Serious question. With the "narrative logic" that is the basis of both 4E and Pathfinder (see Gamemastery Guide), with the Fortune Cards around the corner, and Paizo's Plot Twist Cards already here, with Action Points and other mechanics allowing players to have an impact on the story/narrative of the game, I think it's fair to ask: is modern D&D a storygame, now?

Quote from: Benoist;401485Serious question. With the "narrative logic" that is the basis of both 4E and Pathfinder, with the Fortune Cards around the corner, and Paizo's Plot Twist Cards already here, with Action Points and other mechanics allowing players to have an impact on the story/narrative of the game, I think it's fair to ask: is modern D&D a storygame, now?

You have to define story-game.

The definition that the forgies wanted to impose is one in which a specifically moral or political lesson is learned via story or the players experience some kind of psychological, therapeutic, or moral catharsis.

Stories are created in all roleplaying games, D&D or otherwise, and specific to D&D there's no editional difference.

By storygame I mean a game that actually is collaborative story telling, with a narrative, protagonists, players affecting the way the narrative unfolds, as opposed to an actual role playing game, which, to me, is not about creating a "story", but living the "actuality" of the game world. See this thread for my take on the notion of "story" and narratives in RPGs.

Quote from: Benoist;401488By storygame I mean a game that actually is collaborative story telling, with a narrative, protagonists, players affecting the way the narrative unfolds, as opposed to an actual role playing game, which, to me, is not about creating a "story", but living the "actuality" of the game world. See this thread for my take on the notion of "story" and narratives in RPGs.

I don't think that would be the case, unless all other editions of D&D are also considered storygames under the exact same standards.

Quote from: Benoist;401488By storygame I mean a game that actually is collaborative story telling, with a narrative, protagonists, players affecting the way the narrative unfolds, as opposed to an actual role playing game...

Players don't affect the way the narrative unfolds in "actual" roleplaying games? Sounds like you're saying they're all railroads.

That aside, I think anyone who has actually played a "storygame" and 3e or 4e can see that the latter aren't in any danger of becoming the former.

Seanchai

I'd have to agree with AM and Seanchai on this one. In this specific respect I see little difference between 3-4e and all the previous versions of DnD. Mechanically speaking anyway.

Quote from: Seanchai;401497Players don't affect the way the narrative unfolds in "actual" roleplaying games? Sounds like you're saying they're all railroads.

No, not at all. What I'm saying is that there's no such thing as a "narrative" in an RPG, to me. That players affect the events unfolding in the game world through their characters the same way you and I affect the events of the real world around us.

Quote from: Seanchai;401497That aside, I think anyone who has actually played a "storygame" and 3e or 4e can see that the latter aren't in any danger of becoming the former.

Seanchai

Well there's a consensus between AM, you and Sigmund on this one. Now my question would be: why? Why is it that 3e and 4e (notice I'm not discriminating between 4E and PF/3E here) are in no danger of becoming storygames? Which specific elements are missing, and really unlikely to happen, that would make them "storygames", in your opinion?

There was a group of guys that predated us at the local shop, and I still see them every once in a while. They would hang out in the main gaming area, and talk, and they took up a gaming table as if they were gaming, so I always assumed they were. Every once in a while I think/gather that one of the PCs might attack another PC or there would be some drinking game going on in character. I overheard an extended negotiation for buying equipment one time. From what I could eavesdrop, the PCs rarely left the tavern.

I just assumed that was a very aimless roleplaying group. I can't tell what the Dm did if anything, but one guy was definitely the DM.

They didn't seem to be going anywhere or doing anything in particular, and often enough, only a few people would show up, or none at all. There was definitely roleplaying, just not much adventure.

Is this what is meant by an organically created story?

The opposite.

The logic of martial characters having dailies is justified by some of the 4e fans in terms of narrative structure: it's not about the character being able to accomplish X or Y only 1/day, it's about player exerting narrative control via key moments.

I read this in the context of some fans discussing martial PCs (fighters, so far) in 4.Essentials no longer having dailies, how this compromises the narrative structure of 4.0 and attempts to revert 4E to pre-4E "simulationist" times.

I found that a pretty interesting observation.

Quote from: Benoist;401500No, not at all. What I'm saying is that there's no such thing as a "narrative" in an RPG, to me. That players affect the events unfolding in the game world through their characters the same way you and I affect the events of the real world around us.


Well there's a consensus between AM, you and Sigmund on this one. Now my question would be: why? Why is it that 3e and 4e (notice I'm not discriminating between 4E and PF/3E here) are in no danger of becoming storygames? Which specific elements are missing, and really unlikely to happen, that would make them "storygames", in your opinion?

