Game vs. Story

[Quasqueton]

Is the game a vehicle for your story, or does your story emerge from the play of the game?

In other words, will you fudge the game aspects to support the story, or do you call whatever naturally happens in the game, "the story"?

Quasqueton

 

[Mouseferatu]

I reject the notion that a campaign can't be a balance of both.

However, in my case, as long as it's understood that we're all telling the story--the DM may be guiding it, but he's not the sole author--I'm more story/plot-driven.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

I'm playing a game, not telling a story.

I create what I hope is an interesting and challenging environment for the players to explore. They create characters and decide what motivates those characters; then they try to achieve whatever objectives they create for themselves, and I adjudicate what happens as impartially as possible. Story is the result, but I don't plan it; it's created interactively.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I reject the notion that a campaign can't be a balance of both.

What he said.

I think this is better expressed as a scale than as a set of polar opposites.

 

[WhatGravitas]

I try to balance - I want an engaging story and a fun game. But if both are conflicting, the story has to yield to the game, because if I want I'd just write more to get that urge out of my system.

 

[Shemeska]

I reject the notion that a campaign can't be a balance of both.

Exactly.

My campaigns are a mixture of DM metaplot, PC actions that affect how that develops, and things that develop entirely out of PC initiative. I can't fathom any of those missing.

 

[Doghead Thirteen]

The game is a vehicle for our story, and the reason for the story is the game, which is a vehicle for the story, and so ad infinitum.

The events of the game are influenced by a storyline, which is influenced by the events that occur 'on-screen' so to speak, which can easily be influenced by the dice.

It's a chicken-egg situation. If it's all about the dice rolls you might as well shift over to playing a small-unit miniatures wargame. If it's all about the story you'd be better off in amature dramatics, or just taking up writing creative fiction.
Without both, I can't see any real reason for the RPG format.

 

[Faraer]

I see RPGs more in story than game terms, and I 'call whatever naturally happens in the game, "the story"'.

You have a disjunct between the name of the poll and the detailed terms, Quasqueton! More exactly, you're defining the 'story' approach as 'fixed DM's story', which is not (in my experience) that of most story-focused RPGers and is more of a straw man in arguments.

 

[Quasqueton]

I reject the notion that a campaign can't be a balance of both.

I think is better expressed as a scale than as a set of polar opposites.

If the dice “say” that a PC dies in a random mook encounter before the big climax with the BBEG:

Story tellers will fudge to keep the PC alive till a more “appropriate” moment for the story plan. They are telling a story first, playing a game second.

Game players will not fudge and just consider the PC’s death at that moment to be part of the story unfolding. They are playing a game first, telling a story second.

Edit: I'm just not seeing how there can be a balance there -- you either are willing to fudge the game for the story you want to tell, or you are willing to leave the story open to whatever the game gives you. Or a scale -- how much of the game are you willing to fudge for your story, or how much of your story are you willing to concede to the game?

Quasqueton

 

[Doghead Thirteen]

Quasqueton - Isn't there a middle road? A 'luck point' / 'fate point' system allowing the player to bale themselves out of trouble is one way. Easy access to healing magic and a forgiving death system is another. You could even have a rule that says only boss NPC's can actually incur lethal damage on the PC's if you wanted to get extreme; in a case like that TPK would mean the party gets captured.

Nothing is ever divided only into polar opposites.