Storytelling Games

[maddman75]

The players would be roleplaying. The nature of the game as a whole would depend on the DM. Do the actions of the players matter or does the DM decide outcomes based on where he/she wants the story to go?
If the latter then there isn't much of a game happening at all.

Why do you think these are mutually exclusive? I decide outcomes on where I think the story should go all the time. The actions of the players matter greatly.

Here's how a typical maddman session goes. I'll start with some Teaser - a described cut scene, a fight, or a conflict of some kind. Just to get everyone's attention and get them into character. From there, the conflict of the session is introduced. Players figure out what's going on and decide their course of action. I've even gotten them comfortable setting their own scenes.

Now this doesn't mean they're storytelling, they're just helping me set the stage. "Okay, I'm going to go into Lou's tavern with Joe and Dave early, when there's not many people there, and corner than SOB". Unless I veto for some reason, we play out the scene.

Once the action rises the group needs to bring it to a climax. They find out where the monster is, figure out who killed Mr. Body, whatever, and go for a showdown. We play it out.

Now I'll note that I do have an interest in a good ending. I don't want the session to simply fizzle out. I want some kind of resolution - the bad guy is defeated, or he leaves a trap, or something. And I don't really care what ending happens, as long as its a good one.

I've heard you speak against scene scripting, and I couldn't agree more. Heck, I usually don't plan the scenes ahead of time at all. I usually GM a 3-5 hour game on a half a page of notes, or none at all. Wanting to have the game create a good story is not the same thing as having a specific story in mind ahead of time.

In this case if no one voices any concerns then the group has mutually agreed to a story based game and all is well.

Why would anyone voice any concern? Why would how the other players are thinking about the game affect you in one way or another, to the point that you want to kick them out of the hobby. (And yes, saying they are doing something other than roleplaying games is kicking them out of the hobby)

Having a table full of players who just nod and accept what I tell them for fear of rocking the boat would bore me to tears. YMMV.

LOL, you should see my games.

You can rock the boat, but if you have concern to keep from tipping it over you're concerning yourself with story.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Why do you think these are mutually exclusive? I decide outcomes on where I think the story should go all the time. The actions of the players matter greatly.

Because they can be. A DM can easily render player decisions meaningless if the story is driving campaign events rather than the actions of the PC's.

Here's how a typical maddman session goes. I'll start with some Teaser - a described cut scene, a fight, or a conflict of some kind. Just to get everyone's attention and get them into character. From there, the conflict of the session is introduced. Players figure out what's going on and decide their course of action. I've even gotten them comfortable setting their own scenes.

Now this doesn't mean they're storytelling, they're just helping me set the stage. "Okay, I'm going to go into Lou's tavern with Joe and Dave early, when there's not many people there, and corner than SOB". Unless I veto for some reason, we play out the scene.

Veto? It sounds like there is a conflict and players have decided on thier next move. What is there to veto?

Once the action rises the group needs to bring it to a climax. They find out where the monster is, figure out who killed Mr. Body, whatever, and go for a showdown. We play it out.

So the PC's have an objective, and actively take steps to achieve it. Why wouldn't this be resolve through play?

Now I'll note that I do have an interest in a good ending. I don't want the session to simply fizzle out. I want some kind of resolution - the bad guy is defeated, or he leaves a trap, or something. And I don't really care what ending happens, as long as its a good one.

I've heard you speak against scene scripting, and I couldn't agree more. Heck, I usually don't plan the scenes ahead of time at all. I usually GM a 3-5 hour game on a half a page of notes, or none at all. Wanting to have the game create a good story is not the same thing as having a specific story in mind ahead of time.

Wanting play to create a good story is the hope of most DM's. The difference lies in shaping play via decisions toward that end or not.

Why would anyone voice any concern? Why would how the other players are thinking about the game affect you in one way or another, to the point that you want to kick them out of the hobby. (And yes, saying they are doing something other than roleplaying games is kicking them out of the hobby)

If no player had an issue with the DM's style then they wouldn't. Why would anyone be kicked out of anything? Was there a rule stating that participating in a story based campaign was sufficient basis to ban a player from a roleplaying game forever more? If there was then I guess I'm just bitter at being booted a long time ago.

LOL, you should see my games.

You can rock the boat, but if you have concern to keep from tipping it over you're concerning yourself with story.

My campaigns usually begin by burning the boat, treading water, then wondering how to get to shore.

 

[maddman75]

Because they can be. A DM can easily render player decisions meaningless if the story is driving campaign events rather than the actions of the PC's.

The actions of the PCs are what drive the story. The GM isn't like a conductor in an orchestra, pointing at people when he wants them to play. He's like the bass player in a rock band, he keeps everything moving at a smooth pace.

Veto? It sounds like there is a conflict and players have decided on thier next move. What is there to veto?

I don't recall having to veto very often, but it does happen because players don't have perfect knowledge. What if Lou was bought off by the bad guys, and the second they show up in his bar he's pulling a gun. The scene is going to play out differently.

So the PC's have an objective, and actively take steps to achieve it. Why wouldn't this be resolve through play?

It is resolved through play! How do you think story-oriented games go? The GM controls the pace of the game - how hard information is to get, exactly what the opposition does. It is entirely within the GM's power to make things draw out, or to bring them to a climax. The trick is knowing when to do that, again not to force a certain outcome but to have a narratively satisfying outcome by the end of the game session.

Wanting play to create a good story is the hope of most DM's. The difference lies in shaping play via decisions toward that end or not.

