What a great storytelling DM looks like

[Janx]

I've had the pleasure of being in sessions P-cat has run, and I think I understand what you're getting at.

In the various factional head-buttings, much has been made of how "storytelling" is bad, focusing on how the GM is railroading a particular plot. And while there are some GMs who do that, by and large, that's not what storytelling in RPGs is about - as you've seen.

A storytelling GM is one who gives the needs of story high priority. And by needs of story, I mean things like evocative description, theme, and dramatic timing. There are in the world still a few people around who tell stories professionally. They do it well enough to get paid, and they have techniques to keep the audience engaged - tricks of body posture and vocal control, for example. A GM can use some of those same techniques at the table, without predetermining the plot.

Many GM's go by the "if everyone seems entertained, I'll let them keep going" philosophy. This GM will allow you to spend a half-hour of your game debating how to do down the mineshaft, so long as nobody's there twiddling their thumbs.

The Storytelling GM knows that if you wrote this half-hour down as a story, it'd be pretty boring. Even if everyone is engaged and interested in the debate at the time, afterward nobody's going to care - when they tell the war story of the session, it'll be summarized as, "We spent a half-hour debating how we'd go down the mine, and then we...." The Storytelling GM sees that half-hour as flaccid dramatic timing. Unless something else cool is going on between the party members such that the players will remember it, the Storytelling GM is going to try to urge the players on to some action.

umbran nails it right there. It's not about old-school/new school. Its making your game interesting, rather than slow and boring. His points are valid whether you're on a sandbox, or adventure path.

For a "storytelling" dm, the intent should be "how do I keep them moving towards THEIR goal in a dramatic way that THEY will enjoy". As opposed to "how do I keep them moving towards MY goal that follows MY story".

If it is considered a valid technique for a lean-back DM to "figure out how to mess with and complicate the players plan", then it is equally valid for the lean-forward DM to "figure out how to keep them moving, so they don't dither or wallow in awkward moments"

Having that sense of urgency helps. It's a key part of how I run faster combats. Just within the combat framework, you can do things to make the players feel tense and rushed. Its a style of running the combat, not tied to specific game rules.

Having that sense of urgency outside of combat helps keep the party moving toward their goal. Either a time-limit by way of "if we don't solve this by noon, bad stuf happens", or by virtued of "if we sit here planning how to get into the mine too long, guards will find us"

Making role-playing scenes move smoothly, so it doesn't feel awkward is actually the harder part, in my mind. I don't want such scenes to play out as DM monologue, but in the same vein, the players don't want to flounder in trying to achieve their social goal.

As I see it though, the key for the DM is to try to make each scene seem cool and to flow with the last scene, minimizing the awkward moments. That idea should be applicable to any game, regardles of how it was planned out.

 

[SteveC]

This is a fantastic point. It doesn't matter a damn if the DM has this fantastic story to tell, because the game isn't about the DM. The game is about the players and making the game fun for them. Can you tell your fantastic story in a way that's fun for everyone? Maybe - but it'll probably get a lot better if you let the players tromp all over it in spiky boots, then change it on the fly to compensate and take their actions into account.

A DM who allows you to traipse through their carefully crafted world, changing nothing consequential by your presence, is engaged in a bit of self-indulgent ego building. (Yes, I've played with someone like this and didn't care for it. Can you tell? ) I'd rather adventure someplace where the bad guys react to you and you have the ability to influence the story.

But as a player, I don't enjoy storyless campaigns nearly as much. That's why mega-dungeons don't hold too much appeal for me and I was massively bored by the old Undermountain set.

If I can add onto that, it would be to say that the best storytelling GM isn't afraid to let go of a particular story element in reaction to what the players do. Sometimes characters find themselves at a critical point in the story that the GM has crafted and they make a decision that will utterly change the outcome. A rail-roading GM will make the story fit his original path, sometimes using very heavy handed tools. The best GMs I've played with have seen those decisions as a chance to spin the story in unexpected, and sometimes even better directions. This gives the players the feeling of really being a part of the story, rather than just along for the ride. They're the protagonists, after all, and the reason you're running the game.

