Quote from: Jaeger on November 22, 2021, 10:03:10 PM

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 20, 2021, 07:26:10 AM
No... it does not. By Oxford: "a description of events and people that the writer or speaker has invented in order to entertain people"....

Your whole argument rests on conflating the word 'Description' with the definition of 'story'. Thereby anything you happen to "describe" is a story.

Will the real Oxford definition of story please stand up?:

Quote from: OED on November 20, 2021, 07:26:10 AM
noun: Story; plural noun: stories
"an account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment."

Taken from google definitions which they get from: Oxford Languages.
Which if you click on the link it takes you to:
https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/

Which are the people who do the Oxford English dictionary...

But whatever; Account, Report, or Description; the result is the same.

Because:

While reports, accounts and descriptions are used in storytelling; Reports, accounts and descriptions are not stories on their own.

The word 'story' not being used in their definitions being an important hint:

Quote from: OED on November 20, 2021, 07:26:10 AM
noun: description; plural noun: descriptions
1.   1.
a spoken or written representation or account of a person, object, or event.
"people who had seen him were able to give a description"

RPG's are a game, and a necessary part of the game is describing the actions of your character.

When telling a story you do use description to fill in the narrative.

But every time you describe something you are not always telling a story.

For example:

The description of PC actions:

GM: "The three Orcs attack Red-Lori with a furious charge!"

Player1: "Crap. I'm in the middle of casting the portal; Help!"

Player2: "Got this: I charge into them and use my multiple attacks to mow them down!"

GM: "Good roll dude. Your damage? ...Holy crap – you charged into them and chopped them up!"

That is not a story. It is just the Players and GM talking back and forth to each other describing actions and results as they play the game.

This is how a story is emergent from gameplay:

Player3: "Got my soda, what did I miss?

Player2: "The orcs were charging Red-Lori as she was casting the portal to take us out of the dungeon. Grognak the Slayer lived up to his name by charging into them and cutting them down with his axe grognir in a series of furious downright blows!"

That is a story. A really short one. But Jack and Jill wasn't exactly and involved tale either.

That is how descriptions of PC's actions become a story, and how story is emergent from gameplay.


In the first part, no matter how much 'narrative color' you may add to it – you are not telling a story! You are merely describing your PC's actions in the moment that they are happening.

In the second part you see the different descriptions of the actions made by the GM and the Players of what they did being put together into a single cohesive entertaining story.

Even Ron Edwards with his pseudo-intellectual Gameist/Narrativeist/Simulationist claptrap understood that RPG's are not in and of themselves "storytelling games".  That story is emergent from gameplay; not what you are doing while playing the game.

Hence his creation of explicit "storytelling games" – which share complete narrative control to actually create a story on the fly rather that a series of events, actions, and descriptions that only become a story in the retelling.

Even Ron Edwards understood that.

Quote from: SHARK on November 18, 2021, 02:21:32 PM
Yeah, it is weird how some people get hung up on terminology. I know whole groups of gamers that if you asked them what D&D is, they would all say that "D&D is a storygame"; or "D&D is a game where you create a character that exists in this fictional world where your character lives out stories in the game".
...

People get hung up on terminology because words have meaning.

You know people who refer to D&D/RPG's as "storygame/s" because people use words wrong. As this thread is proof of.

And people have been using the word 'story' wrong since the beginning of the hobby.

Mainly because it is an easy/lazy way to imperfectly get across a flawed concept of what RPG's do so that normies have something to mentally grab on to.

When you start saying: "Well it is like a wargame but one where you are playing an individual character like you would in a game of cowboys and Indians, but within a group of people where one acts like a referee..."

Normie: *eyes glaze over*

So people started saying: "A game where you get to be a badass fighter like Conan, but in your own series of stories."

Normie: "Oh that sounds cool, Conan was badass. I could play a badass!"

Thus the Lazy and flawed has triumphed over the accurate and nuanced.

I thought owning someone was illegal in the west?

Wrath of God you need to roll save versus getting destroyed. You need a natural 45 on your d20.

Quote from: SHARK on November 18, 2021, 02:21:32 PM
Yeah, it is weird how some people get hung up on terminology. I know whole groups of gamers that if you asked them what D&D is, they would all say that "D&D is a storygame"; or "D&D is a game where you create a character that exists in this fictional world where your character lives out stories in the game".
...

People get hung up on terminology because words have meaning.

You know people who refer to D&D/RPG's as "storygame/s" because people use words wrong. As this thread is proof of.

