (a beginning) and had a series of encounters (middle) and then the players stopped where ever it was (end.)  Story structure, but not a story.

I think that's stretching the definition of story structure pretty damn thin. :)

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1065964I think that's stretching the definition of story structure pretty damn thin. :)

Only possibly in the scope Chris defined. But I sure have done a campaign that was totally randomized and what developed were stories with each segment.

The PCs start off in a little hamlet. They ask about any local stuff going on and are told that 3 days travel south there is a large city. Another day south from there is another hamlet and a days travel southwest of that hamlet is a large castle that has been taken over by bandits. And about two days to the north and slightly east of town is a little farmstead that has been plagued by goblins.

The PCs decide to head off to that farmstead first and help out as that is close by and a more immediate problem and they'd rather not just go out tromping into the uncharted wilderness just yet. They get too the place without trouble and deal with the raids in various ways. Eventually tracking the goblins to their lair and beginning their first dungeon delve. After some effort to negotiate twisting passages they confront the goblin chief who was pushing the goblin tribe to attack when theyd rather not. And defeat him thus putting an end to the threat after some negotiation with the goblin shaman which went far better than expected.

That was the first in a series of adventures and after the fact comprises a story structure. As would the next outing and the next.

The referee's job in a traditional table role playing campaign is to create an experience using the rules of a game. To bring a setting to life enough so that the player feel like they are in another time or place as their characters. The referee creativity is used in developing interesting consequences in response to what the players do or doesn't do.

The techniques and ideas of storytelling are as relevant as travel agent being asked to create an interesting experience for traveller wanting to visit the Mediterranean. The story come later as the events of the trip or campaign is recounted later.

While it possible to run an ongoing activity where the participants collaborate on creating a narrative using the rules of a game. It is completely different focus more suitable to different tools and mechanics.

Quote from: estar;1065976The techniques and ideas of storytelling are as relevant as travel agent being asked to create an interesting experience for traveller wanting to visit the Mediterranean. The story come later as the events of the trip or campaign is recounted later.

Have 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."

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1065956Yes it did.  You started out in your home location (a beginning) and had a series of encounters (middle) and then the players stopped where ever it was (end.)  Story structure, but not a story.

The difference is that the story emerged from gameplay, rather than gameplay emerging from a planned story.

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.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1066041Which are based of story mechanics and structure.  They just are.  Deal with it.

Saying something doesn't make it so. A DM can cram the setup for Keep on the Borderlands (for example) into a post-hoc story structure, but that doesn't make the adventure a story structure.

QuoteIT'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!

Dude, calm. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvtWljsraTs) I'm not scared of a word. I'm speaking my opinion.

QuoteYou 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?

Dunno, I'm not Omega. I was just commenting on your post saying that games work best when they follow some story rules, which I disagreed with.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1066041IT'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!

This sentiment always gets under my skin.

There's an insinuation (or in cases like this, outright shouting insistence) that what I'm doing at my table is telling a collaborative story with my friends.

I'm not. Or rather, I'm telling no more a story than I would be if we were playing monopoly.

My entire role as GM (any decent GM's role in my personal estimation) is:
1) Prepping the hexmap and key (including dungeons and such) and/or purchasing a suitable one
2) Having the rulebook in front of me to answer tricky rules questions during play (that the player's don't answer first, sharp bastards)
3) Telling the players what they see, hear, etc.
4) Making "no-duh" judgement calls on the outcome of actions below the fidelity of the rules ("I turn the door handle" "The door opens", that kind of stuff)
5) Answering "Can I...?" questions by giving more detail on what the character's interacting with
6) Keeping time and checking for encounters
7) Playing the motives and personalities of the NPCs (generally informed by start-of-encounter charisma checks as to general starting attitude ie "hostile/friendly/neutral/etc."
8) Providing a table and snacks for us to game on

There's no narrative to it: we're playing a game. Simple as that.

Calling what we do a "collaborative story" and going histrionic about including all these reality-morphing "pace the adventure for best impact!" ideas isn't something that
1) We do, or have ever done
2) We need; our games are fun and satisfying without it

So when you start melting down about "WHY ARE YOU SO MAD ABOUT YOUR STORIES, BRO?!" you leave gamers like us scratching our heads. By all appearances, you're using the rules of narrative as a framework for describing us playing a game; so? That doesn't influence, y'know, actually playing the game.

You could do it to monopoly, too: "First, a band of enthusiastic young entrepreneurs set out to acquire virgin property; then, they slowly acquire it and build it up, sharking each other the whole way; eventually, it escalates into a fiscal war, leaving all but one of them hopeless bankrupt, and the last wealthy beyond their wildest dreams!"

You tell me: how much did my cheeky framing device up there help you to play or enjoy monopoly? That's about how much your posts are influencing the way I run and enjoy D&D.

Quote from: Azraele;1066053This sentiment always gets under my skin.

There's an insinuation (or in cases like this, outright shouting insistence) that what I'm doing at my table is telling a collaborative story with my friends.

Oh for the love of...  All because of that teeny tiny word, and you get all 'No, no, no!  That's NOT HOW I DO IT!'

I am not saying you're writing stories, you using elements of a story STRUCTURE.  THERE IS A DIFFERENCE, SNOWFLAKE!  USEFUL BITS.

LIKE EVERYONE ELSE HAS POINTED OUT, STORY TENDS TO HAPPEN AFTER THE GAME SESSION, IF AT ALL.  BUT WHILE YOU'RE RUNNING IT, YOU ARE USING THINGS THAT HELP MAKE A STORY COHESIVE, CUZ IT'S EASIER ON THE HUMAN BRAIN TO DO THINGS IN A FAMILIAR PATTERN!

Great googly moogly, it's not the same thing.  Yeesh...  All because you're afraid of what?  Making it sound like your into the horrific 'Storygame'?  Whatever the hell that is.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1066041Which are based of story mechanics and structure.  They just are.  Deal with it.

So my trip to Florida and the incidents that occurred are a result of story mechanics and structure?

In the real world trip there are a bunch of locations with a random assortment of people (from my point of view) each with their own motivations and goals. Some I interacted with in a trivial manner, like buying gas, other I had more extensive interactions like talking to folks at a yacht club my father once raced for or my wife's grandparents. I had plans for things to do at various locations with most succeeding, but did not turn out as planned.

