D&D 5E Is D&D a Story or a Game? Discuss.

[Lanefan]

What isn't covered by the rules isn't really playing Dungeons and Dragons. It's just freeform roleplaying. Which is fine, and generally every session will involve at least some of this, and possibly a great deal of it.

Of course it's playing Dungeons and Dragons, if for no other reason than the game's mechanics were (one must assume) used to generate the character whose role you are free-formly playing at the time.

This is a meaningful distinction, because when one argues the merits/faults of a game system, they need to accurately distinguish what the system supports and what is going on independent of the system.

What's going on independent of the system probably wouldn't be, if the system were different or did not exist at all, as it's been generated by the system and use thereof.

Lanefan

 

[schnee]

Using your analogy, if DnD is just rolling the dice then time wise it is effectively the commercial in-between the program of talking about stuff that separates you from the next DnD commercial.

Look, this is nuanced, and all-or-nothing analogies don't do anything but muddy the waters.

It has both, but really - which has more power to determine the outcome? The dice or the story?

I'd say in FATE, Apocalypse World, Polaris, etcetera - true story games - when dice are used, they are not to resolve in a granular fashion. They are used to force branching in the story - but it's mostly story. The rules for resolution are extremely simple, and the power to narrate how things happen, why, what they appear to be, etc. are almost fully under the players' control. In fact, it's explicitly collaborative, and that collaboration has no dice roles or rules for the vast majority of that resolution, so really, the dice are seen as a creative tool - a thing to do at certain points to force the players to improvise, but do so in a way that they see fit.

Those are fun - I really enjoy them - so I'm not judging like some do. I'm just calling them what they are - Story, with game elements to service the story. You can play out an arc anywhere from mostly to exactly the way you want.

--

D&D isn't like that. It has tons of story that 'glue' things together, but when it comes to conflict resolution, the system is very defined, very crunchy, detailed, and that control is out of player's hands. They have odds of success, and since the game is more 'heroic' than it used to be, they have more mechanics to overcome them (like the Luck feat, Halfling Luck, Inspiration, etc.) but those resources are still limited and eventually that luck runs out.

So, when an attack happens, you have much less control - you were on the way to slay the Dragon, but an avalanche in the mountains caught you on the way there - so roll your save, and if you fail you die - and you can't change that. Instead of your story being one of 'Father was slain by the dragon and got revenge by delivering the killing blow', it's now 'Father was slain by the dragon and died before encountering it'.

You didn't choose the way it ended. Ultimately, the encounters and the dice did. You told the story as how this person with this origin dealt with these situations - that were resolved by dice and fairly complex rules - after the fact.

This is true for combat, and now (in 2E and up) in the social realm as well. No matter how eloquently you role play, a Charisma of 6 will have an absolute effect on how effective your character is in interpersonal relationships. No more 'drop stats' that are nullified by skilled players; the Ability Scores hugely influence your fate.

That's not to say there is no story, because how your characters deal with each situation is going to have a huge influence on how they work out, and whether your character succeeds in their goals or not, but the thing is, dice rolls have the ultimate authority in conflict resolution unless you house-rule them away.

DMs can jump in and nullify rolls, both good and bad - it's your table, you have that right - but if you do that, at a certain point, it's no longer D&D. The game has death. It has failure. It has social failures that can shape relationships. It has cursed items, ignominious deaths, and the possibility of total party wipes.

If you arbitrarily decide 'no, we don't die' then you arguably have made it in to a story with game trappings, rather than a game with story trappings. And that's fine, but that's not the game as written any more, and your judgment as to what D&D is or is not is moot - you're judging your own house-ruled game, not D&D. Even in it's most recent 'heroic' incarnation.

--

TL,DR:

In the balance of Game vs. Story, D&D 5E falls in between, with a lot more emphasis on character and story, but when push comes to shove the game as written still relies on dice. Subjectively, that can vary a lot from table to table, but since dice still ultimately resolve conflicts, it's a game - one that, afterwards, results in a story.

 

[OB1]

You just told a story about what happened in the game - it doesn't have to go that way, and indeed, the PCs could have all died along the way. It's my assertion that as soon as there is an element of chance injected (whether combat rolls, skill rolls, or even a coin flip) that the narrator(s) do not control during the telling, it is no longer a story, but a game - a game from which arises story. Even without die rolls, the DM does not control the player's actions any more than the players contol the DM's - hence even at a table without a single die roll, there's still the element of chance and uncertainty.