And people have been using the word 'story' wrong since the beginning of the hobby.

Mainly because it is an easy/lazy way to imperfectly get across a flawed concept of what RPG's do so that normies have something to mentally grab on to.

When you start saying: "Well it is like a wargame but one where you are playing an individual character like you would in a game of cowboys and Indians, but within a group of people where one acts like a referee..."

Normie: *eyes glaze over*

So people started saying: "A game where you get to be a badass fighter like Conan, but in your own series of stories."

Normie: "Oh that sounds cool, Conan was badass. I could play a badass!"

Thus the Lazy and flawed has triumphed over the accurate and nuanced.
[/quote]

Greetings!

Well, my friend, I understand that words have meaning. There is also colloquialisms, pedantry, and simply, different interpretations.

I have alluded to such in several of my earlier commentaries. There are "stories" within stories. D&D is a storytelling game. It's all about stories. It isn't *just* or *only* about stories, but stories are front and center. Stories and storytelling are interwoven throughout the game. Storytelling elements are critical to the game--that is why D&D isn't DungeonQuest, or DragonQuest--I forgot--some kind of boardgame. Or Monopoly, or Risk. There are boardgames that have dice, miniatures, and fighting. That is a game, bit there is no storytelling there. D&D is all about roleplaying, and storytelling. *shrugs* You might believe people "use the words wrong"--I would say, in this regard though--that people simply interpret the game--and storytelling--in different ways.

The whole Beginning-Middle-End framework that several here have quoted, for example. Yes, that is one interpretation of story, or storytelling, and it certainly does apply to written literature, like books, as Tenbones has argued. However, I think there are different interpretations, different nuances, aspects, and different ways to experience storytelling or "story" than solely in that form. Most especially when such is applied to an RPG like D&D.

And NO, not *everything in the world* is a story. I'm not saying that, either. However, much of what goes on in the D&D game is a kind of story.

The DM is involved with telling the players a kind of story about the campaign world.
Each of the Player Characters has a story--the events and relationships they have developed before joining the group, is a story.
There are major NPC's that each, too, have their own stories.
The group of Adventurers, once they join up together, have a "story". There is an ongoing story amongst themselves, as a group of people and relationships.
That Group Story is ongoing, but also separate from, and distinct, from whatever story is going on in the "ADVENTURE" that the group is going to go on this coming Saturday.
There are ongoing, constant stories between the different Player Characters and different NPC's in their lives--none of which have *concluded*, *climaxed* or *ended*.
All of these things are different kinds of stories. They all have a kind of *beginning*--but not necessarily a specific "Middle" and certainly no conclusion. That kind of formal structure is irrelevant.

Just like one of my English professors explained, "Our whole lives are about stories. All of us have stories about ourselves, our families, our friends, our different relationships" Human beings experience life through stories. Every major lesson or important thing, for the most part, is learned through, and experienced through storytelling, in some kind of form.

So, like I mentioned earlier, I suppose it is something that you "Get" or you don't. It just is what it is. I see stories and storytelling all through D&D. Apparently, lots of other gamers do as well, and always have.

What I don't understand is why is it so important that everyone thinks or interprets it in just one way? I see stories and storytelling throughout D&D. You, may not. Ok, so what? Why does that matter? Whether you believe I--or someone else, for that matter--is "using the words wrong"--ultimately, what real relevance does that have on playing and enjoying an RPG? And clearly, well, evidently there are many people that do not subscribe to YOUR INTERPRETATION of story, or storytelling, anymore than they evidently agree with my own. "D&D is a storytelling game! No it's not! Yes, it is! No, it's not! Yes, it is!"

Obviously, it isn't about one kind of interpretation. If it was such a clear and self-evidentiary issue, then there would be no basis for such different interpretations. And, gamers have been having these different definitions, different interpretations, long before Ron Edwards. Fuck Ron Edwards.

Personally, I like Sandboxes. I'm not interested in Ron Edward's "Storytelling Games" in the slightest, and never have been. While I see D&D as a kind of storytelling game--it is a kind of game, it isn't a book or a film, and the DM is not the movies' Director, or Script Writer, or the Book's author. There is no "script" to follow, and players should not be railroaded down some stupid path to the DM's terrible attempt at writing some kind of fucking novel.

What makes D&D in particular and RPG's in general so unique and special--they are a form of collaborative, group storytelling that is anchored within a structure of game rules, and provided a loose framework of "Plot elements" by the DM.