What if I started a traditional tabletop roleplaying campaign that had at its initial premise a trip to Florida? Details the locations that I expect the players to visit based on feedback and what I heard at the campaign's start. At each location had a list of known NPCs along with a randomly generated list. All NPCs have their own motivations and goals. A few have pre-existing connections like the grandparents of one the PCs.

How that differ than my real world trip? Where is the "story" in either before either started? Which story structures or narrative elements are at play in either? Unlike a narrative the precise outcome of either is unknown. And dependent on the intersecting decisions of multiple people at specific moments in time.

None of this is theoretical either. In addition to running sandbox campaigns for several decades, I have several sandbox adventures (one published) that I worked on or are working on. As part of the process of writing, I run them them for different groups multiple times. Adventures like my Scourge of the Demon Wolf.

From the initial situation each group handled the adventures differently. No two adventures played out the same. Common elements existed because of the specific circumstances of the situation. The demon wolf was caused by a demonic summons gone awry as it was performed by an apprentice. The cast of NPCs was the same from adventure to adventure and as their relationships, motivations and goals did not change between the groups, PCs tended to adopt broadly similar solution. Yet the sequence of events played out differently for each group as a result of their choices and style.

It easy to think that traditional tabletop roleplaying campaigns have a "story". Most campaigns revolve around a group of friend with a long term relationships. A group with known likes and dislikes. In that situation it easier for a referee to run a campaign that leads to a predictable outcome even if it not a railroad. Because of the predictability one is lulled into thinking that narratives and story structures have applicability.

The same hold true of referee with decades of experience like myself. Run enough campaign even with a different group each time, patterns emerge and your ability to predict what players do or don't increased. Again this predictability lulls one into the false idea that somehow narrative and story structures are applicable.

The reality that the traditional tabletop roleplaying campaigns are pen & paper virtual realities enabled by the flexibility of the human referee. As a virtual reality there is no narrative, no plot. Rather there are locations, and those that inhabit them. And the inhabitants have goals and motivations of their own. That the resulting events are caused by the unpredictable interactions between the players acting as their characters and the decision of the human referee as to how the inhabitant would act toward what the players do or don't do as their characters.

That the challenge for the referee of a campaign isn't coming up with a interesting narrative, but rather with coming up with a interesting situation that the players want to be involved with as their character. I went to Florida as part of a once in a decade visit to the various theme parks of the area with my children. And because it was my father's last chance to visit some of  the places he were he once lived. That why Florida was interesting to me at that time.

In a tabletop roleplaying campaign, the prospect of untold wealth may be what sparks the group's initial interest. Or the that the land needs to be saved from the ravages of the dragonlords and their flying citadels. Or the saving the land from a second darkness by destroying the one artifact that is the source of the enemy's power. Or perhaps donning a cape and cowl to save the city from those who prey on it is what interesting. For many crewing a starship, staying one step ahead of the law while earning a credit all to keep flying is interesting.

So I got to say your response is a bit of a stretch.

Quote from: estar;1066088So my trip to Florida and the incidents that occurred are a result of story mechanics and structure?

Your experience of them certainly was. Human beings are hardwired to see patterns and draw correlations from what they experience. We tell stories to ourselves and to each other all the time. Its how we learn and how we place things in context. They're not all stories one could make a living telling, but how our brains sort events is the reason we have stories in the first place. One of the things they actually teach in screenwriting classes is that the reason the "Classical Construction" or "Archplot" is so well received across various cultures is that it maps almost perfectly to how humans contextualize their world.

In this case you've got your inciting incident (whatever made you decide to go to Florida), your plot and pacing (what happened on the trip and when) and conclusion (the end of your trip to Florida). You may not recognize it, but "My Trip to Florida" is exactly the sort of distinction that makes something a story. You've set a specific time, location and actions apart from everyday existence as important to some degree. It may not be a very interesting story, but its a story.

Humans run on stories. When it comes to experiencing events, humans largely define their experiences in context of an ongoing "story of me" in which they are the protagonist. Heck, you're probably doing it right now in categorizing various posters in the story of "me and my opinions about this thread topic" as allies, adversaries or non-entities. Its not a terribly interesting story to anyone not involved in it and there's no defined ending (yet), but its definitely got a defined beginning and what we see as obstacles to overcome (or say, "forget it, not worth my time"... which will be contextualized as "stupid subplot" or "how I vanquished my opponent/lost an ally" in the ongoing story of various participants).

Frankly, unless you are starting the campaign at the birth of each character, the GM is using at least one story element at the start of every campaign whether they want to or not... they're defining the starting point of these PC's adventures in space and time. Why this day and this town and not two weeks ago (or a month later) in some completely different location? Something has happened (generally the PCs all gathering up) that is the start of events that can be categorized as a story (just one they're in the middle of with no defined ending).

Unless there's literally nothing going on to encourage the PCs to go do something, the GM is also making choices by their placement of world elements and actions those within it take that can loosely be deemed inciting incidents (i.e. plot hooks). The shady guy in the bar with a treasure map for sale is an inciting incident that needs only the PCs to interact with the stranger for that plot to begin. So is the news of goblin raiders attacking a caravan in the woods or a notice of a reward for the capture of a criminal or the recovery of a lost item.

Likewise, most of those plot hooks/inciting incidents also suggest their own endings. The story of the stranger's treasure map ends when the PCs find the treasure it points to (or fail to... "This is the story of how X died" is not an uncommon one). The story of the goblin raiders ends when their threat is ended. The journey to go and map the wilderness ends when the party (or what's left it) returns to civilization.

And whether you realize it or not, the obstacles you place between the plot hook and its resolution... the mix of monsters, puzzles, traps and rooms safe enough to rest in the dungeon (and whether wandering monsters turn up on a 1-in-6 or 2-in-6 chance) are establishing a basic pacing flow for the "story." This is something the players will record in their brains when they recount the story of their adventure of following the plot-hook.

These things are so hard-coded into us that most of don't even realize we're doing it. To tell stories and see ourselves as being in the midst of a story is so fundamental to being human its like breathing; you only notice it when you stop to think about it.

Quote from: Chris24601;1066108Your experience of them certainly was. Human beings are hardwired to see patterns and draw correlations from what they experience. We tell stories to ourselves and to each other all the time. Its how we learn and how we place things in context. They're not all stories one could make a living telling, but how our brains sort events is the reason we have stories in the first place. One of the things they actually teach in screenwriting classes is that the reason the "Classical Construction" or "Archplot" is so well received across various cultures is that it maps almost perfectly to how humans contextualize their world.

