What a great storytelling DM looks like

[Ariosto]

As you note, you're welcome to play however you enjoy in the comfort of your own home. However, storytelling style isn't some random weird thing, but is - in fact - a core part of modern D&D, which is why it's discussed in the manual about how to run D&D.

See, there is that presumption -- "the" manual, indeed! That is not the rules-book I use, which happens to have DUNGEONS & DRAGONS printed on the cover, thank you very much.

And, as I mentioned, I am not likely to be playing 4e. Nor The Alan Smithee Project.

I don't think a story telling game will ever be your style, Ariosto, but I sometimes wonder if you've played in a good one.

I have, and designed and run some good ones as well.

THIS thread irked me with its reckless misrepresentation of what P&P had written. When you start out with a mean-spirited caricature of another style, you are not doing your cause any good.

On top of the insistence on invidious distinctions comes the claim that you're really great because you're against -- just what P&P was writing against. And yet you reserve your fire not for those who advocate it, but for someone who points out that we seem to be for the same things and against the same things, so where's the difference that makes you label me and my friends THEM instead of US?

Well, I guess that's obvious, eh?

I will say again that I have played in, and run, and designed, enjoyable "storytelling" games.

 

[Harlekin]

No, not "unreasoning assent." Just a polite tone of voice, really. Sort of the kind of relaxed conversation one might have over drinks.

I just wanted to give Barastrondo props for staying unfailingly polite in this discussion.

 

[Ariosto]

Considering my complaints, it hardly makes sense to consider unreasonable Barastrondo's remark.

So, I am sorry that I did not sooner apologize for impoliteness directed at him, and to others -- and for the compounded lack of consideration of inflicting such a "tone of voice" on bystanders as well.

 

[Starfox]

With all due respect, Aristo, maybe you should leave this discussion? It is obvious you do not like storytelling game. Why are you trying to add to a discussion about what makes a good storytelling GM when you so obviously think that none exist?

So, the difference looks to me like this: In the "non-storytelling" game, the player makes a choice and consequences follow; the freedom to choose is directly actual. In the "storytelling" game, that really just presents a choice for the GM: whether to allow the consequences or to replace them with 'guidance'.

In another kind of "storytelling" game, player choice is in a sense even more direct. Instead of choosing actions for a particular character, the player chooses outcomes -- changes in state for the wider world. A seemingly classic example is the player whose choice is not "I look in the wall safe" but rather, "I find the Maltese contract," or even "I find something that causes a scandal that removes my rival from the political arena."

THIS thread irked me with its reckless misrepresentation of what P&P had written. When you start out with a mean-spirited caricature of another style, you are not doing your cause any good.

Much earlier in the thread, I said that I hated it when people were trying to make their own definition of my playstyle. It is an insidious version of the strawman argument. You seem to agree with me on this in the latest passage quote above. But why, why do you indulge in it in the earlier quote? "When you start out with a mean-spirited caricature of another style, you are not doing your cause any good." - can't you see that this is exactly what you are doing?

Let me say again; the subject of the thread is "What a great storytelling DM looks like", not "I make up my own definition of what storytelling is and then proceed to demean and crush it, implying that all storytelling games are as bad as those of my imagined definition".

 

[Starfox]

- before play starts, how do you communicate to your players what your role in guiding the plot is, and what you expect of them?

My first projects in a new setting or with a new group are not very ambitious. I begin with fairly simple tasks and situations, using them to introduce the setting and the themes I want to present in it. As the players and I get to know each other and the setting, I add more complex elements. If there are a campaign restart in the same setting, the story can start out much more involved from the start by introducing elements the players (but not their new characters) know from the start.

Example: Currently playing Savage Tide in Greyhawk. The players are now quite familiar with the setting, some history, pantheons. My next campaign looks like it will use Curse of the Crimson Throne as the core. The main villain might well be Rowyn Kellani, a character from Savage Tide. There will be many more political angles and less pure heroics. Because the players know more, the game can start out more involved.