That is the way I see D&D. That is the way I have experienced D&D. That's my interpretation, though.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Jaeger on November 22, 2021, 10:03:10 PM
Will the real Oxford definition of story please stand up?:

You don't get to pick the definition.

It's okay to cherry pick the one that best suits you if you're using it as a data point to defend your own use of the word.  It has no probative value with regards to declaring someone else's use of the word is wrong. I'm not fond of cringe dictionary arguments to begin with. But if you find one that justifies your usage, even if that's all you got, I'm willing to have the grace to let the baby have their bottle.

But if the definition is also clearly applicable in context;
And if someone can point to examples of the word in common usage with the same meaning;
And the usage is still useful in that it conveys meaning and can articulate distinction;
If you have a dictionary definition and fulfill these three extra conditions, at that point it's pretty well verified. And anyone denying the usage of that word is most likely wrong.

Speaking for myself, I'm using story in a very disciplined way that hits all these points.
By the very points you're making, you're disqualifying yourself from each of these marks.

You can have your bottle, but you don't get to declare that I'm using the word incorrectly.

Quote
The description of PC actions:

GM: "The three Orcs attack Red-Lori with a furious charge!"

Player1: "Crap. I'm in the middle of casting the portal; Help!"

Player2: "Got this: I charge into them and use my multiple attacks to mow them down!"

GM: "Good roll dude. Your damage? ...Holy crap – you charged into them and chopped them up!"

That is not a story. It is just the Players and GM talking back and forth to each other describing actions and results as they play the game.

This is how a story is emergent from gameplay:

Player3: "Got my soda, what did I miss?

Player2: "The orcs were charging Red-Lori as she was casting the portal to take us out of the dungeon. Grognak the Slayer lived up to his name by charging into them and cutting them down in a series of furious downright blows!"

That is a story.

I think the key thing you're missing is the experience. The GM in your example must experience the story first in order to be able to relay it in the second example. And for me, reading the first example is a more exciting experience than reading the second example. If I were a player in the game, it would be an even more compelling story since I could better infer the motives of the orcs and other PCs from what happened in the game prior to this example, and also i would have near-perfect knowledge of my own character's motives.

QuoteEven Ron Edwards

In past threads when these semantic arguments over the meaning of "story" has come up, I've been known to say that I refuse to cede the linguistic ground of the word "story" to drunken old fart professors. This is the exactly one of the people I had in mind near the top of the list. So now I have to ask, why is it someone that you refer to twice as "even" Ron Edwards and who you call a pseudo-intellectual, why have you lowered yourself to that level? Use of arbitrary definitions for the sake of a model leading to linguistic confusion is his hallmark. I'm not going to use his definition of story. No thank you.

QuotePeople get hung up on terminology because words have meaning.

If you feel that way, why are you only looking at the one definition of story? If it's not important enough to do more digging than that, then the hang ups are unjustified. If you're saying the hang ups are justified, then you need to do better, broader, more complete research on what words mean.

QuoteYou know people who refer to D&D/RPG's as "storygame/s" because people use words wrong. As this thread is proof of.

Maybe. But it's also possible people refer to D&D as a storygame because it's a game in which they experience a story when they play it. I would say the real fault lies in those who coined the term "storygame" to mean something distinct from D&D/RPGs when a regular person not hip to the hipsters is likely to connect the two. Or maybe they knew full well it would have that effect and it was kind of the point. Siphon off the audience.

I don't think it's a term worthy of any kind of reverence. I don't think it's necessarily a good term or an accurate term or a precise term or even a term that is remotely acknowledged outside a very small percentage of people. If you know the special meaning of the term and you're speaking with other people who know it, too, fine. Just understand it's not a real word that "means things" in the broader world.

QuoteAnd people have been using the word 'story' wrong since the beginning of the hobby.

Mainly because it is an easy/lazy way to imperfectly get across a flawed concept of what RPG's do so that normies have something to mentally grab on to.

Maybe. Maybe millions of people over a period of several decades have been wrong. Or maybe it's just you and the 3 or 4 other people here, and the drunken old fart professor and his dozen or so holdout adherents, and maybe a few stragglers beyond that.

If I were to give an explanation of what D&D is using the word "story", it would be something like this:

"It's like a Conan story where you're the star, and the choices you make determines where the story goes."

Ain't no one going to respond to that with, "Huh? I don't get it. How can I determine where the story goes when a story has to be something that's already happened. How can I decide where something already happened went." Everyone will understand perfectly fine what I mean. Because it's a perfectly legitimate definition of story that every normal person understands.

