D&D General Defining Story

[Hussar]

In the excellent DM's Advice thread, this particular bit of advice caught my eye:

The referee puts obstacles in front of the PCs; the players figure out how to overcome those obstacles. The only “story” in RPGs should emerge from the combination of the referee’s obstacles, the players’ choices, and the luck of the dice.

Now, my initial reaction here is a big, heck no. Story, in my mind, is crucial in an RPG. But, stepping back a second, I wonder if there isn't a problem with how we each define what a story is.

To me, a story is simply character, setting and plot. That's why you can have 5 word stories, Drabbles (100 word stories) and various other very short fiction. To me, a story isn't a closed system. But, I think a lot of people define story in terms of a complete narrative. That you have a definite beginning, middle and ending and until you get to that last bit of punctuation, you don't actually have a story, but, once that final bit is in, it's locked in and THAT is the story.

Which, in my mind anyway, possibly explains why you see such different DMing advice. In another thread, we were talking about WotC's adventure paths and is an Adventure Anthology an actual campaign or not. Is it a campaign if you have a loose collection of episodes that are not really connected to each other, like Candlekeep Mysteries or Radiant Citadel? Is Dragon Queen a campaign because it has a definite beginning, middle and end point? Where does that leave things like Curse of Strahd, which is a pretty wide open sandbox until you get to the end and face Strahd. After all, if you complete Curse of Strahd, the final act of that campaign will be bearding Strahd in Castle Ravenloft, regardless of what order you do the rest of the module in. Is that more or less a story because it's open ended until the conclusion? Or, should we only strive for "emergent" stories?

I don't have any conclusions here. I'm just tossing this out to see what folks think.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I would not even try to play a character in a game with only emergent storytelling. I certainly don't want to run one.

There is a whole spectrum of what we'd call 'story', from anthologies of unconnected vignettes, episodic stories that have some sort of framing and maybe even a timeline featuring the same characters and/or setting, serialized tales with a clear continuity, stories derived from stream of consciousness, etc, etc.

However.

If I'm going to make and play a character in a game whose role I am to playout, I do want more structure than purely emergent story. I kind of want goals, motivations, supporting cast, and a measure of narrative control so that I can actually be a participant in the storytelling.

Further, I do not want the dice playing a significant part of the actual narrative. I feel their place is resolving conflict in a fair manner so as to remove the 'I hit you, nuh-uh' aspect of the game of pretend we're playing.

 

[Hussar]

Further, I do not want the dice playing a significant part of the actual narrative. I feel their place is resolving conflict in a fair manner so as to remove the 'I hit you, nuh-uh' aspect of the game of pretend we're playing.

Wise words I read on these boards many years ago were, "The dice provide the direction, the players provide the script". It's something I really believe. Sometimes, the dice will actually play a significant role in how something unfolds. As a good example, in our last session, playing Phandelver, one of the players attempted to climb up a loose scree of rock, only to have it dislodge and slide down, revealing (and also mostly killing) a giant poisonous snake. The PC made his save but the snake did not, meaning that despite triggering the trap, the player actually kind of came out on top.

Granted, that's not a whole story. That's just one event. But, it will be something that sticks out in my mind. Or, watching the party try to enter the goblin cave, spotting the goblin guard on the bridge without being detected and then proceeding to fire at the goblin six times without killing it, allowing the goblin to raise the alarm.

So, yeah, sometimes dice do drive the story. Without the dice, we never would have told that particular story, I don't think. So, there is some validity, IMO, to the notion that dice play a role in creating story. But, again, a lot of the elements of a story are already in place. I have a sneaking suspicion that others who have played this module have had fairly similar results.

 

[payn]

I think this just chest pounding over no true Scotsman nonsense. Of course, the obstacles combine with player choices to make a story. Lets not pretend the obstacles are not intertwined in a larger purpose. Unless you are saying that when you play the GM just shouts "lock" and the player says "pick it" followed by the GM shouting "rope" and another player calling back "climb it!".

 

[Hussar]

Chest pounding? Sorry, was there something in my tone that made it sound like I was pounding on my chest?

 

[overgeeked]

Now, my initial reaction here is a big, heck no. Story, in my mind, is crucial in an RPG. But, stepping back a second, I wonder if there isn't a problem with how we each define what a story is.

To me, a story is simply character, setting and plot.