The best thing is, those "roads not taken" due to the players actions are still there, and they can always be recycled later on down the road.

 

[howandwhy99]

I think this is a very important perspective.

Thanks for the props. I do see older games as different game forms of RPGs rather than storytelling games. IMV, the worst way to view a roleplaying game is as a novel or other storymaking endeavor. The point is not to create a narrative, but to present a reliable pattern to discover and from which the players can reason.

A "cooperative problem solving group", as the players are in my game, can devise plans, set goals, communicate information learned or theorized about the world, review notes, and basically interact with each other without interference from a referee. The referee is not force their plot on the players or improvisationally push them into whatever strategies of play they prefer. Improvisation is never possible in an impartial role. But when you give up your DM viking hat the game improves IME rather than degrades. In fact, the game can be played both at and away from the table. Certainly some things need to be shared with the referee (like item swapping) and all discussion should be cc'd in case an action sets off a rule (ever see the "I wish we had a..." wish spell rules in action?), but the referee is not the driver of play. If the players argue for four hours at the table, then that is what happens. As a cooperative game rather than a collaborative game, arguing is a poorer strategy, but without that option learning how to cooperate becomes a meaningless choice. I do not see the role of an impartial referee as being in position to "force" anything. That their actions do cause an emotive response is enjoyable, but it is not the type of fun the game is aimed at delivering.

I

I agree the terms are poor to really describe with accuracy what's going on. With the current redefinition of story to the point of meaninglessness (i.e. all human cognition and behavior are storytelling), I'm curious to what you call non-story games? Do you mean RPGs where there is no course of action expected of the PCs? Perhaps a game where no GM improvises or pushes other players to follow a path?

 

[SkidAce]

A true non-story game is nearly impossible to create because after the adventure/session is over, you can see what story came along.

But to use my terms, a non-story game would be where it was all battle like a chess set and there was no continuity between sessions.

Most games I have been around are in the middle of the spectrum. I think I may have said this before, but it's like two sides of the same coin, you can't have one without the other.

 

[Chzbro]

Does anyone feel that the 4E "adventuring day" has changed the way you tell stories as a DM?

It seems to me that older editions left a lot more opportunities for the players to go "off script" between combats since there wasn't necessarily a need to string several combats into a single adventuring day. A party might dip their toes into a dungeon, head back to town for a night's rest, get distracted by some city intrigue, follow that to a different town, then amble back to the original dungeon a couple game months later.

Now while that same scenario can play itself out just as easily in 4E, I find myself designing a series of encounters/skill challenges for my players now which also incorporate a strong incentive to go on to the next "fight" instead of taking an extended rest. That's not to say they can't rest, just that there's a relatively strong story reason not to.

Now this doesn't strike me as "railroading," but I wouldn't be surprised if some others disagreed. After all, in order to make it work I have to have a pretty good idea of what they'll do next (although I do prep a couple "random" encounters just in case). In essence, I tend to organize adventuring sessions and play it by ear on where the next session will go rather than playing it fast and loose within the session.

Just to clarify, that doesn't mean the session is rigid and inflexible, just that I tend to figure, "Okay, they're going after objective X; they'll need to get through these 4 encounters to get it and then I'll see what they want to do next."

Again, that's not to say this wasn't possible or even often done in earlier editions, just that earlier editions made it easier to map out a dungeon with encounters and let the characters get there in their own time. If you do that in 4E you have a party at full power every fight, which is a lot less desirable (in my opinion).

So I wonder if part of the "sit forward" approach is simply one of semi-necessity based on the system. I'm confident it's changed the way I approach encounter design, but I'm curious what others think.

 

[Piratecat]

Chzbro, I actually find this an advantage. In previous games I'd sometimes find it difficult having the bad guys continually react to small, once or twice a day raids. I like the extended adventuring day because it lets the group nail the bad guy before he has the opportunity to escape.

 

[Chzbro]

I also find it advantageous, PC.

