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

[Bedrockgames]

So, in what way, when you describe the world first - events that are going on, history, conflicts - is that not telling a story? This is what I just can't wrap my head around. How can you claim that this isn't a story? You have every single element of a story except the conclusion. Which, frankly, is what we're playing for. We play the game to write the conclusion of the story. But, since 99% of the elements of that story - every location, NPC, plots etc - are derived from the DM, in what way is the DM not telling a story?

Here is one way to look at it, it isn't a perfect analogy, but what Rob is talking about is more like a TV series bible. I wouldn't confuse that with a story or episode or the show itself. It is foundational material the show is built on. It is worldbuidling stuff. I don't think of world building as telling or writing a story. I write short stories sometimes and when I do I sometimes create the characters and concepts first. That isn't the storytelling part to me. The story is the thing you create from that, and there is a craft to telling a story. So prepared material as story just feels like it doesn't meet the criteria to me. Anything you would call story, which me and Rob probably wouldn't, is stuff that happens when the players start interacting with material. That is at least when things begin to happen. But I don't know what any of that will be until the game starts and the players start doing stuff

 

[SableWyvern]

The more I follow these various posts where I can, and the differing ways people play different systems , and as Umbran says with such a limited pool doesn't give good guidance on how any table one may come across may play a sandbox vs railroad, or dnd, or BitD or PbTA, it gives me a lot of sympathy towards @EzekielRaiden position/ query, which is dont see so much as a question of trust, as much as how do I know what sort of a game I'm going to be playing with a table? If they say sandbox, what level of agency will I actually have? If playing DnD or BitD, how are they interpreting / using some of the rules? Yes session zero should help, but I begin to think one session wouldn't give enough of a steer with a new group / DM, as some things will be taken as geared, and only after playing for some time will you really know, and by then could be too late.

These are essentially questions that apply to all human interaction. There is nothing exceptional about the fact that they apply in the context of TTRPGs.

When you interview someone for a job, you don't really know what they're like until well after they start. When you start a new job, you don't really know what it will be like until after you've been there a while. Join a sports team, go on a first date or hang out with new people in any environment and it's the same.

 

[Hussar]

If everything is a story then nothing is. Having material prepped, and not having any idea what that material will lead to, is not story in the sense i was using. If you want to debate story, I suppose we can do that. But I was using storyteller in a particular way here and I know what I was saying. You are blending two different issues here: what I was trying to say, and what you think story ought to mean in an RPG

Oh wow, quoting Incredibles and not understanding the meaning of the quote.

Sorry, story has a pretty simple definition - plot, character, setting. That's a story. Six words is a story. So, yes, when you have bandits raiding caravans arriving at the location where your PC's are, that's a story. It's 100% a story, and since you, the DM wrote all of it, that makes you the story teller. And, nothing about "raiders are attacking caravans" is based on the "logic of the setting". That's a convenient fiction. Raiders are attacking caravans because it would be an interesting adventure and would make a good story.

I just get so frustrated with all this pretense and hiding. Why be coy about what we are doing? I don't understand the purpose of deliberately trying to mystify what DM's do. We create stuff for the game for the players to do. That's generally why we create stuff. We don't write out entire towns that we know the players will never see. Why would we? We might, if we're really energetic, write a paragraph about the town, more as a place holder than anything else. But, as soon as the players come to that town? Poof, all those people start getting nailed down. All those characters, plot and setting get created. Factions, motivations, whatever. All in the service to the players having something to play with.

Even when the players are driving - the players decide to open a tavern. 100% player driven right? But, then the local thieves guild starts leaning on them for protection money, a mysterious smell is coming from one of the rooms, a murder happens in the basement, a ghost haunts the outhouse. All 100% generated by the DM, not because of any notions of "logic of the setting" but because we actually want to have a fun game.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Does one necessarily start at a specific "end" though? I mean, a lot of games I've looked in the last few years, they've gathered a lot of stuff from trad, narrative (and please let's not call it "nar" lol) and even games that don't really fit into either (like 4E D&D), and it's unclear where the starting point was, only the destination.

Or is it just that BitD specific started at the PtbA end of things?

I'm just thinking in terms of what people do, like around here they're drifting their 5e play more Narrativist, or maybe they're drifting their DW play more in a trad direction. Either is possible.

As far as BitD goes, I think it is hard Narrativist play, as designed. Don't be fooled by the setting! If you look at other FitD games, the settings vary, and some -S&V- don't really have detailed settings. Yet they are all hard Narrativist games as designed.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

To echo a previous post in this thread:

Please learn what logical fallacies are before involving them!

 

[SableWyvern]

So, in what way, when you describe the world first - events that are going on, history, conflicts - is that not telling a story? This is what I just can't wrap my head around. How can you claim that this isn't a story? You have every single element of a story except the conclusion. Which, frankly, is what we're playing for. We play the game to write the conclusion of the story. But, since 99% of the elements of that story - every location, NPC, plots etc - are derived from the DM, in what way is the DM not telling a story?

Any expression of events can be considered a story. But if you use that definition then literally all communication is a story and yes we're all storytellers and now it's pointless to discuss the matter any further.

In the context we're discussing, stating a fact isn't storytelling. "My car is parked in the driveway" isn't storytelling in this context, it is simply stating a fact.

Or, to look at it another way, if you wish to consider world creation a form of storytelling, feel free, but the point being made is that during actual play the GM is no longer in the role of storyteller, any more than Tolkien is telling a story to a group as they game in Middle Earth or an author is telling a story when someone else writes fanfiction set in their world.

