Game vs. Story

[jdrakeh]

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.

This is why I always draw a line between telling stories and creating stories. Telling a story is reiterrating a pre-exisiting plot or exploring a pre-existing plot structure (e.g., playing through an adventure module -- most adventure modules have a pre-defined beginning, middle, and end). Creating stories is allowing a plot to naturally evolve from game play, without the benefit of a pre-exsiting plot or plot structure.

 

[Ourph]

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.

This is why I always draw a line between telling stories and creating stories. Telling a story is reiterrating a pre-exisiting plot or exploring a pre-existing plot structure (e.g., playing through an adventure module -- most adventure modules have a pre-defined beginning, middle, and end). Creating stories is allowing a plot to naturally evolve from game play, without the benefit of a pre-exsiting plot or plot structure.

I think you guys may be missing the point of Quasqueton's original question. If I'm reading what he's posted correctly, the distinction he's drawing isn't whether something is plotted out ahead of time or allowed to evolve during the game, but whether the act of playing the game is ever modified in favor of a good story.

In other words, if you are allowing the story to develop through play but you come to a point where you see that the result of the dice is going to actually turn the interesting and fun story that has developed so far into a dead-end or along a path that's not as satisfactory, do you override the dice and give the developing story a nudge back onto the more promising path? This doesn't require that you have something pre-plotted, just that you see two options and one seems less satisfactory story-wise for everyone involved.

 

[Mallus]

A matter of semantics and degrees.

No, it's a matter of whether you're talking about a story that's in the process of being written or one that's done being written. Either way, they're both still stories, since the defining characteristic of stories isn't "being complete".

A better definition for our purposes is that to me, a story based game describes a game where the actions of the players have a minimal impact on the outcome of the story. In such a game, the villian will always manage to escape, the lesser combats have no meaning, and there is no way for the players to fail to complete the quest short of quitting the game.

An even better definition would be the one I used earlier: "A game in which the course of play has largely been predetermined".

 

[jdrakeh]

I think you guys may be missing the point of Quasqueton's original question. If I'm reading what he's posted correctly, the distinction he's drawing isn't whether something is plotted out ahead of time or allowed to evolve during the game, but whether the act of playing the game is ever modified in favor of a good story.

Well, if you're following a pre-scripted plot of any kind, you're playing to the story. For example, if you're playing through an adventure module, you already have a scripted start point, a set agenda to adhere to, and a pre-ordained endgame scenario. People (e.g., PCs) dying may be an assumed part of that agenda, but that doesn't change the fact that the story portion of the adventure is already on paper.

Even if you're working within the letter of the rules (i.e., which actually allow and encourage subjective interpretation by design, mind you), you're kidding yourself if you think that playing through adventure modules or other pre-scripted plots isn't playing to the story first. Allowing a story to evolve through the game means that you aren't beholden to any pre-scripted plot elements, but that the players create such things via actual play.

Quasqueton's original query fails to address this basic truth, instead assuming that fudging dice is the sole criteria that sets telling stories apart from creating them during actual play -- and it isn't. Not by a long shot.

 

[Doghead Thirteen]

I was the guy who made the 'isn't much I wouldn't do to avoid a pointless PC death' remark. I'm sorry to say I didn't explain it in the 'how much do you cheat' thread, and it's being brought up as an extreme view, so let me provide a little background.

Myself and my brother have been writing a rule system for some time, and it's still got it's imperfections. We like the way it's shaping up (and I am unnecessarily proud of it) but it does have one definite key weakness;

The combat is lethal.

It's built around a sort of 'cyberpunk World of Darkness on acid' setting, and the rules are written with the assumption that the characters are heavily cyborged supernatural creatures.

Many players seem to take great delight in playing unaugmented humans. Most of the weapons in the game will, on scoring a single hit on an unaugmented human, instantly and automatically kill him.

And the character generation system is extremely complex and in fact takes about two hours, mainly because it's currently spread across a bunch of not-self-explanatory files on my computer, making it require undivided GM attention. It's great because it lets you play the exact character you want (and you can min/max to your optimising heart's content, we don't mind as long as you're not being antisocial and wrecking the game for us. Heck, if done in fun and not taken too far, we encourage it) but it does mean that killing a character almost certainly puts a player out of that session.

