Is your D&D campaign a game or a story?

[The_Gneech]

Then why bag on Umbran?

I was wondering that myself.

-The Gneech

 

[The Shaman]

So discovering, interacting with, and manipulating plot elements doesn't count as "play"?

I don't think they're critical to an enjoyable roleplaying game experience.

What I get from your position is that you don't enjoy a gaming experience that has any context other than the one created by the players? Is that right?

"Any" context I think is too broad. The referee or game master creates, or at least brings to life, the setting - I think it should be left to the players as much as possible to determine what their characters do in that setting.

 

[The Shaman]

Then why bag on Umbran?

Oh, I don't mean to bag on Umbran - I mean to bag on all of you storyteller-types.

Want to tell a story? Write fan-fic. Want to play a game? My dice bag and I are ready and waiting.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I have a Player who wants to be railroaded at every turn. He wants to have a deep story that he has almost no control over, dictated to him by the DM, while he fights alongside the PCs valiantly in order to unearth this plot that the DM is unraveling before him. He doesn't come up with character backstory, he wants the DM to come up with it. He doesn't want to decide between plot hooks or come up with his own goals, he wants the DM to dictate them to him. He wants a definite ending to the campaign that the DM knows before the first PC is created.

Somehow we still manage to play together and have fun, though.

 

[ForceUser]

Want to play a game?

Pass. My players and I got tired of killing monsters and taking their stuff when we were in high school.

 

[Dremmen]

In my experience adventurers will develop relationships with non-player characters. Have you ever had your players forge a friendship or a rivalry with a minor NPC in whom you didn't expect them to take an interest? That kind of organic interaction doesn't require anything more than a referee who's able to roleplay a believeable character - the players will fill in the blanks and drive the relationship.

So it seems like it comes down to the players that you have. I've had my share of players who were really into the game aspect - the battles and getting items to help with future level progression, dungeon crawlin' fools and all - but not at all interested in the overall campaign, NPCs, where they were; in other words, they weren't interested in the story. If there wasn't an encounter, and I stopped talking, the room went dead silent.

If you have players like what you are describing, that can independetly put forth the effort to meet NPCs and explore their environment, that's gravy. Some of the players that I hosted games for would do none of that without a reason, an overlying story that gives them a purpose to do that, and hence I tell a story and they and I weave their PCs into it. In a game with players with the initiative that you describe, which I have had the pleasure to play with from time to time, I don't have to say nearly as much because, as you say, they fill in the blanks.

And by the way, when the players are filling in the blanks - they are playing to the story, not the game. If they were game-driven characters they would have no reason to fill any blanks except for blank spots on their character's equipment list with the loot from the bodies of the dead. NPCs becomes either meat shields or meat.

 

[Mallus]

I don't think they're critical to an enjoyable roleplaying game experience.

If we're talking about a short time-horizon, I can agree with you. But start lengthening that horizon, and I think those activities become the role-playing experience.

"Any" context I think is too broad. The referee or game master creates, or at least brings to life, the setting - I think it should be left to the players as much as possible to determine what their characters do in that setting.

Again, I can more or less agree with this. But its seems like you're backing away from the position described by your given examples. You were talking about game events being created solely by random die rolls (in both the Traveler and AD&D examples). And now your widening that to allow for a referee 'bringing a setting to life', which I can't help by think includes a basic set of conflicts and sources of dramatic interest, ie plots.

You should read the Story Hour of my current game. Its certainly of conceived of as a story. Then tell my players (Rackhir, shilsen, Rolzup, and RillianPA around these parts) that they're not playing a game.

 

[Dremmen]

If we're talking about a short time-horizon, I can agree with you. But start lengthening that horizon, and I think those activities become the role-playing experience.

Methinks Mallus hit the proverbial nail on the head here. Let's look at this again...

...adventurers will develop relationships with non-player characters...forge a friendship or a rivalry with a minor NPC...organic interaction doesn't require anything more than a referee who's able to roleplay a believeable character...the non-player character as played by my friend became a trusted ally on the planet we were visiting, and we would look him up each time we hit dirt...The referee or game master creates, or at least brings to life, the setting...

it all fits...
The Shaman is a Storyteller in the closet

 

[The Shaman]

My players and I got tired of killing monsters and taking their stuff when we were in high school.

Me, too - I found it's a lot safer to just steal their stuff while the monsters are busy sneaking up on a bunch of adventurers having a deep in-character discussion...

 

[Mallus]

The Shaman is a Storyteller in the closet

A lot of gamers have had Storyteller experiences that they aren't comfortable discussing publicly.