To me, the D&D session that has the DM dictating actions, and already predetermining the outcome for the PCs -- that's when it is no longer game but story, and thus is no longer an RPG.

This is true, but so is the fact that you cannot play a game of D&D without a story arising from it. The moment you roll dice in the game, it's because a character wants to do something that is being opposed by some force, and thus you have the elements of a story.

As I said earlier, D&D is a game that generates stories.

I believe that there are reasons the distinction is helpful. Say we want to understand the craft and science of creating a movie? The technical details of light, and lenses, and all such things. We can learn much that will be valuable in producing a great film without even touching on story. So it is important to us that we can separate the story away from the movie-making. Similarly, in telling a story there is much we might learn about language, emphasis, voice projection, pacing and so on that is distinct from the stories we intend to tell. I guess this is really impacts my thinking. We can certainly describe things in various different ways, but I feel it is valuable to have descriptions that have analytical power. For me, making a distinction between process and product is useful.

Bringing it back to D&D. We probably agree that we can experience a story without playing a game (although maybe an author plays a kind of game in their head when they write one?) For example, we can read a book. Whenever we play a game however, we perforce produce stories. It's really impossible for us to play without doing that... but this relies on the definition. If a story is a recital or account, then that makes terrific sense. But if the story is a game then everything becomes kind of muddled. Is the story-game the same story as the story-book was? Why does it seem different and how do we talk about that (without teasing story apart from game again!) I feel like it is better to say that playing D&D produces stories. So D&D is not a story, it is something that produces stories. Experiencing those stories is important to enjoyment of D&D. Using this description that preserves meaning in every part feels valuable to me. Certainly from the point of view of pragmatism.

This is right on, and it gave me an additional insight. While you can learn a lot about the science of creating a movie without touching on story, if you don't look at those technical details in light of how they affect the story, you will have difficulty with the craft of telling a story. It is rare that a film that comes out of Hollywood isn't technically proficient, and yet many films aren't great, because the tools aren't used well in service of the story and sometimes even in conflict with what the story is trying to accomplish. In the same way it is important to know and understand the tools that the D&D ruleset provides for telling stories and how to use those tools to further that goal. If you are not playing D&D with the goal to "Create a memorable story about bold adventurers who face deadly perils" you will need to tweak the rule set to get the results you want.

 

[Volourn]

Game first story second. Story, of course, is important, but D&D at its base is a game. And, it's better for it.

 

[MichaelSomething]

If you go by people streaming D&D, you'd get the impression that it's more story then game.

When I'm watching soccer or League of Legends, I'm thinking of it as a game. I'll analyze the decisions of the players and wonder who will win.

I don't watch D&D streaming, but I get the impression that people are watching for the story and character interaction. Like isn't that character funny or I hope they don't get Game of Throned...

 

[clearstream]

If you go by people streaming D&D, you'd get the impression that it's more story then game.

Playing the game produces a story that is captured (video) and broadcast. Once captured, the story can be recited but the game cannot be repeated exactly the same.

 

[Imaculata]

It's interesting how many of you seem to agree that DnD is a game first, and a story second... while I am of the opposite opinion, and seem to be one of the few. Is this because I have different ideas of what constitutes a game? Or is it because my own sessions perhaps lean more towards story rather than game?

 

[robus]

It's interesting how many of you seem to agree that DnD is a game first, and a story second... while I am of the opposite opinion, and seem to be one of the few. Is this because I have different ideas of what constitutes a game? Or is it because my own sessions perhaps lean more towards story rather than game?

I think it depends on what you let lead: dice or narrative. For you (and me) it sounds like the narrative contributed by you and the players take the lead with the dice/rules coming into play to resolve uncertainty. For others it seems like most actions are left to the dice making it feel more game-y?

For example last night's session involved just one die roll (by me) but the players led the narrative with their decisions on what to do next. I just gave the world's response. At other tables I think there might have been more rolls to determine whether a line of questioning succeeded or not. But I felt my players read the situation wisely and eliminated uncertainty by bribery or sweet-talking people.

There was a moment when one of the players tried to shortchange a bribe - but they wisely caved when confronted by the NPC about it

 

[cmad1977]

As usual the answer is:
Both and neither.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MichaelSomething]

But I felt my players read the situation wisely and eliminated uncertainty by bribery or sweet-talking people.

There was a moment when one of the players tried to shortchange a bribe - but they wisely caved when confronted by the NPC about it

It could be said that eliminating uncertainty by reading the situation and sweet talking people IS the game.