D&D General DM Authority

[Chaosmancer]

At the end of a soccer match, a sports reporter can craft the match into a story. However, the players are not deliberately collaborating in crafting a story while they’re running around the field trying to put the ball in the net. They’re just trying to score more goals than their opponent.

I look at traditional RPGs the same way. The players have a goal (loot the ruins, kill the monster, protect the village). The pursuit of that goal yields a story. But the players are not considering how cool the story will be as they’re declaring their actions.

Battling the evil wizard in a desperate battle at the summit of his tower is a dramatic climax. But if players can avoid danger by killing the wizard with a poison cloud while he sleeps, then that’s the more desirable tactic. I have yet to play a traditional RPG whose goal from the POV if the players is to collaborate on a dramatic story, where they would deliberately choose the first option over the second.

I have.

I've had players declare honor duels. I've had players take detrimental actions to save loved ones. I've seen them sacrifice their lives for the greater good, even if they didn't exactly "have to"

And sometimes, a story is told by telling of the people doing things the smart way, not the "dramatic" way. A story about a Marine squad and dealing with their actual tactics, like what would be written by Tom Clancy can very much have these sort of moments where the expected climax is fairly anti-climatic.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Nope, it's just a style of play. Some people really enjoy immersive roleplay and the degree to which they associate with their character is not a cause of problems. If problems exist there are other factors. Being unable to disassociate from your character is a serious problem, like amnesia and movie style multiple personality disorder. It is certainly not caused by the way they play a game.


Yes, this is not determined by "stance" or how a person likes to play.

Right, which wasn't the point that the person you were responding to was trying to make. At least not as far as I could tell.

I read a bunch of this thread, including many of your comments, hard to feel bad about mine in comparison, but I do a bit.


No. Not interested in hashing out "stances" or whatever for the umpteenth time but there are many ways to roleplay some of which are fundamentally different from being an Actor. Is this honestly still contested with people saying "that's not roleplay"?

Roleplay doesn't have to involve a story, unless one defines everything as a story ie; a one word conversation is a story. D&D certainly produces a story as a result of the actions within the fiction created during a game. "Crafting" a story is not necessary though, for most people it would be like saying two players having a game of chess or playing a videogame are "crafting" a story. Crafting is more deliberate in any meaningful definition I have seen.

And some people do see things that way. An advertisment for shoes being sold can be a story.

A game like DnD being a story is trivially easy to pull off. And saying that "playing a role" (a role in what?) is somehow fundamentally different that collectively creating a story just feels completely wrong to me.

Yes, this is quite an epidemic we need to address, here let me show you some Chick Tracts. Seriously though, I am sorry if I am being too snarky, all this telling people how they should actually be playing really gets my blood pressure up.

Which wasn't what anyone was doing.

@loverdrive was saying that collectively working together to craft a story is a fundamental part of the experience of RPGs. You seem to be taking this to mean that 1st person narration and "actor stances" is the only way to play the game. But that was not the point being made at all.

They made the point that players should see the character as the character, not as a projection of themself. Which people reacted to asking about people being too stupid to tell the difference or anything like that. But, we have had experience with this. I have seen people get too invested in their characters, and take offense when bad things happen to them. Which is clearly what loverdrive was referencing.

 

[happyhermit]

Wait. That's exactly what I'm saying.

Maybe I just suck at putting thoughts to text, though.

Could be my fault, I am a bit triggered these days when someone else comes along saying something along the lines of; "If ttrpgs were designed and played the way I think is best they would be better." Especially when I have over the years seen so many people put down over the preferences in question despite them not actually causing any problems whatsoever for people who want to play differently.

To a lot of players that I have experience with, roleplaying a character in a world with as much verisimilitude as can be afforded is their main reason for playing ttrpgs, and particularly games with an approach along the lines of D&D. It makes sense because it's pretty much the only place one can get that experience, as opposed to collaborative story telling, tactical combat, improv, etc. where there are tons of ways to scratch that itch.

That experience (inhabiting that character in a world that they can imagine is "real") is often anathema to other "stances" or ways of playing/roleplaying. That doesn't make it wrong or bad, or the other ways of playing wrong or bad, it's just a different experience and preference.

 

[FrogReaver]

Isn't it?

Everything is history, history is just the story of what happened in the world.

Plenty of people write "non-fiction stories" which are just recounting real world events that occurred.

K. If everything is "story" then it does no good to call something a collaborative "story" game. Just drop the "story" and call it a collaborative game. There's just as much information being conveyed in either case.

 

[FrogReaver]

You mean like people taking it personally when their character is debuffed or attacked? Yeah, happens all the time. That is why whenever we have an in-character disagreement, we usually end up reiterating "Hey man, this isn't about you, this is all in character. We cool?" Because some people take "A thief stole my character's gear" into "The DM stole my stuff"

Nope. That's not what is being talked about at all. Roleplaying your character and seeing the world through his eyes would have the opposite reaction in that situation. "I'm going to take vengeance on the thief that took my stuff". What you are describing is the player viewing D&D from a more gamist perspective - which also has it's place as D&D is a game as well.

