# Choose the Illusion: Dungeon Mastering



## Matt James (Dec 22, 2011)

I put up a post on D&D's official blog and I wanted to share it. It is applicable to more than just D&D 4e and I hope it helps DMs in developing their next campaign or adventure.

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

I wanted to extrapolate more on the process in the blog, but I didn't want to cloud the message too much.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 22, 2011)

I found the blog post decently written for its topic but I do not agree with its content. 

To begin with, I do not see rpgs (at least all of them) as being about collaborative storytelling. For the sake of my next point though lets pretend that I do. 

So if we accept the premise that rpgs are about telling collaborative stories, how are they that exactly if we construct a predetermined ending? If there are 6 storytellers at the table, why does one particular one get to dictate an ending? That isn't collaboration as I see it.


----------



## Matt James (Dec 22, 2011)

The players still act within the confines of the story. You, as the storyteller, are not directing their actions. Their contributions to the story are just as important. That's more to my point and I should have clarified it. The ending need not be a singular outcome, but a conduit to the next adventure. In this regard there is a single ending that moves the narrative to the next step (or the ending, if that's the case).


----------



## D'karr (Dec 22, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> I found the blog post decently written for its topic but I do not agree with its content.
> 
> To begin with, I do not see rpgs (at least all of them) as being about collaborative storytelling. For the sake of my next point though lets pretend that I do.
> 
> So if we accept the premise that rpgs are about telling collaborative stories, how are they that exactly if we construct a predetermined ending? If there are 6 storytellers at the table, why does one particular one get to dictate an ending? That isn't collaboration as I see it.




I have been the Technical Lead on many projects.  I have also been a Team Member, or Subject Matter Expert (SME) on various projects.  Even though, as a Tech Lead, I'm the one responsible for seeing the project to it's conclusion the project is always a collaboration.  The input from each of those SMEs and Team Members is vital to a successful project.

A TV Series might have a single producer, or multiple ones.  They are responsible to getting the series out there.  However, the TV show is still a collaboration.  Some of those producers might also be writers for the show, and along with other writers bring the story forward.  Each director has a different take on how he protrays things but he does so within the confines of what the producers will allow.  So it is entirely a collaboration.

As a DM, I'm responsible for getting the world out there to the players.  The input from the players is vital to what actually happens in the "story".  So yes, it is a collaboration.  Without the players providing input it would be a very boring game indeed.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 22, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> So if we accept the premise that rpgs are about telling collaborative stories, how are they that exactly if we construct a predetermined ending? If there are 6 storytellers at the table, why does one particular one get to dictate an ending? That isn't collaboration as I see it.




"Collaboration" does not mean "all people play the same role in the activity".  In any given collaborative effort, the group may turn to an individual for a decision on some particular aspect of the work, or it may be a particular person's role to provide certain decisions or specifications, much as D'karr notes.  You see it in software development a lot these days, especially in Agile processes.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Dec 22, 2011)

Matt James said:


> I put up a post on D&D's official blog and I wanted to share it. It is applicable to more than just D&D 4e and I hope it helps DMs in developing their next campaign or adventure.
> 
> Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible
> 
> I wanted to extrapolate more on the process in the blog, but I didn't want to cloud the message too much.




Looks to be similar to Dave Chalker's '5x5 method' over on critical-hits.com.  Granted, his was geared more towards campaign plotting than encounter building, but both use the same premise: creating several different signposts for the players to possibly come across as they drive the story forward.  Thus, there's no single straight story heading towards the conclusion, there are several.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 22, 2011)

Well, you seem to be advocating "choose your own adventure", Fighting Fantasy Gamebook, only with a GM.  This would seem to rather take away most of the benefit of having an actual person running the game. 

Still, it's definitely superior to the totally linear, railroaded approach.

I've just been reading EGG's Yggsburgh book, prepping for a game tonight.  Yggsburgh is essentially a near-infinite matrix of plot - wherever you go, you hit 1 or more plot hooks*; each hook leads naturally to several more, and on.  Some are static/location based, many others exist in the random tables.  Being written for C&C (or AD&D etc) it's designed to be runnable with the players having effectively infinite choice on what they do, where they go.  I certainly think that as a DMing aid to give players real choice, this is a superior approach.  There are individual nested adventures/dungeons in there where the dungeon map creates naturally limited choice, but the players are free to choose whether to engage with any particular dungeon.

