D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[pemerton]

And of course the everpresent ridiculous extreme people respond with will be "oH sO tHe PlAyErS iNvEnT eVeRyThInG????" with the most disingenuous, knowingly mocking presentation, rather than something even remotely charitable...

Let's begin with this: suppose that the players did invent every important setting element. How would that set back play?

Once we've got some clear answers to that, then we can talk about how to integrate GM and player decision-making.

 

[SableWyvern]

See, this is where everyone is getting it wrong.

I'm NOT CRITICIZING. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the DM generating the content. That's perfectly fine. Of course it is. I am, in no way, claiming that this is a bad thing.

I am saying, though, that it is story telling.

Some of us disagree that it's storytelling in any meaningful sense. We're not engaging in literary criticism here, so the fact that it might fall into a niche set of storytelling doesn't matter. The distinction is important to some of us.

But the thing is, you're not just saying that story is a word you use, and you use it particular way. If it was, perhaps we could agree that our definitions are different and move on. But you recognise that there are different types of story when you admit that emergent story is a thing. And then you go onto say that emergent story, which is want we want from our games, is something we cannot get from our games, because we are storytellers.

So you very much are criticising. You are literally saying our games don't and can't work.

Saying, "Oh, but it's not a bad thing that you're completely wrong about what you're doing, and I'm sure your storytelling games are still fun," does not excuse you.

 

[Hussar]

Some of us disagree that it's storytelling in any meaningful sense. We're not engaging in literary criticism here, so the fact that it might fall into a niche set of storytelling doesn't matter.

Niche set? Good grief, the basic definition of story is setting+plot+character. That's what a STORY is. This isn't niche. This is third grade elementary school stuff. Your definition of story is not one that anyone outside of sandboxers actually use. And the knots that people tie themselves into in order to avoid the "s" word - I don't have story in my game, I have drama - is because you are insisting on a definition of the word that doesn't actually exist.

Note, at no point am I saying what you do doesn't work. Of course it works. I do the exact same things.

I just don't try to dress it up as something that it's not. We, as DM's, create our campaigns, create our worlds, and then let the players loose on it. Fantastic. It's really fun. But, I'm under no illusions that somehow the game isn't almost entirely under my control. Of course it is. It can't not be under my control when I have control over everything in the game other than the 4 (or 5 or 3 or whatever) players around the table.

There's been tons of really great DMing advice here. But, the reactions to questions are so hostile. Any attempt to clarify or drill down or actually analyze anything is met with cries of "Attack" "badwrongfun" "You hate this game". I mean, good grief, I'm running a sandbox(ish) game right now. I've run sandboxes, just like everyone else in this thread, for years. It's not like we're picking up a game that we've never run and then endlessly challenged people who have run the game for years. Everyone in this thread has run sandboxes. We know what they are.

And we know what they aren't.

Saying, "Oh, but it's not a bad thing that you're completely wrong about what you're doing, and I'm sure your storytelling games are still fun," does not excuse you.

May I change your quote please to actually reflect what I'm saying. "Oh our storytelling games that we all play are fun." I'm not trying to claim that my games are any different. I'm not the one claiming that my games are special and unique and separate from other games.

If you want me to believe that your games are special and unique, completely separate from other RPG styles, then show me.

 

[Hussar]

/edit - whoops, my bad.

 

[SableWyvern]

I just don't try to dress it up as something that it's not. We, as DM's, create our campaigns, create our worlds, and then let the players loose on it. Fantastic. It's really fun. But, I'm under no illusions that somehow the game isn't almost entirely under my control. Of course it is. It can't not be under my control when I have control over everything in the game other than the 4 (or 5 or 3 or whatever) players around the table.

I certainly have the power to take more direct control over the game. What some people are trying to explain to you is they choose not to use that power.

We know what they are.

And we know what they aren't.

Which really means, @Hussar not only knows he's right, he also believes that everyone secretly agrees with him..

You're not trying to "drill down". You are stating that your perspective is self-evidently correct.

