[EDITION WARZ] Selling Out D&D's Soul?

[Thurbane]

Storyteller? Egads. Storytellers and amateur thespianiasm equals boring D&D in my opinion, but of course YMMV. The DM need only set the table, where I come from. Let the actions of the characters dictate the course of the "story". Otherwise, the players feel as though the actions of their characters have little bearing on the outcome of events.

Hmm, this seems to be a growing sentiment from what I read. Seems like many players today find a DM to be a "neccessary evil" rather than the guy they all thank for creating a richly detailed and consistent setting for them to adventure in. Any DM who enjoys storytelling nowadays seems to be accused of "railroading".

I honestly believe it's more of that "video game" mentaility creeping in. Some people now are used to generating a character, then running around within the bounds of the electronic world; and instead of having a pesky DM to detail things and make rulings they have a lovely, mute CPU as their arbiter.

I acknowledge that there is no definitively right style of playing D&D, but I can't imagine a less interesting game to be involved in as a player where the DM just sits there and asks "So what do you do now?" all the time. My best and most memorable D&D experiences of the last 20 years have been with imaginative, descriptive DMs detailing their world, the adventure, and playing my character's involvement in it all.

A DM can tell a story, an interractive story, without strongarming or railroading the players, and to me that is the essence of enjoyable gaming.

 

[MerricB]

A DM can tell a story, an interractive story, without strongarming or railroading the players, and to me that is the essence of enjoyable gaming.

Heck, a DM can tell an enjoyable story *while* strongarming or railroading the players, if that's the way his or her players like playing the game. I've known many a player that, when faced with a choice, freeze. Remove their choices (except what to do in battle) and they have a ball.

I tend to be a bit more in the middle as a player - I like having a couple of choices, but I prefer not to have to find my own hooks for adventure... the DM better provide those.

Cheers!

 

[Thurbane]

3.X might offer a wonderful ruleset, but there is absolutely no reason to trash previous editions on this basis.

Quoted for extreme truth!

I would go so far as to say that the variable priest was one of the best things in 2e, and that only the addition of prestige classes prevented dropping it from being a major gaffe in 3e.

Indeed - speciality priests are one of the things I miss most from 2E. Except for domain choice, Clerics are back to being "cookie cutter" models of each other (barring PrCs, of course)...

 

[Ourph]

Hmm, this seems to be a growing sentiment from what I read. Seems like many players today find a DM to be a "neccessary evil" rather than the guy they all thank for creating a richly detailed and consistent setting for them to adventure in. Any DM who enjoys storytelling nowadays seems to be accused of "railroading".

Being a worldbuilder (i.e. - creating a richly detailed and consistent setting) is different than being a storyteller (i.e. - devising stories and ushering the players through one pre-prepared scene after another until the conclusion is reached). Events and ongoing stories are obviously part of any detailed setting but there's a line between an ongoing story that's happening to NPCs that the PCs can interact with and an ongoing story that's happening to the PCs based on the DM's pre-written script.

I actually don't think there's a significant disagreement between what you are describing and what P&P and Ghul are naming as their preferred gaming style. Perhaps there is simply a misunderstanding here about the way people are using the word "storyteller".

 

[ghul]

Hmm, this seems to be a growing sentiment from what I read. Seems like many players today find a DM to be a "neccessary evil" rather than the guy they all thank for creating a richly detailed and consistent setting for them to adventure in. Any DM who enjoys storytelling nowadays seems to be accused of "railroading".

I honestly believe it's more of that "video game" mentaility creeping in. Some people now are used to generating a character, then running around within the bounds of the electronic world; and instead of having a pesky DM to detail things and make rulings they have a lovely, mute CPU as their arbiter.

I acknowledge that there is no definitively right style of playing D&D, but I can't imagine a less interesting game to be involved in as a player where the DM just sits there and asks "So what do you do now?" all the time. My best and most memorable D&D experiences of the last 20 years have been with imaginative, descriptive DMs detailing their world, the adventure, and playing my character's involvement in it all.

A DM can tell a story, an interractive story, without strongarming or railroading the players, and to me that is the essence of enjoyable gaming.

You misunderstand me, Thur. In fact, I agree with most everything you say. A rich setting is quite integral to the D&D experience, and I have in my experience of 25 years DMing employed both commercial settings, homebrew, and amalgamations thereof. What I do not prefer is to DM as a "storyteller" -- and maybe this is just a matter of semantics creeping in, but as see it, a storytelling DM has a preconceived notions as to how the campaign, and in microcosm, how the adventures will pan out. This, IMO, results in powerless player characters who have a right to change the world.

This video game mentallity you cite also bothers me, and if a DM-less 4e is the future of the game we all obviously love (why else are we here?), then I must say it is a misnomer of it is called Dungeons & Dragons. Hope I've made myself clearer.

Happy gaming,
-Ghul

 

[Crothian]

I don't think he's saying that any DM who ever checks with a player for clarification is a bad DM, but rather a DM who constantly misunderstands basic rules and needs to check with players on every minute detail...

Right!! Like having someone need to come along and explain it better then I can would make me a bad poster

 

[Lanefan]

Why?

You might treat D&D as an exercise in amateur theatrics or round-robin storytelling, but I don't have to.

You're storytelling when you describe the room the party just entered. The players are storytelling when they go to the King to claim their reward for defeating the Gnoll threat on the eastern border. Granted, some people get a bit more flowery and theatrical with their story elements, but when you beat it all down the game is in essence a collaborative story. I fail to see a problem...

Lanefan

 

[Thurbane]

Perhaps there is simply a misunderstanding here about the way people are using the word "storyteller".

Quite possibly.

But my comments weren't directed solely at him - this really is a growing sentiment I see in various places. IMHO, and I could be way off the mark, the player/DM dynamic is turning more from everyone being there to have some fun, to more adversarial and everyone wanting to hold each other "accountable".

 

[Thurbane]

You misunderstand me, Thur. In fact, I agree with most everything you say. A rich setting is quite integral to the D&D experience, and I have in my experience of 25 years DMing employed both commercial settings, homebrew, and amalgamations thereof. What I do not prefer is to DM as a "storyteller" -- and maybe this is just a matter of semantics creeping in, but as see it, a storytelling DM has a preconceived notions as to how the campaign, and in microcosm, how the adventures will pan out. This, IMO, results in powerless player characters who have a right to change the world.

This video game mentallity you cite also bothers me, and if a DM-less 4e is the future of the game we all obviously love (why else are we here?), then I must say it is a misnomer of it is called Dungeons & Dragons. Hope I've made myself clearer.

Happy gaming,
-Ghul

Ah, I see, sorry for the misunderstanding then.

 

[MerricB]

Quite possibly.

But my comments weren't directed solely at him - this really is a growing sentiment I see in various places. IMHO, and I could be way off the mark, the player/DM dynamic is turning more from everyone being there to have some fun, to more adversarial and everyone wanting to hold each other "accountable".

I think you're way off the mark.

Certainly this behaviour is more apparent due to the greater convention play of D&D (see Living Greyhawk and related) and the rise of the internet, but I don't think it is anything new. Knights of the Dinner Table existed long before 3e, and it's very much the DM vs Players style of game.

Cheers!