At a guess, this is where we'd diverge in our definitions. The emergent story in RPGs is what happens when you combine the referee's prep with the players' choices and the chaos of math rocks. Emergent storytelling here is simply shorthand for not railroading. The referee as honest collaborator with the players to see what happens. That oft repeated phrase from PBTA and FitD games is apropos: play to find out what happens. Whatever story the game can said to have is organically emergent from prep, choices, and dice...it is not imposed upon the players by the referee.

The referee can absolutely prep NPCs, factions, worlds, etc and can absolutely give those NPCs, factions, etc goals and motivations and set them in motion. But the referee shouldn't force the PCs to deal with those NPCs, factions, etc. Nor should the referee force specific outcomes on the players. Respecting player agency and being an honest collaborator are the goals. You're not collaborating if your thumb is on the scale. You're dictating a pre-defined story to your players.

The players can and should decide what their goals are and pursue them. To not do that, to wait for the referee to feed them the "story" is to shortchange the whole experience of playing RPGs. An experience vaguely similar to MadLibs or a Choose Your Own Adventure novel with dice isn't what I want from RPGs. And I certainly don't want the referee to undermine my choices as a player to force me to engage with whatever story they've decided I really need to sit though. I'll read the novel after they write it down. I don't need to play through their rough draft.

That's why you can have 5 word stories, Drabbles (100 word stories) and various other very short fiction. To me, a story isn't a closed system. But, I think a lot of people define story in terms of a complete narrative. That you have a definite beginning, middle and ending and until you get to that last bit of punctuation, you don't actually have a story, but, once that final bit is in, it's locked in and THAT is the story.

I would disagree with that bolded bit as it necessarily removes 5-word stories from your definition of story. Unless you mean these terms in the literal sense rather than how they're typically used in discussions of story. Things like beginning, middle, and end story structure, act structure, etc simply don't apply to something like a 5-word story.

Take the 6-word story that's most likely not by Ernest Hemingway. "For sale: baby shoes, never worn."

You can literally say it's broken up into three 2-word pieces ("For sale," "baby shoes," "never worn") but you'd be hard pressed to convince anyone that this flash fiction follows three-act structure.

Is it a campaign if you have a loose collection of episodes that are not really connected to each other, like Candlekeep Mysteries or Radiant Citadel?

I'd say it absolutely is. An RPG campaign isn't defined as a single overarching story. A campaign can just as easily be a series of linked one shots. Because even if the individual episodes (one-shots) are not thematically linked to each other, the PCs link them together. The campaign is the story of what happens to this group of adventurers, whatever that may be. That's the overarching story, regardless of if it's episodic or serialized. Whether specific PCs live or die during the campaign is also irrelevant as the overarching story is about the group as a whole, not specific characters surviving to the end.

Where does that leave things like Curse of Strahd, which is a pretty wide open sandbox until you get to the end and face Strahd. After all, if you complete Curse of Strahd, the final act of that campaign will be bearding Strahd in Castle Ravenloft, regardless of what order you do the rest of the module in. Is that more or less a story because it's open ended until the conclusion?

The definition of "story" where's it's determined in advance is where people who prefer emergent storytelling balk the most. You absolutely can have a story without it being determined beforehand. Ask anyone who's played a PBTA or BitD game. Tell them what they played through wasn't a story simply because it emerged from play rather than was defined ahead of time.

Story is what you piece together after the game is played. Story is what actually happened in the game. You go left when the module said you had to go right, that's part of the story. The players are supposed to have an easy time with the guards but a tough time with the boss, but the chaotic math rocks said hell no! That's part of the story. That's not something you can or should determine ahead of time.

Or, should we only strive for "emergent" stories?

For me, yes, referees should only ever strive for emergent storytelling at the RPG table. To do otherwise is to shortchange both the game and the players from a truly collaborative storytelling experience. That is, to deny them the very thing that makes RPGs unique.

 

[Hussar]

Story is what you piece together after the game is played. Story is what actually happened in the game. You go left when the module said you had to go right, that's part of the story. The players are supposed to have an easy time with the guards but a tough time with the boss, but the chaotic math rocks said hell no! That's part of the story. That's not something you can or should determine ahead of time.

So, basically, any Adventure Path is bad for play? After all, every Adventure Path has a defined structure to it. You know you're going to do X and Y and Z. You might do them in different order, and you might skip some of it, but, at the end of the day, you're still going to be facing off with that NPC in that location.

