What a great storytelling DM looks like

[Tav_Behemoth]

In my Savage Tide game, I very much enjoyed the first chapters, in Sasserine... But I ended up with so much surplus material that it turned into a separate "Sasserine" campaign where the players were police.

I had the same experience (although in our Sasserine campaign the players were thieves)!

Savage Tide was the campaign I ran immediately before starting my current sandbox game. Part of my wanting to go in that direction was having felt like players got the most enjoyment out of the Sasserine beginning of the campaign, where their own directions could flower in an open-ended environment. The later sections were less celebrated by this group despite the exotic locales the adventure path took them to, and the dramatic techniques like foreshadowing and closure that I could employ because I knew where the path led. For my part, I found it to be a lot of work to figure out that destination ahead of time, work in ways to place leads in that direction, and worry about the players getting off-track - especially since this work was in addition to (and sometimes in conflict with) the everyday effort of reacting to the things the players wanted to do.

Planning for the Sasserine side campaign was easier for me because it was just-in-time. There were lots of player goals that adventures would form around, and a place-centered way for consequences from previous actions to come back and create conflict and complications; as players progressed towards their goals, and the effects of previous actions piled up, the game would take on a direction of its own without me as GM needing to stress about it.

So yeah, I think important factors here are "which kinds of work does the GM find easy, and which are difficult/stressful for them" and "how much do the players value freedom vs. the guarantee of dramatic closure".

 

[Barastrondo]

Why Dice?

I am well satisfied as to the use of probabilistic factors in ordinary games.

Their utility in storytelling exercises, however, seems a bit less straightforward.

Certainly every objection raised against an environment through which players are free to wander unscripted applies at least as much to events dictated by chance?

Well, I can't speak to the platonic ideal of the storytelling exercise, since I've never really spent time with them, but in a game with strong storytelling influence, dice are great much of the time and not all of the time. Same thing for player freedom to wander: it's great when it provides ideas, and then maybe you throw in some nudges toward a plot hook if the players are spinning their wheels and not really going anywhere. (Or ninjas attack.) Dice are one tool among many, and they work fine.

Unless it's a diceless system like Amber, you don't want to avoid dice. What you want to avoid is a mentality where the dice can do no wrong, and therefore calling for a roll is always the best way to handle things. It doesn't quite work out like that. Consider the plot hook that can be found only by a successful Gather Information/Streetwise roll, and failure on said roll doesn't give you a different plot hook, but rather tells you "nothing interesting happens, and you should succeed at a different die roll in order to find something interesting to do." Combat and negotiations, on the other hand, are fine places where failure on a roll can build tension. Missing an attack means that the enemy now has another shot at you. However, playing out a one-sided combat probably doesn't need dice; if failure just prolongs the experience without adding tension, that's undesirable.

All things in moderation, really. Most games with a strong storytelling bent run like that.

 

[Piratecat]

Why Dice?

I am well satisfied as to the use of probabilistic factors in ordinary games.

Their utility in storytelling exercises, however, seems a bit less straightforward.

Certainly every objection raised against an environment through which players are free to wander unscripted applies at least as much to events dictated by chance?

Gosh, I don't think so. This has a lot to do with the thrill of exploring the unknown. The randomness and uncertainty of dice turn the experience from collaborative storytelling into an experience where no one, neither the DM nor the players, know how a session will play out. It effectively adds a neutral third party to help arbitrate the action.

And yet, I don't want to delegate all of my DMing to the dice; I don't want to slavishly roll for wandering monsters or random treasure when I know the game will be more fun if I don't. In comparison, I won't tweak attack rolls in combat. Understanding where that line is for you helps indicate where you fall on the sandbox <--> storytelling side of the equation.

 

[Ariosto]

An aside: There is a sort of impersonal detachment in a "pick your path" book or a computer program. I mean that the "Game Master" is not present; there is no way to interact with the judge, to appeal or even object to a ruling. Everything is unchangeably set before ever one encounters the scenario; if the designer did not think of some possibility, then it is effectively impossible. Once upon a time, that was widely regarded as a shortcoming relative to human moderation. By more "modern" values, the opposite might be the case.


But back to dice. One thing I think needs more attention if one is bent on having a plot line is the range of results. Having a very, very small chance of, say, Our Hero getting killed in an early scene may be better in theory than a merely small chance -- but in the event, the outcome is just the same!

When we define The Story, obviously we are also defining Not The Story; the former is actually a very small subset of possibilities relative to the latter. Making characters more likely than not to get killed when first hit, and about as likely as not to get hit in the first fight -- as in the original D&D game -- follows from the premise that "the story" (as whatever happens to happen) could well be, "... and then the Mewlips ate him up."

