new preview DMG2

[ExploderWizard]

It is. How can you 'role-play fictional characters having adventures' and not be engaged in the act of storytelling? What are you doing, laying bricks? Making omelets?

You are adventuring of course. There, that was easy.

You're making a story as you play. Even if your character is named 'Bob 4 the Fighter' and the story consists of nothing more than navigating the corridors of a dungeon and whacking the occasional orc.

Fictional character + fictional environment + doing stuff = story.

Yes. A story is being created as play happens. This is different from actively telling a story during play.

Why do people insist on insisting that something is a story only when it's completed? Can't we call it a story as it's being written/created/played out/made up on the spot?

(sorry... pet peeve of mine... morning coffee hasn't kicked in yet)

You only tell a story when it (or a part of it) is completed. A story can be unfinished.

 

[FireLance]

Oh. I thought it was a game of heroic fantasy wherein the players roleplay fictional characters having adventures. These adventures might have the makings of a great story at some point.

Group storytelling would come later as the participants tell the tale of thier escapades at a con or something.

Well, the advice looks like it might give the DM and players a +2 bonus on their Craft (Story) checks. Being something of a min-maxer in real life, I'll take all the bonuses I can get.

Seriously, though - while it is certainly possible to find interesting moments in a narrative about a group of adventurers exploring old ruins in search of treasure, dynamic characters that have an interest in the plot, technical competence with respect to plotting and pacing, and creating real choices for the players (which seem to be among the things that Chapter 1 of DMG 2 will discuss) seem to me to add to the storytelling without taking away from the roleplaying.

In my view, the final outcome could be as different as the security video of the local 7-11 and Kevin Smith's Clerks.

 

[Mallus]

You only tell a story when it (or a part of it) is completed

Would it be better if I called D&D a collaborative story-writing exercise?

 

[MrMyth]

I love roleplaying, why would you think I wouldn't. Collaborative storytelling and roleplaying are not one and the same.

I love the card based "Once Upon A Time" game. That is a great game of collaborative storytelling, but it is not a roleplaying game. The players are not roleplaying the story elements on the cards. For example, if I draw the Old Man card, I try and work an old man into the ongoing story. I don't roleplay the actions of an old man.

While playing a D&D character I make decisions and take courses of action as the character. I am adventuring. If I stop and consider my actions from a story (3rd person) point of view then I have ceased roleplaying. Likewise if I take actions that I think would make for a cool story even though they don't feel right for my character then I have stopped roleplaying. If everyone just roleplays, relaxes and has fun then the story will write itself.

Sure. But what do you do when the story calls for one character to have their own scene? Do you just let the other players sit there with nothing to do? Have them play video games while they wait? Go and get some pizza? All of those 'break roleplaying' pretty quickly.

Or... having them fill in as NPCs in that scene seems a very interesting solution that both helps with immersion (as you don't have a DM constantly switching voices between multiple NPCs) and lets everyone keep participating in the game, while placing the focus on one character.

That's just one of the methods covered in this preview, and it alone seems a very cool idea.

Not every game needs it, sure, and I imagine it requires a deft touch to pull off well, but I think this sort of advice absolutely has plenty of use in a D&D game. I've never used something like this before, but can already see plenty of ways it would enhance a game.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Would it be better if I called D&D a collaborative story-writing exercise?

You might be getting closer to the mark here.

I think the real defining difference is the motivation for the character. If a character takes action A because it furthers his/her personal goals then we have a roleplaying based decision driving the action in the game. If a character takes action A because the group decides that it makes for a better story than action B or C we have active collaborative storytelling driving the action of the game. Do you see the difference?

 

[Vael]

I'm quite looking forward to DMG2, I hope it'll help me improve my game-running abilities, give me new ideas and such.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Sure. But what do you do when the story calls for one character to have their own scene? Do you just let the other players sit there with nothing to do? Have them play video games while they wait? Go and get some pizza? All of those 'break roleplaying' pretty quickly.