Quote from: SHARK on November 23, 2021, 12:46:46 AM
Mainly because it is an easy/lazy way to imperfectly get across a flawed concept of what RPG's do so that normies have something to mentally grab on to.

I have gotten some good results explaining that what I do as a referee is to create an experience. Specifically creating practical contact and interaction with facts or events with pen, paper, dice, and a RPG system.

With Adventures in Middle Earth I can't create a story for your  character about their adventures in Middle Earth, but I can do a reasonably fun job of creating the experience of adventuring as that character within Middle Earth with pen, paper, dice, and Adventures in Middle Earth. Mileage may vary whether that experience will be an interesting story to tell after it done.

Collaborative storytelling can be fun and can be a game but it not what I do nor what I am interested in doing.

Quote from: FingerRod on November 21, 2021, 03:00:35 PM
These half-page scroll debates are not even on topic.

Original post written another way is asking this: When playing or DMg a game, is it more important to use story pacing and beats OR present a situation, and see what people do about it?

This is asking for opinion, so there is no right or wrong.

But if someone asked me to play in their game, where they focus on story pacing and beats OVER simply playing things out in character, at whatever pace feels right...I would quickly decline their game and wish them luck. Smells like a game with theatre flunkies to me.

As I noted in my original post to this. Theres plenty of room for both.

But time and again we see story pacing and beats have a very high tendency to skew into a more restrictive play or stagger straight into railroading.

This is where the early Weiss and Hickman modules got it right and others later got it wrong. Dragonlance in particular takes the elements learned in making Ravenloft and its sequel and refined it into a pretty good synergy of regular playing things out - spiced up with timed events and the like. They are not railroads at all. At least not the early ones.

And often story beats are a part of world in motion sorts of DMing. If the PCs do not do something about some plot going on. Then that plot will go on. It might change a little if the PCs cross its path but do not interact directly. Or it might keep going on and never pay them any heed. The PCs and players might never know these plots and beats are going on till its too late.

A great example are modules where things will happen on a set timetable unless the PCs intervene. Like 1 hour after the start of play in game time an assassin will kill one of the guests in the building. But that can be prevented by various means.

The flip side are adventures where something WILL happen no matter what the PCs do. WW's Orpheus RPG has this as the kick off of book 2 and I really really disliked it as a GM and player. Somewhat mollified by the additional advice on what to do if that doesnt sit well and the GM would rather not totally ruin everything the PCs worked for and then toss gasoline and lit matches in for good measure. So points to the writers for realizing not everyones going to be thrilled with the proverbial no-win scenario.

Story is the product of resolving situation. Situation is not inherently about conflict but uncertainty. And story is the process which unfolds through play as that uncertainty is resolved.

So the comparison is inherently incongruous.

   I agree that both are important, but i lean more towards presenting the situation and letting the players reaction become
the story, and leads to interesting results that on my own i'd never have come up with.  Probably my love of random-events
tables comes from the fact i like to be suprised as much as the players are at times.  But my games tend to be pretty much
a sandbox.  I drop leads or hooks from time to time, sometimes they follow them, sometimes they don't.  I make simple notes
of a situation and when they do want to investigate further that's what i work on for the next session.

   Currently the group in my game is traversing Eastern Oerth and i made copies of all the encounter tables from the old
Greyhawk boxed set and the equally old standard tables with copious notes on each individual encounter, which helps to set
things up as well.  Not long ago they had a random encounter with a gynosphinx (that could have easily destroyed the party
if she was so inclined, given the low levels they are at).  Not inclined to trade riddles with her, they eventually had to negotiate
some of the prize gems they snared out of the last dungeon they were in for safe passage, as they had no idea where to find
an androsphinx (which is what she actually was looking for).  Doubtless... at some point in the future, i'll throw one in there
for them and see what they do with that... but it was one of best encounters we've had. 

   Time to read the other five pages and see how redundant this post was. 

Quote from: Omega on November 24, 2021, 08:10:03 AM

Quote from: FingerRod on November 21, 2021, 03:00:35 PM
These half-page scroll debates are not even on topic.

Original post written another way is asking this: When playing or DMg a game, is it more important to use story pacing and beats OR present a situation, and see what people do about it?

This is asking for opinion, so there is no right or wrong.

