D&D General Defining Story

[payn]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you're table's a teeny, tiny bit of an outlier though.

Hi, I see you have met Lanefan.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you're table's a teeny, tiny bit of an outlier though.

Basically, your advice only really works if I play troupe play with high lethality and extended campaigns that last multiple years. Since none of that is true for my table (and I've a sneaking suspicion that it's not true for most tables) I'm not really sure your opinion here is particularly pertinent.

Honestly though, I think there is room for both. Sometimes, it's great to sit back and let the players do their thing. Here's a bunch of options, with the potential for choosing something that isn't on the menu, go to it. And, sometimes it's great to start in medias res, halfway into the action, and hit things at a dead run.

And, it's going to depend a lot on the adventure. Earlier, a mystery was mentioned. Well, think about that for a second. Most of the time, the DM is going to know who did what to whom and where. They have the answer to the mystery and it's up to the players to reveal it. From an adventure design standpoint, there's not a whole lot of freedom to choose here. You're either right or you're wrong. Follow the clues, find the killer, catch the killer.

Now, granted, I know there are games out there that make the answer somewhat nebulous and the DM actually doesn't have the answers at the outset. But, by and large, If Colonel Mustard offed Mr. Green in the Study with the Lead Pipe, well, that's the end point of your story. You follow the clues, catch Colonel Mustard. Or fail to catch him as the case may be. But, in any case, the structure of that adventure is going to be pretty fixed - find the clues (maybe using the 3 clue method), follow the trail of breadcrumbs, climactic ending. Story done.

It's going to depend really heavily on the needs of the adventure really. You can't have an emergent mystery story. Well, actually there are systems where you can, but, in D&D? No. You can't. The DM knows whodunnit before the first player sits down.l

I've never found mysteries all that compelling in RPG form, and particularly in D&D. Too much magic, and as you say the answer is foregone.

 

[Hussar]

I've never found mysteries all that compelling in RPG form, and particularly in D&D. Too much magic, and as you say the answer is foregone.

Fair enough. I was simply using the example provided. Mystery can be done. I've run Rats of Waterdeep multiple times. BUt, to be fair, that's a 1st level adventure. Candlekeep Mysteries is actually pretty light on mystery adventures, but, Shemshime's Bedtime Rhyme is actually a pretty good one. And the Book of the Raven can be done as a mystery, although it does need a bit of rejiggering to do that.

But, the point being, if someone were to run a mystery adventure, it's likely that the story is fairly locked in. Granted the details may change, but, overall? That adventure is likely to play out pretty similarly each time.

 

[payn]

Fair enough. I was simply using the example provided. Mystery can be done. I've run Rats of Waterdeep multiple times. BUt, to be fair, that's a 1st level adventure. Candlekeep Mysteries is actually pretty light on mystery adventures, but, Shemshime's Bedtime Rhyme is actually a pretty good one. And the Book of the Raven can be done as a mystery, although it does need a bit of rejiggering to do that.

But, the point being, if someone were to run a mystery adventure, it's likely that the story is fairly locked in. Granted the details may change, but, overall? That adventure is likely to play out pretty similarly each time.

Mysteries are not only possible in RPG form, they are a lot of fun. Just because folks think the solution is known, thus scripted, everything along the way is not.

 

[Hussar]

Mysteries are not only possible in RPG form, they are a lot of fun. Just because folks think the solution is known, thus scripted, everything along the way is not.

Agreed. That's kinda my point about story in an RPG. Just because you know the beginning point and have a pretty good idea of the end point, doesn't mean that the game is now a lockstep railroad where no player choices matter. You can have most of the story already there, and still have quite a lot of player freedom.

Heck, if you have pro-active NPC's who are actually doing stuff as time passes in the campaign setting, you have a story. Baron Von Badass is oppressing his people for nefarious ends. If the PC's do not intervene, I, as DM, will simply dictate the results of that story. If the players get involved, I've got a fair bit of the structure of the story already worked out. You cannot confront the Baron at location X because he is not at location X. If you want to confront the Baron, you must go to location Y.

That's a story.

 

[wedgeski]

But, the point being, if someone were to run a mystery adventure, it's likely that the story is fairly locked in. Granted the details may change, but, overall? That adventure is likely to play out pretty similarly each time.

