Dungeon Mastering as a Fine Art

[pemerton]

at the beginning the roleplaying world did not include the story game concept. The idea of characters authoring game world content outside their characters would have been met with incredulity.

Just a footnote to [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION]'s post above:

In this thread I already mentioned the early 80s Puffin book "What is Dungeons & Dragons?" That book involves players authoring gameworld content outside their characters in the form of backstory - eg mentors and rival colleges, in the case of a magic-user PC.

That book also takes for granted that PCs will have fictional personalities, and it assumes that players will play their PCs having regard to those fictional personalities eg that the player of a halfling will have his/her PC respond with greater concern to a fellow halfling being tortured, than s/he would respond to a human suffering in the same way.

I don't assert that either of these things is inherent to roleplaying. But they are not recent innovations.

And here is Gygax on p 112 of his DMG:

[T]here must be some purpose to it all. There must be some backdrop against which adventures are carried out, and no matter how tenuous the strands, some web wich connects the evil and the good, the opposing powers, the rival states and various peoples. . .

[C]haracters being as as less than pawns, but as they progress in experience, each eventually realizes that he or she is a meaningful, if lowly peace in the cosmic game being conducted. When this occurs, players then have a dual purpose for their play, for not only will their player characters and henchmen gain levels of experience, but their actions will have meaning above and beyond that of personal aggrandizement.​

This is not ambiguous, it is crystal clear. Gygax is advising that the campaign should have rich colour, and thematic weight, with which the players will gradually but increasingly become emotionally engaged. They will still be playing to "win" (earn XP, gain levels) but that won't be the only reason they are playing.

There are also some interesting quotes from Gygax, writing in 1974, in the blog that Neonchameleon linked to. Gygax, as quoted, refers to

the different aims of a fantasy novel (or series of novels) and a rule book for fantasy games. The former creation is to amuse and entertain the reader through the means of the story and its characters, while the latter creates characters and possibly a story which the readers then employ to amuse themselves. . .

[Iin fantasy] there are no absolutes or final boundaries simply because it does draw upon all of these [literary] sources with the bonus of individual imagination added by those who play it.​

Gygax also refers to the players identifying with, and relating to, their PCs:

Would a participant in a fantasy game more readily identify with Bard of Dale? Aragorn? Frodo Baggins? or would he rather relate to Conan, Fafhrd, the Grey Mouser, or Elric of Melnibone?​

By way of contrast, here is Ron Edwards nearly 30 years later describing narrativist RPGing:

All role-playing necessarily produces a sequence of imaginary events. Go ahead and role-play, and write down what happened to the characters, where they went, and what they did. I'll call that event-summary the "transcript." But some transcripts have, as Pooh might put it, a "little something," specifically a theme: a judgmental point, perceivable as a certain charge they generate for the listener or reader. If a transcript has one (or rather, if it does that), I'll call it a story. . .

The real question: after reading the transcript and recognizing it as a story, what can be said about the Creative Agenda that was involved during the role-playing? The answer is, absolutely nothing. We don't know whether people played it Gamist, Simulationist, or Narrativist, or any combination of the three. A story can be produced through any Creative Agenda. The mere presence of story as the product of role-playing is not a GNS-based issue. . .

Story Now requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence be addressed in the process of role-playing.​

Gygax, in suggesting that players will come to have a "dual purpose" for playing the game, is opening the door to narrativist play: that the reason for playing the game won't simply be to show your guts and acumen by earning XP, but also to do things that have meaning, that is, address an engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence, such as good and evil, political disagreements or the fates of peoples.

Now that is not the only door that Gygax is opening. The other form of "dual purpose" and meaningfulness is that the players become caught up in someone else's story - for instance, they identify with the already-authored campaign setting and care abouot the place of their PCs within that setting.

These are two different, but completely viable, ways of developing that "dual purpose" that Gygax refers to. Historically, in the 80s and then 90s, TSR went through the second of those two possible openings. But Gygax's words leave the other, "storygaming" alternative equally open, and I am very confident that I am not the only D&D player to have gone down that path in the 80s, or even earlier.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

Oh, wow, catching up on this thread after a few days off, and it's pretty dizzying. There was some sort of tangent that included the Forge and the Storyteller games of 90s that I'm still trying to figure out...