In this case you've got your inciting incident (whatever made you decide to go to Florida), your plot and pacing (what happened on the trip and when) and conclusion (the end of your trip to Florida). You may not recognize it, but "My Trip to Florida" is exactly the sort of distinction that makes something a story. You've set a specific time, location and actions apart from everyday existence as important to some degree. It may not be a very interesting story, but its a story.

Humans run on stories. When it comes to experiencing events, humans largely define their experiences in context of an ongoing "story of me" in which they are the protagonist. Heck, you're probably doing it right now in categorizing various posters in the story of "me and my opinions about this thread topic" as allies, adversaries or non-entities. Its not a terribly interesting story to anyone not involved in it and there's no defined ending (yet), but its definitely got a defined beginning and what we see as obstacles to overcome (or say, "forget it, not worth my time"... which will be contextualized as "stupid subplot" or "how I vanquished my opponent/lost an ally" in the ongoing story of various participants).

Frankly, unless you are starting the campaign at the birth of each character, the GM is using at least one story element at the start of every campaign whether they want to or not... they're defining the starting point of these PC's adventures in space and time. Why this day and this town and not two weeks ago (or a month later) in some completely different location? Something has happened (generally the PCs all gathering up) that is the start of events that can be categorized as a story (just one they're in the middle of with no defined ending).

Unless there's literally nothing going on to encourage the PCs to go do something, the GM is also making choices by their placement of world elements and actions those within it take that can loosely be deemed inciting incidents (i.e. plot hooks). The shady guy in the bar with a treasure map for sale is an inciting incident that needs only the PCs to interact with the stranger for that plot to begin. So is the news of goblin raiders attacking a caravan in the woods or a notice of a reward for the capture of a criminal or the recovery of a lost item.

Likewise, most of those plot hooks/inciting incidents also suggest their own endings. The story of the stranger's treasure map ends when the PCs find the treasure it points to (or fail to... "This is the story of how X died" is not an uncommon one). The story of the goblin raiders ends when their threat is ended. The journey to go and map the wilderness ends when the party (or what's left it) returns to civilization.

And whether you realize it or not, the obstacles you place between the plot hook and its resolution... the mix of monsters, puzzles, traps and rooms safe enough to rest in the dungeon (and whether wandering monsters turn up on a 1-in-6 or 2-in-6 chance) are establishing a basic pacing flow for the "story." This is something the players will record in their brains when they recount the story of their adventure of following the plot-hook.

These things are so hard-coded into us that most of don't even realize we're doing it. To tell stories and see ourselves as being in the midst of a story is so fundamental to being human its like breathing; you only notice it when you stop to think about it.

Critical question: was the story preconceived before the events occurred, or did the story emerge from the events as they occurred?

Quote from: RandyB;1066113Critical question: was the story preconceived before the events occurred, or did the story emerge from the events as they occurred?

As they occurred, actually.

And Chris is correct, and put it better than I was, we RUN on stories.  We use story elements in everything we do.  And again, in gaming, we use ELEMENTS of a good story, the very BASIC ones.  Some advanced concepts as well, like Chekov's Gun, everything in a game is there for a reason, even if that reason is flavour to get a feel for the tavern room.  Things like the Manticore Head over on the wall, the smell of ale and mead from the floor, the metal spit roasting a haunch of Dragon Meat in the fire pit in the middle of the common room, everything there tells you what you need to know of the 'scene', which is just a way to make your players feel invested in the place.  People who run mysteries use A LOT of story elements too.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply

Quote from: Chris24601;1066108Your experience of them certainly was. Human beings are hardwired to see patterns and draw correlations from what they experience.

Sure after the fact as I highlighted in bold. However prior to the trip to Florida all I had were plans and hopes. No sense of a three act structure. No idea whether there be rising actions, a climax and a resolution and so forth for the first narrative elements.

Quote from: Chris24601;1066108One of the things they actually teach in screenwriting classes is that the reason the "Classical Construction" or "Archplot" is so well received across various cultures is that it maps almost perfectly to how humans contextualize their world.

Sure after the fact when one is trying to recount what has happen to another or to an audience. But what makes traditional tabletop roleplaying different is that it allow one to "visit" via pen & paper and imagination other places and times even as a different personality (character) than oneself.  

Quote from: Chris24601;1066108In this case you've got your inciting incident (whatever made you decide to go to Florida), your plot and pacing (what happened on the trip and when) and conclusion (the end of your trip to Florida). You may not recognize it, but "My Trip to Florida" is exactly the sort of distinction that makes something a story.

Nobody arguing including myself that after the conclusion of a session or campaign, one can't tell a story about it (good or bad). The debate is about preparation before a campaign or session and the decisions that occur during a session or campaign.

Some of the sides are
a) the referee present encounters as part of a narrative structure for example: inciting incident, rising action, climax, and denouement.

b) the referee should present the setting with a life of its own with the NPCs and creatures following their own plans and goals. Plans and goals that would change in response to the what the PCs do or don't do. There is no "narrative" only a pen & paper virtual life.

Quote from: Chris24601;1066108Humans run on stories. When it comes to experiencing events, humans largely define their experiences in context of an ongoing "story of me" in which they are the protagonist.

The experience comes before the story. The innovation of traditional tabletop roleplaying games is that they can generate experiences with pen & paper in a way more interesting than "Let's pretend" with the uncertainty of life due to the use of the rules of a game.

Like the trip to the Florida, nobody know what will happen when one visit's S1 - Tomb of Horrors if they never read the adventure or played it. By using the rules of 1st edition AD&D in the structures of a traditional tabletop roleplaying campaign I can visit and experience the Tomb of Horror in a manner similar to visiting Disney World and then later recount my experience as a story. A story that I could make interesting by following a narrative structure like some of the ones you mentioned.

Quote from: Chris24601;1066108Heck, you're probably doing it right now in categorizing various posters in the story of "me and my opinions about this thread topic" as allies, adversaries or non-entities. Its not a terribly interesting story to anyone not involved in it and there's no defined ending (yet), but its definitely got a defined beginning and what we see as obstacles to overcome (or say, "forget it, not worth my time"... which will be contextualized as "stupid subplot" or "how I vanquished my opponent/lost an ally" in the ongoing story of various participants).

