Quote from: Christopher Brady;1066041Which are based of story mechanics and structure.  They just are.  Deal with it.

Saying something doesn't make it so. A DM can cram the setup for Keep on the Borderlands (for example) into a post-hoc story structure, but that doesn't make the adventure a story structure.

QuoteIT'S NOT AN INSULT!  OR A PERSONAL ATTACK!  WHY ARE YOU SO SCARED OF THE WORD STORY?  NO ONE SHOULD THINK LESS OF YOU BECAUSE OF IT!

Dude, calm. I'm not scared of a word. I'm speaking my opinion.

QuoteYou are desperate to avoid the word Story, aren't you?  Fine.  Facts don't change.  You use story mechanics.

But none of this doesn't answer my original question, Omega mentioned it that he saw something in one of the books that SORTA alludes to it, but I want to know, which D&D edition says that the DM is creating a story?

Dunno, I'm not Omega. I was just commenting on your post saying that games work best when they follow some story rules, which I disagreed with.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1066041IT'S NOT AN INSULT!  OR A PERSONAL ATTACK!  WHY ARE YOU SO SCARED OF THE WORD STORY?  NO ONE SHOULD THINK LESS OF YOU BECAUSE OF IT!

This sentiment always gets under my skin.

There's an insinuation (or in cases like this, outright shouting insistence) that what I'm doing at my table is telling a collaborative story with my friends.

I'm not. Or rather, I'm telling no more a story than I would be if we were playing monopoly.

My entire role as GM (any decent GM's role in my personal estimation) is:
1) Prepping the hexmap and key (including dungeons and such) and/or purchasing a suitable one
2) Having the rulebook in front of me to answer tricky rules questions during play (that the player's don't answer first, sharp bastards)
3) Telling the players what they see, hear, etc.
4) Making "no-duh" judgement calls on the outcome of actions below the fidelity of the rules ("I turn the door handle" "The door opens", that kind of stuff)
5) Answering "Can I...?" questions by giving more detail on what the character's interacting with
6) Keeping time and checking for encounters
7) Playing the motives and personalities of the NPCs (generally informed by start-of-encounter charisma checks as to general starting attitude ie "hostile/friendly/neutral/etc."
Providing a table and snacks for us to game on

There's no narrative to it: we're playing a game. Simple as that.

Calling what we do a "collaborative story" and going histrionic about including all these reality-morphing "pace the adventure for best impact!" ideas isn't something that
1) We do, or have ever done
2) We need; our games are fun and satisfying without it

So when you start melting down about "WHY ARE YOU SO MAD ABOUT YOUR STORIES, BRO?!" you leave gamers like us scratching our heads. By all appearances, you're using the rules of narrative as a framework for describing us playing a game; so? That doesn't influence, y'know, actually playing the game.

You could do it to monopoly, too: "First, a band of enthusiastic young entrepreneurs set out to acquire virgin property; then, they slowly acquire it and build it up, sharking each other the whole way; eventually, it escalates into a fiscal war, leaving all but one of them hopeless bankrupt, and the last wealthy beyond their wildest dreams!"

You tell me: how much did my cheeky framing device up there help you to play or enjoy monopoly? That's about how much your posts are influencing the way I run and enjoy D&D.

Quote from: Azraele;1066053This sentiment always gets under my skin.

There's an insinuation (or in cases like this, outright shouting insistence) that what I'm doing at my table is telling a collaborative story with my friends.

Oh for the love of...  All because of that teeny tiny word, and you get all 'No, no, no!  That's NOT HOW I DO IT!'

I am not saying you're writing stories, you using elements of a story STRUCTURE.  THERE IS A DIFFERENCE, SNOWFLAKE!  USEFUL BITS.

LIKE EVERYONE ELSE HAS POINTED OUT, STORY TENDS TO HAPPEN AFTER THE GAME SESSION, IF AT ALL.  BUT WHILE YOU'RE RUNNING IT, YOU ARE USING THINGS THAT HELP MAKE A STORY COHESIVE, CUZ IT'S EASIER ON THE HUMAN BRAIN TO DO THINGS IN A FAMILIAR PATTERN!