*There seem to be well over a thousand of these in there, from short paragraphs to 15-page adventures.


----------



## Matt James (Dec 22, 2011)

S'mon said:


> This would seem to rather take away most of the benefit of having an actual person running the game.




I'm not following this point. Can you expand upon it? The cards should never be viewed as concrete. The players won't even be aware of them. They are meant to be a tool in constructing your campaign or encounter. It also gives you the chance to go back and add unique twists and turns.


----------



## GSHamster (Dec 22, 2011)

I confess that I really did not understand the grid of cards.  Are you saying that given a grid:

1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9

Encounter 1 leads to 2 or 4, encounter 2 leads to 3 or 5, etc.?  It is never explicitly stated how the grid works.

If so, isn't this extremely wasteful? You have to write up 9 encounters, only 5 of which are used.


----------



## Matt James (Dec 22, 2011)

GSHamster said:


> I confess that I really did not understand the grid of cards.  Are you saying that given a grid:
> 
> 1 2 3
> 4 5 6
> ...




I wouldn't recommend writing up complete elements, rather a summary. It's less about being complete, and more as a roadmap so you can plan accordingly. If you are great at improvisation and thinking on the fly with creatures, twists, and turns, it might not work best for you.


----------



## Quickleaf (Dec 22, 2011)

Theres a strange beauty in that photo of the index cards. Like you, I do a lot of my planning on tables in a Word document, but when it gets really complex I go to Freemind.

I wonder if you can give an example of the scope of each of your index cards? In your example, does each card represent a major quest or a potential encounter?


----------



## Klaus (Dec 22, 2011)

Matt James said:


> I wouldn't recommend writing up complete elements, rather a summary. It's less about being complete, and more as a roadmap so you can plan accordingly. If you are great at improvisation and thinking on the fly with creatures, twists, and turns, it might not work best for you.



This.

Using index cards, or loose sheets in a campaign binder, lets you think quicker on your feet. And encounters that aren't used now can be adjusted and used in a later context.

I loved the idea of the Adventure Flowchart posited in the 3e DMG (and implemented in Speaker In Dreams), comparing a flowchart to a dungeon map where the rooms are events or encounters.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Dec 22, 2011)

To some extent, back when I had Microsoft Access, I used it to do something similar. I'm currently running a pretty standard dungeon on rails in XCrawl, but when I move back into a sandbox style game, I think I'm going to take a good hard look at trying this method, which is pretty well system agnostic.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 23, 2011)

Matt James said:


> I wouldn't recommend writing up complete elements, rather a summary. It's less about being complete, and more as a roadmap so you can plan accordingly. If you are great at improvisation and thinking on the fly with creatures, twists, and turns, it might not work best for you.




Well, yeah - I think GMing advice should be geared to helping them get better at improvisation again.  That's what I meant when I mentioned the Yggsburgh book - it's really notable as something designed to help DMs be better DMs.   Way too much from WoTC has been geared to a lowest-common-denominator approach.

In terms of writing adventures for publication, your 'set matrix of choice' approach is not bad, and vastly superior to the horrible 'linear line of encounters leading to BBEG - make sure the PCs fight Every Single One so they get the right XP!' approach which has been the bane of 4e.

But GMs at the table can do things that adventure authors writing for strangers cannot do.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 23, 2011)

Given the initial setup - the daughter of the king has been kidnapped, just how many possible outcomes can you really have?  For those questioning having end points prepared, what else is there?  Either you rescue her or not.  Granted, there's probably quite a few more "nots" but, there's still really only two outcomes here.

You might proceed through the 9 events in a large number of orders, more if backtracking is possible, but, at the end of the day, there's still only two reasonable outcomes.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 23, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Given the initial setup - the daughter of the king has been kidnapped, just how many possible outcomes can you really have?  For those questioning having end points prepared, what else is there?  Either you rescue her or not.  Granted, there's probably quite a few more "nots" but, there's still really only two outcomes here.




