D&D General Defining Story

[DEFCON 1]

Another facet of this that we need to acknowledge is that there is another side to this idea of "story"-- the story that the players experience and the story that the individual characters experience.

For many players/DMs-- stereotypically I'd say of the old-school variety-- that feel that the story is what the player experiences over the course of a campaign, with less concern for the individual characters within that campaign. This is why a number of DMs couldn't care less and in fact fully expect innumerable PCs dying over the course of the game, and that is perfectly acceptable and part of the game. Because it's not about an individual character's story and place within the narrative of the campaign... it's about the player who experiences the narrative of the campaign (and all the trials and tribulations the player through trying to get characters through it.)

And lots of different types of campaigns lean closer or further from these two things. If you run a game like Candlekeep Mysteries where you do each module one at a time, that is definitely a "campaign", it just leans more towards "player story" rather than "character story" because the story of these modules is not going to put any narrative load onto the individual characters or be character-specific. Rather, it will end up as a narrative the player will experience. After all, the player could choose to play a different PC for every single module and it wouldn't affect anything-- there is nothing narratively to connect one adventure to another for individual characters. Whereas an adventure path like Curse of Strahd leans more towards "character story" rather than "player story", because most encounters are designed to forward a narrative for the characters that are involved-- Escape Barovia! Escaping this hellscape is something the individual characters want and need, but the players themselves probably couldn't care less (other than escaping being the "win condition" of the campaign, if "winning" is that important to the player.) Whether the players adventure in "Barovia" or adventure in "the Sword Coast"... that doesn't really matter. Playing the game is playing the game for the players, regardless of how/where the DM sets it.

Adventure paths and sandboxes are the same way... one leans more towards character wants and needs, the other toward player wants and needs. None of them are just that, obviously... the best games will give both the player and the player's characters things to hang their hat on when all is said and done... but the focus does tend towards one more often than the other. And depending on who you are as a player and what you find important will influence the types of games you would prefer to run and play.

 

[payn]

Chest pounding? Sorry, was there something in my tone that made it sound like I was pounding on my chest?

Not you.

 

[el-remmen]

Different players/groups want different things.

I am definitely one of those DMs/players who rankles at the idea of D&D being about "playing out a story." I know it may just be different language for the same or a similar thing, but I am the type to argue "the story is what emerges from character interaction with the world."

I also know that this preference is not everyone's, and some players want to play out a story where success is, if not guaranteed, then the obvious long term and very likely goal.

In my current in-person campaign, I am running my take on ToEE. The premise began with PCs who have had apocalyptic visions of elemental destruction stemming from an unearthed temple being rebuilt and having come to this part of the world to investigate and pursue these visions to hopefully stop whatever is going to happen. This premise was presented by me, the DM, and agreed to by the players. So in a sense we have a "story" - these would-be heroes, plagued by disturbing visions, seeking out their subject to potentially stop the end of life as they know it.

That said, the campaign itself does not follow a story or have "story beats" or have outcomes based on "what would happen in a book or movie." In fact, we are about to play our 12th session and the characters recently hit 3rd level and they have gone nowhere near the moathouse or the town of cultists working to uncover the temple (despite having a map that shows them where it is) but have followed up on other rumors and wandered around the area based on their immediate interests. Heck, I thought once they found out the bandits who captured them and killed one of their number immediately after their first adventure were using the moathouse as an HQ, they'd head over there for some revenge and justice. But maybe the near TPK made them reticent to mess with those bandits!

If this campaign were the "story" of heroes fighting the forces of the temple, well the audience would probably be disappointed in how it is going so far - but in terms of building out events that are fun to play through and experiencing these characters "in the world," it has been fun as hell - and I assume eventually they will make their way back to "the main plot" and even if they don't - we'll have a story to tell, at the end.

I don't know what they will choose to do, how, or why. I just know the options that exist in the area I detailed, and am ready to expand those options as we go along, based on what they do decide to do.

I guess there is a reason why I usually prep locations that have NPCs with agendas tied to them and not "what is gonna happen." Sometimes I have to figure out what happens when the PCs don't intervene, but I only when that might effect the PCs or effect the world to the degree that they'd hear about it.

 

[the Jester]

Lets not pretend the obstacles are not intertwined in a larger purpose.

I'm not even sure what this means. Are you saying that, for instance, a sandbox where the pcs choose their direction and what threats and challenges to engage, moving from one to the other with no greater, overarching menace that they are working against, is somehow invalid? What do you mean by "larger purpose"?

 

[payn]

I'm not even sure what this means. Are you saying that, for instance, a sandbox where the pcs choose their direction and what threats and challenges to engage, moving from one to the other with no greater, overarching menace that they are working against, is somehow invalid? What do you mean by "larger purpose"?

Every single set up has a story to it. Every single one. Even episodic mythical correctfunrightway sandbox folks have them.

 

[Umbran]

There is a whole spectrum of what we'd call 'story', from anthologies of unconnected vignettes, episodic stories that have some sort of framing and maybe even a timeline featuring the same characters and/or setting, serialized tales with a clear continuity, stories derived from stream of consciousness, etc, etc.

I don't recall anyone ever calling an anthology or unconnected vignettes a single story. That would seem to be why we have the term "anthology", rather than calling such a collection a novel.