Great googly moogly, it's not the same thing.  Yeesh...  All because you're afraid of what?  Making it sound like your into the horrific 'Storygame'?  Whatever the hell that is.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1066041Which are based of story mechanics and structure.  They just are.  Deal with it.

So my trip to Florida and the incidents that occurred are a result of story mechanics and structure?

In the real world trip there are a bunch of locations with a random assortment of people (from my point of view) each with their own motivations and goals. Some I interacted with in a trivial manner, like buying gas, other I had more extensive interactions like talking to folks at a yacht club my father once raced for or my wife's grandparents. I had plans for things to do at various locations with most succeeding, but did not turn out as planned.

What if I started a traditional tabletop roleplaying campaign that had at its initial premise a trip to Florida? Details the locations that I expect the players to visit based on feedback and what I heard at the campaign's start. At each location had a list of known NPCs along with a randomly generated list. All NPCs have their own motivations and goals. A few have pre-existing connections like the grandparents of one the PCs.

How that differ than my real world trip? Where is the "story" in either before either started? Which story structures or narrative elements are at play in either? Unlike a narrative the precise outcome of either is unknown. And dependent on the intersecting decisions of multiple people at specific moments in time.

None of this is theoretical either. In addition to running sandbox campaigns for several decades, I have several sandbox adventures (one published) that I worked on or are working on. As part of the process of writing, I run them them for different groups multiple times. Adventures like my Scourge of the Demon Wolf.

From the initial situation each group handled the adventures differently. No two adventures played out the same. Common elements existed because of the specific circumstances of the situation. The demon wolf was caused by a demonic summons gone awry as it was performed by an apprentice. The cast of NPCs was the same from adventure to adventure and as their relationships, motivations and goals did not change between the groups, PCs tended to adopt broadly similar solution. Yet the sequence of events played out differently for each group as a result of their choices and style.

It easy to think that traditional tabletop roleplaying campaigns have a "story". Most campaigns revolve around a group of friend with a long term relationships. A group with known likes and dislikes. In that situation it easier for a referee to run a campaign that leads to a predictable outcome even if it not a railroad. Because of the predictability one is lulled into thinking that narratives and story structures have applicability.

The same hold true of referee with decades of experience like myself. Run enough campaign even with a different group each time, patterns emerge and your ability to predict what players do or don't increased. Again this predictability lulls one into the false idea that somehow narrative and story structures are applicable.

The reality that the traditional tabletop roleplaying campaigns are pen & paper virtual realities enabled by the flexibility of the human referee. As a virtual reality there is no narrative, no plot. Rather there are locations, and those that inhabit them. And the inhabitants have goals and motivations of their own. That the resulting events are caused by the unpredictable interactions between the players acting as their characters and the decision of the human referee as to how the inhabitant would act toward what the players do or don't do as their characters.

That the challenge for the referee of a campaign isn't coming up with a interesting narrative, but rather with coming up with a interesting situation that the players want to be involved with as their character. I went to Florida as part of a once in a decade visit to the various theme parks of the area with my children. And because it was my father's last chance to visit some of  the places he were he once lived. That why Florida was interesting to me at that time.

In a tabletop roleplaying campaign, the prospect of untold wealth may be what sparks the group's initial interest. Or the that the land needs to be saved from the ravages of the dragonlords and their flying citadels. Or the saving the land from a second darkness by destroying the one artifact that is the source of the enemy's power. Or perhaps donning a cape and cowl to save the city from those who prey on it is what interesting. For many crewing a starship, staying one step ahead of the law while earning a credit all to keep flying is interesting.

So I got to say your response is a bit of a stretch.

Quote from: estar;1066088So my trip to Florida and the incidents that occurred are a result of story mechanics and structure?

Your experience of them certainly was. Human beings are hardwired to see patterns and draw correlations from what they experience. We tell stories to ourselves and to each other all the time. Its how we learn and how we place things in context. They're not all stories one could make a living telling, but how our brains sort events is the reason we have stories in the first place. One of the things they actually teach in screenwriting classes is that the reason the "Classical Construction" or "Archplot" is so well received across various cultures is that it maps almost perfectly to how humans contextualize their world.