But if someone asked me to play in their game, where they focus on story pacing and beats OVER simply playing things out in character, at whatever pace feels right...I would quickly decline their game and wish them luck. Smells like a game with theatre flunkies to me.

As I noted in my original post to this. Theres plenty of room for both.

But time and again we see story pacing and beats have a very high tendency to skew into a more restrictive play or stagger straight into railroading.

This is where the early Weiss and Hickman modules got it right and others later got it wrong. Dragonlance in particular takes the elements learned in making Ravenloft and its sequel and refined it into a pretty good synergy of regular playing things out - spiced up with timed events and the like. They are not railroads at all. At least not the early ones.

And often story beats are a part of world in motion sorts of DMing. If the PCs do not do something about some plot going on. Then that plot will go on. It might change a little if the PCs cross its path but do not interact directly. Or it might keep going on and never pay them any heed. The PCs and players might never know these plots and beats are going on till its too late.

A great example are modules where things will happen on a set timetable unless the PCs intervene. Like 1 hour after the start of play in game time an assassin will kill one of the guests in the building. But that can be prevented by various means.

The flip side are adventures where something WILL happen no matter what the PCs do. WW's Orpheus RPG has this as the kick off of book 2 and I really really disliked it as a GM and player. Somewhat mollified by the additional advice on what to do if that doesnt sit well and the GM would rather not totally ruin everything the PCs worked for and then toss gasoline and lit matches in for good measure. So points to the writers for realizing not everyones going to be thrilled with the proverbial no-win scenario.

Sorry, Omega I did not see that you had replied until this thread was somewhat revived. I completely agree. There is room for both. I was only pointing out two things.

First, I saw the original post as an if you only had one which would ya type exercise. Second, long write-ups do not negate opinions. Too often I will interpret an eight paragraph novella as someone who is entrenched, not someone looking for a discussion.

Funny you should bring up the TSR DL series. I have been a vocal defender of it for YEARS. Full disclosure, I played D1-D4 and never had the opportunity to go through the entire series, but I loved it. Before I leave this hobby, hopefully many years from now, I hope to run the entire series.

Your example of the Assassin is a good one. Like 'clocks' or 'fronts' in story games. They are tools to bring tension. Tension is a good thing. Better Than Any Man has the same mechanic with the invading army attacking X days after the start of the module.

But do I want a table littered with clocks on note cards? No thanks. Related, do I want to give up narrative control to the players? No way. Doing so removes more tension building opportunities than clocks or fronts written on pieces of paper will ever provide.

I like the idea of the GM presenting the group of Player Avatars a situation those Avatars happen to be in, then the Avatars respond to the situation, then there are results and consequences from those Actions, the Campaign World Element's Directly Influenced by those results and consequences then Respond in a most likely and logically plausible way and the rest of the Campaign World keeps doing what it's doing as if the Avatars did not exist.

Then a new situation from the Campaign World Arises that the player avatars then have to resolve, and the cycle continues.

In this paradigm, there is no predetermined "Story." However, there is Story Emergence from the act of simply role-playing through one situation after another after another, but maybe even that term "Story Emergence" is incorrect.

GM's can, and many do, use story-telling techniques when managing the game. They can use Descriptive Flare to Set the Stage, provoking the players into action and responding with their own narrative descriptions of their player avatars. GMs can Describe the Scene/Encounter/Situation using Camera Direction, Geographic and Location Details, and NPC Description to Convey upon the Players a particular Feeling/Emotion to instill emotions of Suspense, Awe, Coolness, etc. To push the Players Into Action.

But those are Story-Telling Techniques. Some people equate the use of those Techniques as story-telling, but IMO these are not the same. But from their perspective, they are right. And from that perspective, playing an rpg is story-telling. But even here, their use of story-telling is the Emergence of Story through Play with the caveat that these particular GMs most likely come to GMing the game with a particular plot hook they want to see play out. Whether or not they are a good GM depends on if they can handle and adapt surviving contact with the Players after the Players do something to destroy their well intentioned, plot-hooked plan.

Perhaps it's just better for GMs to come to the table with a lot of ideas but no real concrete plot, and use and adapt those ideas in the ever changing landscape the Players ultimately cause. If the GM can prepare enough to know how the campaign world would progress as if the avatars did not exist, then the GM can understand his or her own campaign world enough to adapt it in its most logical way.

This is how I often imagine my ideal way of GMing.

The actual Story that eventually could evolve from all this doesn't matter to me Until the Players Create it After the Game and they start telling it from their own experiences of the game. Then their Story matters. So in this way, the game is about the story-telling that could potentially happen.