- during a campaign, how do you get feedback from your players about what mix of guidance vs. freedom they'd like (given that even people who sign up for a campaign that you accurately describe ahead of time may realize they don't actually like sandbox or storytelling, or have different ideas of what that meant)?

My players generally do not take the initiative. They are content to accept what I throw at them. At the same time, they clearly enjoy different themes differently, and have some side projects of their own that they invest a lot in. Tyhey tell their own stories in the context of the greater story happening around them. Even if the game is mostly reactive, i take great care to use what ideas they have and let them be proactive when they want to be.

- where does the player's input into what happens next come from: is it all played out at the table such that future directions emerge purely from PC actions, and/or do of-game meta-discussions about player or character goals shape upcoming events in the game?

A mix. We have sessions now and then were we discuss the direction of the plot both in and out of character. I often essay during play, giving the players information their characters would have. My players have learned to rely on their characters lore skills and try to base their actions on what passes for conventional wisdom in the world - something they cannot know about until they ask. I like to point out that what I say is just one view of things, not the absolute truth. Sometimes they debate with me on whether my interpretation of the world is the best one, and occasionally even win those debates. Even a storytelling world must make sense, and if a player shows me my arrangement did not make sense, I am willing to change the world to make it fit our common expectations.

- if you get feedback that players want more or less of some element in the game, how do you respond?

I generally comply. The game is about having fun - I don't pay my players to play, after all. But in the end, I can't satisfy everyone. If the group as a whole wants something, they generally get it. If one player wants something, I expand on any existing plots that relate to that interest, but I rarely make completely new plots.

 

[Ariosto]

Starfox, I offered no caricature of any style.

The paragraph beginning, "So, the difference looks to me like this: ..." was not even a claim accurately to represent any style -- just feedback of my preliminary, at-that-point understanding (or misunderstanding) of what had been offered. IIRC, the response was that it was not too far from the mark.

The second paragraph is, to the best of my ability and in good faith, an account of a pretty stereotypical example of at least one of the approaches claiming a particular fancy name or other ... "NOT task resolution". There's a single word that stands in for the "NOT task" part. "Conflict"? (Reminds me of old hex-and-chit wargames, but I think that's it.)

Even if it does not accurately describe that, I reckon it's a fair enough representation of a technique that I have tried. So, for that matter, is the other; there's not a whole lot new under that sun!

I was working on storytelling games using techniques borrowed from RPGs before I had heard of anyone else having done so (although I don't think it was prior even to published work in the field). I retain some interest in the field, even though I am not actively engaged in it at present. I do not think that "fudging" a traditional RPG is the way forward, and am inclined to think the "Game Master" position an unhelpful legacy. Naturally, other people have other opinions, and one that is in vogue is to consider as an "improved RPG" what I would call a hybrid.

I happen to like the D&D game I have been playing for decades just fine; changing it into a "storytelling game", or anything else, would be no improvement to me. Some people seem unable to accept such eclectic tastes; if I like my old D&D, then I must "not like" other kinds of games.

Well, I do not feel bound to follow such a horizon-limiting 'rule'!

 

[Gimby]

I happen to like the D&D game I have been playing for decades just fine; changing it into a "storytelling game", or anything else, would be no improvement to me. Some people seem unable to accept such eclectic tastes; if I like my old D&D, then I must "not like" other kinds of games.

Well, I do not feel bound to follow such a horizon-limiting 'rule'!

Can you quote anyone who has not accepted that you like playing D&D the way you like it? All I'm seeing here is people saying that you can do whatever you like.

 

[KidSnide]

THIS thread irked me with its reckless misrepresentation of what P&P had written. When you start out with a mean-spirited caricature of another style, you are not doing your cause any good.

On top of the insistence on invidious distinctions comes the claim that you're really great because you're against -- just what P&P was writing against. And yet you reserve your fire not for those who advocate it, but for someone who points out that we seem to be for the same things and against the same things, so where's the difference that makes you label me and my friends THEM instead of US?

I will say again that I have played in, and run, and designed, enjoyable "storytelling" games.

