D&D General Defining Story

[Hussar]

I’m sorry but the idea that having control over setting and events is somehow equal to what the players can do through their PC’s isn’t true imo. Players can only react to what the dm brings to the table. You cannot do “anything” as your pc because that anything is filtered through the dm.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I’m sorry but the idea that having control over setting and events is somehow equal to what the players can do through their PC’s isn’t true imo. Players can only react to what the dm brings to the table. You cannot do “anything” as your pc because that anything is filtered through the dm.

If you believe that, then there's no player agency at all in games without narrative mechanics and fully collaborative design, and you shouldn't be playing them unless you don't care about making choices. In short, there shouldn't be a GM. Is that what you're saying?

 

[Hussar]

If you believe that, then there's no player agency at all in games without narrative mechanics and fully collaborative design, and you shouldn't be playing them unless you don't care about making choices. In short, there shouldn't be a GM. Is that what you're saying?

No. Not at all.

Not equal does not mean nonexistent.

Of course player choice impacts how something unfolds. That's a given. But, the choices and pretty much anything outside of what the players can directly influence in the game through their characters, are all largely defined by the DM. You can't be a sailor in Dark Sun after all, to use a rather extreme example.

My point was though, since the DM has authority over virtually everything in the game except what the players choose, saying that player choice and DM's influence are equal in defining the story does not seem right to me. The player cannot choose things that the DM does not place in the setting. Heck, think of all the arguments about curated race and class lists. People will strongly argue that it's entirely under the DM's purview what is and is not included in a campaign.

If I say there are no PC wizards in this campaign, then, well, you're not telling any stories about being a wizard. Full stop.

Now, all this aside, what you seem to be describing - a campaign where the DM creates the setting, plonks down some potential conflict points and then sits back and lets the players take the driver's wheel - sounds an awful lot like an MMO to me. How is that not simply World of Warcraft or Eve Online? A game with no plot, no story except what the players choose to do.

I believe that being a good story teller is one of the biggest skills a DM should cultivate. I'm not there to wander aimlessly from place to place trying to drum up something of interest. I want you to have a strong story in mind and drive the action of the campaign. I have no problems with that. Mostly because my experience with DM's who want to let the player's drive results in campaigns that stutter to a halt as no one can figure out what to do. The dreaded "rowboat" campaign where you'Re in the middle of an ocean and every direction is equal because there's nothing really going on.

I have no interest in driving your campaign. It's your campaign. I'd much prefer the DM have a strong vision for what the game is going to be about and not have to spend hour after hour (which can happen) of players faffing about trying to figure out something to do. There's a reason I don't play MMO's. I find them boring and tedious. Get me to the action. Get me to the drama. I'll provide the script after we get there, don't you worry. But, it's up to the DM to get the ball rolling and keep that ball rolling.

 

[jmartkdr2]

(sorry if I'm repeating someone I haven't read the whole thread)

I find it's useful to separate the concepts of "story" from "narrative."

Stories have a structure: a beginning, a middle, and an end. Not always the end you wanted, but there's usually some connecting element that ties the whole thing together as a single arc - a story.

A narrative is just a bunch of stuff that happens to some characters, told through a medium. Ttrpgs are a medium, in this contexts.

Ergo, all ttrpgs have a narrative. A bunch of stuff happens to some characters. Not all ttrpgs have stories, and even among those that do not all do so on purpose. I would say most sort-of do. Games that set out to create stories at the design phase are known as story games.

Once you make that distinction, it's pretty easy to have a conversation about specific examples.

(As for railroading: all ttrpgs are at least supposed to be somewhat collaborative - everyone at the table has some authorship. Railroading, at least under the useful definition, is when the gm oversteps. Incidentally, this is technically orthogonal to whether or not story is happening.)

 

[jmartkdr2]

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.

If you do that, and the players bring characters with motivations that they are allowed to pursue, you'll almost always end up with a story, or at least something rather story-shaped.

There is a very big difference between trying to make a story happen and just putting everything in a mixer and seeing what happens, but people being people stories of some kind tend to come out.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No. Not at all.

Not equal does not mean nonexistent.

Of course player choice impacts how something unfolds. That's a given. But, the choices and pretty much anything outside of what the players can directly influence in the game through their characters, are all largely defined by the DM. You can't be a sailor in Dark Sun after all, to use a rather extreme example.

My point was though, since the DM has authority over virtually everything in the game except what the players choose, saying that player choice and DM's influence are equal in defining the story does not seem right to me. The player cannot choose things that the DM does not place in the setting. Heck, think of all the arguments about curated race and class lists. People will strongly argue that it's entirely under the DM's purview what is and is not included in a campaign.

