Game vs. Story

[Quasqueton]

That unnamed person you quoted is an extreme example that you're trying to paint as typical

Sorry, I was in a rush then. That was a series of quotes from 7 different posters in the "How often do you cheat" thread.

So it's not an extreme example, it is many examples of a common theme I see in many threads here.

Although I was rushed when I made this thread, I wasn't trying to set up a strawman or any other false premise. I think some folks are misreading me -- I think you are misunderstanding what I'm meaning by "story".

I'm not saying that "gamers" don't have stories in their games. I like stories in my games. But to me, D&D is a game first -- the story comes from the play. If the PCs all TPK against the BBEG, that is the story.

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.

Yes, that's what I'm talking about.

I'm not saying or suggesting with the questions that one is better than the other. (I personally do have a preference, though.) I thought I asked in a perfectly neutral way, but I guess I didn't. I thought I explained my meaning well in later posts, but I guess I didn't.

I fully agree that you can tell a story and play a game at the same time. My question was which part of the equation comes first:

Story concerns trump game concerns. (For example: A PC can't die before an appropriate time for the story.)

Game concerns trump story concerns. (For example: A PC dying anytime becomes part of the story.)

I'm really tired and sleepy right now, so I hope I didn't just muddy my questions more.

Quasqueton

 

[Hussar]

Quasqueton - Isn't there a middle road? A 'luck point' / 'fate point' system allowing the player to bale themselves out of trouble is one way. Easy access to healing magic and a forgiving death system is another. You could even have a rule that says only boss NPC's can actually incur lethal damage on the PC's if you wanted to get extreme; in a case like that TPK would mean the party gets captured.

Nothing is ever divided only into polar opposites.

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.

Isn't this fudging by another name? How is it different to have your fudging codified beforehand? You are still changing the results of the dice which are not intended to be changed after the fact. Once the dice stop moving, that is the result of the action. Be it a hit, miss, massive damage, failed save, whatever, the dice are the means of determining results.

Any action which changes that is fudging. Not that that's a bad thing. I like the idea of hero points actually. But, that is moving along the spectrum from a very strong gamist approach where the roll is always the roll to the other end where the dice can be overruled at any time.

In my current campaign, I am very strongly on the "the roll is always king" side of the fence. I know that in my next campaign, I will likely swing through with action points and a few other mechanics because I want a less grim and gritty experience and more swashbuckling, Errol Flynn type action.

But, let's call a shovel a shovel shall we? Codified fudging is no different than DM fudging. Just less arbitrary perhaps.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Now, see ... if you would have just asked the question like that you would have avoided the objections. By setting "story" up against "game" you risk insulting many DMs out there. I think that is obvious by this thread. May I suggest an alternate set of questions?



Are you as a DM more willing to:

A. Allow player characters to die before their role in the adventure has played out if the dice roll that way?

- OR -

B. Change the die rolling results to save player characters that you had planned for later plot interests?



I think this set of questions will bring the results that you desire. It avoids all the baggage of the "role vs. roll" that you established by positioning "story vs. game."

 

[Mallus]

How is it different to have your fudging codified beforehand?

When you codify fudging it becomes a rule.

Is it cheating to use a 'Get out of jail free' card in Monopoly?

 

[Ealli]

I've been writing up our game sessions as stories, but I still voted that it's a game first. If the game became unfun, the stories wouldn't save it. If the stories cease to be fun to do, the stories may stop but the game will continue.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Isn't this fudging by another name?

No more fudging than all those feats introduced lately about being able to "reroll any roll/save/etc x/day."

I mean, if once the dice stop rolling it's fudging, then let's call it as it really is. I see your point and it is legitimate, Hussar. I'm not trying to belittle your point, just carry it one step further.

On the other hand, I personally define fudging as: Any "illegal" change of the results of the dice. Having said that, let me define illegal for this context:

Illegal - Any action that is not allowed by the rules (RAW and Houserule, accordingly)established at the beginning of the game and possibly changed along the way as agreed upon by the gaming group.

With that definition of fudging, both the feats that allow rerolling and the action point/swashbuckling cards would not be considered fudging.

Just an idea.

 

[jonathan swift]

Creating a story. Which is why I don't play d20 anymore, but instead play story games. Zorcerer of Zo, Spirit of the Century, Don't Rest Your Head, All Flesh..., Savage Worlds, stuff like that.

 

[Hussar]

Non-Lethal Force: Agreed. I think the beef comes in that fudging has such negative connotations. It's kind of like rail roading. There are times when rail roading is both beneficial to the game and enjoyable. Is it still rail roading? Technically yes... but...

That's my point with action points and feats - none of which are core btw - it is fudging the results. But, since it's an accepted rule, then it becomes more palatable. Perhaps. It all comes down to what people object to I suppose.

Like railroading, it's a spectrum - on one end you have complete DM's fiat where an action is completely determined by the DM (or possibly the group). On the other end you have absolute adherence to the dice. Hero Points, cards, feats, whatnot, all fall somewhere between these two poles. Where a given DM finds himself depends on lots of different things.

I'm very reminded of the recent Resurrection threads. Many people claimed that they didn't like res, but, because they used Action points (or whatever) death became much rarer in their games. In the end, it's the same thing. Either you die a lot and get raised, or you don't die because you change the odds of the game. In both cases, you're still alive at the end. To me, there isn't a lot of difference between the DM changing the results of the damage dice to keep the character alive or the player keeping himself alive by spending an Action Point. At the end of the day, the PC is still alive because we've changed the odds in the game.

 

[Li Shenron]

Both are very important for me. If I can only choose one, I could say that the story comes first, but I don't very much "tell the story"... I provide the hooks, and the story is largely the result of the players' decisions

 

[airwalkrr]

Definitely option 2 (the game is the thing and the story is born of it). The way I see it, there is no point in playing a game (or calling it a game anyway) when the DM is running it under the philosophy of part 1. Ultimately, such a DM will fudge rolls to achieve the desired outcome regardless of how well or poorly the players play or how clever their solutions are. It is the ultimate in "communist" gaming.

I would much rather play or run a game where the PCs are actually in control of their fates. I present hooks and contacts to give the PCs opportunities, but how they approach those hooks, and which they turn down, is up to them. Whether they fail or succeed in battle is due entirely to their guile or luck, not due to my desire for them to proceed to the next chapter. Whether or not the villain succeeds in his dastardly plan is dependent upon whether the PCs can stop him in time, not whether or not I want him to succeed.