I understand that viewpoint and have encounter others with it, I don't consider it a useful or productive one. This conversation and others like it are not part of a narrative. Anybody can have their mind changed. Anybody could be that set in their ways. Most are in between. One could make generalities about a group or even an individual. But experience has taught me that trying make predictions i.e. a narrative based on generalities is a fool's game.

It far more useful and productive consider what is said (or done) on their own merits. Not try to shoehorn it into a preconceived notion of how one things are or going to play out.

Quote from: Chris24601;1066108Frankly, unless you are starting the campaign at the birth of each character, the GM is using at least one story element at the start of every campaign whether they want to or not... they're defining the starting point of these PC's adventures in space and time. Why this day and this town and not two weeks ago (or a month later) in some completely different location? Something has happened (generally the PCs all gathering up) that is the start of events that can be categorized as a story (just one they're in the middle of with no defined ending).

That because at the start of the campaign everything prior is the past. Which can only be recounted as a story as you correctly pointed out. The difference occurs after the start of the campaign.

Quote from: Chris24601;1066108Unless there's literally nothing going on to encourage the PCs to go do something, the GM is also making choices by their placement of world elements and actions those within it take that can loosely be deemed inciting incidents (i.e. plot hooks).

Of course but it doesn't make the referee a storyteller. Setting encompasses entire worlds that has to be presented to the players through the limited bandwidth of speech, and paper. Even CRPGS with teams of developers and the power of computer graphics behind them struggle to present the entirety of a setting. So the human referee has use their creativity, experience, and knowledge of the players to pick out those things that would be of interest.

Just as a I used my experience, knowledge, about my father and family to pick locations and activities that would be interesting to them out of the entirety of Florida. Still despite that knowledge and experience, I could not tell you prior to the trip how it would all work out in the end.

The shady guy in the bar with a treasure map for sale is an inciting incident that needs only the PCs to interact with the stranger for that plot to begin. So is the news of goblin raiders attacking a caravan in the woods or a notice of a reward for the capture of a criminal or the recovery of a lost item.

Likewise, most of those plot hooks/inciting incidents also suggest their own endings.[/QUOTE]

Sure a better example is a mission or even a trip planned by an experienced traveller. There are circumstances in life where the "story" writes itself. However doesn't mean those who create missions are storytellers. Eisenhower and his team were not creating the story of the Normandy invasion they were creating a plan to invade Europe. Most of which worked but some of did not work out as planned (like Omaha Beach).

Same with campaign that have missions, or "hooks" that have limited plausible ways of being handled. It may look like storytelling but in reality it just another plan the referee creates as part of the preparation for a campaign. And while it likely it will happen along the lines that one would predict there always a chance that chance and circumstance will completely alter things. Although not likely in many cases.

Quote from: Chris24601;1066108And whether you realize it or not, the obstacles you place between the plot hook and its resolution... the mix of monsters, puzzles, traps and rooms safe enough to rest in the dungeon (and whether wandering monsters turn up on a 1-in-6 or 2-in-6 chance) are establishing a basic pacing flow for the "story." This is something the players will record in their brains when they recount the story of their adventure of following the plot-hook.

That the disconnect right there. You are assuming that I conceived campaigns as something linear. Yes there is an initial point in time. But I do not start a campaign with an end goal. I have no idea how any campaign I run will turn out. I don't place obstacles, I create locations. I create the creatures and NPCs that inhabit them along with their plans and motivations.

It could be argued that the "plans and motivations" are a narrative in of themselves. But it like what you have planned for the Christmas holidays. You make plans, do your preparations, and probably be correct in your predictions of what will happen. However you truly don't know.  Nobody here can predict precisely what will happen on December 25th. We just have to wait and experience it.

The same with the plans and goals of the creatures and NPCs I create. I don't know what will happen, only what could happen if the PCs don't do anything involving specific creatures and NPCs. Even then the flapping wings of a butterfly could cause secondary effects that alters things.

My choices as to what to detail are based on what I know would interests the PCs and what would impact their stated goals. And do in a way that hopefully fun and interesting to experience.

Quote from: Chris24601;1066108These things are so hard-coded into us that most of don't even realize we're doing it. To tell stories and see ourselves as being in the midst of a story is so fundamental to being human its like breathing; you only notice it when you stop to think about it.

As you can tell, I have put a lot of thought into what I do as a referee, why I do it, and how to achieve the result.

It all stems back in from my Junior High days circa 1980 where I was the referee who let players "trash" my campaign on their their way to become rulers, guildmasters, and magnates and my efforts to make that a interesting challenge that the players felt was earned.

No one is claiming a GM is a 'storyteller', we are claiming everyone uses story ELEMENTS.  THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING!

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1066129No one is claiming a GM is a 'storyteller', we are claiming everyone uses story ELEMENTS.  THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING!

You claimed

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1065948Well, yeah, cuz games work best as if they follow some story rules, the really basic ones.  A beginning, middle and end, with pacing matching how one would do in a story, with beats and flow, and a denouement.  Which is all you need.  The better adventures are written in that way.

And people disagreed. Keep on the Borderlands (again, for example, there are many) doesn't have beats and flow, or a denoument. It has locations and keys, the real building blocks of a site based adventure. It doesn't have a beginning, middle or end. The players create them post-hoc during play. It certainly does not have pacing related to storytelling techniques at all. It doesn't even have much of a "plot", that is easily discarded if the players go "off the rails".

AND MY CAPS ARE BIGGER THAN YOURS!

Quote from: estarThat the disconnect right there. You are assuming that I conceived campaigns as something linear.

I'm not assuming that actually. I think the disconnect is actually that you presume "story" must be about the entire campaign as a whole.

What I presume is that, when you drop a mysterious stranger with a treasure map into your local tavern (i.e. a potential inciting incident) you have already determined what it is a map to (i.e. the story/quest's ending) and what likely obstacles lie between the PCs and reaching the treasure (i.e. the plot/pacing).

THAT is the framework of a story. It may not be a story with a known ending (because it's still being written by everyone's actions), but it is close enough to a story structure that even someone in the real world going on a treasure hunt would recognize that they're in the middle of something that will be a story once it's complete (even if the specific challenges and end point are currently unknown). It might end up being a boring or anticlimactic or even a shaggy dog story in the end, but the story elements are there.

Heck, at least half the vacations I've been on in my life have been with the goal of "making memories" (i.e. stories you'll recount) with family and/or friends. The entire point of the motivation "to see what's on the other side" is so that you can recount (i.e. tell a story about; even if only to yourself) what you found there. You are literally setting out to be in a story.