When I say "mystery" in D&D, I'm not talking about who killed the butler (well, sometimes...), I'm talking about why everyone in Silverymoon has disappeared, or why Waterdeep has been ripped out of the earth and sent into the sky, or why the Sword Coast has collapsed into the Underdark. The reason why these things happen may be locked in (but not always), but the ways in which it affects the PC's, and how they choose to fix it, if at all, need not be. And on such a big canvas, building PC backstories into the campaign, if they want, is quite easy.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

And, it's going to depend a lot on the adventure. Earlier, a mystery was mentioned. Well, think about that for a second. Most of the time, the DM is going to know who did what to whom and where. They have the answer to the mystery and it's up to the players to reveal it. From an adventure design standpoint, there's not a whole lot of freedom to choose here. You're either right or you're wrong. Follow the clues, find the killer, catch the killer.

Now, granted, I know there are games out there that make the answer somewhat nebulous and the DM actually doesn't have the answers at the outset. But, by and large, If Colonel Mustard offed Mr. Green in the Study with the Lead Pipe, well, that's the end point of your story. You follow the clues, catch Colonel Mustard. Or fail to catch him as the case may be. But, in any case, the structure of that adventure is going to be pretty fixed - find the clues (maybe using the 3 clue method), follow the trail of breadcrumbs, climactic ending. Story done.

It's going to depend really heavily on the needs of the adventure really. You can't have an emergent mystery story. Well, actually there are systems where you can, but, in D&D? No. You can't. The DM knows whodunnit before the first player sits down.l

You can't have an emergent mystery in terms of who is truly guilty.

You can, however, have an emergent mystery in terms of what the consequences end up being.

Because I did exactly that. I had a murder mystery, with only a little bit of magic involved. There was a clear, singular perpetrator the entire time and I knew who they were.

But there were several suspects, and multiple layers of political wrangling, and the possibility of at least three distinct diplomatic incidents as a result of this murder if the wrong people were accused, and further possible blowback against the party's sponsoring city-state (whose Sultana had made them temporarily diplomatic representatives for her government.) That's where the emergent properties come into play. We already know the danger, there's no question that the ultimate problem is "do we find the killer or not?" But what created tension and allowed for the players' individual actions to shine through, just as a "do we stop the bad guy or not?" story would, is that there were many ways things could cash out, some of them great, some of them terrible, many in-between. Ultimately, the party succeeded with flying colors and even ensured that the political machinations which got them into this in the first place ended up going very smoothly and having nothing but positive impacts on their royal sponsor. Had they missed too many clues or misinterpreted those clues, however, they could have enabled the real culprit to trigger a state of war (or at least armed conflict) between two or three Jinnistani city-states, weakened their sponsor's diplomatic position, and empowered one of their rivals to reap massive financial windfall from supporting both/all sides of the resulting conflict.

The irony, of course, is that the critical clue which ensured the downfall of the real killer was that the servants knew she had received a red dress by post before the party, but was seen actually attending that party in a blue dress. An excellent coverup blown by someone being overly finicky with their fashion choices.

 

[MGibster]

If I'm going to make and play a character in a game whose role I am to playout, I do want more structure than purely emergent story. I kind of want goals, motivations, supporting cast, and a measure of narrative control so that I can actually be a participant in the storytelling.

The is exactly what I aim for when playing or running a game. It's also why I favor shorter campaigns where it's easier to tell that story. As a GM, I tend to set things up knowing what the bad guys will do assuming the PCs don't intervene in some manner. How the PCs handle the situation is entirely up to them though.

 

[MGibster]

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

I'm kind of picturing you swinging in on a vine, taking my girl, climbing some scaffolding, pounding your chest, and throwing barrels at me as I try to rescue my girl.

 

[Xetheral]

Now, all this aside, what you seem to be describing - a campaign where the DM creates the setting, plonks down some potential conflict points and then sits back and lets the players take the driver's wheel - sounds an awful lot like an MMO to me. How is that not simply World of Warcraft or Eve Online? A game with no plot, no story except what the players choose to do.

There are (at least) two different approaches to this type of campaign that avoid it ending up like an MMO. The first was already mentioned upthread: the PCs comes with their own built-in motivations that will give them purpose and direction, either throughout the campaign or simply long enough to encounter the existing conflict points and getting the ball rolling.