I'd say that a good GM makes decisions to shape play toward a good story. If he doesn't the sessions aren't going to be very fun. I started doing this because it keeps games together and keeps people interested.

If no player had an issue with the DM's style then they wouldn't. Why would anyone be kicked out of anything? Was there a rule stating that participating in a story based campaign was sufficient basis to ban a player from a roleplaying game forever more? If there was then I guess I'm just bitter at being booted a long time ago.

You are claiming they aren't part of the hobby, that they are doing something else entirely, based solely on their own internal decisionmaking that you can't possibly know.

My campaigns usually begin by burning the boat, treading water, then wondering how to get to shore.

There's good drama (between characters) and bad drama (between players). Have all the good kind you want, I think its awesome. The bad kind will end up with no gaming for anyone.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I don't recall having to veto very often, but it does happen because players don't have perfect knowledge. What if Lou was bought off by the bad guys, and the second they show up in his bar he's pulling a gun. The scene is going to play out differently.

So? What does that have to do with vetoing player decisions? What if Lou pulls a gun and splatters a PC all over the bar. It happens, and play continues.

It is resolved through play! How do you think story-oriented games go? The GM controls the pace of the game - how hard information is to get, exactly what the opposition does. It is entirely within the GM's power to make things draw out, or to bring them to a climax. The trick is knowing when to do that, again not to force a certain outcome but to have a narratively satisfying outcome by the end of the game session.

For me, a satisfying outcome for a session is one in which the players and I had a good time and the PC's are in a situation determined by thier choices. A dramatic climax may or may not happen every session, its up to the players.

I'd say that a good GM makes decisions to shape play toward a good story. If he doesn't the sessions aren't going to be very fun. I started doing this because it keeps games together and keeps people interested.

I present situations and options, let the players decide where the story goes and stay flexible. So far we have had loads of fun with this. I guess some players need more structure than this.

You are claiming they aren't part of the hobby, that they are doing something else entirely, based solely on their own internal decisionmaking that you can't possibly know.

I am not claiming anything of the sort. They are participating in roleplaying activities or not at the time. What you seem to be saying is that if a football fan attends a baseball game then he/she is no longer a football fan instead of what is actually happening: the fan is enjoying a different sport for the moment.

Yes, they are two different things entirely.

There's good drama (between characters) and bad drama (between players). Have all the good kind you want, I think its awesome. The bad kind will end up with no gaming for anyone.

PVP in a real sense does suck.

 

[Ariosto]

Wanting to have the game create a good story is not the same thing as having a specific story in mind ahead of time.

You're getting wiggly about that "ahead of time" part. See, if all your work to "create a good story" is after the fact, after "the end of the story" has come to pass, then it's just as in real life -- or as in ExploderWizard's ideal RPG. Whatever happened happened, but accounts even from honest memory may exercise some artistic license.

 

[maddman75]

Yes, they are two different things entirely.

No, they are the same thing. The same character choice with the same results could come about from wanting to make a good story and wanting to be true to a character. We could continue this for hundreds of pages I supposed, but I don't think we're going to get much further.

What it comes down to is you are insisting that my way of playing is not roleplaying, something I vehemently disagree with. Not to your style, not your taste, not the sort of thing you'd enjoy - that's all cool.

You're the one saying that if the football fan thinks about the teams in the wrong way he isn't really a football fan but is instead doing something entirely different.

 

[maddman75]

You're getting wiggly about that "ahead of time" part. See, if all your work to "create a good story" is after the fact, after "the end of the story" has come to pass, then it's just as in real life -- or as in ExploderWizard's ideal RPG. Whatever happened happened, but accounts even from honest memory may exercise some artistic license.

My work to allow a good story to happen occurs at the table, not before and not after.

I have a strong, strong suspician that if we'd never had this debate and he just played in my games it would feel exactly like his ideal RPG. Its not like I go into detail about story structures, just a framework to make a satisfying game.

 

[pawsplay]

Deep immersion/method acting is fine for those who enjoy going that far but it is hardly required to merely roleplay. An imaginary character is also optional. You can roleplay yourself in a variety of scenarios, no character required.

No. John Malkovich can play John Malkovich, but in an imaginary scenario, you have to play someone. Since I've never been shot at by terrorists or traveled to Krynn, any such imaginary person differs in some respects from the real me.

When you pause to narrate, roleplaying is paused and storytelling begins.

So what happens if you say, "I ask the innkeeper for a room?" I'm roleplaying, but I've also just suggested the presence of an innkeeper, and I have attempted to perform an action. Unless a character is inert, you must narrate. Even just speaking as my character supposed that I am able to speak, which the GM may not have explicitly told me at that point. Roleplaying consists of two basic operations: narration, and resolution. Roleplaying never stops until the game is ended. It is possible to create something that resembles an RPG but isn't one, but within an RPG, narration is an allowed, indeed, required, activity.

 

[ExploderWizard]

So what happens if you say, "I ask the innkeeper for a room?"

You are describing the action of asking the innkeeper for a room.

If your character walks into an inn and you say " Innkeeper I would like a room" before seeing anyone inside then you are assuming the presence of an innkeeper based on logical expectations. If you do not get a reply then there may not be an innkeeper present.

 

[pawsplay]

You are describing the action of asking the innkeeper for a room.

If your character walks into an inn and you say " Innkeeper I would like a room" before seeing anyone inside then you are assuming the presence of an innkeeper based on logical expectations. If you do not get a reply then there may not be an innkeeper present.

How is "describing the action of" different than narrating?