What a great storytelling DM looks like

[Barastrondo]

And since that is not what I advocated, either, I guess we'll just leave that strawman aside.

I didn't say it was. Didn't even mean to imply as such. The point I'm trying to make is that there's more than one way to wind up with disenfranchised players, and that the sorts of consequences you suggest are tied more to specifics of GM behavior than anything so general as the style chosen.

Social contracts that provide the kind of entitlement you suggest are what I was addressing. Let's not broadbursh my posts in a way that marginalizes the facts.

Perhaps you're misreading the sort of entitlement I'm suggesting? I'm certainly not advocating the sort where hollow victories and inconsequentiality become "fact." Just maybe the sort of game you prefer not to play in or run. Which is okay!

 

[Mark]

The point I'm trying to make is that there's more than one way to wind up with disenfranchised players, and that the sorts of consequences you suggest are tied more to specifics of GM behavior than anything so general as the style chosen.

You're mischaracterizing players in a game such as I advocate as being disenfranchised. It is, to the contrary, empowering to remove false victories from the gaming equation and creates an experience that cleaves closer to true satisfaction at tasks accomplished and goals achieved.

Perhaps you're misreading the sort of entitlement I'm suggesting? I'm certainly not advocating the sort where hollow victories and inconsequentiality become "fact." Just maybe the sort of game you prefer not to play in or run. Which is okay!

I don't believe I am misreading anything. I see, however, that you keep reframing what I say in ways that semantically prop up your version of player entitlement as less detrimental to overall gameplay than I feel is true. A helping hand is something you give to beginners and only temporarily, not contractually in perpetuity. I believe that the specific suggestion you make regarding a setting serving the players leads to an unsatisfactory gameplay experience in anything but beginner RPGs.

 

[Piratecat]

You're mischaracterizing players in a game such as I advocate as being disenfranchised. It is, to the contrary, empowering to remove false victories from the gaming equation and creates an experience that cleaves closer to true satisfaction at tasks accomplished and goals achieved.

Now, I know you have the ability to express yourself incredibly clearly. This? This is not it.

 

[Mark]

Now, I know you have the ability to express yourself incredibly clearly. This? This is not it.

Think of it as a fortune cookie quote and add "in bed" to it if you feel that will help.

 

[Piratecat]

Think of it as a fortune cookie quote and add "in bed" to it if you feel that will help.

See? Incredibly clearly!

I'd be interested to see your posts again when they aren't couched in language designed to obfuscate. Or as a friend of mine says, "Yes, you're very smart. Now shut up."

 

[Mark]

See? Incredibly clearly!

I'd be interested to see your posts again when they aren't couched in language designed to obfuscate. Or as a friend of mine says, "Yes, you're very smart. Now shut up."

I fear by the time I recover you will be beyond the capacity to enjoy much more than an I.V. drip.

 

[Barastrondo]

I don't believe I am misreading anything. I see, however, that you keep reframing what I say in ways that semantically prop up your version of player entitlement as less detrimental to overall gameplay than I feel is true.

If it's any consolation, I'm reading your posts in entirely the same fashion. So I'm pretty sure there's some form of miscommunication going on here, as that doesn't seem to be either of our intention.

A helping hand is something you give to beginners and only temporarily, not contractually in perpetuity.

Like this. I'm not talking about a "helping hand"; I'm talking about a partnership, a mutually beneficial arrangement. Harry, please don't understand me so fast.

I believe that the specific suggestion you make regarding a setting serving the players leads to an unsatisfactory gameplay experience in anything but beginner RPGs.

And yet, in my experience... it doesn't. When I moved back to Atlanta and offered to run games again, my table filled up fast. With grown people, veterans of the RPG industry all, some of whom have played a greater variety of RPGs than I've ever read.

There are a couple of possible conclusions here. One is that they're all grossly dissatisfied and that they're humoring me, waiting for the day in which I start running a more fixed-world style in which the players are assumed to be participants by player character proxy alone. The other is that we play a different kind of D&D than you do, one inspired by a variety of modern styles, and yet it winds up being satisfactory for every adult involved.

My money's on the latter. Among other things, the "different tastes exist" theorem also may provide some example for why not everyone prefers to play the same RPGs.

 

[Mark]

(. . .) fixed-world style (. . .)

The world I am describing is dynamic. That's why the war doesn't wait for the players if they don't show up in time.

(. . .) we play a different kind of D&D than you do, one inspired by a variety of modern styles (. . .)

Fascinating. Your insight into the types of games I play is uncanny.

(. . .) and yet it winds up being satisfactory for every adult involved (. . .)

Impressive. Not sure why you emphasize "adult" rather than simply player but I am sure you must have some reason. But getting back to your first statement . . .

So I'm pretty sure there's some form of miscommunication going on here, as that doesn't seem to be either of our intention.

As I said before, I don't believe I am misreading anything.

 

[SteveC]

This thread has veered off into some, well, strange territory, bordering on "badwrongfun." From the perspective of a largely storytelling GM, sandbox style of gaming certainly isn't bad, it's just not a style I prefer anymore. There have been a number of excellent posts that point out that they're not necessarily opposite schools, and there's certainly something that I can learn from a sandbox style GM.

The most extreme example I can think of for a "storytelling" adventure is the old Dragon Lance module. It's been quite a while since I played it, but I recall pretty much every major scene being scripted out, leaving almost no room for player choice. The thing is, that was the first example of a storytelling adventure I can ever recall seeing, so I'll give it some slack by virtue of being the first. I certainly wouldn't want to play that these days!

On the other end, I'd say that modules like B1 and B2 are the most extreme examples of a sandbox style that I can think of...perhaps I'll also throw in the Isle of Dread as well. I was just looking at B1 earlier today, and to be honest, the notion of running or playing it simply bores me to tears these days. Without any sense of a larger story or world behind the adventure, going through room after room of monsters (or not, there are a lot of empty rooms involved!) would make me head for the exits in record time.

There are a lot of sandbox GMs in the thread, so let me throw out the question of what tools that a sandbox GM has can make a storytelling game better. From the other side, what storytelling elements might make a sandbox game better? I'm approaching this from the angle that one approach isn't better than another, and that there can be a mixture of styles in a single campaign. Any thoughts?

 

[Mark]

(. . .) what storytelling elements might make a sandbox game better?

I think the point of a sandbox is for all the elements of any possible story to be available but not pieced together until the players take actions that cause a story to unfold.