May I change your quote please to actually reflect what I'm saying. "Oh our storytelling games that we all play are fun." I'm not trying to claim that my games are any different. I'm not the one claiming that my games are special and unique and separate from other games.

If you want me to believe that your games are special and unique, completely separate from other RPG styles, then show me.

You are welcome to state that "our storytelling games are fun," but I will continue to state that I'm not telling a story when I'm running a game, any more than I was telling a story when I cooked my dinner tonight. I can tell a story about both after the fact but, as far as I'm concerned, the events themselves, as they occurred, were not an exercise in storytelling. It doesn't particularly bother me when people refer to RPGs generally as storytelling games; if that works for people, fine. But it's not a term I think accurately describes what goes on at my table.

You're acting like this flies in the face of all common sense, but plenty of people have been discussing and agreeing on this for decades. We're not all going to stop thinking this way just because you've shown up and declared it to be hogwash.

If you want me to believe that your games are special and unique, completely separate from other RPG styles, then show me.

I don't really know what your game is like. I do know what mine is like. If you feel that what I'm describing in my game is different to what you experience, then that's your conclusion. I don't think I've claimed this style is unique and completely separate -- all anyone is really claiming is that it provides players with a lot of freedom to direct play.

I actually think my style of game is very similar to many styles. I mean, many people are referring to it as traditional. Since when did traditional mean "unique and different"? When I ran Blades, although the processes were very different, I actually found there were a lot of similarities in the philosophy presented to that which I already use.

And, at the end of the day, it's impossible to show you anything when you dogmatically refuse to accept that it's possible for a GM in this style of play not to dictate the direction the game takes. If you believe it's fundamentally impossible for a GM to have power over the setting and not use it to control the direction the game takes, we have nowhere to begin.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I think it is fair to say that there is an element of storytelling that exists within the role of every GM, how much of that role is storytelling depends on the processes used for the emerging story.

EDIT: So I'm not offended when @Hussar calls me a storyteller, in the same way that WotC refers to me as a Dungeon Master even though my adventures are not solely based in the Dungeon, or if a certain game calls me a Referee as if I exclude all biases when I in fact also input parts of the story via GM decides...etc

We didn't get upset when VtM used the term Storyteller, I actually appreciated the change from DM, why would we find the term so unappealing now?

 

[Hussar]

If you believe it's fundamentally impossible for a GM to have power over the setting and not use it to control the direction the game takes, we have nowhere to begin.

This is fair.

 

[pemerton]

I think it is fair to say that there is an element of storytelling that exists within the role of every GM, how much of that role is storytelling depend on the processes of the emerging story.

When I GM, I try to think of things that will be interesting and will prompt the players to action based on the way they have created/positioned their PCs.

I'm not super-fussed about whether or not that gets described as story-telling. Though in the context of RPGing, and RPGing methods, I would call it scene-framing.

 

[AnotherGuy]

When I GM, I try to think of things that will be interesting and will prompt the players to action based on the way they have created/positioned their PCs.

I'm not super-fussed about whether or not that gets described as story-telling. Though in the context of RPGing, and RPGing methods, I would call it scene-framing.

Do you disagree that you have a hand in directing play (the emerging story) via the scenes you frame?

 

[SableWyvern]

I think it is fair to say that there is an element of storytelling that exists within the role of every GM, how much of that role is storytelling depends on the processes used for the emerging story.

EDIT: So I'm not offended when @Hussar calls me a storyteller, in the same way that WotC refers to me as a Dungeon Master even though my adventures are not solely based in the Dungeon, or if a certain game calls me a Referee as if I exclude all biases when I in fact also input parts of the story via GM decides...etc

We didn't get upset when VtM used the term Storyteller, I actually appreciated the change from DM, why would we find the term so unappealing now?

I don't have a big problem with the term as a generic descriptor with no more inherent meaning than DM or GM or whatever. I don't use it myself, and I wouldn't say I like it, but I don't generally read too much into it and I don't object to others using it.

However, we're not just talking about using it as a neutral term, we're discussing whether or not the GM's role is to tell a story, and I fit firmly in the, "no one's at the table to tell a story, GM included," camp.