I'm not sure I would agree that one is better than the other. For one, a structured game can be really good. It can be much better paced than an emergent one (not that it will always be, I'm saying CAN) simply because everyone is rowing in the same direction. Yes, there's some rails there, but, since no one minds them being there, they aren't a problem.

This notion that sandbox, emergent play, is somehow superior is one that I find really hard to justify. I dunno. I've certainly had bad experiences with both. And, for myself, with my extremely limited free time, the odds that you're going to get the freedom that you want is virtually non-existent. I just don't have the time to build that much stuff. It's why I tend to run episodic campaigns. I prep for the next session, maybe two, and that's about it. I have no idea what's over yonder hill because that's not part of this adventure. The adventure is THAT WAY. If you want to go somewhere else, well, you run the game. I just don't have time to devote to that.

OTOH, within each episode of episodic campaigns that I run, I do strive to give as much freedom as I possibly can. They might not be very big sandboxes, but, I do try to make them as sandbox as possible.

 

[wedgeski]

Tell them what they played through wasn't a story simply because it emerged from play rather than was defined ahead of time.

I mean, I probably could, some of the time. When you describe zigging instead of zagging, or a pushover boss fight, you're describing a series of events, not a story (well, not necessarily a good one).

I run primarily narrative mystery-box campaigns, and I can still have those moments. Remember that time the warlock's rope snapped when he was trying to climb out of the pit of intellect devourers? Remember that time the paladin was almost killed by failing six saving throws in a row, then turned around one-shotted the thing with a smite crit? But I also get to ask: Remember when the warlock faced shadow versions of herself and rebuked her patron? Remember when the rogue realised the reason people kept recognising him was because he'd been cloned? Remember when the sorcerer realised his familiar was the drake they'd been hunting all this time?

I'm not saying those things can't happen in emergent gameplay. There are better DM's out there than me that seem capable of anything. But personally, I love the thrill of a mystery coming together, that look a player gives me when they realise what's going on. And my players, at least, seem to love that as well. They're mostly newer players, they had no idea that D&D/roleplaying could give them that.

Narrative drive is possible while still giving the players hefty freedoms to go where they want and do what they like. The "story" isn't designed in advance. The story is what they do with that info, what choices their character makes. The sorcerer ended up wanting to merge with his familiar and become a half-dragon. I didn't see that coming, I'll tell you that.

 

[jgsugden]

There is a balance. You neither wish to dictate a story to the players where they are just toys in your game, nor do you want to leave a game empty and devoid of the elements of storytelling that make for a compelling tale.

To that end, I give myself two roles as a Dungeon Master.

The first role is a pregame role. It is a designer and storyteller role. I put the puzzle pieces into place to tell a good story and set the PCs up to play a key role. Once I put something into place, it is generally locked in and part of my world - changed only through the actions of the PCs.

The second role is an in-game role. It is a facilitator and adjudicator role. I only insert things into the game as required when the PCs do something unexpected. Beyond that, I am just trying to move forward the story as the players engage with what I created for them. I do not try to make something new up on the spot to make a better story - I let the PCs take the lead in determining how we unfold the tale. I will not, for example, realize the PCs saw an easy way around my traps and add another just to keep it from being too easy. Nor will I add monsters to an encounter to make it tougher. Nor will I improvise a puzzle for them to solve on a whim. They face what I have ready to go - and I only add stuff if they go where I am unprepared (and I try to be prepared).

What this results in is my storytelling driving the game outside sessions, and theirs driving the game during sessions. They make substantial impacts into where the story gores that always feels open to them, but that plays into the larger world.

It works for me.

 

[aco175]

"The DM puts obstacles in front of the players and the players figure out how to overcome them." They both come together to create a story, but maybe not the story. @Hussar talks about playing LMoPhandelvar and how his group went through the goblin caves and much fun ensued. The same obstacles were there for my group and your group, but the players overcoming them were different and the dice helped or hindered that play, so my story at my table came out different than another's.

I think there is still confusion about what a campaign is and what the story is. If I pull out LMoP and the players say they want to play and make characters and we sit down to suddenly one or two players want to turn around and go back to Neverwinter, then we have a problem. That was not the obstacles we agreed to put in front of the players. While being able to make character decisions is needed, there still needs to be some corral for how much.