D&D General Defining Story

[payn]

IDK, I think we're dealing with some pretty fuzzy terms, and the thing is more of a spectrum than a binary.

Even your most tightly planned campaign will have, if it is well designed, considerations for what happens if things go off the rails. Also, the plan for a homebrew game might not exist as anything more than "a general arc" + "specific plans for the next session or two." We don't plan the end of each scene or the exact words of each NPC, we shoot from the hip - the story still emerges through play.

On the other side, even an open sandbox will have hooks and elements that are more linear. Okay, go anywhere you want, but there's a lich over here and dragon over there, and once you decide to go for one of them, they have a dungeon and a boss fight, and both will still continue their nefarious activities until your group ends them ("The mind flayer died offscreen of a bad flu" isn't a satisfying end!).

I think D&D's design favors emergent stories, but only slightly, and imperfectly at that. Like, I think of the escalation die from 13th age as a very "story" mechanic - it wants a satisfying narrative of increasing danger. D&D doesn't have anything like that (and modern D&D has tighter fights anyway). D&D also possesses 13 different core classes, which points to something more emergent - you don't know what kind of party you're going to have before everyone generates their characters, and the characters aren't defined by wants and needs and connections, they're defined mostly by tools and attacks.

This doesn't mean that D&D doesn't work for story-focused games, because it can work very well, it's just not really what you're set up to do with the mechanics the game gives you.

Sounds like poppycock. Even an episodic sandbox needs a balanced party or GM willing to form a game around challenge the party is equipped for. Any AP worth its salt comes with a players guide to help create a character that will be successful in the adventures. Having 13 different ones just opens the possibilities for creativity and repeat play experiences.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In the excellent DM's Advice thread, this particular bit of advice caught my eye:


Now, my initial reaction here is a big, heck no. Story, in my mind, is crucial in an RPG. But, stepping back a second, I wonder if there isn't a problem with how we each define what a story is.

Almost certainly. 'Tis the way of internet arguments.

To me, a story is simply character, setting and plot. That's why you can have 5 word stories, Drabbles (100 word stories) and various other very short fiction. To me, a story isn't a closed system. But, I think a lot of people define story in terms of a complete narrative. That you have a definite beginning, middle and ending and until you get to that last bit of punctuation, you don't actually have a story, but, once that final bit is in, it's locked in and THAT is the story.

I'm with you. I'd also say serialized fiction is a pretty big blow to the "a story has a single, specific, fixed beginning, middle, and end" definition. One of my favorite stories, for example, officially did not have a defined end when it was first started, despite being far less open-ended than all but the hardest of railroads in D&D. We have reached that end now, but eight years before, that end was nowhere in sight yet.

Which, in my mind anyway, possibly explains why you see such different DMing advice. In another thread, we were talking about WotC's adventure paths and is an Adventure Anthology an actual campaign or not. Is it a campaign if you have a loose collection of episodes that are not really connected to each other, like Candlekeep Mysteries or Radiant Citadel? Is Dragon Queen a campaign because it has a definite beginning, middle and end point? Where does that leave things like Curse of Strahd, which is a pretty wide open sandbox until you get to the end and face Strahd. After all, if you complete Curse of Strahd, the final act of that campaign will be bearding Strahd in Castle Ravenloft, regardless of what order you do the rest of the module in. Is that more or less a story because it's open ended until the conclusion? Or, should we only strive for "emergent" stories?

I don't have any conclusions here. I'm just tossing this out to see what folks think.

We should have a spectrum of options because that's the best way to help the most people enjoy what they play. (There are deeper conclusions to draw from this statement, but they are too spicy to bring up here.)

Some "stories" should be Dragonlance-y, where there's a clear story and maybe even specific characters the players can play through it. That's a bit of an extreme, but it's clearly had a huge impact on how we play D&D (having almost totally displaced the old dungeon-heisting style, outside of the small but active OSR scene.) Toned down slightly, this gives us things like ENWorld's acclaimed APs like War of the Burning Sky and Zeitgeist, where there are major plot events which pretty much always occur, but adapt around the party rather than requiring specific characters or options.

