I'm not really sure if my current running campaign is more 'game' or more 'story'--and I think people might be using those two words to mean at least four different things, and perhaps more. In fact, some of those definitions might be overlapping somewhat...
So let me propose an experiment: I'll list off a few things that I've recently done with my game (in the last two sessions) and
you can tell
me which term applies more ('game' or 'story'). In particular, I'd like to know The Shaman thinks--I actually find his approach to gaming an interesting one, encouraging as it does a great deal of improvisational skill from the players (often, it's just the DM that's called upon/expected to improvise--the extent of effect player improvisation can have is sometimes downplayed).
So here's my list:
In last week's session, the characters arrived in a large city. They needed transportation, so they asked for and found someone who could take them where they wanted to go. The transporter's fee was excessive, however, so the characters decided to trick him into accepting a worthless piece of glass as payment. They told him it was a magic item, I had them roll to see if their ploy worked, it did, and so they moved on.
Later in that session, one of the player characters asks another to craft some armor for them. The crafter gets some raw materials together, finds a forge, and sets to work. I then tell the crafter that she has the sudden idea that it might be neat to work in the design of an animal onto the armor. She doesn't have to, but it's an option that occurs to her. The player thinks for a moment, then decides to use the image of a tiger. Both the crafter and the player for whom the armor is being made find this acceptable, I call for a craft roll, and the game moves on.
Still later, a non-player character shows up with a crate of expensive dwarven brandy. This character (a former player's character of evil alignment) is disliked by most of the group. The players are given the option to drink with the NPC. Five refuse, two politely agree to have a small drink, and one gets roaring drunk and passes out. I don't use any rolls to see how 'drunk' anyone gets (the character who passes out deliberately decides to drink as much as they possibly can, so I simply rule they pass out over time and the game moves on).
In the next session, the characters are arrested for the murder of the NPC they didn't like (the one who brought them the brandy). In actuality, I've decided the NPC plotted to fake his own death and leave the player characters to take the fall (he didn't like them much either). In jail, the PC's are given the choice between three NPCs to defend them at their trial (two allies they had met before and one stranger). The group is unable to decide, so I start asking individual players to give me their character's suggestions. I then have one player roll a Diplomacy check to settle the arguement.
At the trial, the merchant whom the PCs earlier ripped off shows up as a character witness. He tells the jury about the PC's bad business practices, and opinion sways against them. I improvised this situation, and also had a couple of other things the characters had done previously come back during the trial.
Some of the player characters get up and make speeches defending themselves during the trial (these speeches are roleplayed, though I secretly roll Diplomacy checks afterwards to see how much of an effect each speech has). One character, a rough and practical adventurer, tells the jury that if the party had been plotting to kill the NPC in question, they would have obviously done it outside of town where they couldn't have gotten in trouble for it. This actually does very little to help the character's case, but the players are all amused.
So I'd be interested in hearing your opinions. Am I more of a storyteller or a gameplayer?
). If the DM had just given me a map of Sigil and said, "What do you do?" then it would have been pretty much a failure as a campaign.