In this case you've got your inciting incident (whatever made you decide to go to Florida), your plot and pacing (what happened on the trip and when) and conclusion (the end of your trip to Florida). You may not recognize it, but "My Trip to Florida" is exactly the sort of distinction that makes something a story. You've set a specific time, location and actions apart from everyday existence as important to some degree. It may not be a very interesting story, but its a story.

Humans run on stories. When it comes to experiencing events, humans largely define their experiences in context of an ongoing "story of me" in which they are the protagonist. Heck, you're probably doing it right now in categorizing various posters in the story of "me and my opinions about this thread topic" as allies, adversaries or non-entities. Its not a terribly interesting story to anyone not involved in it and there's no defined ending (yet), but its definitely got a defined beginning and what we see as obstacles to overcome (or say, "forget it, not worth my time"... which will be contextualized as "stupid subplot" or "how I vanquished my opponent/lost an ally" in the ongoing story of various participants).

Frankly, unless you are starting the campaign at the birth of each character, the GM is using at least one story element at the start of every campaign whether they want to or not... they're defining the starting point of these PC's adventures in space and time. Why this day and this town and not two weeks ago (or a month later) in some completely different location? Something has happened (generally the PCs all gathering up) that is the start of events that can be categorized as a story (just one they're in the middle of with no defined ending).

Unless there's literally nothing going on to encourage the PCs to go do something, the GM is also making choices by their placement of world elements and actions those within it take that can loosely be deemed inciting incidents (i.e. plot hooks). The shady guy in the bar with a treasure map for sale is an inciting incident that needs only the PCs to interact with the stranger for that plot to begin. So is the news of goblin raiders attacking a caravan in the woods or a notice of a reward for the capture of a criminal or the recovery of a lost item.

Likewise, most of those plot hooks/inciting incidents also suggest their own endings. The story of the stranger's treasure map ends when the PCs find the treasure it points to (or fail to... "This is the story of how X died" is not an uncommon one). The story of the goblin raiders ends when their threat is ended. The journey to go and map the wilderness ends when the party (or what's left it) returns to civilization.

And whether you realize it or not, the obstacles you place between the plot hook and its resolution... the mix of monsters, puzzles, traps and rooms safe enough to rest in the dungeon (and whether wandering monsters turn up on a 1-in-6 or 2-in-6 chance) are establishing a basic pacing flow for the "story." This is something the players will record in their brains when they recount the story of their adventure of following the plot-hook.

These things are so hard-coded into us that most of don't even realize we're doing it. To tell stories and see ourselves as being in the midst of a story is so fundamental to being human its like breathing; you only notice it when you stop to think about it.

Quote from: Chris24601;1066108Your experience of them certainly was. Human beings are hardwired to see patterns and draw correlations from what they experience. We tell stories to ourselves and to each other all the time. Its how we learn and how we place things in context. They're not all stories one could make a living telling, but how our brains sort events is the reason we have stories in the first place. One of the things they actually teach in screenwriting classes is that the reason the "Classical Construction" or "Archplot" is so well received across various cultures is that it maps almost perfectly to how humans contextualize their world.

In this case you've got your inciting incident (whatever made you decide to go to Florida), your plot and pacing (what happened on the trip and when) and conclusion (the end of your trip to Florida). You may not recognize it, but "My Trip to Florida" is exactly the sort of distinction that makes something a story. You've set a specific time, location and actions apart from everyday existence as important to some degree. It may not be a very interesting story, but its a story.

Humans run on stories. When it comes to experiencing events, humans largely define their experiences in context of an ongoing "story of me" in which they are the protagonist. Heck, you're probably doing it right now in categorizing various posters in the story of "me and my opinions about this thread topic" as allies, adversaries or non-entities. Its not a terribly interesting story to anyone not involved in it and there's no defined ending (yet), but its definitely got a defined beginning and what we see as obstacles to overcome (or say, "forget it, not worth my time"... which will be contextualized as "stupid subplot" or "how I vanquished my opponent/lost an ally" in the ongoing story of various participants).

Frankly, unless you are starting the campaign at the birth of each character, the GM is using at least one story element at the start of every campaign whether they want to or not... they're defining the starting point of these PC's adventures in space and time. Why this day and this town and not two weeks ago (or a month later) in some completely different location? Something has happened (generally the PCs all gathering up) that is the start of events that can be categorized as a story (just one they're in the middle of with no defined ending).