Some "stories" should be akin to 2e Dark Sun, where there is a metaplot, whether or not the players are involved with it. The world grows, changes, and the players must respond--even if their response is to escape or defer. This approach depends critically on the execution, but I would say Paizo's well-received APs like Wrath of the Righteous and Kingmaker fall into it.

Some "stories" should be like your example of Curse of Strahd, where there's a beginning and an ending, but the middle is free rein. This is a pretty popular style, I'd argue it's what people actually took from Dragonlance, the idea that there was a frame in which play would occur but some kind of "win condition" or at least a release point where the campaign could be considered definitively "done."

Some should be anthologies, as you mentioned earlier. Many small stories that can be combined in different ways. That's often better for groups that don't know if they'll be able to meet regularly, so bite-sized content is more compatible with their interests. This is also useful for DMs who want to do some stuff themselves, but want to have the fallback option of prewritten content if they're pressed for time or if plans change.

Some should be hexcrawls, or "pointcrawls," or other seed-like things. Something that defines a starting point only, leaving the party free to pursue whatever they like. This is also where I would put most "sandbox"-y or at least sandbox-like stories, as well as fully open-ended campaign settings, where there really isn't any "story" yet at all, other than the fact that the world is physically there and contains things with names and has a history. There's also room here for Dungeon World-style "Adventure Starters," where all you get is the initial presentation of The Adventure, and the story is played out moment by moment, "what will you do?" style rather than prewritten or assembled after the fact.

And then, of course, there will always be the pure homebrew, do-what-you want kind of thing. Where it's up to the group (whether "DM always decides," "collaborative effort," or any other preferred method) to determine what, if any, "story" applies to their game.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't think we should only strive for emergent stories. I do think that if you want to run a very compelling narrative, you might not get what you want out of D&D, which is set up more for emergent stories. But if you're making a homebrew game, you should lean into what compels you and your group. My recent Theros game was VERY story-driven, very character-driven. And it was a blast. My Radiant Citadel game was more emergent. And it was a blast. Neither one is superior, at the end of the day.

I don't understand why "very story-driven, character-driven" and "emergent" are opposites. Dungeon World is by definition highly emergent ("Play to find out what happens" is literally one of the rules, "Principles," GMs are expected to abide by), but it is emergent by being driven by the characters.

And you certainly don't have to run a total no-myth DW game. I don't. That doesn't mean the timeline is perfectly nailed down. I treat the timeline exactly the same way I treat the terrain: "Draw maps, leave blanks." There is a history. Some of it is known to us at the table. Some if it is not. We play, in part, to find out more about it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Sounds like poppycock. Even an episodic sandbox needs a balanced party or GM willing to form a game around challenge the party is equipped for. Any AP worth its salt comes with a players guide to help create a character that will be successful in the adventures. Having 13 different ones just opens the possibilities for creativity and repeat play experiences.

Nothing you've said here contradicts my post, so I dunno what's poppycock. I agree that AP's need to take into account diverse characters, I guess?

I don't understand why "very story-driven, character-driven" and "emergent" are opposites. Dungeon World is by definition highly emergent ("Play to find out what happens" is literally one of the rules, "Principles," GMs are expected to abide by), but it is emergent by being driven by the characters.

And you certainly don't have to run a total no-myth DW game. I don't. That doesn't mean the timeline is perfectly nailed down. I treat the timeline exactly the same way I treat the terrain: "Draw maps, leave blanks." There is a history. Some of it is known to us at the table. Some if it is not. We play, in part, to find out more about it.

They definitely aren't opposites. Just maybe ends of a continuum. And individual mechanics can be more one and less another.

The example I used as a more story-driven mechanic was the escalation die in 13th Age, and using that example to illustrate the distinction I'm talking about might be useful. The escalation die is something that helps to deliver a good story, because it mechanically increases the stakes in a fight in the same way that a good story increases the stakes toward a climax. It builds narrative tension with a mechanic. Nice. Good. And things still emerge out of that mechanic - namely, the story you tell is one where each fight produces bigger and bigger effects.