The disconnect is that my frame of reference is that a campaign, like life, is filled with dozens, hundreds, thousands of stories of all lengths (and levels of quality). And as in life, those stories all interweave with other stories (both personal and those belonging to others).

The story of the mysterious stranger's map might just be "Book One in the [insert PCs name here] Chronicles" which spans 21 separate tales (as Howard's Conan did) or it might be a stand-alone tale of "The Sad Fate of [Character name]."

In a sense it's rather like you're in the middle of reading a book you picked up that's missing it's cover and title page. You may think you know where it's going (PCs plans), but you can't account for plot twists (i.e. random dice affecting the outcome).

You may say that a plot-hook with attached obstacles and a goal isn't actually using story elements, but I don't think we're actually disagreeing over anything other than the semantics of what the elements of "hook, obstacles, goal" are called at this point.

To me that's the heart of a story... what causes the protagonist to act, what stands in the way of those actions and do they ultimately succeed are the core elements of every story and wind up in campaigns whether you realize you're adding them or not.

That doesn't mean the GM is an outright storyteller... but a big part of the job is weaving all of the actions of the PCs and NPCs into something coherent; of explaining what happens next when the PC or an NPC takes an action. That explanation may be in line with codified rules (i.e. the story of how Dave cleaved an Orc in twain with a single blow because he rolled a Nat-20 and max on his damage roll) or it might be using your own judgement (i.e. the story of how the PCs negotiation with the Barbarian Chief go after they present their gift to him)... but those are all stories (very short ones) you are telling to the players about "what happened next."

Perhaps we can compromise and call it the use of "story-like objects" (in the same way I've heard wall-hangers called "sword-like objects")?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1066129No one is claiming a GM is a 'storyteller', we are claiming everyone uses story ELEMENTS.  THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING!

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1065948Well, yeah, cuz games work best as if they follow some story rules, the really basic ones.  A beginning, middle and end, with pacing matching how one would do in a story, with beats and flow, and a denouement.  Which is all you need.  The better adventures are written in that way.

My thesis is that story rules and other narrative devices are not relevant to running, preparation, or management of traditional tabletop role playing campaign except for some narrow specific circumstances.

Like roleplaying a NPC who is telling a story within the setting.
Like creating a character within the setting.
Like creating a setting for the campaign.
and so on.

Even the above are narrowly focused on supporting elements for a campaign. The fundamental flow of a traditional tabletop roleplaying campaign is the player describing what they do as their character based on the circumstances, the referee describing the result of their actions and the changed circumstances, and repeating this loop throughout the life of the campaign.

While a story is about following a narrative structure of connected real or imaginary events which can be organized in several ways.

You are ignoring that prior to a session or a campaign there are NO real or imaginary events to connect. They don't exist. They have not occurred yet. The use of the rules of a game and the free will of the participants precludes there being a predetermined result other than what initially opens the campaign or session.

What makes it confusing is that the preparations of characters, creatures, locations, motivations, and goals is either the same or similar to what a creator of a narrative does. But that work is used in a very different structure in a traditional tabletop roleplaying campaign compared to a narrative like a novel, play, or film.

That structure being the players interacting with a setting as their character with their actions adjudicated by a human referee. As opposed to a report of connected events (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/narrative) (real or imaginary).

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1066041IT'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!
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?

1: Because storygamers totally ruined the use of the word Story to describe "stuff that happened in an adventure" to the point some now apparently have kneejerk reactions to even mentioning "story". I saw that way back when I first got here even.

2: 5e DMG I believe. Either that or in one of the supplements. Wasnt there a thread about it here when 5e first cam out?

Ahh, found one. DMG chapter 3 right at the start.

QuoteFundamentally adventures are stories. An adventure shares many of the features of a novel, a movie, an issue of a comic, or an episode of a TV show. Comic series and serialized TV dramas are particularly good comparisons, because of the way individual adventures are limited in scope but blend together to create a larger narrative.

Quote from: Psikerlord;1066048#Gameplay>Story. So very important, yet largely lost with the rise of adventure paths in recent years.

Id say it is more like gameplay = story. Story as in "these are the things that happened to us on the adventure" rather than "These are the things that will happen to us on the adventure."

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1066052I'm not scared of a word. I'm speaking my opinion.

Dunno, I'm not Omega. I was just commenting on your post saying that games work best when they follow some story rules, which I disagreed with.

1: What about "Mufasaaaaa." :eek:

2: I dont know? Are you sure? I still have my Warduke action figure.

Quote from: estar;1066154My thesis is that story rules and other narrative devices are not relevant to running, preparation, or management of traditional tabletop role playing campaign except for some narrow specific circumstances.

Sorry. But you and others seem to keep skewing what Chris is saying to mean something else. Repeatedly. Even after he clarifies. repeatedly. So I have to assume you just have some sort of pathological kneejerk to the word at this point.

Assuming I am reading it right Chris has stated, now several times, that the story structure develop naturally and oft after the fact. This is how we developed story structure in the first place as it bases on actions and things done in the real world. And while I think his application is perhaps a bit too broad. It does apply here. It is just not in the totally ham handed and ass backwards ways storygamers use the terms.

My recurring example is Arkham Horror. Storygamers keep claiming that this board game is a really real storytelling RPG. No. It is not. A story can develop from the things you do and you can turn that into a story after the fact. But the game in no way tells a story as you play or was ever designed to. This is where storygamers skew the term story into something else. And as I have said before. When your definition of something is effectively "everything on earth" then your definition has become worse than useless.

Quote from: Chris24601;1066153I'm not assuming that actually. I think the disconnect is actually that you presume "story" must be about the entire campaign as a whole.

I distinguish between what a referee does to prepare and what a referee does during play. As mentioned in an earlier reply there is an intersection between what a creator of a narrative does before writing a story and how a referee prepares a campaign. For example character motivations and goals.

However beyond that what I am talking about applies to the campaign as a whole, to sessions, and encounters. This is a result of focusing on getting the players to feel as if they are there as their characters in what is hopefully a fun and interesting situation.

A guy coming up to the group with a map is not the same as it would be in a Conan novel. In the Conan novel that encounter is part of a narrative planned by the author. In a traditional tabletop roleplaying campaign that NPCs is just one of many at that particular locale. Either by random chance or a choice of the PCs, the ensuing encounters happens.