Unless there's literally nothing going on to encourage the PCs to go do something, the GM is also making choices by their placement of world elements and actions those within it take that can loosely be deemed inciting incidents (i.e. plot hooks). The shady guy in the bar with a treasure map for sale is an inciting incident that needs only the PCs to interact with the stranger for that plot to begin. So is the news of goblin raiders attacking a caravan in the woods or a notice of a reward for the capture of a criminal or the recovery of a lost item.

Likewise, most of those plot hooks/inciting incidents also suggest their own endings. The story of the stranger's treasure map ends when the PCs find the treasure it points to (or fail to... "This is the story of how X died" is not an uncommon one). The story of the goblin raiders ends when their threat is ended. The journey to go and map the wilderness ends when the party (or what's left it) returns to civilization.

And whether you realize it or not, the obstacles you place between the plot hook and its resolution... the mix of monsters, puzzles, traps and rooms safe enough to rest in the dungeon (and whether wandering monsters turn up on a 1-in-6 or 2-in-6 chance) are establishing a basic pacing flow for the "story." This is something the players will record in their brains when they recount the story of their adventure of following the plot-hook.

These things are so hard-coded into us that most of don't even realize we're doing it. To tell stories and see ourselves as being in the midst of a story is so fundamental to being human its like breathing; you only notice it when you stop to think about it.

Critical question: was the story preconceived before the events occurred, or did the story emerge from the events as they occurred?

Quote from: RandyB;1066113Critical question: was the story preconceived before the events occurred, or did the story emerge from the events as they occurred?

As they occurred, actually.

And Chris is correct, and put it better than I was, we RUN on stories.  We use story elements in everything we do.  And again, in gaming, we use ELEMENTS of a good story, the very BASIC ones.  Some advanced concepts as well, like Chekov's Gun, everything in a game is there for a reason, even if that reason is flavour to get a feel for the tavern room.  Things like the Manticore Head over on the wall, the smell of ale and mead from the floor, the metal spit roasting a haunch of Dragon Meat in the fire pit in the middle of the common room, everything there tells you what you need to know of the 'scene', which is just a way to make your players feel invested in the place.  People who run mysteries use A LOT of story elements too.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply

Quote from: Chris24601;1066108Your experience of them certainly was. Human beings are hardwired to see patterns and draw correlations from what they experience.

Sure after the fact as I highlighted in bold. However prior to the trip to Florida all I had were plans and hopes. No sense of a three act structure. No idea whether there be rising actions, a climax and a resolution and so forth for the first narrative elements.

Quote from: Chris24601;1066108One of the things they actually teach in screenwriting classes is that the reason the "Classical Construction" or "Archplot" is so well received across various cultures is that it maps almost perfectly to how humans contextualize their world.

Sure after the fact when one is trying to recount what has happen to another or to an audience. But what makes traditional tabletop roleplaying different is that it allow one to "visit" via pen & paper and imagination other places and times even as a different personality (character) than oneself.  

Quote from: Chris24601;1066108In this case you've got your inciting incident (whatever made you decide to go to Florida), your plot and pacing (what happened on the trip and when) and conclusion (the end of your trip to Florida). You may not recognize it, but "My Trip to Florida" is exactly the sort of distinction that makes something a story.

Nobody arguing including myself that after the conclusion of a session or campaign, one can't tell a story about it (good or bad). The debate is about preparation before a campaign or session and the decisions that occur during a session or campaign.

Some of the sides are
a) the referee present encounters as part of a narrative structure for example: inciting incident, rising action, climax, and denouement.

b) the referee should present the setting with a life of its own with the NPCs and creatures following their own plans and goals. Plans and goals that would change in response to the what the PCs do or don't do. There is no "narrative" only a pen & paper virtual life.

Quote from: Chris24601;1066108Humans run on stories. When it comes to experiencing events, humans largely define their experiences in context of an ongoing "story of me" in which they are the protagonist.

The experience comes before the story. The innovation of traditional tabletop roleplaying games is that they can generate experiences with pen & paper in a way more interesting than "Let's pretend" with the uncertainty of life due to the use of the rules of a game.