Or... having them fill in as NPCs in that scene seems a very interesting solution that both helps with immersion (as you don't have a DM constantly switching voices between multiple NPCs) and lets everyone keep participating in the game, while placing the focus on one character.

That's just one of the methods covered in this preview, and it alone seems a very cool idea.

Absolutely a cool idea. If the other players are roleplaying those NPC's based on thier motivations there is still no active storytelling going on. The players are merely playing a different role for a time. If the other players are merely following a "script" or playing out a pre-defined "scene" then we have active storytelling rather than roleplaying.

 

[Agamon]

Yes. A story is being created as play happens. This is different from actively telling a story during play.

I could be wrong, but I believe this is what the chapter entails. We may be quibbling semantics. Group storytelling refers to the PCs having a say in how and where the campaign moves, and thus, what story is being created by the adventuring. Not everyone sitting around a table like it's a campfire, telling stories about their characters. Any game where that takes place should include a gun with a single bullet.

 

[Hussar]

ExploderWizard - I think you are splitting hairs pretty damn fine here.

You're saying that if the dialogue is pre-scripted, then it's collaborative story-telling, but, if it is not, then it's roleplaying. I don't think anyone plays that way though. Even the most hardcore narrativist does not pre-script dialogue or scene. Their decision tree might not be based on the same criteria as yours, but, that does not mean that their decisions are any less spontaneous or creative.

Are you trying to argue that you only roleplay if you make the absolute most optimal choice every single time? That you play out your character's best interests regardless of any other consideration?

If that's true, than any character which has a weakness is no longer role-playing by your definition. The reason I'm getting this is from this quote:

I think the real defining difference is the motivation for the character. If a character takes action A because it furthers his/her personal goals then we have a roleplaying based decision driving the action in the game. If a character takes action A because the group decides that it makes for a better story than action B or C we have active collaborative storytelling driving the action of the game. Do you see the difference?

If a player chooses to make a character that drinks too much, is that still role-playing? What if he only decides to drink too much this session, maybe because he's celebrating. He's not choosing to further his goals - he's actively harming himself.

Never mind the rather large number of games out there which rely on players taking interesting, but challenging choices in order to gain later benefits - Spirit of the Century and Sufficiently Advanced both do this. You can succeed right now, but it will cost you later, or you can take some sort of penalty now to have a really great success later. Is that still role playing in your view?

Heck, I would argue that almost every module ever written features the players "playing out a pre-defined "scene"" If you look at the set up of just about every encounter in every module ever written, the events of the scene are pretty easy to assume. If the event states, "The orcs, upon seeing the PC's, attack" is the group still role-playing? After all, the scene was pre-scripted.

 

[Barastrondo]

I think the real defining difference is the motivation for the character. If a character takes action A because it furthers his/her personal goals then we have a roleplaying based decision driving the action in the game. If a character takes action A because the group decides that it makes for a better story than action B or C we have active collaborative storytelling driving the action of the game. Do you see the difference?

I do, though I think (and admittedly this is just me guessing at what they do with DMG2) that you won't see anything like the group collaboratively deciding what your character does by outvoting you or something like that. Nor do I believe that you'll see pre-written scenes or the like.

Rather, I think you may see more discussion of selecting your character motivations with the other PCs in mind so that you're all working together instead of pulling in different directions. Or taking sequences where you "lose" (like losing a combat) and working them into a larger sense of climax and building tension rather than assuming the campaign's over at that point. Or thinking about your character's motivations as something that may change in advance; like, for instance, saying "my character rebels against his oppressive family but as he gets to high levels I'd like him to find some people that he feels responsible to take care of, becoming more of a more positive patriarchal figure than his own family had." Or discussing genre tropes so that the party might not do the "traditional D&D thing" but might do "the genre thing," and deal with appropriate setbacks and triumphs.

That's how I'd handle it, anyway. Collaborative storytelling to me has never involved pre-determined outcomes. Lord knows I've worked on enough Storyteller and Storytelling games to see how a game that's broken up into "scenes" and "stories" and "chronicles" can still have no kind of predetermined end — just a tree of possible events that utilize narrative conventions rather than location exploration.