Stagnation in RPG

[Brother MacLaren]

One of the best examples of a randomness-free game with high risk, drama, intelligence, strategy, and excitment is... chess. One of the world's oldest and coolest wargames. D&D, as I like to play it, is a combination of stragy with chance and role-playing.
Personally, I'll play with "referee" DMs (who set up obstacles for us to overcome) and "improv" DMs (who have a game world in mind but develop the plot based on what the PCs do). That's my preference. I won't play with "storyteller" DMs who make me feel that my decisions are irrelevant. I want to have some share in writing this story, and that can't happen if the DM already has written the story in his mind (so, like many players, I *do* fight the DM when I feel I'm being railroaded). It's my perception that roleplay-dominant games are more often "storyteller" games, but I know there are exceptions.
As far as character abilities such as Bluff and Diplomacy, consider this: I could spend skill points and feats on Tumble to the point where I never need to roll the dice. I would have made that sacrifice as a strategic move to eliminate the chance from a given set of actions at the cost of reduced ability in other areas. Then, if the DM raises the DC because she wants more randomness (roll-playing) in the game, I feel cheated. Likewise, if I spend skill points and feats on Diplomacy and Bluff and the DM effectively negates the value of those feats because he wants to encourage the theatrical (role-playing) aspects of the game, I again feel cheated. I don't like having my strategic decisions negated by DM fiat, whether it's to encourage randomness and dice-rolling or to encourage acting. Either decision reduces the "strategy" aspect of the game.
Now, if I know up front that the DM is going to reduce the value of Bluff and Diplomacy, I'll design a PC accordingly - I'll play one without the skills, and I the player will stay in the background because I'm not a convincing liar or rousing public speaker (same thing?). I'll still get to play the mighty warrior, and maybe even the tactically sound battle leader, but in this type of game I'll never get to play the general or king.
What's my preference? 100% strategy would be chess, 100% chance would be roulette, and 100% role-playing would be community theater. I suppose 40/30/30 fits what I want.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

It's my perception that roleplay-dominant games are more often "storyteller" games, but I know there are exceptions.

It's also a question of terminology. For instance, what does "storyteller" mean? For some, it's a GM that weaves campaigns around a plot. For others, its a GM that tosses out mountains of "fluff", making the Players fall asleep until the next encounter occurs. It's also the name for GMs in the WoD games, which aren't exactly non-rules content.

In this instance, I refer to myself as a "storyteller" (I develop the campaign, the flavor, the history, the cultures, the races, classes, prestige classes, etc.), our game is focused more on interaction and investigation than on dukin' it out (run those averages at about 50%/45%/5%), I establish the obstacles (which can be from a puzzle, a diplomatic encounter with a rickety old hermit with a chip on his shoulder and information the PCs need, or a powerful wyrm bent on ravaging the country side), and I am constantly improvising around the (usually unpredictable) choices of the Players. So, by your definitions, I'm all four types you briefly describe, 2 of which you are fine with, 2 of which you have problems with.

So, am I a good GM or a poor one? Lukewarm, maybe? Or just a bad GM to those that don't like what I present at the table and a great GM to those that do?

To point, I don't think the problem is the GM with a story (I wouldn't want to play in a game if the GM doesn't have one), it's the GM that has already imagined how the story will play out before ever putting the Players into it. Such GMs are either going to be mad at the Players (who are making decisions completely opposite of the "script" regardless or in spite of all the "go this way" signs he put up) or end up with Players mad at him (for being railroaded and thus realizing that their decisions don't really mean squat).

What these GMs have to realize is that, while they do come up with 99.9% of the game elements, they do not create nor do they control the most important element of any story that is to be told. That is, in short, the main characters (known in RPGs as "The Player Characters"). RPGs also provide one element that no author in the world ever provides: Random chance. A writer (teller of tales, director, etc.) already knows what will happen and when (and even if making the tale up on the spot, how many do you think are flipping a coin to make a decision about plot twists?). Even if the GM knows his Players so well that he can predict their decisions without fail, the roll of the dice can (and thus will!) change the direction of a game in a heartbeat. In that regard, any GM with such a "vision" shouldn't be GMing (or, more specifically, shouldn't be GMing that "vision" but writing it down instead. It isn't a game being invisioned (where authorship would be primarily on the GM but *must* include everyone at the table) but a story from a single author that is complete beginning to end.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Good points Bendris. By "storyteller," I mean the DM who has a great story and wants to tell it but is unwilling to change that story based on PC actions. "Railroading" is perhaps more accurate, but what I most often see in that type of DM is a genuine enthusiasm for their storyline that they want the players to appreciate and enjoy. It's not usually malicious or about power or control. It's just that sense of enthusiasm that made me assign the word "storyteller" to that type of DM.
I entirely appreciate worlds where the DM has histories and cultures developed, plots afoot, and interesting NPCs to encounter, as you describe. Improvisation and acceptance of the unexpected are of course the key.
My experience with DMs who wanted more emphasis on role-playing and less on PC abilities or chance was that such DMs tended to be "railroading storytellers." I know that isn't always the case, but I think it might be sometimes the case for this reason: random chance and exercise of PC abilities have the potential to alter the plot more than simply role-playing interactions. So that kind of game, while it can be done very enjoyably by a good DM, is also most easily abused.
Question for you all: "Even if the GM knows his Players so well that he can predict their decisions without fail" - is that a sign it's time to get a new group?

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Yes.

 

[Crothian]

Question for you all: "Even if the GM knows his Players so well that he can predict their decisions without fail" - is that a sign it's time to get a new group?

Of course not. I'm sure my dad can predict my mother's decisions with ease, that don't mean it's time for a new wife.