Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="the Jester" data-source="post: 6063065" data-attributes="member: 1210">Exactly. Generally, when people talk about &quot;story&quot; in D&amp;D, there's a strong element of preplanned sequence of events. There are often campaign themes, a final villain in mind from the start, set piece battles that the dm has in mind. I'm positing that it is no less D&amp;D to play a total sandbox, made before the players generate characters and without any hooks tailored specifically for those pcs or players (but rather with adventures growing from the interaction of the places, npcs and general campaign weirdness set up in advance), with no singular end point in mind (but rather an evolving world in which the pcs move and act), no BBEGs per se (but rather a slew of npcs and monsters that the pcs can interact with as they choose). My whole position is that this is a fine and dandy playstyle, but that saying that you're &quot;telling a story&quot; fails to accurately describe either this type of D&amp;D or, in my view, telling a story. There's no 'plot' if the dm lets the pcs do what they want. There's no 'story' (except as it emerges) if the dm creates a setting and then turns the pcs loose, acting as an impartial arbiter. That's not what a story is. But later, you do 'tell the story' of the game as it happened. It's the difference between writing a book about going to high school- that's telling a story- and going to high school. (Later, when you're in college, you tell the story of your high school years, but while you're in it, you're living it, not telling the story of it.)I hope I'm expressing myself clearly here.... That's not my intent; I find story-driven games (in the sense of games where player agency is secondary to the needs of the story that the gm wants to tell) far less fun than sandbox types of game about 80% of the time, and I do feel there is a distinct difference worth discussing. However, that's my preference, not what makes a good game for everyone. When someone says &quot;No story = Not D&amp;D&quot;, I find THAT to be silly and unnecessary D&amp;D tribalism. Worse, it's &quot;one-true-wayism&quot;- &quot;If you don't play my way, you're doing it wrong.&quot; Which, of course, is complete BS.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="the Jester, post: 6063065, member: 1210"] Exactly. Generally, when people talk about "story" in D&D, there's a strong element of [i]preplanned sequence of events.[/i] There are often campaign themes, a final villain in mind from the start, set piece battles that the dm has in mind. I'm positing that it is no less D&D to play a total sandbox, made before the players generate characters and without any hooks tailored specifically for those pcs or players (but rather with adventures growing from the interaction of the places, npcs and general campaign weirdness set up in advance), with no singular end point in mind (but rather an evolving world in which the pcs move and act), no BBEGs per se (but rather a slew of npcs and monsters that the pcs can interact with as they choose). My whole position is that this is a fine and dandy playstyle, but that saying that you're "telling a story" fails to accurately describe either this type of D&D or, in my view, telling a story. There's no 'plot' if the dm lets the pcs do what they want. There's no 'story' (except as it emerges) if the dm creates a setting and then turns the pcs loose, acting as an impartial arbiter. That's not what a story is. But later, you do 'tell the story' of the game as it happened. It's the difference between writing a book about going to high school- that's telling a story- and going to high school. (Later, when you're in college, you tell the story of your high school years, but while you're in it, you're living it, not telling the story of it.) I hope I'm expressing myself clearly here.... That's not my intent; I find story-driven games (in the sense of games where player agency is secondary to the needs of the story that the gm wants to tell) far less fun than sandbox types of game about 80% of the time, and I do feel there is a distinct difference worth discussing. However, that's [i]my preference,[/i] not [i]what makes a good game for everyone.[/i] When someone says "No story = Not D&D", I find THAT to be silly and unnecessary D&D tribalism. Worse, it's "one-true-wayism"- "If you don't play my way, you're doing it wrong." Which, of course, is complete BS. [/QUOTE]

Verification