The second is saturation: the "potential conflict points" aren't scattered and a chore to find, they're everywhere, and avoiding them all would require active effort. (And if the PCs are trying to avoid all conflict that's either a fail state or, in niche cases, counts as bringing their own motivation.) And as long as few of the conflict points exist in isolation, the PCs engaging with even a handful of them creates a self-sustaining cycle of conflict.

Sure, the original conflict points were created by the DM, but the players got to choose which to engage with, and their choices determine, shape, and drive the subsequent conflict points. The resulting story is literally about "what the players choose to do", while simultaneously being rich in traditional story elements, despite lacking an advance DM-written plot.

(Unlike in an MMO, the density of conflict this approach requires is possible because the DM can generate and/or flesh out the speciffic conflicts the PCs decide to engage with and the follow-on conflicts, rather than having to program it all in in advance.)

I believe that being a good story teller is one of the biggest skills a DM should cultivate. I'm not there to wander aimlessly from place to place trying to drum up something of interest. I want you to have a strong story in mind and drive the action of the campaign. I have no problems with that. Mostly because my experience with DM's who want to let the player's drive results in campaigns that stutter to a halt as no one can figure out what to do. The dreaded "rowboat" campaign where you'Re in the middle of an ocean and every direction is equal because there's nothing really going on.

Being a good storyteller is still vitally important in games using either of the techniques I described above. In particular, ideally those points of conflict the DM is dropping into the setting are interesting, and designed in such a way that they'd be fun elements if included in a range of potential stories, whether they're engaged with by the PCs or not. For example, it takes good storytelling skills to craft a regional villain who would be a fun antagonist if opposed, a good rival/foil if tolerated, a complex ally if coopted, a memorable encounter if interacted with, and an enriching lore/setting element if never met.

And because this style of game requires a ton of improvisation, it helps to have sufficient storytelling skills to be able to do all that on the fly. Ideally one fills in the necessary immediate detail to respond to what the players are doing now, while leaving interestingly shaped voids to return to later if future player decisions make the new content play a different role in the emergent story than originally anticipated. (This usually comes up when players unexpectedly ask for background information about a setting element--you want to be able to create the relevant detail from a lore perspective while leaving interesting gaps that can be filled in if/when the party decides to further engage with that element.)

I have no interest in driving your campaign. It's your campaign. I'd much prefer the DM have a strong vision for what the game is going to be about and not have to spend hour after hour (which can happen) of players faffing about trying to figure out something to do. There's a reason I don't play MMO's. I find them boring and tedious. Get me to the action. Get me to the drama. I'll provide the script after we get there, don't you worry. But, it's up to the DM to get the ball rolling and keep that ball rolling.

So it sounds like you prefer to make tactical choices about how to accomplish your character's goals rather than strategic choices among your character's competing priorities. Cool! The types of games you prefer are well-suited to that. For players who prefer a mix, or outright prefer the strategic side, a DM-driven story where it's their job to get the characters to the action isn't going to be able to provide what they're looking for, since it (almost by definition) can't be open-ended enough.

Earlier, a mystery was mentioned. Well, think about that for a second. Most of the time, the DM is going to know who did what to whom and where. They have the answer to the mystery and it's up to the players to reveal it. From an adventure design standpoint, there's not a whole lot of freedom to choose here. You're either right or you're wrong. Follow the clues, find the killer, catch the killer.

In my personal opinion, the best mysteries in RPGs don't end with figuring out "who"... they're instead just getting started! Longer-term, the more interesting questions are "why" and sometimes "how" and, ultimately, "even once you get those answers, what are you going to do about it?"

As an example, consider a murder mystery where the identity of the killer isn't hard to determine with the party's resources, but (1) the question about whether it was murder or self-defense doesn't have an objective answer, (2) there are competing jurisdictional claims complicating the definition of "justice", and (3) any decisions made regarding whether or how to accuse, expose, capture, or kill the perpetrator would carry political costs.

Edit: See @EzekielRaiden's post above for a much better and more specific example.

You can't have an emergent mystery story. Well, actually there are systems where you can, but, in D&D? No. You can't. The DM knows whodunnit before the first player sits down.

I disagree. In my example mystery above, it's easy (and arguably inevitable!) to have an emergent story that arises from the decisions of the players even though the DM knows all the factual answers beforehand.