Like the trip to the Florida, nobody know what will happen when one visit's S1 - Tomb of Horrors if they never read the adventure or played it. By using the rules of 1st edition AD&D in the structures of a traditional tabletop roleplaying campaign I can visit and experience the Tomb of Horror in a manner similar to visiting Disney World and then later recount my experience as a story. A story that I could make interesting by following a narrative structure like some of the ones you mentioned.

Quote from: Chris24601;1066108Heck, you're probably doing it right now in categorizing various posters in the story of "me and my opinions about this thread topic" as allies, adversaries or non-entities. Its not a terribly interesting story to anyone not involved in it and there's no defined ending (yet), but its definitely got a defined beginning and what we see as obstacles to overcome (or say, "forget it, not worth my time"... which will be contextualized as "stupid subplot" or "how I vanquished my opponent/lost an ally" in the ongoing story of various participants).

I understand that viewpoint and have encounter others with it, I don't consider it a useful or productive one. This conversation and others like it are not part of a narrative. Anybody can have their mind changed. Anybody could be that set in their ways. Most are in between. One could make generalities about a group or even an individual. But experience has taught me that trying make predictions i.e. a narrative based on generalities is a fool's game.

It far more useful and productive consider what is said (or done) on their own merits. Not try to shoehorn it into a preconceived notion of how one things are or going to play out.

Quote from: Chris24601;1066108Frankly, unless you are starting the campaign at the birth of each character, the GM is using at least one story element at the start of every campaign whether they want to or not... they're defining the starting point of these PC's adventures in space and time. Why this day and this town and not two weeks ago (or a month later) in some completely different location? Something has happened (generally the PCs all gathering up) that is the start of events that can be categorized as a story (just one they're in the middle of with no defined ending).

That because at the start of the campaign everything prior is the past. Which can only be recounted as a story as you correctly pointed out. The difference occurs after the start of the campaign.

Quote from: Chris24601;1066108Unless there's literally nothing going on to encourage the PCs to go do something, the GM is also making choices by their placement of world elements and actions those within it take that can loosely be deemed inciting incidents (i.e. plot hooks).

Of course but it doesn't make the referee a storyteller. Setting encompasses entire worlds that has to be presented to the players through the limited bandwidth of speech, and paper. Even CRPGS with teams of developers and the power of computer graphics behind them struggle to present the entirety of a setting. So the human referee has use their creativity, experience, and knowledge of the players to pick out those things that would be of interest.

Just as a I used my experience, knowledge, about my father and family to pick locations and activities that would be interesting to them out of the entirety of Florida. Still despite that knowledge and experience, I could not tell you prior to the trip how it would all work out in the end.

The shady guy in the bar with a treasure map for sale is an inciting incident that needs only the PCs to interact with the stranger for that plot to begin. So is the news of goblin raiders attacking a caravan in the woods or a notice of a reward for the capture of a criminal or the recovery of a lost item.

Likewise, most of those plot hooks/inciting incidents also suggest their own endings.[/QUOTE]

Sure a better example is a mission or even a trip planned by an experienced traveller. There are circumstances in life where the "story" writes itself. However doesn't mean those who create missions are storytellers. Eisenhower and his team were not creating the story of the Normandy invasion they were creating a plan to invade Europe. Most of which worked but some of did not work out as planned (like Omaha Beach).

Same with campaign that have missions, or "hooks" that have limited plausible ways of being handled. It may look like storytelling but in reality it just another plan the referee creates as part of the preparation for a campaign. And while it likely it will happen along the lines that one would predict there always a chance that chance and circumstance will completely alter things. Although not likely in many cases.

Quote from: Chris24601;1066108And whether you realize it or not, the obstacles you place between the plot hook and its resolution... the mix of monsters, puzzles, traps and rooms safe enough to rest in the dungeon (and whether wandering monsters turn up on a 1-in-6 or 2-in-6 chance) are establishing a basic pacing flow for the "story." This is something the players will record in their brains when they recount the story of their adventure of following the plot-hook.

