Quote from: estar;1066154My 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.

Sorry. But you and others seem to keep skewing what Chris is saying to mean something else. Repeatedly. Even after he clarifies. repeatedly. So I have to assume you just have some sort of pathological kneejerk to the word at this point.

Assuming I am reading it right Chris has stated, now several times, that the story structure develop naturally and oft after the fact. This is how we developed story structure in the first place as it bases on actions and things done in the real world. And while I think his application is perhaps a bit too broad. It does apply here. It is just not in the totally ham handed and ass backwards ways storygamers use the terms.

My recurring example is Arkham Horror. Storygamers keep claiming that this board game is a really real storytelling RPG. No. It is not. A story can develop from the things you do and you can turn that into a story after the fact. But the game in no way tells a story as you play or was ever designed to. This is where storygamers skew the term story into something else. And as I have said before. When your definition of something is effectively "everything on earth" then your definition has become worse than useless.

Quote from: Chris24601;1066153I'm not assuming that actually. I think the disconnect is actually that you presume "story" must be about the entire campaign as a whole.

I distinguish between what a referee does to prepare and what a referee does during play. As mentioned in an earlier reply there is an intersection between what a creator of a narrative does before writing a story and how a referee prepares a campaign. For example character motivations and goals.

However beyond that what I am talking about applies to the campaign as a whole, to sessions, and encounters. This is a result of focusing on getting the players to feel as if they are there as their characters in what is hopefully a fun and interesting situation.

A guy coming up to the group with a map is not the same as it would be in a Conan novel. In the Conan novel that encounter is part of a narrative planned by the author. In a traditional tabletop roleplaying campaign that NPCs is just one of many at that particular locale. Either by random chance or a choice of the PCs, the ensuing encounters happens.

Not because I want them to follow a treasure map at that moment. Rather I included it as one of the plausible possibilities for that location and circumstance. This is part of bringing the setting to life. However prior to the session I had no idea whether the treasure map would come or not amid the other possibilities.

Now the nuts and bolts of running a campaign doesn't mean that every session is a potential random smorgasbord of choices. Parties often come to a decision about a goal which narrows the choices I have to prepare for. They know they need the feather of a golden griffon to make a +3 sword that they lair in the Dead Queen's Valley. Likely the work I do in preparing the Dead Queen's Valley will be immediately used while any prep for Dearthwood in the opposite direction can be put off for later. For either location the work I put in is to describe it as a location at that moment in time in a form useful for a tabletop roleplaying campaign. What happens is up to the players.

Quote from: Chris24601;1066153Heck, 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.

Sorry but that only a plan to "make memories".  All one can hope for is that chance and prep conspire to see the plan through. But even then details are essentially random beyond one's ability to control unlike with a narrative where the author has complete control.

With tabletop roleplaying campaigns the referee has the ability to completely define what presented. In this aspect share the same ability with the creator of a narrative. However what the referee doesn't have control over is the result of using the rules of the game and what the players decide. The result is a pen & paper virtual experience very different than the process of creating a narrative for novels, films, or players. A referee is more tour guide than author.

Quote from: Chris24601;1066153The 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).

There are people who look at life like that. But my view it is essentially backwards looking. I submit it would be fruitful and more interesting if one looks at things as if they really existed given how the setting works. Prepare one's notes if you are there looking at things and talking to the NPCs. Develop the idea of how thing are as opposed to how things are meant to be.

The primary reason for this is agency. Narrative lack agency. They are connected events that already happened either real or imagined. As interesting as those tales may be they pale compared to ability to make a choice. A compelling Middle Earth campaign isn't about following in the footsteps of the fellowship. But rather finally having the ability to make one own choices within the world Tolkien created. For some the Iron Hills are only given a brief tantalizing glimpse in the novels but with a Middle Earth campaign one can choose to explore the Iron Hills and with the imagination of a human referee it will be brought to life to explore and to interact with.

Quote from: estar;1066180The primary reason for this is agency. Narrative lack agency. They are connected events that already happened either real or imagined. As interesting as those tales may be they pale compared to ability to make a choice. A compelling Middle Earth campaign isn't about following in the footsteps of the fellowship. But rather finally having the ability to make one own choices within the world Tolkien created. For some the Iron Hills are only given a brief tantalizing glimpse in the novels but with a Middle Earth campaign one can choose to explore the Iron Hills and with the imagination of a human referee it will be brought to life to explore and to interact with.