 

[Hussar]

But I don't know what any of that will be until the game starts and the players start doing stuff

That is 100% not true.

You know, with a fair degree of certainty, what will happen when the players interact with those caravan raiders. Or, at the very least, you have a couple of pretty good ideas. This idea that the DM is somehow wandering completely blind to possibility and is constantly surprised by the players over and over again, is just another case of trying to mystify the process. DMing is rarely all that surprising. Sure, we can all point to times where it was. But, those are the exceptions. Most of the time? The PC's put paid to the bandits and drive them off. They solve the murder in the inn. They banish the ghost in the outhouse.

"Oh, I have no idea what the players will do" is put to rest by the absolute MOUNTAIN of modules out there that accurately predict what the players will do over and over and over again. Is it 100% accurate? Nope. But, it's not exactly a high risk bet to guess what your players will do.

 

[Hussar]

Any expression of events can be considered a story. But if you use that definition then literally all communication is a story and yes we're all storytellers and now it's pointless to discuss the matter any further.

In the context we're discussing, stating a fact isn't storytelling. "My car is parked in the driveway" isn't storytelling in this context, it is simply stating a fact.

Or, to look at it another way, if you wish to consider world creation a form of storytelling, feel free, but the point being made is that during actual play the GM is no longer in the role of storyteller, any more than Tolkien is telling a story to a group as they game in Middle Earth or an author is telling a story when someone else writes fanfiction set in their world.

But, now you're changing the examples. I agree, "My car is parked in the driveway" isn't really story telling since there is no plot there.

"My car is parked in the driveway and is on fire" is perhaps getting closer. "My car is parked in the driveway and is on fire while surrounded by zombies" is definitely a story.

And, guess what. The things the DM presents - the caravans are being attacked by bandits, - the baron is treating his people very badly and the peasants are restless - a ghost haunts the outhouse of your tavern - those things? Those are all stories.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Oh wow, quoting Incredibles and not understanding the meaning of the quote.

I've literally never seen the Incredibles

Sorry, story has a pretty simple definition - plot, character, setting. That's a story. Six words is a story. So, yes, when you have bandits raiding caravans arriving at the location where your PC's are, that's a story. It's 100% a story, and since you, the DM wrote all of it, that makes you the story teller. And, nothing about "raiders are attacking caravans" is based on the "logic of the setting". That's a convenient fiction. Raiders are attacking caravans because it would be an interesting adventure and would make a good story.

There are a few working definitions of story. The first defitnion offered by oxford for example is just "an account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment." In my game I am not telling the players a story. And if by story you just mean character and settings, which I understand sometimes that is what people are referring to in an RPG (in a casual conversation I will use this meaning myself). But the plot element in your defition is where the prep is lacking. That is the point of sandbox, you don't prep plots. You may have backstory, and in that instance we won't hesitate to call it backstory. But you don't plan out what is going to happen to he players

I just get so frustrated with all this pretense and hiding.

I don't it pretentious at all. We avoid story because in our conversations about sandbox we were trying to avoid railroading, and one way we found railroading worked its way into our campaigns over the years was through thinking of the game in terms of story. If you want to use story, you can go ahead. I do talk about drama in my campaigns but I avoid story because I think it can lead the GM to thinking in terms of prepping plots

Why be coy about what we are doing? I don't understand the purpose of deliberately trying to mystify what DM's do. We create stuff for the game for the players to do. That's generally why we create stuff. We don't write out entire towns that we know the players will never see. Why would we? We might, if we're really energetic, write a paragraph about the town, more as a place holder than anything else. But, as soon as the players come to that town? Poof, all those people start getting nailed down. All those characters, plot and setting get created. Factions, motivations, whatever. All in the service to the players having something to play with.

I think you are spending a lot of energy worried about what we are doing, and I don't really understand why. I have been very open minded about what you do. And I have said I think your approach is perfectly at home inside sandbox play. I don't particularly understand what you do or why, but I don't get bent out of shape over it

Even when the players are driving - the players decide to open a tavern. 100% player driven right? But, then the local thieves guild starts leaning on them for protection money, a mysterious smell is coming from one of the rooms, a murder happens in the basement, a ghost haunts the outhouse. All 100% generated by the DM, not because of any notions of "logic of the setting" but because we actually want to have a fun game.

Yes, no one is saying the GM doesn't have a role here. However a lot of GMs will make heavy use of procedures and tables for this kind of thing. It is one of the reason I have a sect management table, to help figure out when conflict emerges that I woudlnt' be able to anticipate in the setting (if the players are encroaching on the territory of a group I already know about, that is easy to implement, but presumably other things will be popping up. But again, it goes back to the players roles also mattering. I may have a group of NPCs take action against them, but that isn't a story. That is a moment. And I have no control over how the players respond to that. I don't know where it is going to go in the campaign. And I frankly don't particularly care where it goes

 

[SableWyvern]

But, now you're changing the examples. I agree, "My car is parked in the driveway" isn't really story telling since there is no plot there.

"My car is parked in the driveway and is on fire" is perhaps getting closer. "My car is parked in the driveway and is on fire while surrounded by zombies" is definitely a story.

And, guess what. The things the DM presents - the caravans are being attacked by bandits, - the baron is treating his people very badly and the peasants are restless - a ghost haunts the outhouse of your tavern - those things? Those are all stories.

I have already conceded, quite explicitly and in the post you just quoted, that you can use the word story that way if you wish. You don't need to continue arguing your case with me if you wish to do so.

See the second part of my post for my response once you decide that you will, indeed, keep the word that way.