I think the crux is: D&D is an "Role-Playing Game" wherein "role-playing" is entirely optional (in the sense that you're required to create a personality, history and complex relationship webs for your character). Holmes D&D doesn't even mention "role-playing" in that sense. It goes through character creation and there's passing mention of playing "bold adventurers" or some such, but nothing that prompts playing your character any different than you would a war game asset (i.e. optimally with regard to succeeding at the challenges placed before you).

Indeed, I don't believe ANY edition of D&D gives mechanical weight to role-playing AT ALL, save for perhaps suggestion the DM take such things into account when determining results. The closest the rules have is Alignment, which should not be conflated with 'personality' or 'character'. Not all LG characters have the same personality.

However, I believe the custom of "acting as your character" probably started very early on in the RPG life cycle. You inevitably get players who go: "Brontar CHARGE!" in the face of overwhelming odds. For many, playing someone else and not simply using a character as the game-world stand in for yourself has a VERY strong appeal. DMs also, in seeking to capture the feeling of their favorite fantasy stories, write more complicated narratives replete with complex NPC motivations and reams of backstory rather than keeping with the "PCs vs. the Dungeon" setup of the game's origin.

[SIDENOTE: This is to say nothing of players whose primary motivation is getting vicarious thrills from taking risks. To them, success or failure or the life or death of their PC is secondary to finding out "what happens if someone sits on the lich's throne". They can't be said to be playing a game in the wargame sense.]

I think we can all agree that these customs grew in popularity, with later versions of D&D explicit mentioning creating personalities for your character and so on (I believe 2E on, at least did this). "Role-playing" became the norm. The Storyteller games decided to bring this to the forefront, as did Dragonlance. However, these still aren't "story-games".

Story games are typified not just be "role-playing", but consensual role-playing and world-building where the focus is fully on creating a compelling story. This is (presumably) the end point of the continuum where the game mechanics are written with this consideration in mind.

So we end up with three (very rough) categories:

1. ROLL PLAYING: Pragmatic play using player agency and character capabilities to survive challenges and gain power. I use the name 'Roll Playing' as a convenience here, not as an insult.
2. ROLE PLAYING: As above, but incorporating story-telling elements such as alternate personalities and literary framing devices.
3. STORY GAMING: Consensual story creation, typically judged by entertainment value of the story rather than achieving goals.

D&D has very decidedly moved into Category 2, but can easily be played as Category 1 and Category 3. You can favor one over another, but you can't objectively say that one is better than another. You can't say that there's One True Way when there are literally thousands of players out there enjoying the hell out of each style.

As for the notion that the Categories are so disparate that they don't belong in the same hobby...that's nonsense. Chutes and Ladders and Arkham Horror are both boardgames, and yet wildly different. Same with RPGs. Most players might have a preferred playstyle, but are more than willing to delve into other styles as the occasion warrants.

They can all be called "games", perhaps not as a competitive endeavor but at least as amusements or past times (also a definition of game). They all create "story" in the sense that you can always relate the "story" of when your 1st level party ran into that troll. And they are all typified by taking on an individualized avatar with far more complexity than a mere game piece (ala a Chess pawn or that Monopoly car that everyone wants to be).

 

[Lanefan]

Gygax was making a game. One of the game designs in those games was labeled a "character" because he was accustomed to creating simulation games. No one was ever required or even expected to perform a fictional personality.

A few passages out of his DMG and-or PH about players eventually becoming "great thespians" would tend to suggest otherwise.

"Character" and "Settings" are narrative terms usurped by Gygax to become game terms. Who knew that world would be flipped on its head and passed off as "the way it's always been"?

Er...because that *is* the way it's always been. Remember, before Wesely-Arneson-Gygax the idea of RPGs as we know them essentially did not exist; and as they were breaking new ground I'd say they were free to use any terminology they wanted.

They chose well.

When you play a role on stage or on screen you are portraying a character in a setting.

When I play a role in a RPG I am portraying - you guessed it - a character in a setting.

Lan-"the main difference between playing a stage character and an RPG character is the presence-absence of a script"-efan

 

[Hussar]

Instead of trying to force the "story gaming" crowd into another whole genre, I believe it's better to just say that the roleplaying tent has gotten bigger. In all cases, a role is being played. Admittedly in story games it goes beyond just that.

I do wish we could have better language though. I don't care for the narrative story game crowd and I wish I could quickly identify a game as not my style without having to practically interview the DM.