That the disconnect right there. You are assuming that I conceived campaigns as something linear. Yes there is an initial point in time. But I do not start a campaign with an end goal. I have no idea how any campaign I run will turn out. I don't place obstacles, I create locations. I create the creatures and NPCs that inhabit them along with their plans and motivations.

It could be argued that the "plans and motivations" are a narrative in of themselves. But it like what you have planned for the Christmas holidays. You make plans, do your preparations, and probably be correct in your predictions of what will happen. However you truly don't know.  Nobody here can predict precisely what will happen on December 25th. We just have to wait and experience it.

The same with the plans and goals of the creatures and NPCs I create. I don't know what will happen, only what could happen if the PCs don't do anything involving specific creatures and NPCs. Even then the flapping wings of a butterfly could cause secondary effects that alters things.

My choices as to what to detail are based on what I know would interests the PCs and what would impact their stated goals. And do in a way that hopefully fun and interesting to experience.

Quote from: Chris24601;1066108These things are so hard-coded into us that most of don't even realize we're doing it. To tell stories and see ourselves as being in the midst of a story is so fundamental to being human its like breathing; you only notice it when you stop to think about it.

As you can tell, I have put a lot of thought into what I do as a referee, why I do it, and how to achieve the result.

It all stems back in from my Junior High days circa 1980 where I was the referee who let players "trash" my campaign on their their way to become rulers, guildmasters, and magnates and my efforts to make that a interesting challenge that the players felt was earned.

No one is claiming a GM is a 'storyteller', we are claiming everyone uses story ELEMENTS.  THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING!

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1066129No one is claiming a GM is a 'storyteller', we are claiming everyone uses story ELEMENTS.  THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING!

You claimed

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1065948Well, yeah, cuz games work best as if they follow some story rules, the really basic ones.  A beginning, middle and end, with pacing matching how one would do in a story, with beats and flow, and a denouement.  Which is all you need.  The better adventures are written in that way.

And people disagreed. Keep on the Borderlands (again, for example, there are many) doesn't have beats and flow, or a denoument. It has locations and keys, the real building blocks of a site based adventure. It doesn't have a beginning, middle or end. The players create them post-hoc during play. It certainly does not have pacing related to storytelling techniques at all. It doesn't even have much of a "plot", that is easily discarded if the players go "off the rails".

AND MY CAPS ARE BIGGER THAN YOURS!

Quote from: estarThat the disconnect right there. You are assuming that I conceived campaigns as something linear.

I'm not assuming that actually. I think the disconnect is actually that you presume "story" must be about the entire campaign as a whole.

What I presume is that, when you drop a mysterious stranger with a treasure map into your local tavern (i.e. a potential inciting incident) you have already determined what it is a map to (i.e. the story/quest's ending) and what likely obstacles lie between the PCs and reaching the treasure (i.e. the plot/pacing).

THAT is the framework of a story. It may not be a story with a known ending (because it's still being written by everyone's actions), but it is close enough to a story structure that even someone in the real world going on a treasure hunt would recognize that they're in the middle of something that will be a story once it's complete (even if the specific challenges and end point are currently unknown). It might end up being a boring or anticlimactic or even a shaggy dog story in the end, but the story elements are there.

Heck, at least half the vacations I've been on in my life have been with the goal of "making memories" (i.e. stories you'll recount) with family and/or friends. The entire point of the motivation "to see what's on the other side" is so that you can recount (i.e. tell a story about; even if only to yourself) what you found there. You are literally setting out to be in a story.

The disconnect is that my frame of reference is that a campaign, like life, is filled with dozens, hundreds, thousands of stories of all lengths (and levels of quality). And as in life, those stories all interweave with other stories (both personal and those belonging to others).

The story of the mysterious stranger's map might just be "Book One in the [insert PCs name here] Chronicles" which spans 21 separate tales (as Howard's Conan did) or it might be a stand-alone tale of "The Sad Fate of [Character name]."

In a sense it's rather like you're in the middle of reading a book you picked up that's missing it's cover and title page. You may think you know where it's going (PCs plans), but you can't account for plot twists (i.e. random dice affecting the outcome).

You may say that a plot-hook with attached obstacles and a goal isn't actually using story elements, but I don't think we're actually disagreeing over anything other than the semantics of what the elements of "hook, obstacles, goal" are called at this point.

