The long and the short is that when playing you are no more telling a story than an actor is when in a play. PERIOD.The long and short IS, when playing one is NOT telling a story. PERIOD
I'm curious, then: what, in your opinion, is being created by the shared imaginary events that occur in play?The long and short IS, when playing one is NOT telling a story. PERIOD
You're contrasting a planned story with one discovered. The latter isn't less of a story just because I can only see it in retrospect.The essence of a "story" is a desire and an obstacle to that desire.
From the perspective of adventure design, this means the designer must actualize something desirable that the players want.
If the object of desire is only excitement and treasure, it is an isolated dungeon crawl. If it integrates preferences and ambitions of the character personality and backstory, it invites immersion into the wider regional and world setting.
Same thing.You're contrasting a planned story with one discovered. The latter isn't less of a story just because I can only see it in retrospect.
Sorry, I'm getting from this that you think that once a conflict is discovered, either because it's intentionally introduced or because one is found in play, that this is the point that story starts and that now it's, what, up to the GM to detail bits of it out for play? I'm really not at all clear on your argument here -- you seem to be arguing for prepped story.Same thing.
A "discovered" story simply means, something is getting in the way of what the characters desire.
Indeed, most stories start with the main characters havent yet realized what they want. It is because of the "inciting incident" that they discover what they want. And when they go to get it things go horribly wrong. And thus the adventure begins.
The DM does well to avoid a prescripted story. But it helps when the DM understands "narrative structure", thus presents a timely salient encounter for the story that the players themselves are writing.Sorry, I'm getting from this that you think that once a conflict is discovered, either because it's intentionally introduced or because one is found in play, that this is the point that story starts and that now it's, what, up to the GM to detail bits of it out for play? I'm really not at all clear on your argument here -- you seem to be arguing for prepped story.
Okay, you're coming at this from the perspective that it's the GM's job to guide the story and ensure things like pacing. This isn't required at all, even in D&D. It's certainly a valid approach to take in D&D, though, and one I think is predominant.The DM does well to avoid a prescripted story. But it helps when the DM understands "narrative structure", thus presents a timely salient encounter for the story that the players themselves are writing.
There are several good storytelling theories out there, that writers reference. A DM can find one that they like.