My personal opinion of storygames is that they are the ultimate simulation. The entire point is to simulate a story.

And they do it through exactly what you describe. There's a designated protagonist, designated theme, a premise, and an authors vision of how things are going to take place. Just is if you were writing a book. Except you are doing it via group and everyone is taking turns.

By contrast most roleplaying games (D&D included) can say that there's a story but in general each player controls his or her own PC, and there's a situation, but the outcome and details just aren't predetermined, and nobody asserts narrative control or anything like that.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;401503Is this what is meant by an organically created story?

Well to me, there's no such thing as a "story" organically created in a role playing game or otherwise. The game's about immersing yourself in the game world through a character and for your character, and thus you also, there is no story unfolding whatsoever, everything is unfolding live, in actuality, just like real life would.

As a DM, I do have factions, locales, situations prepared, but there is no "narrative" to it. It's not a "story". These are elements that may or may not come in play in the characters' adventure as they live through it. Even I the DM don't know what the adventure will exactly be made of, whether the characters will find out if this NPC lies or come to trust him, whether they will confront the BBEG or ally with him. My game elements (NPCs, monsters, locales, factions, situations, motives etc) are just that: game elements that exist in the game world and that the players' character have a chance to interact with, which itself jumpstarts other events in the game, and so on. It's the antithesis of the railroad, though railroad there still may be, if you design your adventure badly.

In this context, for instance, the concept that a player would use a card to affect events unfolding in the game as if he was an author participating in bird's eye view to a "story" is strange and counterproductive, to put it mildly. The same way, the notion that one has a "daily" move because that's "that one move you only see once in a movie" doesn't make any sense whatsoever, because the events depicted by the game are not a movie or story, but actual, if fictional, reality.

I hope I'm clearer.

Quote from: Windjammer;401505The opposite.

The logic of martial characters having dailies is justified by some of the 4e fans in terms of narrative structure: it's not about the character being able to accomplish X or Y only 1/day, it's about player exerting narrative control via key moments.

I read this in the context of some fans discussing martial PCs (fighters, so far) in 4.Essentials no longer having dailies, how this compromises the narrative structure of 4.0 and attempts to revert 4E to pre-4E "simulationist" times.

I found that a pretty interesting observation.

Well, sure, in a way. But we're talking about a single attack between extended rests, not a moment to narrate the moral importance of how a character is illustrating his internal battle against gender oppression via a well-placed pommel smash. A martial daily is just one good solid hit with enough flavor text to make it like.. a cool moment.

Quote from: Benoist;401507Well to me, there's no such thing as a "story" organically created in a role playing game or otherwise. The game's about immersing yourself in the game world through a character and for your character, and thus you also, there is no story unfolding whatsoever, everything is unfolding live, in actuality, just like real life would.

As a DM, I do have factions, locales, situations prepared, but there is no "narrative" to it. It's not a "story". These are elements that may or may not come in play in the characters' adventure as they live through it. Even I the DM doesn't know what the adventure will exactly be made of, whether the characters will find out if this NPC lies or trust him, whether they will confront the BBEG or ally with him. My game elements (NPCs, monsters, locales, factions, situations, motives etc) are just that: game elements that exist in the game world and that the players' character have a chance to interact with, which itself jumpstarts other events in the game, and so on. It's the antithesis of the railroad, though railroad there still may be, if you design your adventure badly.

In this context, for instance, the concept that a player would use a card to affect events unfolding in the game as if he was an author participating in bird's eye view to a "story" is strange and counterproductive, to put it mildly. The same way, the notion that one has a "daily" move because that's "that one move you only see once in a movie" doesn't make any sense whatsoever, because the events depicted by the game are not a movie or story, but actual, if fictional, reality.

I hope I'm clearer.

I think there's a lot of different approaches to gaming, and that's one of them.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;401511I think there's a lot of different approaches to gaming, and that's one of them.

My hope is that I can reconcile my take on role playing with what Essentials is trying to do. I think that was Bill S. (or Mike Mearls) who was saying that they were trying to connect the game mechanics more to the game world through Essentials. I hope the direction they're taking appeals more to my tastes. I'm wondering about all this because I find less and less appeal in the game master's advice in both Pathfinder RPG and 4E because of this storytelling bent that is now omnipresent, at every turn, and informs the games' designs themselves. The swarm grabbing discussion brought that main issue I have with both games in sharp contrast to my attention, hence this thread.

Quote from: Windjammer;401505I read this in the context of some fans discussing martial PCs (fighters, so far) in 4.Essentials no longer having dailies, how this compromises the narrative structure of 4.0 and attempts to revert 4E to pre-4E "simulationist" times.

Put in other words, that's exactly what I hope Essentials will accomplish.