D&D General Defining Story

[wedgeski]

Right. Thank you for saying the quiet part loud. That's part of the problem. People are quietly adding modifiers to how they define story. Good, long, epic, grandiose, etc. Nothing guarantees any story that comes out of RPG play will be a good, long, epic, grandiose, etc one. Forcing the players to jump through hoops also doesn't guarantee those in a story. People are quietly assuming it does and arguing from that position. But that's simply not the case.

I thought that was the whole premise of this thread--defining story. Anyway, if we're reducing to the point that any sequence of events qualifies as a story, then how can anyone disagree with you?

But I don't define story as a random series of events. I got up, put on my shoes, ate a bowl of Cornflakes, go in the car, there was traffic, I was slightly late for work. That's the story of my morning but I'd never be happy with that at the table. My friends are committing an evening a week to my game, I owe them a better experience than that.

I want questions, reveals, and drama that goes right to the heart of my players' characeter concepts. I can do that for them, if they're up for it. And I can feed their choices into the mix, no problem.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I like to say that the story is the tale of what actually happens during the game, while the plot is the DM's plan for what can/will happen. Depending on the game the plot can have a major or minor impact on how the story ends up.

 

[Blue]

If a DM preps a campaign and doesn't run it, is there story? Can there be story without running it at a table?

If yes, then does player agency exist for that story? Can the dice impact the story, such a convincing someone or not, or a character dying?

I think people are confusing plot and plans with story. Story needs it's protagonists and their actions. Unless it's a complete railroad, story is what happens at the table. And if it is a complete railroad, then it's a novel that the author is getting some people to act out.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Another facet of this that we need to acknowledge is that there is another side to this idea of "story"-- the story that the players experience and the story that the individual characters experience.

For many players/DMs-- stereotypically I'd say of the old-school variety-- that feel that the story is what the player experiences over the course of a campaign, with less concern for the individual characters within that campaign. This is why a number of DMs couldn't care less and in fact fully expect innumerable PCs dying over the course of the game, and that is perfectly acceptable and part of the game. Because it's not about an individual character's story and place within the narrative of the campaign... it's about the player who experiences the narrative of the campaign (and all the trials and tribulations the player through trying to get characters through it.)

This is definitely the side of story I fall on. It's about the setting and how the player experiences it through whatever PC or PCs they run. I don't want anything in the system to encourage story in any other way.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I thought that was the whole premise of this thread--defining story. Anyway, if we're reducing to the point that any sequence of events qualifies as a story, then how can anyone disagree with you?

But I don't define story as a random series of events. I got up, put on my shoes, ate a bowl of Cornflakes, go in the car, there was traffic, I was slightly late for work. That's the story of my morning but I'd never be happy with that at the table. My friends are committing an evening a week to my game, I owe them a better experience than that.

I want questions, reveals, and drama that goes right to the heart of my players' characeter concepts. I can do that for them, if they're up for it. And I can feed their choices into the mix, no problem.

I don't owe my players a story. I owe them a setting and circumstances allowing them to make one for themselves out of what they do in reaction to what they are presented with, mediated by the dice.

 

[wedgeski]

I don't owe my players a story. I owe them a setting and circumstances allowing them to make one for themselves out of what they do in reaction to what they are presented with, mediated by the dice.

I said "experience". There are things I can do from behind the screen that simply can't be done by the players, no matter how good they are. If they turn up with their two pages of backstory, character concepts, and in-party connections, in my view they're striking a bargain with me, and that bargain isn't a series of disconnected encounters where the weight of the storytelling is all on them. I want some tricks up my sleeve, and maybe even a plan. I realise that's anathema to a lot of DM's on this board, but it's the best way I've found to create truly memorable campaigns.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I said "experience". There are things I can do from behind the screen that simply can't be done by the players, no matter how good they are. If they turn up with their two pages of backstory, character concepts, and in-party connections, in my view they're striking a bargain with me, and that bargain isn't a series of disconnected encounters where the weight of the storytelling is all on them. I want some tricks up my sleeve, and maybe even a plan. I realise that's anathema to a lot of DM's on this board, but it's the best way I've found to create truly memorable campaigns.

See, from my point of view my job is to create a truly memorable setting. Creating a truly memorable experience is everybody's job, and nothing about it is mandatory or owed by anyone to anyone. It's just down to DM presentation, player action through their PCs, and the dice.

 

[Hussar]

I don't owe my players a story. I owe them a setting and circumstances allowing them to make one for themselves out of what they do in reaction to what they are presented with, mediated by the dice.

See that’s my issue though. Setting+circumstaces+chatacters=story.

Since you define 2/3rds of that, the story is going to be very, very heavily shaped by you the DM.

You presumably know what characters are being played before you prepare your circumstances- at least that’s pretty much guaranteed after the first session.

To me, that’s a story. The details might vary somewhat, but by and large you can mostly predict what the story is going to be.

 

[overgeeked]

See that’s my issue though. Setting+circumstaces+chatacters=story.

Since you define 2/3rds of that, the story is going to be very, very heavily shaped by you the DM.

Sure. But you don’t control the most important part of that equation, the PCs. They’re the main characters to that story. Any story that results is their story. A story about them. You also left of another aspect you as referee have zero control over, the dice.

This is a better formula, that’s more accurate, I think. Your prep + players’ choices + chaos made manifest as math rocks = RPG story.

Your prep includes the setting and the NPCs. You control 1/3 of the equation. Not 2/3. And of course it assumes that the players actually engage with the prep you want them to, instead of going left when you expected them to go right.

Everyone has a lot more fun when the referee eases up a bit and goes with the flow. Some of the best times I’ve had were from being surprised by the direction the game goes. So much less tension and worry about pushing things to turn out how I want. Be surprised along with the players. It’s more fun that way.

You presumably know what characters are being played before you prepare your circumstances- at least that’s pretty much guaranteed after the first session.

Sure, but nothing says you have to tailor your prep to the PCs. Putting in things specifically suited to the PCs makes for boring games. Put in a variety of obstacles regardless of the PCs’ abilities. They’ll be challenged in unexpected ways and have to think to overcome those obstacles. That’s a lot more fun than tailoring the obstacles to the PCs.

To me, that’s a story. The details might vary somewhat, but by and large you can mostly predict what the story is going to be.

Being able to predict the story makes it boring. You ever watch or read a mystery where you know the ending ahead of time? It’s incredibly unsatisfying. That‘s why people don’t tend to read or watch the end first. To preserve the mystery and surprise.

 

[Micah Sweet]

See that’s my issue though. Setting+circumstaces+chatacters=story.

Since you define 2/3rds of that, the story is going to be very, very heavily shaped by you the DM.

You presumably know what characters are being played before you prepare your circumstances- at least that’s pretty much guaranteed after the first session.

To me, that’s a story. The details might vary somewhat, but by and large you can mostly predict what the story is going to be.

Well, quite frankly I'm uninterested in having players shape the story outside of their PCs (although I certainly look to accommodate player requests as much as I can prior to starting the campaign), so there you are. That way lies storygames and narrative mechanics, which are not needed for emergent story.