Dungeon Mastering as a Fine Art

[Bawylie]

But I'm the GM and I'll use my informed opinion as to when the dice will be used help tell the story. I'm not a slave to the dice, I'm their master.

This. Same goes for the game system, too.

 

[howandwhy99]

That was a misplaced "got" upthread which should have been a "for". As in, a bad experience for players treating games as games when with players treating the same as story.

From the responses it sounds like the same Forge that hate-named D&D as "Calvinball" and "Mother may I" is considered a positive force, even though those same practices are being on so we might not allow the game rules (or dice) to rule the DM. I assume this is some kind of rejection of allowing the game to interfere with the story undesirably? Incidentally the Forge has historically held very low opinions of Rule Zero and games which include it.

 

[Emerikol]

Not in my experience. There is a difference between complete freestyle roleplay and including story in an RPG. One can have a happy medium where the players work together to tell a story and the numbers of the game inform that story.

But I'm the GM and I'll use my informed opinion as to when the dice will be used help tell the story. I'm not a slave to the dice, I'm their master.

I like that difference between RPGs and board games. If I want to adventure by hard and fast rules, I'll play Descent or Wrath of Ashardalon or Mice and Mystics (though, it may not be surprising that I'm not very fond of adventure-style board games).

I think it is a mistake to say that only story games produce stories. All roleplaying produces stories. The term "story game" may not be perfect I realize. I think my own campaigns are always very story rich. Lots of colorful NPCS, lots of interactions, lots of adventure and wonder. My games though do not resemble what many people call story games though.

I think one difference I've noticed is that in my style of game the PCs are solely focused on "winning", achieving their in game character objectives. They never worry about making an interesting story. The DM's job is to have a world that conflicts with the character goals, hopefully by it's very nature.

In other styles, the story is more choreographed. The DM and players collaborate to deliberately set up interesting situations and then they use the rules to act out those scenarios.

 

[Bawylie]

The Forge has no truck with me.

As for "story," that's what emerges as a result of game play. Players set goals, DMs set obstacles. Those things collide - story is how that all shook out.

So, no, it has nothing to do with game rules affecting the story undesirably.

For me, when the rules get in the way of playing, when they are a requirement of play and not a facilitator, that's when I apply rule zero.

It's the difference between "must" and "may."

 

[howandwhy99]

For me as DM I don't want that. I want the NPC to be established in play so that the actions of the players shape the game rather than me.

Is Luke Skywalker incorruptible? As a DM, I don't know. Let's play and find out together.

I assume someone determines this at some point? What you are talking about isn't playing a game, but creating a story. You want to explore potential topics of shared discussion depending on what people feel like "exploring" (a postmodern term for invention) in that moment. Predefining these things quits allowing players to "invent"-explore and is therefore bad.

In games and gameplay Luke Skywalker is either one of the players or he is part of the game and already defined in the rules. That's so players can actually game this as game content. Remember, predict, track for themselves. IOW act strategically with "Luke Skywalker" (game design element) which changes all along the way as the game is played. Partly due to the players, partly due to the rules of the game.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That was a misplaced "got" upthread which should have been a "for". As in, a bad experience for players treating games as games when with players treating the same as story.

From the responses it sounds like the same Forge that hate-named D&D as "Calvinball" and "Mother may I" is considered a positive force, even though those same practices are being on so we might not allow the game rules (or dice) to rule the DM. I assume this is some kind of rejection of allowing the game to interfere with the story undesirably? Incidentally the Forge has historically held very low opinions of Rule Zero and games which include it.

Well. That's the first time I've heard Mike Mearls (who seems to be the original source for Mother May I) blamed on The Forge. (And from memory Calvinball is a Gaming Den epithet along side Magical Tea Party).

And game design of Storygames is such that the style of story is the pattern that emerges from following the rules. The first game called a Storygame was Paul Czege's brilliant My Life With Master - and it was called a storygame because it had a narrative arc with defined ending and wasn't suitable for campaign play. Instead the rules of the game gave it the structure of a Gothic tragedy. You talk about pattern recognition? Post-forge game design is all about pattern recognition and matching the patterns you get as emergent play to the way stories work.

Edwards chief motivation for his GNS essays was that the game (in specific Vampire: The Masquerade) was at odds with the story - something he blamed on simulationism. And the driver of GNS is to produce narrative games - games where the game mechanics work with the story. The two interfering with each other is something that in a good narrativist game should not happen.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think it is a mistake to say that only story games produce stories. All roleplaying produces stories.

For once we agree on something

In other styles, the story is more choreographed. The DM and players collaborate to deliberately set up interesting situations and then they use the rules to act out those scenarios.

Either that or the rules are set up such that the character creation and resolution mechanics lead towards interesting stories. The most immersive games I know, and the ones that I am least likely to go deliberately for the interesting are Apocalypse World and its child Monsterhearts. But they are set up so the characters are at cross purposes (and especially in the case of Monsterhearts) genuine character growth or change is a part of the mechanics.

 

[Emerikol]

For once we agree on something
Either that or the rules are set up such that the character creation and resolution mechanics lead towards interesting stories. The most immersive games I know, and the ones that I am least likely to go deliberately for the interesting are Apocalypse World and its child Monsterhearts. But they are set up so the characters are at cross purposes (and especially in the case of Monsterhearts) genuine character growth or change is a part of the mechanics.

It's hard to distill out a principle without offending but I am trying.

I believe player motive can be used to at least describe some playstyles and their differences. Obviously we all want fun but how we go about it is what distinguishes our styles.

In one playstyle, the player motive is to act as their character and try to achieve character goals in the most advantageous way possible. The use of tactics, strategy, etc... are all geared towards making the game easy. The DM's job in such a game is to make the players work for their rewards. The story is about the quest to accomplish goals and the obstacles overcome, outsmarted, etc...

In another playstyle, the players and the DM are both working together to set up interesting situations. The player will gladly have his character do something that we as observers might consider stupid if as a result the story being created becomes more interesting. The player is not averse to his own character suffer or have set backs. Figuring out ways to eliminate risk matter very little to these players. Putting their characters in risky situations is what the game is all about.

 

[Neonchameleon]

And the goal of most Storygames and post-Forge games is to align the two. To set things up so the best play possible will lead to the most entertaining stories rather than the safest and least entertaining. A Going for glory, succeed or fail, is more entertaining than eliminating risk.

 

[Emerikol]

And the goal of most Storygames and post-Forge games is to align the two. To set things up so the best play possible will lead to the most entertaining stories rather than the safest and least entertaining. A Going for glory, succeed or fail, is more entertaining than eliminating risk.

I think both approaches can be fun for some people. It all depends on the stance you like to take as a player. Inside your characters head or hovering above the game. A good DM will make a risk mitigation game a lot of fun because he will create a world that does not bend to the will of the players easily.

All playstyles are about ignoring the things you don't care about and embracing the things you do care about. No matter how hard any of us would try to dispute otherwise, playstyle preferences are totally subjective and equally valid.

I personally just do not care for the story game approach.