Gaming the game, or telling a story?

[RandomUsernamehmimo71]

In a conversation with one of my gamers, I recently realized that we look at the game somewhat differently..

I look at the game as almost an interactive story.. We're friends, getting together, to tell a story and hang out.. I've done free-form gaming before, without dice, but I play D20 Fantasy as a way of speeding things up, and to resolve the who-hits-who questions.. I'd be alright switching to GURPS or D6, etc mid-game, if the characters didn't lose any abilities.. Continuity of story canon is important, not the rules..
When I prep for combat, I will ensure that the "bad guys" have stats, but for fairness, not out of any love for building them. I'd rather eyeball them by giving a X AC, and a Y BAB, then choose X levels of this, and Y levels of this..


She looks more at the mechanics.. The story and plot are important, and she emphasizes the way they affect her character, buts She works to try to come up with good "Combinations" of classes to play, and the like. She's trying to figure out the best feats to choose, and the best choices to make her harder to kill..
Often, I've thought of this as much more power-gaming than I..

After having our conversation though, I've realized she's looking at things more like a game.. Like Risk, or settlers of Catan, where there's a strategy.. Here some of the strategy comes in building your characters toward a good build, that also fits the character's direction..

I've become curious.. How do other people view D&D (and D20 gaming as a whole).. Is it more of a game, or a story? While most people are somewhere in-between, I'm curious if there's something I'm missing..

 

[reveal]

In a conversation with one of my gamers, I recently realized that we look at the game somewhat differently..

I look at the game as almost an interactive story.. We're friends, getting together, to tell a story and hang out.. I've done free-form gaming before, without dice, but I play D20 Fantasy as a way of speeding things up, and to resolve the who-hits-who questions.. I'd be alright switching to GURPS or D6, etc mid-game, if the characters didn't lose any abilities.. Continuity of story canon is important, not the rules..
When I prep for combat, I will ensure that the "bad guys" have stats, but for fairness, not out of any love for building them. I'd rather eyeball them by giving a X AC, and a Y BAB, then choose X levels of this, and Y levels of this..


She looks more at the mechanics.. The story and plot are important, and she emphasizes the way they affect her character, buts She works to try to come up with good "Combinations" of classes to play, and the like. She's trying to figure out the best feats to choose, and the best choices to make her harder to kill..
Often, I've thought of this as much more power-gaming than I..

After having our conversation though, I've realized she's looking at things more like a game.. Like Risk, or settlers of Catan, where there's a strategy.. Here some of the strategy comes in building your characters toward a good build, that also fits the character's direction..

I've become curious.. How do other people view D&D (and D20 gaming as a whole).. Is it more of a game, or a story? While most people are somewhere in-between, I'm curious if there's something I'm missing..

I look at it two ways:

1) As a DM/GM, I see our sessions as more of an interactive story. I make sure all my players are somehow integral to the plot and try to make it as visual/visceral as possible for them. I want them to think they are playing out scenes from a movie rather than simply stating what actions their characters are performing.

2) As a player, I agree with your friend. I, too, look for the best combinations of things. Yes, I try to give my characters a good, meaty, backstory my DM/GM can use in the campaign, but, overall, I want a character who can hold his own and do some "cool stuff(tm)."

Overall, I want my players to have fun and I want to have fun as a player. As a DM/GM, I try to make sure the roleplayers get enough role-playing and the rollplayers get enough dice rolling. As a player, I want to have the opportunity to perform all roleplaying and rollplaying aspects well.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

For me, D&D is as much a played story as it is a told game. I like both and I want both.

On the one side, the game has to have a good story, with reoccuring NPC's, with a big plot in the background, with sidequests, a story that involves the PC's, one that makes me await the next game session impatiently.
I also like my charakters to be more than just stats. They must have a personality, a background, some quirks (even though one way or the other, they resemble me a bit).

But I also want to have a character that is "effective" - one that can contribute to things, be it combat or conversation. And I like them to be challenged by the fights and tasks that are set before us.

I wouldn't like a game without a good story, but I also wouldn't liek a game where my character sheet is all but useless.

I confess that I am a powergamer and min-maxer, at least to a certain degree: my characters have to be useful to be fun. But I also put a story behind the character, and make them more than just numbers on a piece of paper, and I try to play out the disadvantages my character has (and some of these aren't to be found on the sheet).

