What a great storytelling DM looks like

[Mark]

What a great storytelling DM looks like

EN World D&D / RPG News - Creative Mountain Gamers

 

[Piratecat]

You're right, Mark - that IS Rob sitting behind you!

 

[Mark]

You're right, Mark - that IS Rob sitting behind you!

That's David (Fenril Knight) with the thumb up and Jim (JamesJSkach) reading either a rule book or possibly a dirty magazine (Sindarin-sutra).

 

[Aeolius]

and here I thought this was going to be a picture gallery

 

[Haltherrion]

Over in the thread I forked this from, there's a discusssion of the Gospel of Papers & Paychecks:

The role of a superior DM is NOT to tell a story to his or her players. The DM need only provide an interesting and challenging environment for the players to explore and then administer that environment totally impartially. Superior players will be able to create a character-driven, interactive story from these raw materials, and neither the players nor the GM can tell where the story is headed.

I cringe when I read advice like that. The "build a setting then let the players roll" approach can work but it takes the right players and referee for this to work well and honestly, it's far from the only way to run a successful game.

In my own decades of gaming, after an early munchkin phase I went for the "define a huge world" and let the players go where they wanted. I love to build settings and that let me unleash that aspect. And it worked pretty well when my gaming groups could meet every week and there were at least 2 or so players in the group who would really get into the setting, understand the world and help drive things.

But once real-life hit and gaming sessions fell to every 2-3 weeks and people had other things going on in their lives, this way of playing became very unsatisfactory. It is hard to know enough about a world to meaningfull drive things as players without a lot of time in it and a certain amount of out-of-game investment. While I consider my players to be good, engaged players, getting them to be proactive about what and where they are going is difficult to say the least.

So, after a few less than satisfactory campaigns some time ago I moved to games with less of an open, well defined setting and games with more referee driven plot and more detail in support of that plot. It seems to work well for what my players are willing to put into the game and it is not to say players do not have choices. It does mean as a referee I intervene more in the flow of events.

But this is rarely a black-and-white decision for the referee and players. There's a spectrum from "all setting, no referee direction" to "executing a script" and you can move along that spectrum as needed. I certainly don't see anything superior to one style of play over another in most cases. Even a tightly scripted campaign (within reason) can be fun in the right hands.

 

[Ariosto]

Another point I would like to throw out there is that linear games excel in one area. Convention games and one-shot games.

I agree, but note that the big question in a typical tournament scenario is how far along the line folks get.

The presence of a predetermined story is to what P&P objects, to trading gameplay for an essentially scripted play. It's not that well-crafted stories are not fine things, maybe even better things to a certain aesthetic than more modern literary conceits -- in the context of literature.

The fundamental point is that one happens to consider D&D in fact not literature but rather a game. From that perspective, the matter may not seem terribly hard to fathom; difficulty with it simply does not arise at all in other games!

The problem is that, as with dumping sugar into a fuel tank, the foreign ingredient interferes with the originally intended operation of the design. It's not an "additional feature"; it's trading one thing for another.

Which is fine, inasmuch as someone else might prefer to trade an evening's D&D for Pictionary, or a DVD of Brideshead Revisited, or a bottle of whiskey. If the participants agree on the object of the gathering, then all is well enough.

It's a bit of a problem for communication and social arrangements when a faction of 'reformers' sets out to redefine this as that, and that as nobody-knows-what, as if such semantic sleight of hand is somehow going to make tea and whiskey taste the same and produce the same effects.

That is not a very considerate approach to the practical problem.

 

[Grymar]

Many in this thread seem to be pointing to an either/or sort of situation. It's either old-school/sandbox OR it is new-school/railroad. The campaigns I am most familiar with, my own, are more of a blend.

Between sessions, it is very nearly a sandbox. We use email to discuss plans, options, and plots. Sometimes they are given a mission/job, some times they seek something out. I like to put out a frequent city newspaper that is full of ideas or rumors that they can investigate. The point is, it can be nearly a sandbox.

Once they choose what they are going to focus on for a session, I go to work prepping it. And yes, that prep can be a bit of a railroad, but I do my best to keep it open. If they have to raid a warehouse, then I don't give them the way in...I build the warehouse as best I can and let them figure out how they want to get in.

So, some railroad, some sandbox. Hopefully the result it is fun for everyone.

 

[Quickleaf]

Great thread! It's nice to see an intelligent and revealing discussion about proactive/reactive DMing and the (dis)advantages of linear vs. freeform story.