Addressing that one way or another is a first order of business, I think. Even D&D4e leaves "random" outliers in the spread, that might not be part of The Story.

 

[Piratecat]

One thing I want to mention is that when I run a game, I don't have "The Story." I have a whole lot of potential "Stories", none necessarily better than the next, that unfold depending on what the PCs do and how the dice fall. As random events occur - a PC dies, that NPC you love gets killed early - certain possible paths get closed down and new ones open up. What I love about DMing is getting to figure those out on the fly and determine which ones might result in the most fun for the players.

 

[KidSnide]

Why Dice?

I am well satisfied as to the use of probabilistic factors in ordinary games.

Their utility in storytelling exercises, however, seems a bit less straightforward.

Certainly every objection raised against an environment through which players are free to wander unscripted applies at least as much to events dictated by chance?

Combat and negotiations, on the other hand, are fine places where failure on a roll can build tension. Missing an attack means that the enemy now has another shot at you. However, playing out a one-sided combat probably doesn't need dice; if failure just prolongs the experience without adding tension, that's undesirable.

Dice are most useful when you want tension and uncertainty, or when the resolution of an action doesn't matter to the story.

Remember that a story telling game is still a game (not just "a story telling exercise"). A GM may decide that certain obstacles (e.g. "can the PCs discover the plot?") shouldn't be left to chance. But other challenges (e.g. "are the PCs able to defeat the BBG?") are more fun when there is a meaningful possibility for failure. That's when dice (and, incidentally, 4e's excellent tactical sub game) are useful. Those elements allow the PCs to make meaningful decisions with meaningful consequences that help determine who wins and what level of risk the players are willing to put their characters.

-KS

 

[Ariosto]

Oh, yes -- Replay is a usual assumption with what I'll call "set" scenarios (Pick Your Path and computer games). I have heard of people going through the same RPGA scenario several times with different characters. Also, the old dungeon and wilderness model -- a navigable and dynamic spatial environment rather than a limited set of events -- was set up for players to explore by multiple paths.

In that case, it becomes possible to experience a range of probabilities and outcomes, more than one of the stories that are possible variations on The Story.

Whether that is to be (at least in the short term) the mode of consumption, or whether it is effectively "read once", may make a significant difference in the effects of various techniques.

 

[Barastrondo]

When we define The Story, obviously we are also defining Not The Story; the former is actually a very small subset of possibilities relative to the latter. Making characters more likely than not to get killed when first hit, and about as likely as not to get hit in the first fight -- as in the original D&D game -- follows from the premise that "the story" (as whatever happens to happen) could well be, "... and then the Mewlips ate him up."

Addressing that one way or another is a first order of business, I think. Even D&D4e leaves "random" outliers in the spread, that might not be part of The Story.

That's why The Story is defined as we go instead of ahead of time. If the hero dies, even if the odds are against it, then clearly that's part of the story. At that point you move into potential contingency plans like "so hey, is there some way to raise the dead?", or a shift in protagonist. I know that if I'm mucking around with D&D with a storytelling technique in mind, the default assumption regarding raising the dead is (a) it shouldn't be done all the time, and (b) it should be an interesting process. Find a gate to the Underworld. Duel a Valkyrie for the right to keep your lover among the living. So therefore, having death as a potential option doesn't hurt "The Story" as it evolves. There are many satisfactory ways to build an interesting new chapter out of an unexpected death.

That said, setting the odds of death to "low" is a popular option because it keeps character death high-impact. In a game where you lose 1-4 PCs every couple of weeks, or more often than that, you run a risk of each PC's death being more of an anecdote than a story. Not that there's anything wrong with anecdotes -- they're a lot easier to recount at cons, and there's less of a "you had to be there" limiter. But if a character's death has a real story impact, then that's quite valuable for everyone at the table.

 

[KidSnide]

One thing I want to mention is that when I run a game, I don't have "The Story." I have a whole lot of potential "Stories", none necessarily better than the next, that unfold depending on what the PCs do and how the dice fall. As random events occur - a PC dies, that NPC you love gets killed early - certain possible paths get closed down and new ones open up. What I love about DMing is getting to figure those out on the fly and determine which ones might result in the most fun for the players.

Yes. This is why a story telling GM does not "tell the story". In a story telling game, the players and GM tell the story together (sometimes with help from the dice). As a GM, adjusting your plans and expectations on the fly is part of the fun.

-KS

 

[Ariosto]

Yes. This is why a story telling GM does not "tell the story".

My, but that looks rather like

The role of a superior DM is NOT to tell a story to his or her players.