Game vs. Story

Are you telling a story or playing a game?

  • I’m/we’re telling a story, and we run the game to that end.

    Votes: 98 36.8%
  • I’m/we’re playing a game, and any story comes of that process.

    Votes: 168 63.2%

You tell me. I have fudged rolls and kept PCs alive, though not from any grand sense of "story", but rather because it would have been bad for morale (of the players. Few things suck more than dying a pointless death after a night of crappy rolls and stale pizza.) But I like to run "quest" campaigns, where the PCs are out to accomplish "something" in particular. I don't think I railroad too much, but it's usually clear where the adventure is and where it isn't. I have a general sense of what should happen, both in the adventure and in the campaign, but the goal is never dependant on the survival of any particular PC or group thereof.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Hussar said:
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.

Nope. The game is full of fudging to allow PCs to survive. We call them rules because they are codified by the game designers. The Evasion ability is fudging to cause some PCs to take less damage on a successful save than the dice say they should. Resist Energy is fudging to allow PCs to take less energy damage than the dice say they should. Dodge is fudging that allows a PC to avoid being hit by an attack that the dice says should hit, as is Mobility, or for that matter, Armor Class as a whole. Rules are codified fudging. Every time you add a rule, you're adding codified fudging.

In short, for me, fudging is when it's done arbitrarily. Rules are when it's not.
 

Hussar said:
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.

"Gamist" implies "by the rules of the game". If the rules of the game include the provision to turn a natural 1 into a 20 under certain circumstances, a gamist can have no problem with it. The fact that in this case, the rules aren't written up in a 200-page book in 9-point serif type, is neither here nor there.
 



Hussar said:
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.
An additional mechanic such as a fate/ or luck system is not fudging, no more than adding your "spot skill" to a check. It can be apart of hte system if you choose. There are usually rules and guidelines for it.

I like the action point system because its the only way to recreate the "luck" that a hero has in a game. It is what separates the heroes from normal folk. Thats not to say that players die any more or less. Most of the tie, these cards have multiple functionality and are exhausted before they can be used to avoid a fatal hit.

There are lots of mechanics that can change a dice after it is rolled. If you're playing eberron the action point system is based in? Is that saying that wotc is telling all who play this campaign world to cheat? No, becuase a mechanic is not cheating or 'fudging".

But its not like this started with Eberron. There are a few classes, feats and spells that allow players to reroll rolls, add to rolls or completely scrap a roll. Would we call this cheating? no.

Fudging is what it is. Taking a dice roll and discarding its number randomly for a result you want it to be. There are no rules to it it is solely at your fiat. Whereas a mechincal point, luck or action system abides by the typical rules.
 

There is a difference between role playing and story telling.

As a player, I would not mind a DM who is heavy on the role playing. Asking someone to have a character act consistently with their characters stated goals is not a bad thing.

But, I would hate to have a DM that is more interested in telling a story then in playing a game. Especially if that DM has in mind an epic story with a richness of narrative and sweeping character development planned out right down to the epic climax where the hero finally overcomes his frailties and defeats the villian.

I would hate that because it does not really leave me any room to have my character do what I would want him to. It may help his story greatly if I swear rush across leagues and miles to rescue Sir Hiro Protagonist, the NPC who is critical to the story. I would probably enjoy it more to not bother rescuing him, and instead investigate some side quest that the DM implied (intentionally or not), especially if I do not like that NPC.

DM's who view the story as being the most important element of the game tend to end up limiting player choice to fit their story. I don't DM that way. I DM because I want to see how the players react to the situations I put them in. Their reactions to those situations are where the entertainment comes from.

END COMMUNICATION
 

Mouseferatu said:
I reject the notion that a campaign can't be a balance of both.

However, in my case, as long as it's understood that we're all telling the story--the DM may be guiding it, but he's not the sole author--I'm more story/plot-driven.

Agreed. I'm a player in my game and I voted for Story. Of the two options I'm there more for the story than the game (though from time to time I "really need to bash in orc skulls").

We have other players that are there for the game and any character development or plot advancement is an accidental side effect of the narrative style of the proceedings.
 

Lord Zardoz said:
There is a difference between role playing and story telling.

As a player, I would not mind a DM who is heavy on the role playing. Asking someone to have a character act consistently with their characters stated goals is not a bad thing.

But, I would hate to have a DM that is more interested in telling a story then in playing a game. Especially if that DM has in mind an epic story with a richness of narrative and sweeping character development planned out right down to the epic climax where the hero finally overcomes his frailties and defeats the villian.

There is a difference between story-telling something you've already written, and improvisational and iterative forms, in which the end point is not determined when you begin. Story-telling does not need to have anything planned out ahead of time at all.

DM's who view the story as being the most important element of the game tend to end up limiting player choice to fit their story.

See above. Story-telling and pre-determined endpoints are not the same thing.
 

Umbran said:
Story-telling does not need to have anything planned out ahead of time at all.
Exactly. This thread should be called "Game vs. Game Where the Course of Play Has Largely Been Predetermined".

And D&D is a game about stories. That's why we talk about "characters" and not "playing pieces", and why we usually describe game environments as "worlds" and not "boards". No matter how you play D&D, its pretty difficult to avoid the games story-like qualities.
 

Remove ads

Top