What a great storytelling DM looks like

[Mallus]

The presence of a predetermined story is to what P&P objects to...

I object to a predetermined story too and I'm a "storyteller DM". Or, more precisely, I'm a DM who sees the connection between D&D and the fiction that informs it as obvious and inextricable.

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.

Well-crafted story elements are fine things in a D&D campaign! You just need to forget about predetermined courses of action, and accept that the you-as-DM are not in control of your protagonists.

Which leads me to my working definition of a good storyteller DM: someone who borrows and adapts the appropriate things from literature for use in their campaigns.

 

[Tav_Behemoth]

the connection between D&D and the fiction that informs it as obvious and inextricable

This would be more compelling if there was a unitary "the" fiction that informs D&D. I think it's fair to say that you need different DM techniques to incorporate the story elements of Tolkien and his heirs' quest-driven, epic plots unfolding across trilogies of fat novels than you do original-D&D inspirations originally written as series of short stories, like Vance (Cugel is teleported far away and has unrelated misadventures on his way home), Howard (Conan has unrelated adventures on his rise from barbarian to king), and Leiber (Fafhrd & the Mouser have unrelated adventures that end with them getting their hands on fabulous wealth and start again after they've thrown it away on drinking and wenching).

The thing that impressed me about Piratecat's DM style is that it did incorporate some techniques of storytelling that I previously thought were better suited to fiction than gaming, like giving us bits of description of events going on around us.

When he tossed these in during scenes where our characters were standing around talking about what to do next, it had the subtle effect of re-focusing us on the storyteller at a point when I and other GMs who self-identify as "old-school" might have leaned back and waited for player signs of boredom before saying anything. I admired the skill with which Piratecat did this and enjoyed the result, but it did seem emblematic of a different approach.

It's interesting to see what other things that does and doesn't correlate with!

 

[Ariosto]

Mallus, that is nifty.

So, why drag "The Gospel of P&P" through the mud just to say that?

The general course of rhetoric here (not yours) looks to me like this:

(A) Why, at first glance that P&P and his sort seem to object to 'railroading'. They say it's not necessary in order to have an interesting 'story' arise out of a game.

(B) But that's a silly objection, because nobody would ever actually advocate railroading.

(C) Therefore, the real objection must be to colorful description, themes, and an exciting pace of play.

(D) As we all know, in order to provide those qualities, it is necessary to employ the technique of 'railroading' ...

Now, if someone simply says, "I agree with P&P; railroading is not necessary," or, "I disagree; without railroading, the result is not what I call a story" -- either way, regardless of whether one happens to consider the emergence of "a story" essential to one's personally preferred 'D&D' experience or not -- then I am fine with that.

The totally high-handed, high-horse baloney is not something I appreciate.

The fact is that different people have different tastes. The fact is that what some of those people like tastes really, really foul to some other people. The fact is that all of those groups have been sold stuff under the name of 'D&D'.

That has worked out fine for Hasbro making a quick buck, and even for each of those groups to get a game it likes (although for a continuing supply of rule-books and scenarios most of them must turn to other sources under other names).

So long as we're all effectively on separate islands of gaming goodness, we can arbitrarily mean whatever the heck we want to mean by 'playing a D&D game' or 'telling a story' -- as long as it means the same thing to our neighbors.

If anyone is going to step outside of the old familiar fields and try to get into a game somewhere else, then we need to have words that are actually useful for getting "on the same page".

The needs of genuine communication in trying to arrange a friendly social engagement are a bit different from the needs of rhetoric meant to elevate Us by putting down Them.

 

[Ariosto]

I will note that the use of the term "superior" in the Gospel is likely to be off-putting to those whose values are diametrically opposed. So, however, is the whole premise anyway; that is in the nature of such value-judgments.

 

[LostSoul]

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

Ah, thanks, I understand what you were saying now. I agree. I need to pay more attention to what I'm reading.

 

[rogueattorney]

Which leads me to my working definition of a good storyteller DM: someone who borrows and adapts the appropriate things from literature for use in their campaigns.

Which are what exactly?

That's the problem I have with these kinds of threads. The story-telling proponents say that they aren't advocating railroading. Fine. But I don't understand what they ARE advocating. I ask for in-game examples and I tend to get the following...

A. You can't railroad the willing. They aren't advocating railroading so much as advocating playing with players who don't care.

B. Illusionism. Rail-road really carefully and hopefully your players won't notice.

C. Funny voices and florid description. As in the initial post of this thread, which have nothing to do with the sand-box/story (or re-active/pro-active, if you prefer) debate.

 

[Piratecat]

Which are what exactly?

That's the problem I have with these kinds of threads. The story-telling proponents say that they aren't advocating railroading. Fine. But I don't understand what they ARE advocating. I ask for in-game examples and I tend to get the following...

A. You can't railroad the willing. They aren't advocating railroading so much as advocating playing with players who don't care.

B. Illusionism. Rail-road really carefully and hopefully your players won't notice.

C. Funny voices and florid description. As in the initial post of this thread, which have nothing to do with the sand-box/story (or re-active/pro-active, if you prefer) debate.

I'll be honest, this post confuses me a bit - so please tell me if I'm missing your point. This is one of those things that for me is so much easier to show than tell.

Here's an in-game example of the game in which I got interested in story.

I was running one of my favorite old Dungeon modules for our 2e campaign; this would be roughly back in '93 or '94. The module is one of those "PCs are stuck at an inn during a blizzard, and at least one person is a murderer." In fact, two people are - and they're doppelgangers. The inn-keeper and his older son has been replaced, leaving his wife and youngest son freaked out by the differences in their personalities and scared by their anger. Everything comes to a head while people are snowed in.