Speaking of, "the thief stole all your stuff", isn't particularly fun or engaging play for most people. I'd be pretty pissed to if it seemed that was done solely via DM fiat. #1 unspoken rule of most D&D games is that DM fiat shouldn't screw over players.

Um... yes, it is.

"This is the shocking true story of" is used because people's actions tell a story. A story is just a recounting of events. That is why the term "History" is spelled with "story" in the word. They both come from the same root word in Ancient Greek. And the original writing of history was writing the stories of people.

I mean, I get it is your opinion, but for a lot of us, this is a type of story telling, so the snark and dismissal of storytelling as an aspect of roleplaying is just not accurate.

Your point is literally: "Everything is a story and therefore D&D is as well". That's not a meaningful point. So what if it's a story by that definition when literally everything is? It's just semantics and even more meaningless semantics than the usual sort as the definition you are advocating for is empty and void of communicating any important idea.

Making a sculpture out of ice is different than metal is different that butter.

Just because there are differences doesn't mean there are not important similarities as well.

Agreed. That's why i brought up football. That's why someone else brought up chess. Football and Chess are much more akin to the type of story D&D produces than what the typical connotation would imply. (Assuming one is good with calling what football and chess produces a story).

 

[FrogReaver]

Sure, but "telling" and "crafting" are such close cousins I'd be concerned about them kissing.

Because, lest we forget this thread is about DMs, many DMs create a plot. They create themes and intent within the game, to tell a story. The reveal of Acerak as being behind the Death Curse in Tomb of Annihilation was planned story-telling, with the ending then being chosen by the players and the dice.

I do think the DM's role includes some story telling. Crafting the world and the NPC's into a believable story is a big part of what his job is all about. The players though, they aren't storytelling. They are roleplaying.

And I've seen many times people do things, such as a character who was raised in an orphanage running into a burning building to save children. It is objectively not a safe thing to do, not a smart thing to do. It is dangerous to the character's survival. But, as a story, it makes perfect sense that they would do that.

What you describe here, the rest of us would call roleplaying. That it results in a story that you can later tell is cool, but totally an afterthought.

 

[happyhermit]

And some people do see things that way. An advertisment for shoes being sold can be a story.

Definitions that make discussion difficult within the context should be avoided. ie; "Let's talk about x in collaborative storytelling games!" "All games are collaborative storytelling games, even Chess and Go Fish!" it's just counter productive.

A game like DnD being a story is trivially easy to pull off. And saying that "playing a role" (a role in what?) is somehow fundamentally different that collectively creating a story just feels completely wrong to me.

That's fine, you don't understand something that is important to other people. My issue is that I am going to guess that you don't actually want to understand their point of view.

Which wasn't what anyone was doing.

@loverdrive was saying that collectively working together to craft a story is a fundamental part of the experience of RPGs.

No, they didn't say that it was "a fundamental part of the experience", they said it was; "the main thing" which is very different.

What you are saying here though; "working together to craft a story" I wouldn't even agree "is a fundamental part of the experience of RPGs". Working to Craft a story just isn't a part of the game to some people, let alone a fundamental one.

You seem to be taking this to mean that 1st person narration and "actor stances" is the only way to play the game. But that was not the point being made at all.

1st person narration and "actor stance" are different things.

They made the point that players should see the character as the character, not as a projection of themself. Which people reacted to asking about people being too stupid to tell the difference or anything like that. But, we have had experience with this. I have seen people get too invested in their characters, and take offense when bad things happen to them. Which is clearly what loverdrive was referencing.

People take offense when bad things happen to characters they don't see as projections of themselves.

People roleplay characters they see as projections of themselves and don't get offended when bad things happen to them.

People can play in "actor stance" or whatever you want to call it, not wanting to consider the overall story in their decisions, and not see the character as projections of themselves.

 

[FrogReaver]

I guess to summarize my stance: Until I hear a football game announcer say "the players are hoping to tell a good story here today", I'm going to view the use of story to describe the events of games as a very unusual use of the word.

 

[prabe]

I guess to summarize my stance: Until I hear a football game announcer say "the players are hoping to tell a good story here today", I'm going to view the use of story to describe the events of games as a very unusual use of the word.

A primary difference is that it seems highly unlikely that any of the players in the football game see the creation of a narrative as the primary goal of play, while it's clear that at least some players of TRPGs do.

 

[FrogReaver]

A primary difference is that it seems highly unlikely that any of the players in the football game see the creation of a narrative as the primary goal of play, while it's clear that at least some players of TRPGs do.

Sure, but they can't just assign that to every ttrpg as is being done here. Those kinds of ttrpg's are inherently different.