Game vs. Story

[Shadowslayer]

I know everyone likes to jump in and say "but its both" etc. Sure you can pick apart the way he worded it, but I get what Quasqueton is asking.

My answer is the game comes first.

I develop an adventure. I first decide what would be an appropriate or fun challenge for the PCs. Then balance it against their power level. Then draw the maps. Then concoct a "story" that'll get the PCs to the adventure. Then maybe tweak the story so it works with the game elements a bit better. Then we play the game. No one has immunity. All dice are straight up where everyone can see them.

After the game's been played, THEN you have your story.

 

[el-remmen]

Neither. We're simulating an experience we can't have in real life. The game aspects of D&D are part of the simulation, albeit generally an imperfect one, and a story may be told by our actions, but neither is the primary focus of our play.

Ooh!

I like this answer. I was leaning towards "the story is the result of the events of the game" - but I like this one better.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

I am a professional gamer who considers the game an exercise in creating situational puzzles which the players must resolve, framed in the context of an ongoing story. I do not fudge die rolls, but the primary goal is entertainment. If circumstances lead to a TPK, I will typically contrive some result that will allow the players to keep their characters, unless they chose to let the death stand.

It is common in game design to provide challenges that the players must overcome. The plot is usually a series of events that happen independant of the characters. The characters are provided opportunites to influence the outcome of plot. Some players create a backstory so that the characters fit into the campaign; Other only want to roll dice and kill stuff. There is also ample middle ground between the two preferences. Only if the DM does his job badly do the players fail to enjoy the game.

There is no reason why a campaign driven by gameplay more than by roleplay cannot have a good story attached. But a failure to understand the difference between the two will often lead to unhappy players. A good DM should be able to craft a game that will be enjoyed by his players, or at least have the foresight to warn people who chose to join the campaign that they may not enjoy the game that he chooses to run.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[shilsen]

If the dice “say” that a PC dies in a random mook encounter before the big climax with the BBEG:

Story tellers will fudge to keep the PC alive till a more “appropriate” moment for the story plan. They are telling a story first, playing a game second.

Game players will not fudge and just consider the PC’s death at that moment to be part of the story unfolding. They are playing a game first, telling a story second.

That's a little simplistic. I run a game using swashbuckling cards and I have a house rule that allows players to use two cards to turn a killing blow/effect into one that drops the PC to -9 hp and stable. That's not a 'fudge', since it's now as standard a part of the campaign for us as any other rule in the game. So we're playing the game, and the game is designed to aid the story that emerges from it.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

It's a game first. Story comes out of that.

 

[The Levitator]

I think it's a bit of a stretch to put the "cause" of fudging on whether a DM is story or game driven. I am totally story driven, and not only do I not fudge, we don't even use dice. We use the autoroll option built into DM Genie, so NOBODY can fudge. DM Genie makes every roll in our game because we don't care how the number is generated. The numbers, to us, are just there to give us consequences of actions that help us determine our next set of actions. Fudgers, I believe, have far more personal reasons for fudging than whether they perceive their D&D group "game" or "story" driven. I just played in a group with a fudging GM last Sunday, and I won't be back for it. I made a very low roll at a bad time and should have been crushed flat by a boulder. But the GM tossed his dice around behind his screen, didn't even make an attempt to really look at them and I was "miraculously" still at 1 HP. If my character is going to die by the rules, then just let him die. Don't fudge totals to keep me alive. I'd rather that my character's death was part of the story than knowing my character is only alive because of the whim of a DM. And I think more players get peeved when it's the other way around, and they feel their DM is fudging number To KILL their characters rather than save them. Fudging, in my opinion is a symptom of a GM's need for game control, not playing style.

This topic is interesting to me, because I have a signature on some other boards that contradicts the idea of this thread. It's my mantra for DM'ing. "Write it like a movie, play it like a game." I write very detailed campaigns with many plots and subplots so that the party can go in just about any direction they wish. I try and weave a compelling background and intro to the campaign. After all of that, they're on their own. As much as I love telling a great story, D&D is to me still a game and should be played like one. If people are allowed to change the numbers at their convenience, why even have dice or random number generators? It's probably not popular opinion, but my personal belief is that as soon as you fudge 1 roll, you aren't playing a game anymore. At that point you are just telling a story, because the number that was generated from the game aspect of your RPG didn't fit your story.

I know that fudging is allowed and even somewhat encouraged in the DMG. It's just not for me because, even though everyone I game with considers me a story-driven DM, I still play it like a game and let chance play its part without any obstruction from me.

So I guess, put me into the apparently small group of DM's who are story-driven AND play D&D like a game.

 

[The Levitator]

Just for the record, I wanted to be a little more clear about my idea of fudging. to me, fudging is when someone changes a die roll to alter the game in a way differently than the dice would have.

There are a lot of mechanical ways out there to help the players out of dire situations that are not only great ideas, but a way to add more fun to the game in a way that is fair to everyone. Things like Luck Rolls and Action Points are a game mechanic that are there to give players a second chance without cheating. Or in Shilsen's case with the swashbuckling cards, which I think are a great way to not only make his game more interesting, but they would seem to give it even more of a "pirate adventure" kind of game. Any system in place to help the odds out on occasion are still a system, and much less subjective than a DM or player just changing totals to suit themselves, their story, or their game.

 

[Nate Jones]

If the dice “say” that a PC dies in a random mook encounter before the big climax with the BBEG:

Story tellers will fudge to keep the PC alive till a more “appropriate” moment for the story plan. They are telling a story first, playing a game second.

Game players will not fudge and just consider the PC’s death at that moment to be part of the story unfolding. They are playing a game first, telling a story second.

Edit: I'm just not seeing how there can be a balance there -- you either are willing to fudge the game for the story you want to tell, or you are willing to leave the story open to whatever the game gives you. Or a scale -- how much of the game are you willing to fudge for your story, or how much of your story are you willing to concede to the game?

Quasqueton

Ah, the illustrious problem of Socrates. I do not pity the old, ugly fool.

 

[the Jester]

Game first. I very rarely fudge, and have no problem killing pcs off as a result of dumb dice luck.

 

[was]

mix of both