It makes it a lot easier to build suspense/tension when I can be relatively sure the party isn't going to suddenly decide to make a hole into another dimension and take a day off.

And, for me personally, it's just easier to run the kind of session I like to run.

But what happens to the "sit back" DM who chooses to play 4E? Does the system and that style conflict or are there no problems?

EDIT: None of the DMs in my group would be what you might call a "sit back" DM, although I've played with several. However, when we played earlier editions, our styles definitely seemed to lean more heavily that way (and I'm not saying that's bad). So even though no one's discussed it in the way it's being discussed here, 3 DMs in my group seem to have shifted more toward "sit forward" since playing 4E. Can anything be extrapolated from that?

 

[Sadrik]

A bone dry scenario is brought to life by the GM who adds a little charisma to the process. This is what all DMs should be doing. This has nothing to do with whether the game is linear or sandbox. Don't confuse descriptive tags, story flair, unique role-played personalities with being only in a linear rail roaded game.

I think the idea here is that old-school play is reactive and this touted new school play is proactive. Proactive play is one where you are making decisions for your players and then force them to react to you. In many circles they would call that for what it is a bullet train to the land of not fun. Even if the DM has enough charisma to pull it off after the session you would be like, what the hell did I just participate in? I was an automaton on the train. If the game master was entertaining you may have had a nice trip on the train, just like a good storyteller can be entertaining. Take that same charismatic DM who is creative and can think on his feat and has a mastery of the rules and able to apply them fairly and consistently. Plug them into a sandbox game (reactive old-school game using the term in this thread) you still get the descriptive flair, neat RPed personalities and such.

Players who are often jaded, who often see the train pulling up before it even arrives and who often resist getting on the train need more free form experience and that requires the GM to step in and react to the player.

My point is that a good charismatic DM can make a linear game or railroad game fun. The question is how much linear fun can you take before you get tired of it. Whether you lean forward, sit back, sit down, or stand up it doesn't matter a good game is created by giving the players options, plenty of description to suspend their disbelief, a cool setting, great NPCs, role-playing those NPCs well, never shooting down your players outright and making sure you have fun because if you are having fun your players will too. So description with a lot of other things are important, it being a proactive, preemptive, linear or new-school game does not.

Another point I would like to throw out there is that linear games excel in one area. Convention games and one-shot games. In fact they are quite good in this regard. You simply cannot run a sandbox adequately in a one-shot game. A one-shot or convention game has to be laser focused on getting the players to the plot, location or event so they can begin there investigation, eradication or discovery.

 

[Garmorn]

I also find it advantageous, PC.

It makes it a lot easier to build suspense/tension when I can be relatively sure the party isn't going to suddenly decide to make a hole into another dimension and take a day off.

And, for me personally, it's just easier to run the kind of session I like to run.

But what happens to the "sit back" DM who chooses to play 4E? Does the system and that style conflict or are there no problems?

EDIT: None of the DMs in my group would be what you might call a "sit back" DM, although I've played with several. However, when we played earlier editions, our styles definitely seemed to lean more heavily that way (and I'm not saying that's bad). So even though no one's discussed it in the way it's being discussed here, 3 DMs in my group seem to have shifted more toward "sit forward" since playing 4E. Can anything be extrapolated from that?

That their gaming style has changed.

I run a 4e campaign and am what you call a lean back DM. In the original example as a player I would have enjoyed a good 30 minutes of planning. As a DM I would be trilled that they are immersed enough in the game to want to plan.

I have always been this way and have found that the system does not change the DM/GM style only the way it is implimented.

 

[Piratecat]

One technique I try to use to keep jaded players on their toes: subvert expectations. Signal a traditional plot or railroad, and then yank the plot sideways 90 degrees to make the players think on their feet. Customize old monsters or change their name and appearance to make metagaming difficult. Think about what the players are least likely to expect, and then veer the action in that direction.

You don't want plot twists to make the players suspend their disbelief, but creating a game that isn't predictable goes a long way towards keeping the players interested.