Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7098999" data-attributes="member: 6778044">I'm going to start with this, because clearly we're (I'm?) not communicating well.So I'll start with part of my original quote that you specifically responded to since it kind of relates to the OP:"I can't tell you how many games I've seen where a DM was running a published or pre-planned adventure, and the DM had put something of great importance in front of the PCs, only for them to completely ignore it and go someplace else entirely. Many years ago I figured out that the stories were much more interesting (and "authentic") if they were driven by the PCs and not me, the DM. That's why I focus on the backstory and setting, all the things that are happening around the PCs, and let them decide what's important."To which you responded (only to the bolded portion):Yes. 100%. Exactly. That's my point and why I stated: "Many years ago I figured out that the stories were much more interesting (and "authentic") if they were driven by the PCs and not me, the DM. That's why I focus on the backstory and setting, all the things that are happening around the PCs, and let them decide what's important."I disagree that the model was specifically a reaction against that sort of railroading play. The model, as far as I can tell, was specifically a reaction against shared-authorship in several forms. The post in which he lays out the "standard narrative model" is all about how shared-narrative approaches robs the players of the best possible experience because they are put in a position where they have to advocate for their players while at the same time advocate for what's best for the story. And in many situations those two positions are at odds with each other. He states quite clearly what he thinks the problem is, and it has nothing to do with railroading:"The problem we have here, specifically, is that when you apply narration sharing to backstory authority, you require the player to both establish and resolve a conflict, which runs counter to the Czege principle. You also require the player to take on additional responsibilities in addition to his tasks in character advocacy; this is a crucial change to the nature of the game, as it shapes a core activity into a completely new form. Now, instead of only having to worry about expressing his character and making decisions for him, the player is thrust into a position of authorship: he has to make decisions that are not predicated on the best interests of his character, but on the best interests of the story itself."I stated: "That the "holy grail of RPG design" is that the player's viewpoint is that the entire game is based around "nothing by choices made in playing his character."How can I misquote somebody I've copied and pasted? Mis-interpreted perhaps, but I disagree. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Anyway, that's exactly the same thing you just said, and what I have been describing all along, that the players create the story by playing his/her PC. Not by authoring the backstory (secret or otherwise), and not by authoring the setting.You are correct that I should have said "backstory and setting" and not "story." And I stand by what I stated before, that I find his statements contradictory. The fact that people have played games based on this concept do not mean that his statements aren't contradictory. Just that others either don't feel they are contradictory, or choose to ignore that they are.Making the DM responsible to "frame scenes according to dramatic needs (that is, go where the action is) and provoke thematic moments (defined in narrativistic theory as moments of in-character action that carry weight as commentary on the game’s premise) by introducing complications." You are giving them more control over the story, or to put it a different way, taking control of the story away from the players.I like his division of roles: backstory and setting for the DM; characters and story for the players. That pretty much sums up my approach.Whether the DM takes that control or not is a different story, but the general guideline is to frame scenes around the action. This concept is largely what 4e recommended as well. To me, framing a scene means that there is a start and finish to the scene - the frames. How hard you frame the scene has an impact as well, including on the story. Meaning that the DM takes some control of the story (away from the characters) when you frame the scenes in this way. At it's extreme, this can be a railroad.For example, here's a look at two scenes:Scene 1: "You find yourself lying on a rocky shore water lapping at your legs. It's dark. Very dark. You notice that there is something around your ankle...a manacle with a chain still attached. As your mind clears, you recall that you were in the hold of a ship. A slave ship, chained to the deck. A light flares up some distance away, you hear and see a boat several hundred yards away, and the sound of voices, voices you recognize. The slavers. What do you do?"That was how one of my campaigns started. I took full control of the story at that stage, and it's a very hard frame. I then handed it over to the PCs. Where they went and what they did was up to them.So let's say I had then have some encounters, they escaped the slavers, made their way into the caves around them (they were underground), and found the remains of an adventuring party, giving them weapons and supplies and a clear exit from the caverns beneath Waterdeep. So this was the "opening scene" that established where they came from, and why they were together. End scene 1.Scene 2. Then cut to a tavern in Waterdeep, with the group together, waiting for an NPC. Somebody with information, names of the slavers and where they can be found. The person provides the information and the location where the NPC will be, others seem to be eavesdropping, and the PCs react to that, then make plans on how to confront the slavers. End scene 2.This is another hard frame. It's a logical frame and goes to where the action is. It's a great dramatic sequence to start things, explain why they are together, what they are trying to accomplish. It skips past lots of things not related to the story. It provides all of the dramatic tension that's needed, and a clear starting point for the next scene.And it also completely took the thrust of the story away from the characters. By skipping what happened after they escaped the caves, and then met in the tavern, were the decisions as to whether they intended to go after the slavers. Perhaps the characters didn't care about the slavers, or each other for that matter.  By skipping everything between scene 1 and scene 2, along with the specific framing of scene 2, the DM took control of the story away from the PCs.I'm not saying the other way is bad, it's a great way to create a dramatic story. It's a style of story-telling that can be really exciting and dramatic. As somebody mentioned, it's a James Bond style of story-telling - there are clear start and end points to each scene, with the end of one pointing to the start of the next. There could be thousands of miles between them. Until you get to the end-game where the action is continuous. Sometimes there are a couple of these story arcs leading to the big continuous scenes. And it might be the exact type of story your players want to play.But that's not the way everybody wants to play. We find the stuff between "the action" to be where the real meat of the story often exists. The character development occurs in the scenarios like the angry owlbear where they learned something about themselves which altered the direction of the rest of the campaign.Also note that I'm not saying all Story Now campaigns have to frame scenes quite that hard. But it does show that when the DM is responsible for framing the scenes dramatically (rather than sequentially based only on the actions of the PCs), that is making decisions as to what scenes there should be, and when they start or end, it can actually foster, if not a railroad, a very DM-driven game.It's simply an acknowledgement (and pointing out contradiction in the method) that whenever you hand over control to stop and start the scenes in order to frame them for dramatic purposes, you are also handing over control of the story to the DM, who then hands it back to the PCs after the scene is set.Maybe some (most?) story now campaigns don't frame scenes as hard as I think they do. But that seems to be what they are advocating to me, in the same way that 4e recommended that you "skip to the fun parts." Either way, the players have agreed that the DM should be framing the scenes dramatically, and skipping over the boring parts. It's not a bad thing, just a different type of approach than I prefer.I also disagree with his assertion that D&D has nothing to do with this model. As I've pointed out, I think it describes D&D very well. Perhaps not later editions as much, or at least as they are presented. But I can say that later editions can still be played this way.Eero's description is equally descriptive of the style we prefer:1. The DM is in charge of the backstory and setting (minus the framing for dramatic purposes).2. The players are in charge of their character, making decisions as their character.3. The DM frames the scenes, although in our case a hard frame is the start, and maybe, the end of the campaign. Other hard frames occur only when the DM and players agree together to skip ahead.4. The player's task is advocacy. He also comments on how the DM utilizes rules, and tools from outside the rules, and experience.</blockquote>

Verification