But this has to be spontaneous and Emergent From the Players Point of View, Not the GM.

And I think that's what a lot of players want. We all come to the table for our own reasons, and we each get fun from these in different ways, but we want to play these games long enough, in the same campaign, with the same group of players, so we can get to that point of feeling like we are part of the campaign world and then when the campaign is over, we can look back on it and retell the parts that we liked the most.

This only happens once we have an emotional investment in the game. Then It's not just a game. And not every player will get there in every campaign. Some will, some won't. Some want to have a good time, have fun however they find their fun, and then tell stories after the game is over about their favorite campaign moments because of whatever reason they do.

I view the basic setup as uncomplicated.

You describe the circumstances.
You ask what the players want to do as their characters.
You adjudicate what they want to do.
Loop back to the top.

A sticking point in these type of conversation is "as their characters".  Another is how does one adjudicate.

Some have metagame consideration like "a good story" or "it plays like a heist movie". Other like myself emphasizes living a life of adventure within a setting. For me it is the setting that sets tone, tenor, and genre of the campaign. Other have different ideas that they were able to make work.

People likewise have different views of when and how to adjudicate. For myself I believe characters are naturally competent within what described about the character's life experiences and will nearly always succeed at a task given time and resources. If time is a constraint, resources are limited, or there is a signifgant consequence to failure. I will use the system to resolve what the character tries to do. Other systems and other referee have different criteria and different opinions on how best to go about adjudication.

Some don't even bother using the loop I outlined above. Or alter it in significant ways. My opinion is that what they do is fun but something different than tabletop roleplaying.  Similar to the difference between playing Battletech and Mechwarrior. Same setting, both outline individual characters but focus on very different things resulting in one being a wargame and the other a tabletop roleplaying game.

It can be boiled down even more to this.
01: DM describes what the PCs see/sense based on what they just did prior, with any new information/introductions based on that.
02: Players tell the DM what the PCs are doing based on that.
03: goto 01

Somewhere in there some dice might get rolled.

I do not consider myself a gifted GM, so take this with a grain of salt. That said, I learned a very important lesson from Call of C'thulu; if your villain wants something which will kill the PCs, all you have to do is tell that to the players. The PCs will take action to defend themselves, and from that point on the story can mostly run itself on autopilot and you can focus on just presenting events.

My default brainstorming question is, "what would the villain do?" and after brainstorming out a few options, I pick options which seems the most likely to be enjoyable to play and least likely to kill the PCs outright. Typically, my antagonists don't try to win with a single encounter or subplot, but are always trying to set up something in the future with a head-game element. An encounter with poisonous snakes might be there to bleed out the PCs of all their antidotes, for instance.

One situation-based technique I have never heard of anyone else using is a technique I call multi-threaded predestination. The basic idea is that if you need a specific plot point to happen, the villain doesn't use one scheme, but 3-4 schemes all at the same time which all could end with that result. You just have to drop hints for them all during the game. Given the law of averages, the PCs will almost certainly fixate on one scheme and disrupt it to make for a good conflict, but so long as one villainous scheme is still salvageable, the story can progress. Say, for example, you have a town mayor you absolutely must kill. Instead of choosing between a sniper, poisoned ham sandwich, or making the building collapse on top of him...the villain has cronies out there doing all three at the same time, and all three are producing hints which the PCs get. The players will almost always fixate on one and miss the others, and once the dust settles they will understand the hints you dropped in hindsight.

This is a very powerful tool which should obviously be used sparingly. It feels foul but seems fair.

More the latter. (Answering the question posed in the OP)

Trying to tell a story leads to rail-roading.

Letting the players create the story through their actions, and reactions to consequences, leads to memorable gaming.

Overall Situation is more important. Many rpg campaigns/groups fizzle out or abruptly end without a resolution. Simply as a matter of practicality a GM will generate more enjoyable moments from focusing on interesting encounters and situations rather than hoping for an overall narrative arc with a decent resolution.

Of course episodic adventures in the style of pulp sword and sorcery blur the line between situation vs story anyway. These adventures have built in story beats and straightforward resolutions.

Finally while it isn't always helpful for a GM to push a story with all its beats and narrative arcs on a group, it is a tremendously helpful skill for a GM to understand the essentials of storytelling so that splashes of story driven encounters can be used to course correct and heighten the situation.

A very easy example would be knowing when to end a session on a cliffhanger.