I've mixing the proactive/reactive styles of DM'ing for about 25 years now. I always balk at hearing people say that having an ultimate goal is railroading... not true, railroading dictates the every movement of the players, you will go here and then go here and then go here and then do this and ta-dah, you win....

I think that player experience level influences which direction the balance of a game veers to - proactive for newer players and reactive for experienced players. Also, another poster made the astute observation that frequence of gaming sessions in a campaign influences whether you lean toward proactive or reactive DMing.

In our group, with a mix of newer & old gamers, I have a strong overall situation set up (proactive), but leave the "how" to the players (reactive). Periodically I'll throw in new events/twists to jump start the story in a new direction (proactive), but the players are never forced to follow up on an event that doesn't appeal to them.

But ultimately, it comes down to that perfect combination - a DM that runs the style of campaign you want to play in the way that makes it interesting to you as a player and a group of players that interacts first with each other and then with the DM in order to perpetuate campaign greatness. It's what separates the string of one shot modules into a great campaign arc without shoehorning or railroading people into a pre-determined set of actions.

From the DM's seat, I find it's more rewarding when that "perfect" combination is reached. I get my storytelling fix, and I also get to be entertained by the players.

One technique I try to use to keep jaded players on their toes: subvert expectations. Signal a traditional plot or railroad, and then yank the plot sideways 90 degrees to make the players think on their feet. Customize old monsters or change their name and appearance to make metagaming difficult. Think about what the players are least likely to expect, and then veer the action in that direction.

You don't want plot twists to make the players suspend their disbelief, but creating a game that isn't predictable goes a long way towards keeping the players interested.

That's a great point. An extension of this idea is establishing meaningful failure as an option in most encounters. Failure should be fun and lead to new circumstances which the PCs need to react to. As a DM, I am constantly trying to improve my interpretation of failure. When my 3rd level group were unable to stop a ritual, I realized I had a one line note about what would happen: "summons ancient evil dragon spirit." That became a dracolich which is looming in the background, and presents an interesting mystery: who is controlling the dracolich's phylactery?

So the players feel the consequence of their characters' failure without it being a game killer (though it was terrifying).

Many in this thread seem to be pointing to an either/or sort of situation. It's either old-school/sandbox OR it is new-school/railroad. The campaigns I am most familiar with, my own, are more of a blend.

Between sessions, it is very nearly a sandbox. We use email to discuss plans, options, and plots. Sometimes they are given a mission/job, some times they seek something out. I like to put out a frequent city newspaper that is full of ideas or rumors that they can investigate. The point is, it can be nearly a sandbox.

That's great you've managed to generate discussion in between games and the players give you a heads up as to their plans. I wish I were so lucky. In our group I have to guess the players' next steps using what I know about their tendencies and gaming style.

It's not too hard once you know all your players well, but sometimes they totally come with a left hook you're not ready for. Actually, one of our most memorable game sessions came when they caught me off guard by going to rescue a PC's uncle from the king's dungeon.

So, maybe there is something to being forced to perform on our feet that brings out our hidden DM talents?

 

[LostSoul]

It's a bit of a problem for communication and social arrangements when a faction of 'reformers' sets out to redefine this as that, and that as nobody-knows-what, as if such semantic sleight of hand is somehow going to make tea and whiskey taste the same and produce the same effects.

That is not a very considerate approach to the practical problem.

Are you actually talking about specific people saying specific things? If so, who are those people, what are those things?

If not, what is your point?

 

[Ariosto]

My point is that P&P was not just stringing together random words but rather trying to communicate meaning.

The response of basically dismissing that meaning by redefining "tell a story" in the context is one not of engaging in the dialog but of avoiding it. "When we want your opinion, we'll tell you what it is!"

I am quite familiar with the dodge. It is par for the course for "preaching to the choir", especially when the sermon-writer has a shortage of substantial ideas. The substitution of pun-making for profundity is an old, old tradition.

There is a weasel-twist from "D&D means nothing in particular, really" (which is thoroughly destructive) to "D&D means this new and different thing" (which would be splendid, if only everyone would believe you instead of their own eyes). It's a twist from feigned liberality to actual laying down of Right Thinking.

And it's accomplished not by dealing with real issues but by putting down a caricature of the dissenting view and its adherents.

I know from having read his work that P&P is a fine designer of scenarios, and he is by reputation a fine DM. The notion that he -- and, by extension, one who agrees with his statement -- practices or advocates the poor techniques being held up (in place of what P&P actually mentioned) as "not telling a story" is simply invidious. It is the very model of a straw man.