When we played this, two of the PCs got killed and one of the doppelgangers got away, disguised as one of the dead PCs. The heroes were pissed. I thought "Hey! Good continuing foe!" Having learned about him via mind reading, the doppelganger headed to replace the rich noble father of one of the PCs. I didn't particularly care if the PCs stumbled on this earlier or later; I knew he was there, and I knew what he was accomplishing while the PCs were off doing other things. He wasn't staying static, and I was dropping in-game hints to the group that they didn't really think about for some time, but this doppelganger's presence in the campaign was creating additional story that the heroes would soon reenter.

And for me, that's a hallmark of storytelling in games: consequences. Actions should have consequences. Good or bad, small or huge, what the PCs do should make ripples in the world, and they should eventually see signs of this.

 

[Janx]

Which are what exactly?

That's the problem I have with these kinds of threads. The story-telling proponents say that they aren't advocating railroading. Fine. But I don't understand what they ARE advocating. I ask for in-game examples and I tend to get the following...

A. You can't railroad the willing. They aren't advocating railroading so much as advocating playing with players who don't care.

B. Illusionism. Rail-road really carefully and hopefully your players won't notice.

C. Funny voices and florid description. As in the initial post of this thread, which have nothing to do with the sand-box/story (or re-active/pro-active, if you prefer) debate.

Alright, this is actual a pretty straightforward request. You want examples.

Bear in mind, I think we have different definitions of railroad. To me it is a very specific per encounter very bad DM behavior where the DM actively negates playr choices.

But let's see if I can come up with a bit more (which actually I had referred to a few techniques already).

Technique:
Establish a sense of urgency in combat:
real combat is quick and choppy. Rushed. Each action is NOT optimized and planned for 10 minutes. I have a blog article on making combat faster. Read that, use it, those are the methods.

Establish a sense of urgency outside of combat:
If the PCs are in a situation where they should feel rushed, because they don't have all night, you should bring in game elements to remind them of that.
wandering monsters are a good tool (or any patrol), when the party is in hostile territory and dithering on taking action, when in reality, they would get noticed. If you let the PCs sit in a populated dungeon, in a room and plan for 4 hours, they will not feel like they need to hurry and decide. If they know (because they hear footsteps, or have encountered previously) that reinforcements could come any minute, they will hurry up.
Setting a deadline (as in something will happen in x amount of time, if you let it)

Use Chekov's Gun/Foreshadowing:
If you've got some item or spell that would help defeat the BBEG, make sure it appears in the early part of the adventure (before they really set off to defeat him). This is actually a clue, you're giving them as to one way to beat the bad guy. Don't be too obvious, watch just about any sci-fi show, and you'll see the new trick used early in the episode for something harmless, and later on, it gets used to save the day. That's checkov's gun.

Cut to the chase:
if the 100 mile trip to somewhere cool is just a bunch of random encounters along the way, skip it. Just say "four days later, you arrive" Save game time for the cool scenes that advance the story.

Real action films have less fights than a D&D game:
Cut back on the meaningless fights. Instead, make them tougher. D&D takes a long time to play, compared to watching a movie or TV show. You can't model them exactly, but you can scale back the meaningless fights, to get to just the good ones. Don't pass over them, just don't make so many extra monsters waiting to be attacked. Stock up on action film DVDs and start taking notes. How many fights were there? You'll get a sense of the average count.

All roads lead to Rome
By all means, don't actually do this literally. If the BBEG is south, and the PCs go north, they leave the BBEG far behind. But what you can do, is have the BBEG embroiled in a number of things, that happen to intersect the PCs. This gives multiple vectors for the PCs to pick up on the BBEG and decide to deal with him.

Make it personal.
Whether by chance or intention, the BBEG does something that affects the PCs or their interests. Otherwise, there is less chance the PCs will care to get involved. There are stories where the protagonist just happens to involve themselves in somebody else's problems, but most of that died out in the 80's (unless it was their job). The players, being egocentric, will also appreciate stuf that is about them.

That's just a few techniques. There's more, and there's variations, and there's more to be said to refine what I said.

 

[Starfox]

I consider myself a storytelling GM, but I also consider the difference to be overstated. The best I can do here is to describe how I do things.

On the campaign level I am very much a storytelling GM, and to me the central thing about storytelling is entwining stories into each other. Each player and the GM has their own stories. As a GM I also have a lot of optional story hooks players can bit - or not. Sometimes I craft a story hood for one player (occasionally to have another player actually bite) but generally I try to make the hooks pretty neutral and available to all. I sometimes railroad, mainly because my players rarely have an agenda. Mostly I do this when presenting a scenario. Sometimes we have an out-of-game discussion about what the players want to do, then I prepare that scenario and we run it next session. Having multiple scenario hooks, some of which are not taken is too much work for me. Furbishing "refused" scenarios with new hooks really doesn't seem fun either.

On the session/scenario level, I find a sandbox approach works much better. While I try to keep the players engaged and the game moving, discouraging overlong planning sessions, I try and avoid having a "perfect" solution and enjoy when the players find a clever shortcut or jump to conclusions - right or wrong.

 

[rogueattorney]

And for me, that's a hallmark of storytelling in games: consequences. Actions should have consequences. Good or bad, small or huge, what the PCs do should make ripples in the world, and they should eventually see signs of this.

Which, to me, is the hallmark of a traditional D&D campaign. The players act and the environment responds. Go back to your copy of B2 and read the section where Gygax writes about what should happen should the pcs clear out a section of the Caves. That's classic dungeon-delving, "hack and slash" neanderthal D&D, which supposedly is the anathema of "modern, enlightened, story-oriented rpging."

No one who's advocating "sand boxing" is advocating a static game world that snaps back into place once the pcs have left. That's actually contrary to the whole point of giving the players control. You want them to ambitiously pursue their own goals and effect the world in some way.