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

[bolen]

it is a game of Lets Pretend (tm)

I have several people who have never role played in their lives and that's exactly what I told them

 

[WayneLigon]

I voted 'mostly story' with some game elements, mainly because we don't concentrate on the game elements. They are simply there to add structure and some surprises to the story.

 

[Odhanan]

All game, no story. There are events in the game, but the "story" comes after the game's been played. This is make-believe, not reenactment.

 

[Umbran]

All game, no story. There are events in the game, but the "story" comes after the game's been played. This is make-believe, not reenactment.

I, for one, think the story does not come afterwards. It comes during play - the best role play comes when the players feel they are in the middle of the story. People don't immerse into role-play if the story only comes afterwards, because you don't get much emotional connection to non-story.

Even if the story only comes afterwards, you don't get good story from a random collection of events. The events have to be structured - they need logical consistency, interesting linkages, and high probability of complex interaction with the character personalities. That requires setup - and that process of setup is what good GMs are referring to when they talk about writing story or plot for their games.

So, it is not reenactment, true, in that the end is not predetermined. But it is premeditated.

 

[Tsillanabor]

I voted equal. We play a co-operative series of stories. Currently we are in a Zombie Apocalypse series of adventures. The next story arc will be run by my co-DM, who tends to be more game oriented while I'm slightly more story oriented.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

Since I'm a player I can't be sure what my DM's intention is.

I go to the sessions to learn more of the story and kill things along the way.

Others in my group go to the sessions to kill things and have a bit of narrative along the way.

Same campaign - different views. We all have fun.

 

[The Shaman]

Even if the story only comes afterwards, you don't get good story from a random collection of events. The events have to be structured - they need logical consistency, interesting linkages, and high probability of complex interaction with the character personalities. That requires setup - and that process of setup is what good GMs are referring to when they talk about writing story or plot for their games.

Balderdash.

Offer the players a setting that responds to their actions and their characters will tell the story.

Really, the "game-master-as-storyteller" is a lot of self-aggrandizing hooey - the players bring just as much imagination to the table as the game master.

 

[kenobi65]

It's a floor wax and a dessert topping! You're both right!
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/75/75ishimmer.phtml

 

[gizmo33]

So, it is not reenactment, true, in that the end is not predetermined. But it is premeditated.

I agree. I prefer to create stories with a "light touch". I won't make a decision about whether the BBEG lives or dies in any given encounter. But I do try to "enhance" the choices of the players and random events with some coherence. I often say that "the story is something that happens after the game". But I also try to engineer things to maximize the amount of player choice, respect for random outcomes, and still provide some meaning to the events.

Completely random events don't really grab the players attention IME. The strength of a table-top RPG is it's ability to weave game elements with story elements. IMO computer games and books are better tools to accomplish either extreme.

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

2

When I DM, I use the game rules as a framework for a collaborative story. Doesn't matter which system I'm using, I've got to have a good story.

For me, killing critters for their loot got old about ten years ago.