What a great storytelling DM looks like

[Barastrondo]

See, one can say that about anything. "Does playing D&D involve [insert events depicted in Jack Chick tract] or [events depicted in TV-movie based on Rona Jaffre novel]?" Well, it depends on the group!

So, I have confined myself to remarks upon the game as presented in the 4E PHB and DMG.

I can't help but think that if you don't take actual play into account, then you're really talking more about a reading experience than a roleplaying game. Things like the "weapon types vs. armor types" table of 1e make for a reading experience that implies baroque simulation, but don't convey what the game is like with the many, many groups who just ignore those. To use Vampire for another example, "trenchcoats & katanas" is a catchphrase that sums up what the game can be as played, rather than as written.

I don't consider folks who loathe X with a passion to be part of the "fan base" for X. If I were to restore the 1970s D&D game by any approximation, and put 4E out of print, I would hardly expect the 4E fans to count me among their number. What would Pat Pulling (were she yet alive) want for their favorite game? Why, the same thing: to put it out of print! So, no, these 'editions' are not splintering the fan base; they are pitting different fandoms against each other.

The trouble is, there's really no reason for anyone to accept your exclusion. I love D&D; been playing it since I was 10. I don't like level drain and never have. Now, the thing is, you can say that I loathe D&D with a passion because I don't like level drain and level drain was in D&D at the time I was rabidly playing it. But is that accurate? Or is it more that people can like a game for different reasons, and play it in ways that play up the elements that they like and discard the ones they don't?

It sucks that not everyone's favorite game or edition can be in print at the same time. I agree! It's one of those things, along with "there should be more people playing tabletop RPGs overall and there shouldn't be any social stigma attached" that would really be nice for the hobby. I feel the same way about the inability to get my hands on old video games for consoles that aren't supported any more. That said, given that not everything can be in print at the time, I do like the variety of options that stems from deciding to retire tailing-off game lines and publish new ones. After all, the old games and styles are still being played. It's more reliant on GMs being positive ambassadors for their style of play, as you can't simply rely on being the only game in town, but hey, I think that's a good thing for all GMs to be doing regardless of circumstance.

Right. It was soooo "uncool" to release Vampire in the first place, instead of calling it a 'new edition' of Ars Magica or Call of Cthulhu or something. How many games has White Wolf had in print at the same time? Bad, bad White Wolf! No more new games for you, until you reissue Exalted as "D&D X".

Can I ask you to scale back the sarcasm for a moment? It's obscuring your point something fierce.

 

[Barastrondo]

Are you talking about Vampire:The Masquerade, Vampire:The Masquerade Second Edition, Vampire:The Masquerade Revised or Vampire: The Requiem here?

-edit or for something a little closer to the point for anyone who remembers the flame wars, Mage: The Ascension, Mage: The Ascension Revised or Mage: The Awakening?

Boy, is there ever a lot to be said for how play experiences vary from reading experiences based on how those games have developed. With the existence of all the Mages around, you can more readily get a feel for what someone thinks is "an ideal Mage" based on whether it's Ascension, Ascension Revised, or Awakening.

Unfortunately, just like with D&D, it's really hard to find places free of players who go all factionalized and personal over these things. And again, it really sucks that not everything can be kept in print. I'd love to have all the oWoD editions and all the nWoD games side-by-side on store shelves, but that's regrettably not what the stores want.

 

[maddman75]

I reject the dichotomy of sandbox vs storytelling. I consider what I do to be 'story-creating'.

Essentially, I view any plot or events that I introduce as vehicles for players to explore their characters. To prove themselves true to what they aim or reveal themselves to be less than that. I take what the players give me and use that to introduce new scenarios. I consider the GM's job to be introducing conflicts, and arbitrating how they deal with those conflicts. This, along with paying attention to pacing, I've found tends to make really interesting gaming.

I wanted to respond to this as well.

Unless players can find reasons to play other than to win, IF will not escape the literary ghettos of genre fiction. Even some traditional traditional-genre stories would lose their charm under the imposition of a different character; imagine The Hobbit with a self-confident and aggressive Bilbo Baggins, or an interactive Father Brown mystery played by a Humphrey Bogart fan.