The presence of that mechanic means also means that combats have an arc, starting off small and getting bigger. This puts a limit on how different combats might play out that means that there's less variety in them. This is part of the intent, after all - to deliver on a good narrative experience at the expense of sub-par fights that are over too quick or drag on too long.

Someone who might prefer a more emergent style might not really want a mechanic like the escalation die in their games. It's OK if sometimes you stomp the enemy (or get stomped by them). It's fine if sometimes the fight drags on and you need to consider your resource spend or surrendering or something. That diversity in combat styles is appealing. Heck, it's kind of a shade of the "combat as war vs. combat as sport" conversation. The story that emerges from this gameplay might involve moments where the heroes get their butts handed to them, and that can be a fun part of an emergent story.

But, just because 13th Age uses the escalation die mechanic doesn't mean that it is incapable of emergent story or that it isn't emergent in other ways or that it shouldn't be played in a more emergent style overall. It just means that combats are a little more controlled in their results than D&D combats are. Similarly, just because D&D defaults to a host of emergent-style mechanics doesn't mean that something more story-driven is somehow doing it wrong. It's a continuum, not a binary.

 

[overgeeked]

Nothing you've said here contradicts my post, so I dunno what's poppycock. I agree that AP's need to take into account diverse characters, I guess?


They definitely aren't opposites. Just maybe ends of a continuum. And individual mechanics can be more one and less another.

The example I used as a more story-driven mechanic was the escalation die in 13th Age, and using that example to illustrate the distinction I'm talking about might be useful. The escalation die is something that helps to deliver a good story, because it mechanically increases the stakes in a fight in the same way that a good story increases the stakes toward a climax. It builds narrative tension with a mechanic. Nice. Good. And things still emerge out of that mechanic - namely, the story you tell is one where each fight produces bigger and bigger effects.

The presence of that mechanic means also means that combats have an arc, starting off small and getting bigger. This puts a limit on how different combats might play out that means that there's less variety in them. This is part of the intent, after all - to deliver on a good narrative experience at the expense of sub-par fights that are over too quick or drag on too long.

Someone who might prefer a more emergent style might not really want a mechanic like the escalation die in their games. It's OK if sometimes you stomp the enemy (or get stomped by them). It's fine if sometimes the fight drags on and you need to consider your resource spend or surrendering or something. That diversity in combat styles is appealing. Heck, it's kind of a shade of the "combat as war vs. combat as sport" conversation.

But, just because 13th Age uses the escalation die mechanic doesn't mean that it is incapable of emergent story or that it isn't emergent in other ways or that it shouldn't be played in a more emergent style overall. It just means that combats are a little more controlled in their results than D&D combats are. Similarly, just because D&D defaults to a host of emergent-style mechanics doesn't mean that something more story-driven is somehow doing it wrong. It's a continuum, not a binary.

One of the best mechanics I’ve seen that helps games come close to actually emulating the way stories work is from Robin Laws’ HeroQuest 2E. The middle of stories have what’s called the try-fail cycle. Laws incorporated that as a mechanic in the game by increasing or decreasing the necessary TN based on previous successes or failures. Last check a success, the next TN is higher. Last check a failure, the next TN is lower. This pushed the game into emulating the try-fail cycle almost perfectly and pushed gameplay to more closely match how stories actually work. So of course most gamers hated it.

 

[Lanefan]

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.)

Or, put another way: what matters is the story of the party (or parties) rather than that of any individual character, and the party's story is much more likely to map to the story the player experiences; even more so if the player is by choice not playing the same character all the way through and instead is cycling characters in and out of the party/parties.

 

[Lanefan]

Just a bit of semantics first, as I understand it a campaign is the entirety of the party playthrough. You can have multiple adventures in a campaign. You can play a sandbox who-done-it up to Red Hand of Doom, and then go off of what seeds were planted in RHoD to take you into the upper levels. That's a campaign, containing multiple adventures. If you start and end with Curse of Strahd, that's the campaign and the adventure.

What about multiple maybe-interconnected parties in the same setting, possibly working on different (maybe overlapping) stories? To me, that's still a single campaign.

Which leads me to say: a campaign can contain and tell more than one story.

