What happened to the story?

[The_Universe]

I think the story was ceremonially sacrificed on the first printed 3.0 PHB back in 2000... I get the impression the 3e designers saw 'story' as what ruined 2e, and have tried hard to eliminate it from 3e entirely.

Stories are what you and your players make, not what the game naturally produces. The rules, IMO, are the province of the game companies, and the story is the thing that's all mine.

YMMV.

 

[Insight]

Players take good DMs for granted.

*seraphim blow horns from above*

HALLELUJAH

You hit the nail on the head. That's why some GMs need help with stories. Some are better with rules than creativity, and vice versa. Some Gms would like a nudge in the right direction with an idea or the beginning of a story (or something they can develop into a story).

Unfortunately, for the majority of d20 products (I'm talking mostly WOTC here), story is left to the GM. Most GMs (like myself) prefer this, but some GMs might find this burden frustrating.

A source I can recommend that many people may not have (or have access to, since it's out of print) is the 2E Villains' Handbook. I hope that some of that material will find its way into DMG II, but who knows. I also liked the 2E Campaign & Catacombs Sourcebook, which was part of the same series. Even though I don't use any of the scant rules from these books, they have some good sources of inspiration.

 

[DethStryke]

Quick note about the Plots and Places forum:

We merged it with General Discussion because traffic had consistently fallen to exceptionally low levels, to the point where it wasn't getting any attention from anyone but a dedicated few. But ever since we merged it in, plot-help related threads have to my perception been doing very well in General. I myself posted for plot help about a month ago and got two or three pages of help on a very small part of my game, and I consistently see people asking for campaign help,l and getting results. Not as much as the game-centered threads, but that's to be expected.

If there were a large outcry to have a separate plot-and-story brainstorm forum over in Meta, we'd bring it back for certain. I'm not talking "Eh, I wouldn't mind seeing it again", but more like people saying, "We need this forum back!" We try to be responsive to users.

So, if you are genuinely interested in seeing Plots and Places or a similar forum back, bring it up in Meta and proselytize.

Hijack of thread out.

I had just asked this question in the Meta section, and PCat was kind enough to explain the same, but MMorris also added a good idea that "story" or some such should be a meta tag (like Poll is now, with an icon next to the tread) so you know what it is right off the bat.

I was one of the dedicated few until my surgery took me away from it for a few months and then it was gone. I remember when I was on it, it would be only the same 10 people on every thread. Everyone wanted to reap the rewards of feedback but few would take the time to travel to the section and comment on a regular basis. Moving it to the General RPG discussion is a bit too big of a pool... Instead of being a big gold fish in a cup of water (originally) and not having enough water to live, the fish was moved into an ocean the size of a planet.... that little fish gets very lost and swept away easily.

I think that when meta tags are back in after the fixes settle, that will help alot. Another option would be to make it a sub-forum to the General RPG Discussion (like lover's leap is).

Although in the end, I have a feeling that the little tags would end up getting more traffic to those story/plot threads than moving it to a sub thread. However, either would be much better and more logical in the current organization form than moving it back to "Plots & Places".

 

[diaglo]

Gotta disagree with you 100%. That's just a GM who has no imagination. Add something like Stunting from Exalted if you want more descriptions. And I guess, in your example, I'd actually expect the player to describe what he's trying to do and then tell him how he suceeds based on damage, etc...

Then again... I'm one of those people who when he reads about how GMs should keep the suspense of the game by adding tons of description to every monster and not state their name laughts. Yeah, I'm going to spend twenty minutes describing how terrible an orc looks so that the players dont' know it's an orc. I've got better things to do like game. If I want description, I'll go read some fiction.

you aren't disagreeing with me. i can name a bunch of new DMs who go the way you describe too. the example i chose was just one extreme.

what the rules should include are more instructions with examples of play.

 

[el-remmen]

what the rules should include are more instructions with examples of play.

I whole-heartedly agree. I used to love to read examples of play (like the one in the 2E PHB) and 3E would benefit from a lot more of those in every section of the rule books.

 

[JoeGKushner]

you aren't disagreeing with me. i can name a bunch of new DMs who go the way you describe too. the example i chose was just one extreme.

what the rules should include are more instructions with examples of play.

Okay. That I can buy.

More examples not only of in play, but a "Hot to Use This" section.

One of the things I liked about the PrCs in Complete Adventurer, Races of Destiny, and from what I've heard, Races of the Wild, is that it does this to a limited extent. It's not just a PrC thrown out there.

 

[Tonguez]

Although in the end, I have a feeling that the little tags would end up getting more traffic to those story/plot threads than moving it to a sub thread. However, either would be much better and more logical in the current organization form than moving it back to "Plots & Places".

Yeah I suppose I agree essentially - the metatags are cool and a subforum would be a great comprimise imho. I'm one who spends hours cruising between the boards I enjoy and use to go to Plots and Places for ideas and to contribute too (the Creation of Shark World and Mors End were both fun times). Unfortunately I don't go to meta or the off topic boards so haven't seen any of the discussions re plots and places there

oh and thanks Henry for the advice

 

[Scarbonac]

you aren't disagreeing with me. i can name a bunch of new DMs who go the way you describe too. the example i chose was just one extreme.

what the rules should include are more instructions with examples of play.

Not a bad idea at all.

 

[drnuncheon]

unfortunately, the mechanics of the game have gotten in the way of story.

Funny, that's how I always felt about 1e.

"Hey, I've got this great idea for a dwarven wizard." "Sorry, dwarves can't be wizards." "Well...damn. It's a high level game, right? I guess I'll make him an elf." "Sure, just remember the level caps." "What?" "Elven wizards develop a case of the stupids shortly after hitting the double digits in levels, and can't advance any farther."

Compared to 3e: "Hey, I've got this great idea for a dwarven wizard." "Cool, go for it."

so describing the cool move of a swordmaster slicing his way thru one opponent and into the next has been shortened to cleave.

Only if you've got a DM (or players) that don't describe well, which is just as much of a problem with 1e. Still I don't see how the rules get in the way - they may not actively encourage description as much as, say, Exalted, but then again, neither does 1e.

J

 

[Desdichado]

Ooops...