Lots of possibilities lurk between rescued and not rescued in terms of relevant consequences.  The how and why she is or is not rescued may matter _tremendously._

(At least, if you're working with a GM and not a guided adventure book.)


----------



## Ringlerun (Dec 23, 2011)

Matt James said:


> I put up a post on D&D's official blog and I wanted to share it. It is applicable to more than just D&D 4e and I hope it helps DMs in developing their next campaign or adventure.
> 
> Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible
> 
> I wanted to extrapolate more on the process in the blog, but I didn't want to cloud the message too much.




I know i am going to get flamed for any comments i make, but i like reading the hate.  To me all you are creating is a railroad story with a few side rails just in case.  A GM can create a base outline of what he might want to create but players are a random chaos factor that are going to destroy any well developed plans you conceive.

In your example you have got a the precious baby of the king being kidnapped.  And an obscure clue on how to find said baby.  A pretty strait forward start to an adventure.  The problem i see is that you are deciding the end of the adventure with 2 possible outcomes without taking into account that players are individuals who have their own whims and agenda's outside of what the GM tries to create.

I was going to say a few thing about different outcomes to the adventure but other people have posted similar.

Most written adventures are either a sandbox, or a railroad.  As a GM even if you know the group intimately and have played with them for years.  The players are still going to do stuff that you will not be able to foresee or even plan for.  And to try and think of all the different possible outcomes for a written adventure is impossible it cant be done.

To be a good GM IMO is thinking on your feet.  Reacting instantly to the players choices.  Creating interesting and enjoyable encounters.  Using the players ideas and incorporating them into the game. Creating a living breathing environment for the players to adventure in and most of all having lots of fun.  Oh and also knowing the rules well enough that during play you don't have to stop  to look up some table or skill modifier.  And a good dose of imagination goes a long way too.

I will also add that Roleplaying has no right or wrong way.  If the GM and players are having fun thats all that matters.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Dec 23, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> I found the blog post decently written for its topic but I do not agree with its content.
> 
> To begin with, I do not see rpgs (at least all of them) as being about collaborative storytelling. For the sake of my next point though lets pretend that I do.
> 
> So if we accept the premise that rpgs are about telling collaborative stories, how are they that exactly if we construct a predetermined ending? If there are 6 storytellers at the table, why does one particular one get to dictate an ending? That isn't collaboration as I see it.




I also see collaborative storytelling as a kind of "one true wayism" in the hobby at the moment. Collaboration isn't bad, but its hardly the only means in which to engage in a game with others. For a start there are competitive games and cooperative games too. Competitive is its own thing, but to differentiate between collaborative and cooperative:

Collaboration is normally a rule of a game or enterprise. If we stop collaborating in a joint storytelling venture, then we're no longer working together. We might each be storytelling individually, but we're no longer bothering to do it with other people. The upside is the collaborative expectation defines the borders of our working together before beginning and trust is built into their transparency. Some downsides are that these definitions limit our understood engagement as well as make expanding it an all or nothing choice. For games, the game is over if we choose to stop collaborating.

In cooperative enterprises we a joint harmony with other people, but it can change. And, perhaps most importantly, the choice to cooperate or not is the major theme. In cooperative games each player is repeatedly in the position to choose whether or not to cooperate with one or more of the other players. However, if they choose to go alone, the game still continues. Plenty of boardgames are like this, where the objective of the game is set for a group, but the players can choose to work together or not throughout play. If you believe everyone else's plans are going to lead us all off a cliff, then you can act differently without necessarily divorcing one's actions from the group's goals. One could even have a separate, personal goal with each choice then being about how to give and take within the group for the achievement of those individual objectives.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 23, 2011)

howandwhy99 said:


> Competitive is its own thing, but to differentiate between collaborative and cooperative:




I think you draw some hair-fine distinctions between collaboration and cooperation that may not be widely shared.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Dec 23, 2011)

I don't view what's being presented here as limiting the players at all.  Just because you write up 9 encounters doesn't mean you can't create a 10th on the fly when your players do something unintended, just as writing notes for an adventure doesn't limit you to what you've written down on paper.  You're just preparing guidelines for the likeliest course the adventure will take, the same as many DMs do.  That by no means implies that PCs are limited to those, and only those, choices.  It seems to me as though some people are taking this idea to that rather extreme and unrealistic conclusion.

