Experiencing the fiction in RPG play

The case could be made it's encouraging, or at least open to, cooperative storytelling...
...but then there's that whole DM Empowerment thing.


So WWGS /and/ Paizo are to 'blame.'
Never thought if it that way.
I agree with both of you.
I guess the GM is the storyteller no matter how you define it. Which makes the game a storytelling game. They alone have the ability to know what is coming up next; be it a trap, a random encounter, or a meeting with an angry bartender. They know the plot, or at least have an outline of it. They know the conflicts, and hopefully the motives of the NPC's that might cause a conflict. They probably have an idea of where the climax of the session(s) will occur and whom with. They foreshadow, create moods, and use all sorts of literary devices. They create (or know) the literary elements as well.
So it might not be like a novel or movie. But, it uses all the same mechanics.

On a side note, never thought of the AP that way before. I think a lot of the early adventures were: "Here is the conflict. Solve it." Now, it's more: "Here is the conflict. Here are the steps needed to solve it. Go solve."

I kind of like both equally.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

An RPG is not a story in any way like a book or a movie.

It is a GAME. First and foremost.
It's been recognised that there are multiple valid ways to play rpgs, including as-a-game and as-a-story, for quite a long time.

“D&D players can be divided into two groups, those who want to play the game as a game and those who want to play it as a fantasy novel, i .e . direct escapism through abandonment of oneself to the flow of play… The escapists can be divided into those who prefer to be told a story by the referee, in effect, with themselves as protagonist, and those who like a silly, totally unbelievable game.”​
- Lew Pulsipher D&D Campaigns in White Dwarf Issue 1 1977​
 


The players think it's a sandbox... but really it's an adventure path.

"There must be some purpose to it all. There must be some backdrop against which adventures are carried out, and no matter how tenuous the strands, some web which connects the evil and good, the opposing powers, the rival states and various peoples. This need not be evident at first, but as play continues, hints should be given to players, and their characters should become involved in the interaction and struggle between these vaster entities. Thus, characters begin as less than pawns, but as they progress in expertise, each eventually realizes that he or she is a meaningful, if lowly, piece in the cosmic game being conducted. When this occurs, players then have a dual purpose to their play, for not only will their player characters and henchmen gain levels of experience, but their actions have meaning above and beyond that of personal aggrandizement."
- 1e DMG pg 112​
 

Yes, they all have different play experiences. That's what I like about different systems and settings myself. I've played and own 3 of the 4 games on you list, and own /play power by the apocalypse world games as well.

But they are all still traditional roleplaying games. That has not changed.

And these facts hold true for every single one of them:

The DM/GM's function is not to tell a story. He is there to run the Game.

He can present the players with various scenarios or missions in the context of the type of campaign the group has chosen to play. The DM/GM as the Master of the virtual world then has the NPC's react to what the characters have done.

But he is not there to ensure a predetermined outcome. His is the master of the virtual world - not the players actions. There literally is no "story" for the DM to tell.

RPG groups do not engage in storytelling. They are playing a Game.

A game, that by design, has no predetermined outcomes.

Any "story" part of an RPG is an after-effect that emerges out of gameplay. The story you tell about your characters adventures after the game.

This is really quite simple and self evident.

An Analogy:
I could really enjoy playing chess with a friend. But the way we play chess involves my friend moving his pieces in such a way that I can always win with a spectacular combination.

We may greatly enjoy "playing chess" this way.

That has nothing to do with the Fact that we are objectively playing the game wrong from how it is designed to be played.

.

It'd be nice if you had arguments, rather than just assertions of reality. Your 'facts' are shot through with holes, beginning with ascribed intent for an entire medium in which works by different designers (with differing intents) exist.

They also rely on seemingly unattributed authority, there are no points here or even supporting evidence, just masturbatory revelation that you hold your own viewpoint to be 'objective' despite its lack of qualifications for such a designation.
 

Just because a player's made a cutlass-wielding Marine as a PC doesn't oblige me to present anything the least bit differently than if, say, said player had instead brought in a doe-eyed technician with no combat skills whatsoever.

I especially appreciate sandboxes with enough material to fully engage both the cutlass champion Marine and the doe-eyed technician. Eg in my Primeval Thule Quodeth sandbox when the barbarian said he was going to become a Pit Fighter, I was really glad to see a bunch of pit fighting based material to work with. Likewise the exiled noble seeking to make his way in high society, the Rogue joining the Thieves Guild, et al.

Of course a GM can and should also prep & present material responding to player input. But I much prefer "I (PC) go looking for X" to "can we have some X?" - Running 4e I tried the "wish list" thing, and it always felt like a child saying "I want a pony!" :)
 
Last edited:

The players think it's a sandbox... but really it's an adventure path.

"There must be some purpose to it all. There must be some backdrop against which adventures are carried out, and no matter how tenuous the strands, some web which connects the evil and good, the opposing powers, the rival states and various peoples. This need not be evident at first, but as play continues, hints should be given to players, and their characters should become involved in the interaction and struggle between these vaster entities. Thus, characters begin as less than pawns, but as they progress in expertise, each eventually realizes that he or she is a meaningful, if lowly, piece in the cosmic game being conducted. When this occurs, players then have a dual purpose to their play, for not only will their player characters and henchmen gain levels of experience, but their actions have meaning above and beyond that of personal aggrandizement."​
- 1e DMG pg 112​

No, having a BBEG does not an AP make!
 


No, having a BBEG does not an AP make!
One could argue that what Gygax is describing is a setting not an AP. The "cosmic game" seems to be pervasive. No matter where the PCs go they'll encounter it in some form.

But I think a BBEG, with their accompanying organisation and influence, is a lot like an AP. The logic of D&D's monster hierarchy and level track pushes the players to engage with the BBEG and their minions in a particular order.
 

Any "story" part of an RPG is an after-effect that emerges out of gameplay. The story you tell about your characters adventures after the game.

I agree wholeheartedly WRT D&D and most traditional rpgs. Nonetheless, there are games out there that do a better job of baking a story structure into the game. Blades in the Dark, for example, is certainly an rpg and it generates serial stories about a gang of criminals. (Although the GM still has little control over the details of how it plays out.) Fiasco is a little more uncertain about its rpg-ness, but it definitely generates a story.
 

Remove ads

Top