Yep. One can theoretically have a half hour game emulating the film Alien, where the characters all get eaten. Or not. And that uncertainty is the fundamental difference between a narrative and an RPG, and why storytelling techniques can be useful or not.

Quote from: Omega;1066161Id 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."

Yes definitely Emergent Story>Preplotted Story

I think it is pretty clear that developing for any sort of role-playing is quite different from how one would write a novel or short story.

On the other hand, I also know that a lot of people have found that it made their RPG campaigns better for them, when they learned and used principles from story writing.

One resolution between these two is just that tastes differ - some people prefer self-described story games like Apocalypse World or FATE, while some people prefer traditional RPGs like D&D and GURPS.

There's also a clash of definitions, though, about what are story principle or story design.

Quote from: estar;1066154The 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.

Quote from: Omega;1066168My recurring example is Arkham Horror. Storygamers keep claiming that this board game is a really real storytelling RPG. No. It is not. A story can develop from the things you do and you can turn that into a story after the fact. But the game in no way tells a story as you play or was ever designed to. This is where storygamers skew the term story into something else. And as I have said before. When your definition of something is effectively "everything on earth" then your definition has become worse than useless.

The thing is, when I consider a story game like Apocalypse World... It doesn't have any sort of rules for stringing together already existing events, or for adhering to fixed narrative structure. There's no rules like "You can't do that because it doesn't fit narrative structure."

The fundamental flow is still just having the players do actions, and the GM responds, and repeating this loop.


Instead, the influence of story on this is more about how to handle action resolution, when to trigger bad stuff, and so forth. I think the design of Apocalypse World has a lot of similarities to how Arkham Horror is designed. Arkham Horror is designed around a lot of principles to keep things interesting - about when to trigger bad stuff happening, how to build tension in response to player actions, and so forth. Arkham Horror is designed with a villain phase, for example, while Apocalypse World is designed with GM Moves that are triggered in response to failed player rolls.

I think the design of many modern story games has a lot of overlap with the design of games like Arkham Horror. What you call these principles is secondary.

Quote from: Omega;1066168Sorry. But you and others seem to keep skewing what Chris is saying to mean something else. Repeatedly. Even after he clarifies. repeatedly. So I have to assume you just have some sort of pathological kneejerk to the word at this point.

Assuming I am reading it right Chris has stated, now several times, that the story structure develop naturally and oft after the fact. This is how we developed story structure in the first place as it bases on actions and things done in the real world. And while I think his application is perhaps a bit too broad. It does apply here. It is just not in the totally ham handed and ass backwards ways storygamers use the terms.

My recurring example is Arkham Horror. Storygamers keep claiming that this board game is a really real storytelling RPG. No. It is not. A story can develop from the things you do and you can turn that into a story after the fact. But the game in no way tells a story as you play or was ever designed to. This is where storygamers skew the term story into something else. And as I have said before. When your definition of something is effectively "everything on earth" then your definition has become worse than useless.

Ya got most of it, yes.  'Emergent story' or after the fact, as someone pointed out, but it's more that certain elements of a story creation is used.

Plot hooks, plots, the fact that everything a DM describes in his game is there for a reason, little things that help create a cohesive mesh.

I never said anyone is creating a story as they go, or is writing one, but that they are using the tools of one to make sure the game 'feels' right.

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.

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.

Actually thinking of it that way makes Monopoly almost sound worth playing when typically I find it boring as hell.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1066041I want to know, which D&D edition says that the DM is creating a story?

The earliest I can recall is 1e, as there's a section in one of the hardbacks about "Story Elements" or some such.  I'll edit this reply if I recall/stumble across the specific book.
 
Edit: Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, pages 103-112

Quote from: Pendle 1612;1066216The earliest I can recall is 1e, as there's a section in one of the hardbacks about "Story Elements" or some such.  I'll edit this reply if I recall/stumble across the specific book.

So even the Mighty Gygax thought that story elements were worth using in a game then?  Interesting.  I don't have access to my copy, so I can't verify.

Quote from: Chris24601;1066153What 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).

