Let's talk about "plot", "story", and "play to find out."

[THEMNGMNT]

In answer to the original question... I am a DM with a strong focus on narrative.

For example, I love the idea of playing in a true sandbox without a metaplot, or even a hexcrawl with procedural dungeon generation. But as a DM I bounce off it every time I try. It's like I just can't not create a big a story for my campaigns. As a player, though, I don't really need that. I'm a highly motivated player looking for adventure anywhere I can find it.

Anyway, my typical campaign goes something like this:

• I generate 2 or 3 factions.
• Each faction gets 1 or 2 main villains, a few lairs, maybe a signature magic item or ability.
• They all typically want something similar, like conquering a kingdom or getting a McGuffin.
• I outline a few steps which advance their scheme.

Then the players show up.

And all those plans go to hell.

And that's where the fun is.

 

[Reynard]

Well, on this we fundamentally disagree.

Games like Maelstrom Storytelling, HeroWars/Quest, Sorcerer, The Riddle of Steel, Burning Wheel, Apocalypse World - as well as some earlier proto-examples, like Prince Valiant and Over the Edge - make huge innovations in RPG design. The rules innovations that are found in these games are what make it possible to have RPGing that will reliably produce something like a story, without anyone having to author a story.

So what do you give up? How, for example, do those games enforce a 3/5 act structure without limiting agency?

 

[TiQuinn]

This

Does not square with this.

I mean, you admitted the difference in Agency. THAT is the difference. A fighting fantasy book is more akin to.a CRPG.

It squares for me in that I don't see this as a zero sum question. That there is a difference is not necessarily the biggest factor. How much agency is given is more of the difference maker IMO. There are plenty of campaigns that are a lot more linear and have a structure that is not too much different in choice from a Fighting Fantasy book, particularly as that style of book got even more advanced as it went along.

 

[pemerton]

So what do you give up? How, for example, do those games enforce a 3/5 act structure without limiting agency?

None of the games that I mentioned enforce a 3/5 act structure.

As to 'what do you give up?", I don't really follow the question. They're games, they have rules.

 

[Deset Gled]

Spotlight hogging is a general issue, not narrative game specific. If you have players who don't respect the other players, that's going to be a problem whatever kind of game you are playing.

Very broadly, I agree. But I would also say it manifests differently.

In a more tactical, combat based game issues of spotlight hogging more commonly present as balance issues. In more narrative games, and in the specific example you gave, it presents as a problem of agency.

 

[John Lloyd1]

So what do you give up? How, for example, do those games enforce a 3/5 act structure without limiting agency?

Maybe we should be using a literature definition of 'story', but rather a history definition of story. I.e. connected events, etc to to create meaning.

 

[gban007]

You won't get a story out of AD&D 2nd ed, played according to the rules - that is, protagonists in a conflict with rising action, and climax/resolution - unless someone authors .

While I may agree with not getting that outcome naturally, I don't think that is only definition of story, and that you can have stories without conflict / rising action, and that dnd 2e cpuld generate those sorts of stories.

 

[Reynard]

None of the games that I mentioned enforce a 3/5 act structure.

As to 'what do you give up?", I don't really follow the question. They're games, they have rules.

Let me restate: for a game to specifically provide for telling a story in play, it must have mechanics that enforce that playstyle. What do those games do to do that? What player choices or actions are curtailed or prohibited, if any?