In particular, truly tragic fiction might never work in IF. I'm not referring to 'tragedies' such as Hamlet, which are melely sad. I'm referring to works such as 1984, Brave New World, Lord of the Flies, Heart of Darkness or Deliverance, in which it is dramatically necessary for the main character to be psychically crushed. The IF player might feel that giving them the freedom to choose how to act had been a cruel farce.

One way to keep players from identifying too closely with the protagonist might be to have them interact with several characters. They might change viewpoints, or might simply have a display panel with a point-and click interface controlling the emotional response of each character (level of anger, contentment, fear, urgency, etc.) and see how the story unfolds. But this defeats the intimacy of IF.

I've experiened games that are played for reasons other than 'to win'. Why play them? Why read a book where the hero doesn't always come out on top? I recall an oWoD game. I'm going to commit a gamer sin and talk about my character, but its relevant.

Billy was a southern rock guitar player that was embraced into clan Toreador - the artistes. My Sire thought that my playing should be preseved for eternity. He didn't really get into the angst, Billy *loved* being a vampire. As the game progressed he got more and more arrogant and power hungry. He started killing indiscriminately and his morality started circling the drain. His music started taking off and he played out the 'rock star' theme. He thought nothing could touch him and there were no consequences for his actions. He died basically because he'd rather spit in the face of a local prince than turn tail and run.

I have a character in my hunter game that is going down the drain as well. I have a whole group that plays for reasons other than 'to win'.

 

[Ariosto]

I have discounted some actual play -- specifically, RPGA play -- in considering aspects in which it is notably eccentric relative to the game as presented in the texts.

The fact of taking the rulebook (!) into account is not the same as taking no account of actual play, unless it were the case that the two were utterly unrelated (in which case, it is obscure on what basis one might expect any given example of actual play to resemble any other, or indeed to what end one might offer a 'new edition' in the first place). I do not think you have considered carefully the implications of your suggestion!

I accept that those who have claimed to loathe with a passion this or that 'edition' are being honest.

Does sarcasm really obscure the point? Then I guess I must spell out that you have held up as an increase in wealth what is in fact at best a zero-sum game of "I've got mine, Jack, get yours." If you seriously believed I would believe that no new game could be published under a new name, then you must have supposed me so ignorant of your company's history.

Even if one is determined not in fact to increase the range of offerings, it is still possible to present under a different name something that is in fact different. Firms do that with the same thing, even!

If the game that once was called D&D was such a horrible imposition on people who did not like it, then how is 4e not just as horrible? How is not any game just as bad? I mean, RuneQuest uses d%, and does not have character classes or levels or experience points; it is in way after way quite different from 4e! Tunnels & Trolls has classes and levels and experience points, but is in other ways as mutually incomprehensible with old D&D as is 4e. If you want 'builds" without petty limits, and really super-duper heroes, and far-out tactical combat with miniatures on a grid, then Champions has got you covered -- but it also is not 4e.

And, surprise, surprise ... well, not really, for those of us who not only are acquainted with the industry's history but have lived through it ... not one of those other games is called Dungeons & Dragons.

Against that, the evidence you offer that any new game from WotC must be called D&D is -- what? The evidence that WotC cannot offer more than one game is what? You just throw out these unsupported claims as if they were Newton's Laws.

 

[Ariosto]

I reject the dichotomy of sandbox vs storytelling.

With the handle of "maddman", you pave the way for rejecting all sorts of dichotomies. However, I think you jump the gun with 'sandbox'; that appears to mean absolutely whatever anyone happens to want it to mean at the moment, including "Qwrxts! Gzntschlf chssvmng hllfhgh vwrth?" So, it is not really handy for holding up one end of a dichotomy in the first place.

 

[Piratecat]

Does sarcasm really obscure the point?

Yes. You're coming across as hostile and with a chip on your shoulder, and that's starting to obscure the discussion. I'd appreciate it if you'd ratchet back a bit.