I'm not trying to "fire" at anyone, just to explain and understand. If I've provided "a mean-spirited caricature of another style," it was certainly not my intention. If you identify where I did that, I would be happy to explain my intended meaning.

Also, you reference "P&P" a second time. Can you please explain the reference, perhaps with a link?

-KS

 

[Piratecat]

THIS thread irked me with its reckless misrepresentation of what P&P had written. When you start out with a mean-spirited caricature of another style, you are not doing your cause any good.

That explains the passive-aggressive hostility. Please - next time, and this applies to everyone who's ever read something that makes them angry, just say "I don't think that's a fair statement" to start off with. That way people can apologize and the discussion can continue without the difficult undertone. I'm not a big fan of the "guess why I'm upset" type of conversation.

Either way, cool thread.

Ethan, next time you're up this way I'll introduce you to KidSnide; like (contact), I imagine you guys would get along well in person.

 

[The Shaman]

It's the same reason that if my players have had a rough day at the office (even at our office, we have 'em) and want an obvious target for a dynamic conflict rather than an evening of subtle investigative legwork, I'll tweak a session to give them what they want.

I just don't want my players to feel like they wasted an evening of play doing drudge work, particularly in this post-college, some-have-kids, can't-game-all-the-time era.

Since I leave the players in control of what's going on in the game, it's not really necessary for me to make adjustments like this. They can provide their own catharsis for the rigor of modern life as they see fit.

If a player absolutely hates romantic subplots I'm not going to force one on him no matter how realistic it might be that a given NPC would fall in love and bring a lot of complications along. It's the same principle, just in terms of overall conflict arcs.

Since I'm not forcing plots, sub- or otherwise, on the players, this isn't an issue for me when I'm behind the screen.

But (to pick a random example), if I said "There's an encroaching fleet of spelljammers that are going to pillage half the world if nothing's done" and then half the group said they really didn't like the concept of spelljammers, I'd try to work something out. I would rather they didn't feel like I was punishing them for not beating their faces against a spelljammer-shaped wall until they could get back to the storylines they wanted to play.

I admit that it's kinda difficult for me to relate to a "fleet of spelljammers that are going to pillage half the world." It's pretty far removed from my own refereeing experiences, as I'm singularly not fond of world-shaking events in the games I run, so I'm at a bit of a loss here, I'm afraid.

Let me see if I can find an analogy closer in spirit to the kinds of games I run. In my Flashing Blades campaign, I'm sticking to the historical timeline of events assuming the adventurers don't do anything to change the major figures in France: if Marillac replaces Richelieu as first minister, or if Gaston succeeds Louis as king, then history will take a left turn, but if not, come 1635 France will declare war on Spain. Sparring through proxies in Italy and the Empire will be replaced by by a direct confrontation between the two most powerful states in Europe which will last for the next two decades.

Now let's say for a moment that, for whatever reason, the players decide their characters don't want to have anything to do with battlefields and international intrigue at this point. If this is the case, they're welcome to pretty much pursue anything else they prefer. The exception to this might be characters who are actively serving in the royal army or navy, or serving as provincial governors or ambassadors. As far as the latter go, it's implicit in their choice of careers that they may be called upon to deal with exactly these circumstances should they arise in the course of the game.

But the players may still opt out if they like. Their characters can resign their positions, or seek other assignments. I expect them to deal with the consequences of those choices in the context of the setting, but they still have significant latitude.

I will not, however, set aside war with Spain because the players aren't interested in the conflict.

Have you seen the Spirit of the Century approach? Not that I'd recommend it for your game (it's definitely keyed more toward a deliberate literary emulation than the simulation of the world's in-character rules), but it's a clever method of encouraging players to have fun coming up with character connections.

I read through the free rules .pdf but I've never seen the full game. If I get a chance I'll check it out.

Right now my biggest 'outside' influence on the campaign is Pendragon. I like the concept of characters as part of a dynasty; it fits the kind of campaign I'd like to run, and one that's well-supported by the career rules in Flashing Blades.

Good luck with it!

And with your games as well.

I've enjoyed the discussion, by the way.