One of the classic inspirations for D&D are the stories (plural) about Fritz Leiber's characters, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser. They are presented as short stories of separate adventures, usually not particularly connected. "Swords and Deviltry" is not one story, it is several.

And there's nothing wrong with that. Anthologizing is fine.

Lets not pretend the obstacles are not intertwined in a larger purpose.

I have myself run game sessions off of random dungeon generators. That can be a lot of fun. You could recount the events of those sessions as a continuous narrative, and call that a story.

However, the narrative would be what we might call "incoherent", because there was no meaningful relation between individual events. Characters (and players) could draw no useful information out of one encounter and use it in a later one, because no causal connections existed between them. Any resulting themes were coincidence.

The narrative of unconnected events might technically be a story, it isn't what we'd call a particularly satisfying narrative.

If your play is focused mostly on tactical play in encounters, that's still fine, but may fall short for those who don't have that singular focus.

 

[the Jester]

So, basically, any Adventure Path is bad for play? After all, every Adventure Path has a defined structure to it. You know you're going to do X and Y and Z. You might do them in different order, and you might skip some of it, but, at the end of the day, you're still going to be facing off with that NPC in that location.

If the pcs cannot deviate from, or even abandon, and AP, I would say that yes, I think it's bad for the game. The best APs- for instance, the Savage Tide from late 3e-era Dungeon Magazine- attempt to anticipate what the pcs will do without forcing them to do it. You might set up a situation that you really want to go off the way you've planned, but you have to accept that the pcs might circumvent it, join the other side, or short-circuit the situation by (for example) killing the bad guy early.

I'm not sure I would agree that one is better than the other. For one, a structured game can be really good. It can be much better paced than an emergent one (not that it will always be, I'm saying CAN) simply because everyone is rowing in the same direction. Yes, there's some rails there, but, since no one minds them being there, they aren't a problem.

IF nobody minds that they're there, sure, but that is not always true. I have been in, and run, many games where the pcs clearly want to derail the train.

This notion that sandbox, emergent play, is somehow superior is one that I find really hard to justify.

It's superior for some groups. I am happy to admit that the strictest railroad imaginable is perfect for some other groups. But as the freedom to make meaningful choices is a crucial element of what makes a good RPG (at least in my mind, to my tastes, and in my experience), I do think that robbing the pcs of that ability is bad for the game as a whole. Presenting a railroad with no option to get off the train is bad. Offering a railroad while letting the pcs have the option to leave it is fine.

I dunno. I've certainly had bad experiences with both. And, for myself, with my extremely limited free time, the odds that you're going to get the freedom that you want is virtually non-existent. I just don't have the time to build that much stuff. It's why I tend to run episodic campaigns. I prep for the next session, maybe two, and that's about it. I have no idea what's over yonder hill because that's not part of this adventure. The adventure is THAT WAY. If you want to go somewhere else, well, you run the game. I just don't have time to devote to that.

OTOH, within each episode of episodic campaigns that I run, I do strive to give as much freedom as I possibly can. They might not be very big sandboxes, but, I do try to make them as sandbox as possible.

Sounds like you're threading the needle pretty well to me.

One other thing I'd like to mention is the definition of "campaign". It has shifted a lot over the years. Now, it usually means "a set of adventures that one group runs through to completion", but I prefer it's more classical meaning- a milieu that pcs adventure in, especially a persistent one that encompasses multiple groups over time (and sometimes at the same time). My campaign has been running since the 1980s. Don't have time to build a whole world? Well, if you're constantly adding to a setting that you have been developing for years, you've already done much of the work. I advance time and change the setting as we go, but it's still the same campaign- the same setting- and the rich and deep history that it has helps the players feel like it's 'real' to their characters. Sure, the players I run for these days are largely different from those I ran for in the 80s (although over the last few years, one of the first players I ever had has rejoined our group), but when they ask me why something is how it is in the setting, I have an answer that is steeped in actual play experience. I think there's a lot to be said for having a world that is persistent, especially if it's big enough that you can always start things in a new area if you want something fresh.

 

[Umbran]

Are you saying that, for instance, a sandbox where the pcs choose their direction and what threats and challenges to engage, moving from one to the other with no greater, overarching menace that they are working against, is somehow invalid?

The OP doesn't present this as a question of validity, so maybe we shouldn't be introducing that word into the discussion.

The OP is asking about what we consider "story", not what we consider "valid play".

 

[the Jester]

Every single set up has a story to it. Every single one. Even episodic mythical correctfunrightway sandbox folks have them.

Let's use a specific example, because I don't think I understand your assertion here. If you present the pcs with a setting and a bunch of rumors, and they get to choose what to pursue, what is the story? If you are saying that it is whatever the pcs choose to do, then I guess we're on the same page- that's what sandboxers are talking about when they describe emergent stories.

 

[payn]

Let's use a specific example, because I don't think I understand your assertion here. If you present the pcs with a setting and a bunch of rumors, and they get to choose what to pursue, what is the story? If you are saying that it is whatever the pcs choose to do, then I guess we're on the same page- that's what sandboxers are talking about when they describe emergent stories.

The origin of this is bore out of attempts to brand a popular playstyle as scripted railroad without any nuance or understanding, but pure dislike of it. You dont seem to be on that page, even if you may not prefer or even dislike that playstyle. That said, I dont have any interest in splitting hairs in the definition of story in linear and nonlinear games. I understand the concept is used differently between them.