 

[Piratecat]

The best example of "not a storytelling game" I can give is when the ENW moderators were lucky enough to play with Gary Gygax at GenCon several years ago, delving into the first layer of the dungeons beneath Castle Greyhawk. Rel did a fascinating job of writing this up (and I'm still bitter that a gelatinous cube ate my mule!), but I was a little surprised that the game was nothing like my own DMing style. There was no plot at all, no theme to the monsters, and no attempt by Gary to steer us in any direction whatsoever. We chose where in the ruins to descend; we chose what doors to enter, and where we went. We surprised monsters or they surprised us, but even after going through several empty rooms in what I'd consider uncomfortable pacing, what we encountered was dictated solely by what was written on the map beforehand.

This was true to the extent that none of the rooms had any decor or furniture in them at all, and I mentioned it; Gary looked a little embarrassed and said that he had left the random dungeon trimming table at home.

We had a spectacular time, of course, and I'm going to remember that game for a long time. Seeing this emphasized to me that my own style tends more towards the plot-driven and cinematic than the old-school dungeon delves.

 

[Barastrondo]

I have discounted some actual play -- specifically, RPGA play -- in considering aspects in which it is notably eccentric relative to the game as presented in the texts.

The fact of taking the rulebook (!) into account is not the same as taking no account of actual play, unless it were the case that the two were utterly unrelated (in which case, it is obscure on what basis one might expect any given example of actual play to resemble any other, or indeed to what end one might offer a 'new edition' in the first place). I do not think you have considered carefully the implications of your suggestion!

I'm sorry, Ariosto, but in regards to the original example of death being, or not being, a consequence because a character is so easily replaced, you really can't get the entire story from mechanics alone. All you have is how much time it takes to assemble a new character mechanically, and zero idea of how much roleplaying attachment a player might have to said character. You have to assume some level of actual play experience to get anywhere close to accuracy.

Even if one is determined not in fact to increase the range of offerings, it is still possible to present under a different name something that is in fact different. Firms do that with the same thing, even!

But I'm not sure what the argument to do so is, other than perhaps "I've got mine, Jack, you go get yours." Not everyone shares the same loyalty to the same aspects of D&D, particularly when you're talking about gamers who started on Basic rather than Original or Advanced. It's like those four-armed insect dudes from Battlestar Galactica. I used to have a toy of one when I was a kid. They were an aspect I liked, and Ron Moore not so much. But I don't think he had no right to make a BSG that didn't feature the buggies, or that if he created something that was 80% old-school BSG rather than 95% that he should have found another name for it.

If the game that once was called D&D was such a horrible imposition on people who did not like it, then how is 4e not just as horrible?

Out of curiosity, who's been claiming that the game itself was such a horrible imposition? I've always seen that RPGs are compilations of different elements, some more popular than others. Again, the example of energy drain. Particular elements might be controversial, but no one element is the sum of the game. I've never thought that earlier editions were some sort of horrible imposition on the people who didn't love every element wholeheartedly. People who hated energy drain still loved D&D, they just liked a D&D without energy drain.

Of course, tastes vary, and to some people a D&D without energy drain (or a selection of elements, such as energy drain, Vancian magic and the Great Wheel) is not D&D at all. I honestly can't see that as anything other than personal bias, though. Sure, there is a point at which you can convince me that a game is no longer D&D, but I have yet to see an example given that isn't also an example of reductio ad absurdum.

Against that, the evidence you offer that any new game from WotC must be called D&D is -- what? The evidence that WotC cannot offer more than one game is what? You just throw out these unsupported claims as if they were Newton's Laws.

For the "must be called D&D" thing -- well, I'd have to agree with your premise that 4e is not D&D in some fashion to offer an explanation, but I don't, sorry. I don't think that the elements it lacks or substitutes are prerequisites to anything with the D&D name on it. I got into D&D with the Erol Otus boxed set, and reconciling that both Basic and Advanced were D&D back when I was 11 kind of makes it easy for me to reconcile that Basic, Advanced, 3e and 4e are all D&D now.

For the keeping multiple editions in print: it's less Newton's Laws and more like Distributor's Laws. Right about the time of Magic: the Gathering hitting, retailers and distributors started buying games as a whole in more of a periodical business model; this was greatly exacerbated by the d20 system. Lots of retailers simply weren't interested in reordering things, even if those things sold well: they wanted to put their dollars toward something new. Even if you don't believe in the possibility of competing with yourself by having two different products with the same label on the shelves at the same time, the growing popularity of the periodical business model for RPGs makes old editions a real drain on the finances. You still pay taxes on them, you still devote inventory space to them, but fewer stores want to reorder anything that isn't The New Thing, even if it's still in print. (That's mostly the hobby store side of things; the big book chains have their own set of problems associated with them.)