 

[Faraer]

Generally, I find participating in stories to be fulfilling, manipulation of game rules not. I have no interest in min-maxing, the 3E idea of 'character builds' turns me off completely, and the enjoyment to be got from it has nothing to do with what I play RPGs for.

That said, I can enjoy the tactical, gamelike style of D&D (whether original AD&D or third edition) on its own terms, though it's the exception for me.

It's good that you had the conversation, huh? Getting these things in the open is almost always good. While the Robin's Laws approach of compromising to a wide variety of player approaches obviously can work, I prefer finding groups who think (or who can think) similarly.

 

[T. Foster]

This is a longstanding topic of discussion, and the folks at The Forge have codified this into a Theory of the three primary ways of approaching the rpg experience: Gamism (your friend), Narrativism (you), and Simulationism (the dominant mode during the 80s -- "realism" and creating a world are most important). There are a lot more nuances (and, alas, a lot of academic-speak jargon) that they've added on top, but this is the most basic version, and in my experience it holds pretty much true. Personally, I've never been much for Narrativist play -- when I want stories I read books or watch movies (or write stories, as the case may be). For many years I was a dedicated Simulationist, was heavily devoted to the worlds of Glorantha and Traveller's Third Imperium, and exploring these worlds was considered something of an end in itself. Recently, however, I've redirected myself to an almost entirely Gamist approach, the much-derided "player vs. DM" model where I consider my primary goal (as DM) as providing a challenge to the players, and their primary goal as overcoming these challenges. Yes, there's some Simulation (to provide the ground-rules against which the challenges take place) and some Narrative (to provide a pretext for the challenges), but the primary focus is always on the challenges themselves.

An important thing to note is that a Gamist approach is not necessarily synonymous with a focus on numbers, powergaming, or mini-maxing. Yes this is an element of Gamist play -- in order to give yourself the best possible chance of overcoming challenges you want your character to have every possible advantage under the rules -- but is only means towards an end. Real Gamist play is a matter of matching wits, player (not character) vs. DM -- what you do with the numbers on the sheet, not the numbers themselves. This is actually one of the reasons why I prefer the less-detailed and numbers-heavy versions of the game (OD&D and 1E) -- in those versions the numbers and possible combinations are simple and limited enough that there's only so much weaseling and mini-maxing that can be done with them and the real measure of success will always be the skill and wits of the actual player, not his character, whereas in 3E there are so many possible combinations, so much number-crunching and mini-maxing that can be done, that unless you're very careful (or draw some arbitrary limits) the focus can easily shift away from player skill towards the numbers on the sheet (i.e. munchkinism).

 

[LizardWizard]

Of two options, I choose the third: gaming the story.

 

[CarlZog]

This is a longstanding topic of discussion, and the folks at The Forge have codified this into a Theory of the three primary ways of approaching the rpg experience: Gamism (your friend), Narrativism (you), and Simulationism (the dominant mode during the 80s -- "realism" and creating a world are most important).

I hadn't heard this before, but -- in my experience -- that's very accurate.

I was hardcore simulationlist when I was younger and had a lot more time to dedicate to the game. I collected reams of rules for intricately detailed cultures and equally complex combat, etc.

Now I find I enjoy the narrative for the most part. But I started as a board wargamer, and I still really enjoy taking the pure strategic approach sometimes.

I've discovered that how I approach a given game depends largely on the scenario and my response to the DMs style.

zog

 

[Arnwyn]

I've become curious.. How do other people view D&D (and D20 gaming as a whole).. Is it more of a game, or a story? While most people are somewhere in-between, I'm curious if there's something I'm missing..

For our group, it's definitely more of a game. Sure, sometimes there's a story - but first and foremost, it's a game.

If there are any questions about the validity of certain game rules, for example, a satisfying answer to everyone is "it's a bloody game, for cryin' out loud!".

 

[Galethorn]

As a DM--telling a story.

As a player--telling part of a story.

As a player with a so-so DM--gaming a game.

 

[Dogbrain]

This is a longstanding topic of discussion, and the folks at The Forge have codified this into a Theory of the three primary ways

Ah, yes, that tired old religious dogma. Proof that it's a mere dogma is how one feels the need to capitalize "Theory" instead of it being a mere "theory". Actually, it's not even a theory but a hypothesis, and a fairly unfalsifiable (therefore, of little to no value) one, at that.