Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="buzz" data-source="post: 3400778" data-attributes="member: 6777">I'm not sure I really understand why, when this subject comes up on ENWorld, there's this assumption that either the DM is large and in charge, or else it's:I don't think any of the really good story-focused play I've ever experienced has been as a result of, &quot;Okay, you're in a big sandbox. Go nuts.&quot; Being given free-reign in a vast simulation isn't story-gaming. It's aimless wandering that can possibly result in fun, but isn't guaranteed to.It's not an issue of it either being the DM's story or the players' story. It's the group's story. And if everyone truly has input, at the end of the night, no matter where you started out, you should come away from the table thinking, &quot;Wow, I had no idea we were going to end up there.&quot; The key is simply that you all know where it is you're starting out.This is how story-focused play in &quot;narrative sharing&quot; games like Dogs in the Vineyard works. The GM's job isn't to create a story; it's to create a situation (and people) on the verge of disaster... right when the PCs ride into town. The situation isn't a sandbox. It's a pot starting to boil over. It constantly prods the players to decide what they're going to choose to do next. I.e., just because the GM hasn't plotted things out, it doesn't mean he's passive, waiting to react, and has no say. You don't get cool story that way.And, there's no reason you can't do this sort of thing in D&amp;D. Published adventures have done it.As for what Will said... it's interesting, but I'm not sure I understand how applicable it is to tabletop RPGs. &quot;Creating story&quot; is a much bigger design challenge for video games; there's no human being across the table from you.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="buzz, post: 3400778, member: 6777"] I'm not sure I really understand why, when this subject comes up on ENWorld, there's this assumption that either the DM is large and in charge, or else it's: I don't think any of the really good story-focused play I've ever experienced has been as a result of, "Okay, you're in a big sandbox. Go nuts." Being given free-reign in a vast simulation isn't story-gaming. It's aimless wandering that can possibly result in fun, but isn't guaranteed to. It's not an issue of it either being the DM's story or the players' story. It's the [I]group's[/I] story. And if everyone truly has input, at the end of the night, no matter where you started out, you should come away from the table thinking, "Wow, I had no idea we were going to end up there." The key is simply that [I]you all know where it is you're starting out.[/I] This is how story-focused play in "narrative sharing" games like [i]Dogs in the Vineyard[/i] works. The GM's job isn't to create a story; it's to create a situation (and people) on the verge of disaster... right when the PCs ride into town. The situation isn't a sandbox. It's a pot starting to boil over. It constantly prods the players to decide what they're going to choose to do next. I.e., just because the GM hasn't plotted things out, it doesn't mean he's passive, waiting to react, and has no say. You don't get cool story that way. And, there's no reason you can't do this sort of thing in D&D. Published adventures have done it. As for what Will said... it's interesting, but I'm not sure I understand how applicable it is to tabletop RPGs. "Creating story" is a much bigger design challenge for video games; there's no human being across the table from you. [/QUOTE]

Verification