D&D 5E [Rather Long] DM as Judge vs. DM as Storyteller in 5ed

[pemerton]

I get the immersion approach. I do. But, do we really need to dismiss other playstyles in such a way?

Yes. Yes, we do. It's very important that we remember that no approach to play supported by any game designed since (let's say) 1995 is worthwhile or involves actual roleplaying.

At the same time we also need to remember that Dragonlance, 2nd ed AD&D and metaplot-overloaded WoD are the absolute acme of story-focused RPG design. We must also realise that it is pure fantasy to suppose that a player-driven game - in which the GM applies rather than fudges the mechanics - could actually deliver a story.

And most of all, we must never ever admit that the content of the fiction of an RPG is the result of actual decisions made by actual people sitting around a table. Nor that world building and adjudicating action resolution actually involve choices about what that fiction shall be, which can add to or detract from the pleasure of playing the game.

 

[Libramarian]

Yes. Yes, we do. It's very important that we remember that no approach to play supported by any game designed since (let's say) 1995 is worthwhile or involves actual roleplaying.

At the same time we also need to remember that Dragonlance, 2nd ed AD&D and metaplot-overloaded WoD are the absolute acme of story-focused RPG design. We must also realise that it is pure fantasy to suppose that a player-driven game - in which the GM applies rather than fudges the mechanics - could actually deliver a story.

And most of all, we must never ever admit that the content of the fiction of an RPG is the result of actual decisions made by actual people sitting around a table. Nor that world building and adjudicating action resolution actually involve choices about what that fiction shall be, which can add to or detract from the pleasure of playing the game.

For the first part I think you meant "no approach to play NOT supported by any game designed BEFORE (let's say) 1995 is worthwhile".

But with that taken into account, oh man I non-ironically wish we could do this.

The indie/narrativist discourse really gums up and confuses D&D discussion, for very little benefit imo.

 

[Doug McCrae]

An Adventure Path GM needs to have a lot of skill in making the colour of the game really come alive, and getting the players excited about that colour and about adding their own colour. Because that's about all the players are adding to the game. The closest I've personally come to this sort of experience is playing in convention CoC and Elric games - and with great GMs these are great games, even though as a player all I'm doing is emoting my PC.

That sounds like the hardest style of all to run, as so much responsibility is placed on the GM's shoulders.

I think most actual play out there is a mixture of styles, with elements of Adventure Path and sandbox. The GM will have a Big Plot, and scenes relating to it are fixed, probably with fixed outcomes (like the bad guy has to escape), but there will also be a lot of scenes which are either set by the players or set by the GM but with unfixed outcomes. One could call these scenes sidequests. If the large majority of scenes are sidequests then the players can end up with a lot of freedom, and still have a satisfying story. What I'm describing isn't at all the narrativist approach though, as I understand it.

 

[haakon1]

I get the immersion approach. I do. But, do we really need to dismiss other playstyles in such a way?

Sorry to cause offense. I was riffing on my understanding of the taxonomy another poster had suggested.

Sadly for me, I've actually played with a DM who would change stats/rules midfight, to get the "dramatic" or "balanced" results he wanted. Dozens of times we'd get hit and end up at -8 hp (almost dead, but not quite, in 3e rules) . . . Dispel Magic worked different ways in different scenes . . . stuff like that.

What he saw as edge of our seats dramatic because we always almost dead but somehow then won, I saw as boring, because we knew both great success and great failure weren't in our planning, or tactics, or luck of dice, but in his fiat.

However you categorize that, I noted it in my head as what I did NOT want to do in DMing -- inconsistency, lack of immersion, and lack of player/luck's ability to come up with an unexpected outcome.

 

[haakon1]

Yes. Yes, we do. It's very important that we remember that no approach to play supported by any game designed since (let's say) 1995 is worthwhile or involves actual roleplaying.

At the same time we also need to remember that Dragonlance, 2nd ed AD&D and metaplot-overloaded WoD are the absolute acme of story-focused RPG design. We must also realise that it is pure fantasy to suppose that a player-driven game - in which the GM applies rather than fudges the mechanics - could actually deliver a story.