To me that's the heart of a story... what causes the protagonist to act, what stands in the way of those actions and do they ultimately succeed are the core elements of every story and wind up in campaigns whether you realize you're adding them or not.

That doesn't mean the GM is an outright storyteller... but a big part of the job is weaving all of the actions of the PCs and NPCs into something coherent; of explaining what happens next when the PC or an NPC takes an action. That explanation may be in line with codified rules (i.e. the story of how Dave cleaved an Orc in twain with a single blow because he rolled a Nat-20 and max on his damage roll) or it might be using your own judgement (i.e. the story of how the PCs negotiation with the Barbarian Chief go after they present their gift to him)... but those are all stories (very short ones) you are telling to the players about "what happened next."

Perhaps we can compromise and call it the use of "story-like objects" (in the same way I've heard wall-hangers called "sword-like objects")?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1066129No one is claiming a GM is a 'storyteller', we are claiming everyone uses story ELEMENTS.  THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING!

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1065948Well, yeah, cuz games work best as if they follow some story rules, the really basic ones.  A beginning, middle and end, with pacing matching how one would do in a story, with beats and flow, and a denouement.  Which is all you need.  The better adventures are written in that way.

My thesis is that story rules and other narrative devices are not relevant to running, preparation, or management of traditional tabletop role playing campaign except for some narrow specific circumstances.

Like roleplaying a NPC who is telling a story within the setting.
Like creating a character within the setting.
Like creating a setting for the campaign.
and so on.

Even the above are narrowly focused on supporting elements for a campaign. The fundamental flow of a traditional tabletop roleplaying campaign is the player describing what they do as their character based on the circumstances, the referee describing the result of their actions and the changed circumstances, and repeating this loop throughout the life of the campaign.

While a story is about following a narrative structure of connected real or imaginary events which can be organized in several ways.

You are ignoring that prior to a session or a campaign there are NO real or imaginary events to connect. They don't exist. They have not occurred yet. The use of the rules of a game and the free will of the participants precludes there being a predetermined result other than what initially opens the campaign or session.

What makes it confusing is that the preparations of characters, creatures, locations, motivations, and goals is either the same or similar to what a creator of a narrative does. But that work is used in a very different structure in a traditional tabletop roleplaying campaign compared to a narrative like a novel, play, or film.

That structure being the players interacting with a setting as their character with their actions adjudicated by a human referee. As opposed to a report of connected events (real or imaginary).

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1066041IT'S NOT AN INSULT!  OR A PERSONAL ATTACK!  WHY ARE YOU SO SCARED OF THE WORD STORY?  NO ONE SHOULD THINK LESS OF YOU BECAUSE OF IT!
You are desperate to avoid the word Story, aren't you?  Fine.  Facts don't change.  You use story mechanics.

But none of this doesn't answer my original question, Omega mentioned it that he saw something in one of the books that SORTA alludes to it, but I want to know, which D&D edition says that the DM is creating a story?

1: Because storygamers totally ruined the use of the word Story to describe "stuff that happened in an adventure" to the point some now apparently have kneejerk reactions to even mentioning "story". I saw that way back when I first got here even.

2: 5e DMG I believe. Either that or in one of the supplements. Wasnt there a thread about it here when 5e first cam out?

Ahh, found one. DMG chapter 3 right at the start.

QuoteFundamentally adventures are stories. An adventure shares many of the features of a novel, a movie, an issue of a comic, or an episode of a TV show. Comic series and serialized TV dramas are particularly good comparisons, because of the way individual adventures are limited in scope but blend together to create a larger narrative.

Quote from: Psikerlord;1066048#Gameplay>Story. So very important, yet largely lost with the rise of adventure paths in recent years.

Id say it is more like gameplay = story. Story as in "these are the things that happened to us on the adventure" rather than "These are the things that will happen to us on the adventure."

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1066052I'm not scared of a word. I'm speaking my opinion.

Dunno, I'm not Omega. I was just commenting on your post saying that games work best when they follow some story rules, which I disagreed with.

1: What about "Mufasaaaaa." :eek:

2: I dont know? Are you sure? I still have my Warduke action figure.