We've included a Luck Point system; each PC starts with one luck point that can save their bacon once per session. We're building armour systems and making it more difficult for a character to land a shot.
But we're keeping the lethality of getting hit; a .44 Magnum hollowpoint in the face is going to seriously disrupt the structural integrity of a human being, and if it's any other way it starts feeling silly. For reasons of suspension of disbelief, we're producing a system where getting hit by a bullet (or a sword for that matter) is NASTY.

However, this results in a shedload of fudging early on in any campaign. Avoid the early-game fudging and you're dealing with TPK every two sessions, and a TPK results in the next session being entirely consumed by character generation.

So yeah. For now, there isn't much I won't do to avoid a pointless character death.

 

[PeterGirvan]

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

IIRC, in one of Monte Cook's Dungeoncraft articles he wrote that there were only two types of DMs, a "Guide DM" who bent the rules/adventures/campaign in service to the story and a "Rules DM" who let the dice roll where they may.

Monte posited that the worst kind of DM was the one who tried to do both--this hybrid DM only confused his players by his inconsistency in following the rules or ignoring them. In fact, this DM was really a Guide DM who was only kidding himself.

Myself, I'm afraid I'm the hybrid kind (sorry, Monte!) as dogmatically adhering to either style of play results in either a suffocating novel written by the DM or a random, chaotic mess that is just as unsatisfying despite its freedoms.

 

[Ourph]

Quasqueton's original query fails to address this basic truth, instead assuming that fudging dice is the sole criteria that sets telling stories apart from creating them during actual play -- and it isn't. Not by a long shot.

That's just it, I think you've misread the intent of the original question. I don't think Quasqueton is addressing the difference between telling stories vs. creating stories during play. Let's assume for a minute that the hypothetical DM in question is definitely NOT telling a story, but is involved in creating a story during actual play. The question put to that hypothetical DM is, "Do you ever fudge, and if so is the motivation aesthetic?".

I'm not saying that's the exact question the poll is meant to ask, but I think, based on the way you are viewing the discussion, it's the question you want to be asked in order for the poll to make sense to you. (That's IMO. I don't want to be accused of putting words in people's mouths.)

 

[DonTadow]

I think you guys may be missing the point of Quasqueton's original question. If I'm reading what he's posted correctly, the distinction he's drawing isn't whether something is plotted out ahead of time or allowed to evolve during the game, but whether the act of playing the game is ever modified in favor of a good story.

In other words, if you are allowing the story to develop through play but you come to a point where you see that the result of the dice is going to actually turn the interesting and fun story that has developed so far into a dead-end or along a path that's not as satisfactory, do you override the dice and give the developing story a nudge back onto the more promising path? This doesn't require that you have something pre-plotted, just that you see two options and one seems less satisfactory story-wise for everyone involved.

Thats the thing. There's always an interesting story. I prefer it if I had players (which i do) who force me to consistently revisit plots, rebuild plots. If I am not reacting to the player, then I am not having fun. I think a good mentality for a DM is to hear that the 3 level dungeon that the pcs were going to and that you worked on won't be used because the pcs have decided to sidetrack because they want to visit the family of one of the pcs (to insure that the demonlord who vowed vengeance would not take it out on their families) and to be giddy to hear such a thing.

A good plot is living, meaning its versatile enough where players don't feel restricted, and you can shape it around whatever.

 

[Doghead Thirteen]

I'm with you there, DonTadow. I've had times when the players pulled stuff I'd never so much as dreamed of, and it changed the gameworld. Said times kicked ass.

But it's equally kickass when the players are reacting to the GM who's reacting to the players - you get a feedback loop of coolness. Get it really rolling and you end up with a self-sustaining campaign, which (to me) is the Holy Grail of GMing.

What I try to do is, before each session, work out what the Big Bad's up to, what stage his plans are at, etc. What's he planning? What missions are his minions on this time? What happened with the missions the PC's didn't interfere with last time? How did this make the BBEG revise his plans? ETC.

Yup, our campaigns invariably have a Big Bad or three.

So, once you've got all that stuff, you've got what's going on, whether the PC's are involved or not.

Thus, if the PC's spend a session farting around at HQ, then next session they'll find out they've missed out on interfering with a session's worth of bad guy plottage.

 

[Warbringer]

About 1/3 story; 2/3 game