And most of all, we must never ever admit that the content of the fiction of an RPG is the result of actual decisions made by actual people sitting around a table. Nor that world building and adjudicating action resolution actually involve choices about what that fiction shall be, which can add to or detract from the pleasure of playing the game.

Since you're replying to Hussar's complaint to me, are you talking about me?

If so, I never said anything about Dragonlance or WoD -- I've never played either one, read the books, or even seen anyone play them, so I have no opinion on them.

If you're saying you like them, OK, no argument from me. I'm not aware of ever criticizing (or supporting) either, but I may have missed something since I don't know them.

If you're being sarcastic by saying they're great when you mean the opposite, please stop out of general decorum, but neither is a hot-button issue with me.

 

[pemerton]

Since you're replying to Hussar's complaint to me, are you talking about me?

<snip>

If you're being sarcastic

I was agreeing (by way of sarcasm) with the general thrust of Hussar's comment - that it is frustrating, as someone who prefers non-sandboxing and non-Gygaxian RPGing, to so often on these boards have that sort of play characterised as railroading, as GM-self-indulgence, as "my precious encounter", as "mechanical dissociation", and the like.

I believe you that you once had a crappy GM who gave you a crappy game. But I don't think it generalises to all non-GM-as-judge play. And I don't think your characterisation of the approaches to the game that you personally don't enjoy is very fair.

That said, while the frustration is genuine, I do apologise for the rude response. But if you want to see what non-DM-as-judge play can look like, have a look at my posts on the first page.

 

[pemerton]

That sounds like the hardest style of all to run, as so much responsibility is placed on the GM's shoulders.

Agreed. And with a crappy GM, it can be a pain to play in.

The last AD&D game I played (2nd ed) has this sort of game - complete with a prophecy and one of the PCs being the "chosen one"! But it was a big group (6 or 7 players, I think, plus the GM) and so we were able to make our own game somewhat independent of what the (rather ordinary) GM had in mind.

When the players' game got a bit too much for the GM he contrived some way to send us all 100 years into the future of the campaign world, in effect killing off the story that we'd created for ourselves. I left the game not long after that.

What I'm describing isn't at all the narrativist approach though, as I understand it.

Agreed also. The narrativist approach is the one I described upthread, which the OP (correctly) characterised as a standard indie style.

 

[Lwaxy]

In my gaming experience, that person is almost never the DM.

Yup. That is why I have a stats guru and a rules lawyer (or both in one person) handling that in my games. My mind for numbers is terrible, and if I'd have to keep looking up everything the games would go nowhere. Usually we don't schedule where not at least one of them is present.

 

[Lwaxy]

Now that I've read through all of this, I'm wondering how many of you involve the players in storytelling. As in, do they get to describe scenes every once in a while, or open the session with their own description of where they are and why so the GM can pick up from there?

I do that a lot in sandbox games. If Joe wants to throw in a change of scene, he has tokens to use for that and may, for example, have a group of townsfolk start a fight close to them, or make the barmaid spill beer on a patron. Maybe Jim and Sue even want to add to that and use their own tokens to spin it from there. And providing it does fit in with where we left of last, the group is welcome to write/tell the first scene of the next session. It makes everyone more part of the whole.

I can't say if I am more storyteller or judge. In most games, probably more storyteller, in APs and premade adventures, probably more judge.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I was agreeing (by way of sarcasm) with the general thrust of Hussar's comment - that it is frustrating, as someone who prefers non-sandboxing and non-Gygaxian RPGing, to so often on these boards have that sort of play characterised as railroading, as GM-self-indulgence, as "my precious encounter", as "mechanical dissociation", and the like.

I've seen that attitude expressed a number of times by those who prefer old school Gygaxian sandbox play. They seem to believe that there are only two ways to run rpgs - their preferred method or the 2e Dragonlance adventure path epic quest railroad. The word 'story' has very negative connotations, and is always associated with the latter.

There are two things wrong with this view, imo. Firstly, a lot of people do enjoy railroads, or games with strong railroad elements, as evidenced by the success of Paizo's adventure paths. Secondly, it's quite possible to produce a satisfying story while avoiding the railroad.