So for me and my tables, I guess it's both "planned" stories in the form of premade adventures, and the unplanned stories that sprout from the things that happen or are added throughout said adventure as we make it our own.

Same here, and I'll add that I usually have one or two or three overarching long-term plotlines going on in the background that any given adventure may or may not have anything to do with.

 

[O-Castitatis-Lilium]

I think all of them are a campaign if you know how to run them. Some might take a bit more work as a DM and others might take very little effort, but all of them are a campaign just waiting to be explored. Candlekeep while being a collection of one-shots could very much run like a campaign if you have where you create a story outside of what's in the book. You would have to alter a couple of the level requirements from what I have read, but it's pretty easy to do if you are really wanting to try. You could have it where your party goes to Candlekeep for something mundane or part of a small beginner quest, and end up being pulled into the actual collection of one-shots by a sneaky fae, a long forgotten mystery, a missing item, or anything really.

As for a defined story being crucial to a module, it all depends on how you want to run it and how your players want to play it. I don't think it's crucial to running a module, but it does make it a little easier to keep anything from being an overwhelming sandbox.

 

[Quickleaf]

Story (noun)

It begins with S##T happening and ends with WHY. In the middle you either OR you don't.

 

[Blue]

How I take the quote: "The only 'story' in RPGs should emerge from the combination of the referee’s obstacles, the players’ choices, and the luck of the dice."

The Lord of the Rings would have been a very different story with a different cast in the Fellowship. Honor, loyalty, belief, betrayal, friendship, rivalry. It would not have followed the same path.

We have the obstacles the DM has put forth, everything from Theoden's corruption to the Nazgul to Shelob to the Urak-hai, the vigilance of Sauron's forces, to Saruman and Sauron himself. And there may have been other obstacles that the opposing forces (or rather, the DM in the role of them) had prepared that the party never encountered.

EDIT: There were other obstactles the Fellowship never faced, Professor Tolkien wrote about them in some of his letters and articles.

But then the choices of what the party to do came from them. It was their agency that chose going through the Mines of Moria instead of encountering other challenges. The party did not need to meet the Balrog, it was their choices that led them there. Time after time, player agency wrote the story based on how they interacted with the world and the choices they made, with the opposition that the DM had decided was there.

And that's how I read it. And reading it that way I agree with it, strongly. I admit I have distain for the type of pre-written module or adventure path that can only be traversed one way and players have no large meaningful choices. (Which is not all of them.) A DM can plan the campaign about the attempt to destroy the One Ring, or kill Strahd or whatever, without taking away the players writing the story of their choices dictating how the attempt is made, and if it is successful.

Now, if a DM tells me "I'm running X" and I agree to join, as a good player I will try to follow the hooks put in front of me. (And new DMs I cut even more slack.) And maybe we choose to follow the expected path, but I expect any experienced DM to not try to railroad us in if we attempt to accomplish the goals or overcome the challenges in ways we come up with, regardless if the module explicitly expected it. We had a hard time in Descent to Avernus where we were following chain of quests and it got up to one where we needed to give major help to some evil guy and some characters dug in and said "No" for moral reasons. (That should be vague enough not to be spoilers.) The DM admitted that the only other route was basically to discard a bunch of sessions of progress and follow some other quest chain. We ended up going off the reservation at that point.

I have walked from tables where the DM thinks they create the story by themselves. Player choices need to matter, and are arguably the more important ones in creating the story. Any story focuses on the actions of the protagonists - they are the ones that take the situation, take the challenges and opposition, and move through it. The story follows them, not the foes, because they create it. What events happen and how they play out is due to played choices, and to some degree the luck of the dice.

So yeah, "The only 'story' in RPGs should emerge from the combination of the referee’s obstacles, the players’ choices, and the luck of the dice.". The character's actions in response to the GM's opposition is what creates the story, with the dice as agreed-on arbitrators of uncertainty and luck.

When you put it like that, it makes it hard to disagree. Does player actions matter? Do we respect the outcomes of the dice? Then there really is no argument against it. It requires the context, the challenges, and the goals that the GM has put forth, but that is not a story by itself.

The story emerges from what gets played out on the table.

Fin.