Keeping older editions in print is something I wish more of us publishers could do, but generally speaking you have to ask who's footing the bill. If the lines aren't selling enough on their own to do it (which is usually the defining factor in why you're doing a new edition in the first place), that money's got to come from somewhere.

 

[Barastrondo]

The best example of "not a storytelling game" I can give is when the ENW moderators were lucky enough to play with Gary Gygax at GenCon several years ago, delving into the first layer of the dungeons beneath Castle Greyhawk. Rel did a fascinating job of writing this up (and I'm still bitter that a gelatinous cube ate my mule!), but I was a little surprised that the game was nothing like my own DMing style. There was no plot at all, no theme to the monsters, and no attempt by Gary to steer us in any direction whatsoever. We chose where in the ruins to descend; we chose what doors to enter, and where we went. We surprised monsters or they surprised us, but even after going through several empty rooms in what I'd consider uncomfortable pacing, what we encountered was dictated solely by what was written on the map beforehand.

This was true to the extent that none of the rooms had any decor or furniture in them at all, and I mentioned it; Gary looked a little embarrassed and said that he had left the random dungeon trimming table at home.

We had a spectacular time, of course, and I'm going to remember that game for a long time. Seeing this emphasized to me that my own style tends more towards the plot-driven and cinematic than the old-school dungeon delves.

That's absolutely cool. It reminds me that the thing that I think I keep coming back to D&D for is the sense of exploration. There's really no other game out there that's quite as fine-tuned for that specific itch.

Of course, exploration means a lot of different things: what's behind the next door, what's over the next hill, what's the dark secret the mayor's hiding, why are those statues of frogs all around the village attracting more frogs? I think that's what keeps us all playing D&D regardless of edition or regardless of the spectrum that runs between Gary and your esteemed self. It's the spirit of exploration, and it works equally well with blank hex maps as it does with pacing and demented plots and lavish setting description. There's always something new to find. I love it.

 

[Janx]

I like what madman just said:
"I reject the dichotomy of sandbox vs storytelling. I consider what I do to be 'story-creating'."

story-creating may be a better term. I want what happens in game to feel like story driven by the players. It's not so much telling, as it is creating.

On what PirateCat said about Gary's game:
I'm not a fan of dungeon crawls, I find them slow, tedious. I especially don't like them for the sake of just doing a dungeon crawl.

That said, imagine that session being run by a less skillful DM than Gary. I know I wouldn't enjoy it.

Now to get to something PC said:
"There was no plot at all, no theme to the monsters, and no attempt by Gary to steer us in any direction whatsoever. We chose where in the ruins to descend; we chose what doors to enter, and where we went. We surprised monsters or they surprised us, but even after going through several empty rooms in what I'd consider uncomfortable pacing, what we encountered was dictated solely by what was written on the map beforehand."

I assume this is "true sandbox" style. I'm not knocking it.

I like me some plot. I want to be going into the dungeon for a reason. As a player, I don't want to blatantly be steered. There's a middle ground.

As a DM, I write each adventure based on feedback and cues I get from the players after the last session. I try to write up a "plot" that is based on either what the players said they are going to actively pursue next, or as a consequence of something they did in the past (and sometimes both).

Technically, I'm taking a chance that they won't bite it, but it always works out, because the players know what I'm doing and why. They trust me to deliver a fun challenge that their PCs would probably want to pursue.

I referred to this before, but I want my PCs to have a reason for doing things, beyond "killing things and taking their stuff". I might refer to that as plot, implying a more complex background about their motivations for "killing things and taking their stuff".

I think the point of the "story-creating" DMs is that you can be flexible and you can make your game have good pacing, and have some dramatic moments, and have player freedom, and that when it is over, makes for a good story.

I'm not so sure that you'd get that from Gary's game, other than the fact that it was gaming with the inventor of D&D. In the hands of a lesser DM, that style would not deliver what I'm looking for as a player.