I do agree that at the beginning the roleplaying world did not include the story game concept. The idea of characters authoring game world content outside their characters would have been met with incredulity. That doesn't make it wrong. Automatic transmissions would have likely astounded people too. It just means that there is a lot of confusion in roleplaying today because some people think their preferred style is an advancement and not just another flavor.

Imagine a person has just introduced a new flavor of ice cream. What if he kept saying that his flavor offered everything vanilla did and more? He could argue all day long but some people still like vanilla instead of his new flavor.

And, really, how "beginning" do we want to get? Weiss and Hickman were playing Dragonlance in about 1980 and they were very much into the "story game" approach. The James Bond 007 RPG came out in 1983 and included rules for doing exactly what you are talking about - player authored game world content changes using Bond Points.

And I doubt James Bond was the first time this was done.

So, firstly, the idea of "story games" being a Forge invention is complete ballocks. It's not even close to true. You can see Story Games in the 80's quite often.

Secondly, I really don't think you've ever been able to sit down at a table without interviewing the DM. Well, you could, but, it was pretty hit or miss whether or not you'd like the game. That's just part of the hobby. The fact that you're going to spend dozens, or even hundreds, of hours playing with this group of people means that you have to be pretty careful about who you sit with if you want to have a good time. I don't think that's avoidable.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Story games are typified not just be "role-playing", but consensual role-playing and world-building where the focus is fully on creating a compelling story. This is (presumably) the end point of the continuum where the game mechanics are written with this consideration in mind.

If we're going by the original, formal definition, Story Games are games that come with a narrative arc and finishing point rather than being open ended the way most RPGs are. It was the biggest point of contention with My Life With Master. Entertainingly enough, oD&D didn't do this strongly - but the level caps for non-humans, and the adventurer/conqueror/king arc complete with a state change somewhere around level 10 when you get a castle or wizard's tower and stop adventuring in the same way put oD&D just about into this category. But most other old school games didn't follow this pattern, 2e backed away from it hard, and 3e dropped it to the point I've seen this called "The lost endgame of D&D". (In fact a lot of 3.X's problems stem from taking away the fighter's army, and giving access to the spells that in practice weren't intended to be used).

Amusing how this isn't the first time on the thread that Story-games have turned out to be more like oD&D than e.g. Vampire: The Masquerade. (I'd argue that this is because oD&D's design process had the most robust playtesting ever, and a lot of the design of the game amounts to paving where people walked rather than trying to plan things out in advance (which is both the best way to put paths people walk on, and a design approach I've only really heard of Vincent Baker using since). Almost all other RPGs have been planned out by people with a vision of what they are doing - and very few people have a vision where some theory hasn't already pointed.

 

[pemerton]

I don't believe ANY edition of D&D gives mechanical weight to role-playing AT ALL, save for perhaps suggestion the DM take such things into account when determining results.

I wanted to say something about how, at least as I experience, 4e does give mechanical weight to roleplaying (in a tenable sense of that word that relates to the way you are using it).

The paradigm example is the paladin power "Valiant Strike", but it's not the only example. Valiant Strike is, in mechanical terms, a 1W+STR attack vs AC (and hence, at this point, the mechanical equivalent of a basic attack) with one distinguishing feature: the player gets +1 to hit per adjacent enemy.

Hence, a player whose PC has Valiant Strike as a power has a mechanical incentive to get his/her PC into the thick of things, surrounded by enemies. Which is a pretty good way to play a valiant warrior.

That's not to say the game forces you to play a valiant warrior. You can ignore your mechanical incentives and play sub-optimally. But the game is not mechanically neutral on the issue: the mechanics push one way rather than another.

For me, this is the way that I want an RPG to work - when I go where the mechanics push me, I want the upshot to be the fiction that the game promised - which in the context of D&D is valiant paladins, resourceful wizards, indomitable fighters, etc. 4e delivers this, for me at least, in a way that is distinctive from earlier editions of D&D.

 

[Quartz]

As a bit of an aside, Aragorn going over the cliff in the Two Towers movie was terrible story telling and is not the sort of thing you should implement in your games on purpose. It's also in a gaming context illustrative of the problems with the approach I outlined above. It's bad movie making because first it was redundant. Aragorn falling off something and being semi-conscious happens multiple times in that movie alone, each with a slow motion pan to close up, and each with no sense that the hero is really in danger (especially the second or third time it happens).