Not because I want them to follow a treasure map at that moment. Rather I included it as one of the plausible possibilities for that location and circumstance. This is part of bringing the setting to life. However prior to the session I had no idea whether the treasure map would come or not amid the other possibilities.

Now the nuts and bolts of running a campaign doesn't mean that every session is a potential random smorgasbord of choices. Parties often come to a decision about a goal which narrows the choices I have to prepare for. They know they need the feather of a golden griffon to make a +3 sword that they lair in the Dead Queen's Valley. Likely the work I do in preparing the Dead Queen's Valley will be immediately used while any prep for Dearthwood in the opposite direction can be put off for later. For either location the work I put in is to describe it as a location at that moment in time in a form useful for a tabletop roleplaying campaign. What happens is up to the players.

Quote from: Chris24601;1066153Heck, at least half the vacations I've been on in my life have been with the goal of "making memories" (i.e. stories you'll recount) with family and/or friends. The entire point of the motivation "to see what's on the other side" is so that you can recount (i.e. tell a story about; even if only to yourself) what you found there. You are literally setting out to be in a story.

Sorry but that only a plan to "make memories".  All one can hope for is that chance and prep conspire to see the plan through. But even then details are essentially random beyond one's ability to control unlike with a narrative where the author has complete control.

With tabletop roleplaying campaigns the referee has the ability to completely define what presented. In this aspect share the same ability with the creator of a narrative. However what the referee doesn't have control over is the result of using the rules of the game and what the players decide. The result is a pen & paper virtual experience very different than the process of creating a narrative for novels, films, or players. A referee is more tour guide than author.

Quote from: Chris24601;1066153The disconnect is that my frame of reference is that a campaign, like life, is filled with dozens, hundreds, thousands of stories of all lengths (and levels of quality). And as in life, those stories all interweave with other stories (both personal and those belonging to others).

There are people who look at life like that. But my view it is essentially backwards looking. I submit it would be fruitful and more interesting if one looks at things as if they really existed given how the setting works. Prepare one's notes if you are there looking at things and talking to the NPCs. Develop the idea of how thing are as opposed to how things are meant to be.

The primary reason for this is agency. Narrative lack agency. They are connected events that already happened either real or imagined. As interesting as those tales may be they pale compared to ability to make a choice. A compelling Middle Earth campaign isn't about following in the footsteps of the fellowship. But rather finally having the ability to make one own choices within the world Tolkien created. For some the Iron Hills are only given a brief tantalizing glimpse in the novels but with a Middle Earth campaign one can choose to explore the Iron Hills and with the imagination of a human referee it will be brought to life to explore and to interact with.

Quote from: estar;1066180The primary reason for this is agency. Narrative lack agency. They are connected events that already happened either real or imagined. As interesting as those tales may be they pale compared to ability to make a choice. A compelling Middle Earth campaign isn't about following in the footsteps of the fellowship. But rather finally having the ability to make one own choices within the world Tolkien created. For some the Iron Hills are only given a brief tantalizing glimpse in the novels but with a Middle Earth campaign one can choose to explore the Iron Hills and with the imagination of a human referee it will be brought to life to explore and to interact with.

Yep. One can theoretically have a half hour game emulating the film Alien, where the characters all get eaten. Or not. And that uncertainty is the fundamental difference between a narrative and an RPG, and why storytelling techniques can be useful or not.

Quote from: Omega;1066161Id say it is more like gameplay = story. Story as in "these are the things that happened to us on the adventure" rather than "These are the things that will happen to us on the adventure."

Yes definitely Emergent Story>Preplotted Story

I think it is pretty clear that developing for any sort of role-playing is quite different from how one would write a novel or short story.

On the other hand, I also know that a lot of people have found that it made their RPG campaigns better for them, when they learned and used principles from story writing.

One resolution between these two is just that tastes differ - some people prefer self-described story games like Apocalypse World or FATE, while some people prefer traditional RPGs like D&D and GURPS.

There's also a clash of definitions, though, about what are story principle or story design.

Quote from: estar;1066154The fundamental flow of a traditional tabletop roleplaying campaign is the player describing what they do as their character based on the circumstances, the referee describing the result of their actions and the changed circumstances, and repeating this loop throughout the life of the campaign.

While a story is about following a narrative structure of connected real or imaginary events which can be organized in several ways.

You are ignoring that prior to a session or a campaign there are NO real or imaginary events to connect. They don't exist. They have not occurred yet. The use of the rules of a game and the free will of the participants precludes there being a predetermined result other than what initially opens the campaign or session.

What makes it confusing is that the preparations of characters, creatures, locations, motivations, and goals is either the same or similar to what a creator of a narrative does. But that work is used in a very different structure in a traditional tabletop roleplaying campaign compared to a narrative like a novel, play, or film.

Quote from: Omega;1066168My recurring example is Arkham Horror. Storygamers keep claiming that this board game is a really real storytelling RPG. No. It is not. A story can develop from the things you do and you can turn that into a story after the fact. But the game in no way tells a story as you play or was ever designed to. This is where storygamers skew the term story into something else. And as I have said before. When your definition of something is effectively "everything on earth" then your definition has become worse than useless.

The thing is, when I consider a story game like Apocalypse World... It doesn't have any sort of rules for stringing together already existing events, or for adhering to fixed narrative structure. There's no rules like "You can't do that because it doesn't fit narrative structure."

The fundamental flow is still just having the players do actions, and the GM responds, and repeating this loop.


Instead, the influence of story on this is more about how to handle action resolution, when to trigger bad stuff, and so forth. I think the design of Apocalypse World has a lot of similarities to how Arkham Horror is designed. Arkham Horror is designed around a lot of principles to keep things interesting - about when to trigger bad stuff happening, how to build tension in response to player actions, and so forth. Arkham Horror is designed with a villain phase, for example, while Apocalypse World is designed with GM Moves that are triggered in response to failed player rolls.

I think the design of many modern story games has a lot of overlap with the design of games like Arkham Horror. What you call these principles is secondary.

Quote from: Omega;1066168Sorry. But you and others seem to keep skewing what Chris is saying to mean something else. Repeatedly. Even after he clarifies. repeatedly. So I have to assume you just have some sort of pathological kneejerk to the word at this point.

Assuming I am reading it right Chris has stated, now several times, that the story structure develop naturally and oft after the fact. This is how we developed story structure in the first place as it bases on actions and things done in the real world. And while I think his application is perhaps a bit too broad. It does apply here. It is just not in the totally ham handed and ass backwards ways storygamers use the terms.