If I say there are no PC wizards in this campaign, then, well, you're not telling any stories about being a wizard. Full stop.

Now, all this aside, what you seem to be describing - a campaign where the DM creates the setting, plonks down some potential conflict points and then sits back and lets the players take the driver's wheel - sounds an awful lot like an MMO to me. How is that not simply World of Warcraft or Eve Online? A game with no plot, no story except what the players choose to do.

I believe that being a good story teller is one of the biggest skills a DM should cultivate. I'm not there to wander aimlessly from place to place trying to drum up something of interest. I want you to have a strong story in mind and drive the action of the campaign. I have no problems with that. Mostly because my experience with DM's who want to let the player's drive results in campaigns that stutter to a halt as no one can figure out what to do. The dreaded "rowboat" campaign where you'Re in the middle of an ocean and every direction is equal because there's nothing really going on.

I have no interest in driving your campaign. It's your campaign. I'd much prefer the DM have a strong vision for what the game is going to be about and not have to spend hour after hour (which can happen) of players faffing about trying to figure out something to do. There's a reason I don't play MMO's. I find them boring and tedious. Get me to the action. Get me to the drama. I'll provide the script after we get there, don't you worry. But, it's up to the DM to get the ball rolling and keep that ball rolling.

I was going to argue this point for point, but honestly I disagree with virtually every statement you make here.

 

[Hussar]

I was going to argue this point for point, but honestly I disagree with virtually every statement you make here.

Heh. Disagreement is healthy. Note, I was specifically speaking from my own preferences here.

In the larger context of the thread, I don't think you can actually say one way is better than the other. So much will depend on table preferences.

So, I suppose in "defining story" one needs also to define what your group wants out of the game.

 

[overgeeked]

If you do that, and the players bring characters with motivations that they are allowed to pursue, you'll almost always end up with a story, or at least something rather story-shaped.

There is a very big difference between trying to make a story happen and just putting everything in a mixer and seeing what happens, but people being people stories of some kind tend to come out.

Exactly. If the PCs have motivations, if they have goals, all the referee needs to do is put interesting obstacles in their way and you get a story. The quality and length of that story depends on the details, of course.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Not so fast, there.

In low-level play I've no way of knowing which characters will still be in play in the next hour, never mind next session.

And later, the players are likely to have multiple characters each; and I've no way of knowing which one(s) each will bring on any given mission or adventure.

So no, oftentimes I don't know what characters will be in play when any given circumstance is reached.

 

[Hussar]

Not so fast, there.

In low-level play I've no way of knowing which characters will still be in play in the next hour, never mind next session.

And later, the players are likely to have multiple characters each; and I've no way of knowing which one(s) each will bring on any given mission or adventure.

So no, oftentimes I don't know what characters will be in play when any given circumstance is reached.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you're table's a teeny, tiny bit of an outlier though.

Basically, your advice only really works if I play troupe play with high lethality and extended campaigns that last multiple years. Since none of that is true for my table (and I've a sneaking suspicion that it's not true for most tables) I'm not really sure your opinion here is particularly pertinent.

Honestly though, I think there is room for both. Sometimes, it's great to sit back and let the players do their thing. Here's a bunch of options, with the potential for choosing something that isn't on the menu, go to it. And, sometimes it's great to start in medias res, halfway into the action, and hit things at a dead run.

And, it's going to depend a lot on the adventure. Earlier, a mystery was mentioned. Well, think about that for a second. Most of the time, the DM is going to know who did what to whom and where. They have the answer to the mystery and it's up to the players to reveal it. From an adventure design standpoint, there's not a whole lot of freedom to choose here. You're either right or you're wrong. Follow the clues, find the killer, catch the killer.

Now, granted, I know there are games out there that make the answer somewhat nebulous and the DM actually doesn't have the answers at the outset. But, by and large, If Colonel Mustard offed Mr. Green in the Study with the Lead Pipe, well, that's the end point of your story. You follow the clues, catch Colonel Mustard. Or fail to catch him as the case may be. But, in any case, the structure of that adventure is going to be pretty fixed - find the clues (maybe using the 3 clue method), follow the trail of breadcrumbs, climactic ending. Story done.

It's going to depend really heavily on the needs of the adventure really. You can't have an emergent mystery story. Well, actually there are systems where you can, but, in D&D? No. You can't. The DM knows whodunnit before the first player sits down.l