I'm deliberately missing your point, but it was actually good movie-making: TTT is a long film and Aragorn going over the cliff - or rather, the dream sequence which follows - is an obvious bladder break.

 

[Imaro]

I wanted to say something about how, at least as I experience, 4e does give mechanical weight to roleplaying (in a tenable sense of that word that relates to the way you are using it).

The paradigm example is the paladin power "Valiant Strike", but it's not the only example. Valiant Strike is, in mechanical terms, a 1W+STR attack vs AC (and hence, at this point, the mechanical equivalent of a basic attack) with one distinguishing feature: the player gets +1 to hit per adjacent enemy.

Hence, a player whose PC has Valiant Strike as a power has a mechanical incentive to get his/her PC into the thick of things, surrounded by enemies. Which is a pretty good way to play a valiant warrior.

That's not to say the game forces you to play a valiant warrior. You can ignore your mechanical incentives and play sub-optimally. But the game is not mechanically neutral on the issue: the mechanics push one way rather than another.

For me, this is the way that I want an RPG to work - when I go where the mechanics push me, I want the upshot to be the fiction that the game promised - which in the context of D&D is valiant paladins, resourceful wizards, indomitable fighters, etc. 4e delivers this, for me at least, in a way that is distinctive from earlier editions of D&D.

I'm curious as to how this is different from say smite evil and it pushing towards the fiction of a paragon of law and good that does not suffer evil to live? Or a rogue having sneak attack which kicks in when he strikes from a hidden position... or the Wizard who is able to scribe scrolls, create potions and cast spells creating a multitude of resources for himself? If I'm understanding why you think valiant strike is an incentive for role playing wouldn't the class abilities throughout all of D&D's history be incentives as well... or am I missing some key distinction here?

 

[Emerikol]

I don't want to get into a GNS debate since everyone has different ideas of what that really means.

Permerton and Neon, the examples you give reveal to me that you hold to stereotypes about my play that are not true. We love being our characters. We have backstories. There is a lot of depth and fiction to our work.

Perhaps it is the way the story is created that matters. In my style the group spends all their energy and effort trying to overcome the challenges in their path so that they can achieve their goal whatever that goal is. From a player thinking perspective, success is achieving the goal efficiently. If the DM does his job as DM though a great story will come out of that quest. The DM will build a world that makes it hard to succeed. It all comes down to how the players approach the game. The player viewpoint if you will.

One big mistake people make is they read old stories and they interpret them in the light of our modern environment. Gygax would never have allowed PCs to create content on the fly while adventuring. Sure anyone can propose and likely get accepted a background prior to the game starting especially if the players are already familiar with the world. No one objects to that. I don't think those players would as a rule choose to put the story above the groups survival either.

It is different. I'm not going to say the Forge invented the new way. I never said that. I think the new way arose in home games likely not super long after D&D was invented by people who had a bent to go that way. In time, those who where successful at running those kinds of games introduced the idea. I do not know exactly when but I doubt it was as late as the nineties.

I played D&D all through the 80's and read many dragon magazines and I can assure you that style of play was not on most people's minds. And that is too bad because some of them would have been happy with the new approach and would have stopped sabotaging the more traditional games with their whining and rules lawyering.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm curious as to how this is different from say smite evil and it pushing towards the fiction of a paragon of law and good that does not suffer evil to live? Or a rogue having sneak attack which kicks in when he strikes from a hidden position... or the Wizard who is able to scribe scrolls, create potions and cast spells creating a multitude of resources for himself? If I'm understanding why you think valiant strike is an incentive for role playing wouldn't the class abilities throughout all of D&D's history be incentives as well... or am I missing some key distinction here?

The abilities you list all make the characters better at things they should be doing anyway no matter what their class. If they can. So the Paladin is slightly better at bringing down evil? Almost everyone tries to bring down evil. The rogue simply gets more of an advantage from striking from hidden - but everyone should be trying to ambush rather than fight fair. It doesn't change what you want to do.

Valiant strike on the other hand? Getting surrounded would normally be a bad plan - in fact it would be the textbook bad plan, but it's also something that many Paladins should want to do. So instead of giving them a reward for what would otherwise be good tactics anyway, 4E boosts Paladins by making what should be bad tactics but very thematic into tactics that they can use viably without playing as if they are trying to get themselves killed for no good purpose.