My recurring example is Arkham Horror. Storygamers keep claiming that this board game is a really real storytelling RPG. No. It is not. A story can develop from the things you do and you can turn that into a story after the fact. But the game in no way tells a story as you play or was ever designed to. This is where storygamers skew the term story into something else. And as I have said before. When your definition of something is effectively "everything on earth" then your definition has become worse than useless.

Ya got most of it, yes.  'Emergent story' or after the fact, as someone pointed out, but it's more that certain elements of a story creation is used.

Plot hooks, plots, the fact that everything a DM describes in his game is there for a reason, little things that help create a cohesive mesh.

I never said anyone is creating a story as they go, or is writing one, but that they are using the tools of one to make sure the game 'feels' right.

Quote from: Azraele;1066053This sentiment always gets under my skin.

There's an insinuation (or in cases like this, outright shouting insistence) that what I'm doing at my table is telling a collaborative story with my friends.

I'm not. Or rather, I'm telling no more a story than I would be if we were playing monopoly.

My entire role as GM (any decent GM's role in my personal estimation) is:
1) Prepping the hexmap and key (including dungeons and such) and/or purchasing a suitable one
2) Having the rulebook in front of me to answer tricky rules questions during play (that the player's don't answer first, sharp bastards)
3) Telling the players what they see, hear, etc.
4) Making "no-duh" judgement calls on the outcome of actions below the fidelity of the rules ("I turn the door handle" "The door opens", that kind of stuff)
5) Answering "Can I...?" questions by giving more detail on what the character's interacting with
6) Keeping time and checking for encounters
7) Playing the motives and personalities of the NPCs (generally informed by start-of-encounter charisma checks as to general starting attitude ie "hostile/friendly/neutral/etc."
8) Providing a table and snacks for us to game on

There's no narrative to it: we're playing a game. Simple as that.

Calling what we do a "collaborative story" and going histrionic about including all these reality-morphing "pace the adventure for best impact!" ideas isn't something that
1) We do, or have ever done
2) We need; our games are fun and satisfying without it

So when you start melting down about "WHY ARE YOU SO MAD ABOUT YOUR STORIES, BRO?!" you leave gamers like us scratching our heads. By all appearances, you're using the rules of narrative as a framework for describing us playing a game; so? That doesn't influence, y'know, actually playing the game.

You could do it to monopoly, too: "First, a band of enthusiastic young entrepreneurs set out to acquire virgin property; then, they slowly acquire it and build it up, sharking each other the whole way; eventually, it escalates into a fiscal war, leaving all but one of them hopeless bankrupt, and the last wealthy beyond their wildest dreams!"

You tell me: how much did my cheeky framing device up there help you to play or enjoy monopoly? That's about how much your posts are influencing the way I run and enjoy D&D.

Actually thinking of it that way makes Monopoly almost sound worth playing when typically I find it boring as hell.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1066041I want to know, which D&D edition says that the DM is creating a story?

The earliest I can recall is 1e, as there's a section in one of the hardbacks about "Story Elements" or some such.  I'll edit this reply if I recall/stumble across the specific book.
 
Edit: Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, pages 103-112

Quote from: Pendle 1612;1066216The earliest I can recall is 1e, as there's a section in one of the hardbacks about "Story Elements" or some such.  I'll edit this reply if I recall/stumble across the specific book.

So even the Mighty Gygax thought that story elements were worth using in a game then?  Interesting.  I don't have access to my copy, so I can't verify.

Quote from: Chris24601;1066153What I presume is that, when you drop a mysterious stranger with a treasure map into your local tavern (i.e. a potential inciting incident) you have already determined what it is a map to (i.e. the story/quest's ending) and what likely obstacles lie between the PCs and reaching the treasure (i.e. the plot/pacing).

Not all games use this 'plot hook' approach, though. Eg when I roll on the random rumour table IMC, I don't have any of that stuff you suggest determined. A lot of the rumours aren't even true. Those that are don't have a story structure attached; at most they relate to a possible adventure site. And I don't know the story/quest's ending) and what likely obstacles lie between the PCs and reaching the treasure (i.e. the plot/pacing) since there are many ways & directions the rumour could be investigated, if it's not ignored.

However I agree that in some games a plot hook comes with something resembling a pre-written story, at least in rough outline, and of course if played through then one could recount the story of those events. I also agree that it's quite common for a game session to involve rising action leading to a climax, such as a boss monster fight.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1066218So even the Mighty Gygax thought that story elements were worth using in a game then?  Interesting.  I don't have access to my copy, so I can't verify.

No, DSG is not by Gygax. DSG does have a good early discussion of linear campaigns (like modern APs), sandbox campaigns (called open campaigns there), and matrix campaigns, which are a hybrid resembling a the Savage Worlds Plot Point campaigns style, an approach sadly under utilised by D&D campaign publishers IMO.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1066207the fact that everything a DM describes in his game is there for a reason, little things that help create a cohesive mesh.

This seems like a silly or misleading comparison to me. It evokes the idea of Chekov's Gun, but there are many other reasons why a GM describes things in his game. One common reason is that the player asks about it. Of course both GM and author may be describing stuff in order to eg evoke a sense of the place/environment. In an RPG a detail may or may not become important depending on player action. The GM may not know.

I definitely think there are resemblances between RPGs and stories, but then there are resemblances between many things, including stories and real life. The question is whether making that comparison is useful. For a lot of people, making that comparison has tended to be a net negative, so they are wary of it. Perhaps too wary - once bitten, twice shy.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1066207Ya got most of it, yes.  'Emergent story' or after the fact, as someone pointed out, but it's more that certain elements of a story creation is used.

Plot hooks, plots, the fact that everything a DM describes in his game is there for a reason, little things that help create a cohesive mesh.

I never said anyone is creating a story as they go, or is writing one, but that they are using the tools of one to make sure the game 'feels' right.

I'd say more that DMs are sometimes using things like plot hooks and other times they arent and it is actually just the RNG tables at work.

But. The RNG tables effectively are "plot hook generators" sometimes. Depending on how the DM uses them. Some just use them as map seeding tools and let the players blunder about. Others use them as seeding tools and then use that as a rumor. Which is a plot hook.

And here I think is something that gets overlooked.