Not all games use this 'plot hook' approach, though. Eg when I roll on the random rumour table IMC, I don't have any of that stuff you suggest determined. A lot of the rumours aren't even true. Those that are don't have a story structure attached; at most they relate to a possible adventure site. And I don't know the story/quest's ending) and what likely obstacles lie between the PCs and reaching the treasure (i.e. the plot/pacing) since there are many ways & directions the rumour could be investigated, if it's not ignored.

However I agree that in some games a plot hook comes with something resembling a pre-written story, at least in rough outline, and of course if played through then one could recount the story of those events. I also agree that it's quite common for a game session to involve rising action leading to a climax, such as a boss monster fight.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1066218So even the Mighty Gygax thought that story elements were worth using in a game then?  Interesting.  I don't have access to my copy, so I can't verify.

No, DSG is not by Gygax. DSG does have a good early discussion of linear campaigns (like modern APs), sandbox campaigns (called open campaigns there), and matrix campaigns, which are a hybrid resembling a the Savage Worlds Plot Point campaigns style, an approach sadly under utilised by D&D campaign publishers IMO.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1066207the fact that everything a DM describes in his game is there for a reason, little things that help create a cohesive mesh.

This seems like a silly or misleading comparison to me. It evokes the idea of Chekov's Gun, but there are many other reasons why a GM describes things in his game. One common reason is that the player asks about it. Of course both GM and author may be describing stuff in order to eg evoke a sense of the place/environment. In an RPG a detail may or may not become important depending on player action. The GM may not know.

I definitely think there are resemblances between RPGs and stories, but then there are resemblances between many things, including stories and real life. The question is whether making that comparison is useful. For a lot of people, making that comparison has tended to be a net negative, so they are wary of it. Perhaps too wary - once bitten, twice shy.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1066207Ya got most of it, yes.  'Emergent story' or after the fact, as someone pointed out, but it's more that certain elements of a story creation is used.

Plot hooks, plots, the fact that everything a DM describes in his game is there for a reason, little things that help create a cohesive mesh.

I never said anyone is creating a story as they go, or is writing one, but that they are using the tools of one to make sure the game 'feels' right.

I'd say more that DMs are sometimes using things like plot hooks and other times they arent and it is actually just the RNG tables at work.

But. The RNG tables effectively are "plot hook generators" sometimes. Depending on how the DM uses them. Some just use them as map seeding tools and let the players blunder about. Others use them as seeding tools and then use that as a rumor. Which is a plot hook.

And here I think is something that gets overlooked.

Alot of DMs use the various tables to generate encounters or whole campaign arcs. But this is not story structure. Instead what you are seeing is another expression of emergent after the fact story. The tables are essentially an oracle system or at the very least a sounding board that may kick off an idea. The rolls can and do inspire a story once the DM is done noting everything.

Obviously not all DMs do this as not all use random tables.

An example would be my example earlier in the thread. That goblin raid and all the rest was random gen. But once the pieces were in place it inspired a story to weave from that that became the basic plot hook for that locale. And then the adventure became a story after the PCs decided to interact with it.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1066218So even the Mighty Gygax thought that story elements were worth using in a game then?  Interesting.  I don't have access to my copy, so I can't verify.

Survival Guide was written by Doug Niles. Who was a fantasy author for TSR way back so it really should not come as a surprise his book has a section like this.

Quote from: Omega;1066233Alot of DMs use the various tables to generate encounters or whole campaign arcs. But this is not story structure. Instead what you are seeing is another expression of emergent after the fact story. The tables are essentially an oracle system or at the very least a sounding board that may kick off an idea. The rolls can and do inspire a story once the DM is done noting everything.

Obviously not all DMs do this as not all use random tables.

An example would be my example earlier in the thread. That goblin raid and all the rest was random gen. But once the pieces were in place it inspired a story to weave from that that became the basic plot hook for that locale. And then the adventure became a story after the PCs decided to interact with it.

I have come full circle and am again a big fan of this GM style. It is very sandboxy and easy to improv. My prep is a few random site hooks and then random tables. Not even I know what is coming each session. I get to be just as surprised as the players when they stumble across and ancient cave leading deep into the earth, a small army of skorn camped in a mountain pass, or a hungry wyvern cruising the high thermals. The surprises, and the party's reactions, are pure fun. It feels more like genuine exploration of the world when random tables are involved, as opposed to set encounters.