Alot of DMs use the various tables to generate encounters or whole campaign arcs. But this is not story structure. Instead what you are seeing is another expression of emergent after the fact story. The tables are essentially an oracle system or at the very least a sounding board that may kick off an idea. The rolls can and do inspire a story once the DM is done noting everything.

Obviously not all DMs do this as not all use random tables.

An example would be my example earlier in the thread. That goblin raid and all the rest was random gen. But once the pieces were in place it inspired a story to weave from that that became the basic plot hook for that locale. And then the adventure became a story after the PCs decided to interact with it.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1066218So even the Mighty Gygax thought that story elements were worth using in a game then?  Interesting.  I don't have access to my copy, so I can't verify.

Survival Guide was written by Doug Niles. Who was a fantasy author for TSR way back so it really should not come as a surprise his book has a section like this.

Quote from: Omega;1066233Alot of DMs use the various tables to generate encounters or whole campaign arcs. But this is not story structure. Instead what you are seeing is another expression of emergent after the fact story. The tables are essentially an oracle system or at the very least a sounding board that may kick off an idea. The rolls can and do inspire a story once the DM is done noting everything.

Obviously not all DMs do this as not all use random tables.

An example would be my example earlier in the thread. That goblin raid and all the rest was random gen. But once the pieces were in place it inspired a story to weave from that that became the basic plot hook for that locale. And then the adventure became a story after the PCs decided to interact with it.

I have come full circle and am again a big fan of this GM style. It is very sandboxy and easy to improv. My prep is a few random site hooks and then random tables. Not even I know what is coming each session. I get to be just as surprised as the players when they stumble across and ancient cave leading deep into the earth, a small army of skorn camped in a mountain pass, or a hungry wyvern cruising the high thermals. The surprises, and the party's reactions, are pure fun. It feels more like genuine exploration of the world when random tables are involved, as opposed to set encounters.

Quote from: S'mon;1066222and matrix campaigns, which are a hybrid resembling a the Savage Worlds Plot Point campaigns style, an approach sadly under utilised by D&D campaign publishers IMO.

(https://zippy.gfycat.com/FlamboyantUnderstatedGelada.gif)

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1066264(https://zippy.gfycat.com/FlamboyantUnderstatedGelada.gif)

I assume that quoting the lead paragraph for each style constitutes fair usage, so:
 
Linear: "A linear adventure is one in which the story line advances through a series of encounters that must be played in a certain order.  While the PCs handle each encounter as it arises, they are given little or no choice as to where they go between encounters, unless they want to stop or turn back."
 
Open: "This type of game de-emphasizes the DM's story, and instead relies almost completely on player's choices to determine the course of events.  In an open campaign, it is the DM's responsibility to create an interesting world for the PCs to explore and adventure in."
 
Matrix:  "The matrix campaign allows the DM to create a detailed story with a developed plot, while still allowing the players to choose where they go and how they deal with their challenges."
 
Niles, obviously, goes into more detail about each approach, detailing the advantages and disadvantages of each.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1066218So even the Mighty Gygax thought that story elements were worth using in a game then?  Interesting.  I don't have access to my copy, so I can't verify.

As others have noted, the book was authored by Douglas Niles, and was published in 1986.  If memory serves, Gygax left TSR at the end of '86, so I'm not sure if there was any input by Gygax on the project one way or another.  But I'm not really that informed about the behind the scenes situations of TSR, so someone else would have to answer that.
 
If it's useful for anyone, here's the outline, using Niles' titles, of the story section of the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide:
 
1. PLOT AND COUNTERPLOT: THE IMPORTANCE OF STORY
 
     I. The Story Structure
          A. Exposition
          B. Development
          C. Climax
          D. Denouement
 
     II. Mutilple Story Lines
 
     III. Story Elements
          A. The Villains
          B. Foreshadowing
          C. Mystery
          D. Challenge

     IV. Reward
          A. Magical Items
          B. Wealth
          C. Discoveries
          D. Gratitude
          E. Accomplishment
          F. Experience Points
          G. Moral
 
2. TECHNIQUES OF STORY AND CAMPAIGN DESIGN
 
     I. The Linear Adventure
     II. The Open Campaign
     III. The Matrix Campaign

Quote from: Pendle 1612;1066337I assume that quoting the lead paragraph for each style constitutes fair usage, so:
 
Linear: "A linear adventure is one in which the story line advances through a series of encounters that must be played in a certain order.  While the PCs handle each encounter as it arises, they are given little or no choice as to where they go between encounters, unless they want to stop or turn back."
 
Open: "This type of game de-emphasizes the DM's story, and instead relies almost completely on player's choices to determine the course of events.  In an open campaign, it is the DM's responsibility to create an interesting world for the PCs to explore and adventure in."
 
Matrix:  "The matrix campaign allows the DM to create a detailed story with a developed plot, while still allowing the players to choose where they go and how they deal with their challenges."
 
Niles, obviously, goes into more detail about each approach, detailing the advantages and disadvantages of each.

I dug out my DSG and read the entries. I think my play style is already defaulting to Matrix, with use of Open and Linear as the need arises.
It's interesting that even back at the tail end of AD&D, that Niles seemed to understand the differences between the GM styles, and it's a fair writeup of their strengths and weaknesses. I dislike his focus on adventure as story (naturally) but perhaps it was part of the progression from AD&D to 2nd edition.

I agree RPGs and stories have a relationship.

After we play a RPG, we can tell a story about what happened to our characters.

In RPGs, story happens after the game session as a retrospective, not as a guideline for what will happen during play.

So the GM or the players can be a "storyteller"...after the game.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1066348I dug out my DSG and read the entries. I think my play style is already defaulting to Matrix, with use of Open and Linear as the need arises.
It's interesting that even back at the tail end of AD&D, that Niles seemed to understand the differences between the GM styles, and it's a fair writeup of their strengths and weaknesses. I dislike his focus on adventure as story (naturally) but perhaps it was part of the progression from AD&D to 2nd edition.

As a player, I'm open to any of the styles just as long as I know what to expect going in.  I don't mind being railroaded if I know I'm buying a ticket, you know?  As far as preference goes, I'm more inclined towards Open and that tends to be the most common approach in our group.
 
I'd strive towards open as a GM, but I have to say that with the admission that the only thing I've ran in a few years have been old TSR modules as deliberate one-offs when the others running a game need a break or time to prep.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1065875Out of nostalgia, I prefer the title Dungeon Master or Game Master, but I get why the OSR likes "referee".

I'd never use the term "referee".