It's an interesting organizational scheme, and I can see how it might have advantages.  I'll have to give it a shot the next time I'm DMing.


----------



## D'karr (Dec 23, 2011)

Fanaelialae said:


> That by no means implies that PCs are limited to those, and only those, choices.  It seems to me as though some people are taking this idea to that rather extreme and unrealistic conclusion.




That, unfortunately, is par for the course on internet forums.



> It's an interesting organizational scheme, and I can see how it might have advantages.  I'll have to give it a shot the next time I'm DMing.




It is an interesting way of doing things.  I have a good friend that does improv comedy.  I was talking to him one day about it and how he handled hecklers, because he was a master at it.  What he told me was that everything that looks "natural" in his comebacks has actually been thought about hundreds of times.  He takes time specifically to think about comebacks, and the more he practices them in his mind, the better he gets at them, and at "improvising" new ones on the fly.

This method is a way to have a flexible plan.  A plan can be more easily altered than trying to come up with a plan on the fly.  It allows you to more easily improv an "unexpected" outcome.  It's also very possible that the "unexpected" outcome is already in you plan. 

There used to be a series of threads here on ENWorld that took the "classic", and some of the "not so classic" adventures, and mapped out the possibilities of outcomes.  It was incredibly surprising to see that some of the most "railroady feeling" adventures actually had quite a bit of options.  It was also interesting to see that a lot of the "classics" had a structure that promoted the "illusion of choice" and still provided very good playability. Each node in the adventure thread its way through multiple subsequent nodes.

Just because you have in mind who your villain is, and where he's located, does not mean that the adventure is a railroad.  That is taking the idea to an extreme.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Dec 23, 2011)

Umbran said:


> I think you draw some hair-fine distinctions between collaboration and cooperation that may not be widely shared.



The differences between cooperative and collaborative learning are fine, but plenty of people do make the distinction I do. Each is a kind of inverse of each other, like discovery and invention. Did we discover fire or invent it? Both coop & collab are based on small group unity and working together, but it isn't a distinction I would toss aside so quickly. Call of Cthulhu is a boardgame where players cooperate to defeat an Elder God. Could they also be working collaboratively to create a story? Maybe, but what is the goal? To create a story or reach an end? In CoC it's okay not to work cooperatively and as a co-op game every choice and action taken in the game has that choice of acting cooperatively or not inherent to it.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 24, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Lots of possibilities lurk between rescued and not rescued in terms of relevant consequences.  The how and why she is or is not rescued may matter _tremendously._
> 
> (At least, if you're working with a GM and not a guided adventure book.)




Could you elucidate a few for me please?  Because I'm really not seeing a big difference here.  You have total success and complete failure.  Sure there might be some shadings in between, but either you rescue the princess or you don't.

As to the whole "Colaborative storytelling" schtick - again, I'm totally not seeing the difference between a game where you explore the DM's imaginary setting based on a fixed set of parameters set by the game and the table and a collaborative story being generated where you explore the DM's imaginary setting based on a fixed set of parameters set by the game and the table.

I'm really not seeing the line that's being drawn here.  

In any RPG, you cannot avoid creating all of the elements of a story.  You have setting, you have character and during play, you generate plot.

What else is there?  If you have setting, character and plot, you have a story.  There's no avoiding it.  The point of play is to create that story.  Even if you don't want to create a story, you have no choice in the matter.  The second that you are playing a game with plausible consequences which follow a logic sequence based on elements drawn from character and setting, you have a story.

I've yet to ever, ever see an RPG that didn't create a story during play.  I'd argue that this is primarily what sets RPG's apart from any other game form.  I don't have to create a story during Monopoly because there's no character there.  I don't have to create a story during Bingo, because there's no character, setting OR plot.

But, in every single RPG out there, every single one, without fail, there is setting, plot and character.  All of the elements of a story are generated in play.  It's completely unavoidable.

This distinction between "my game" and "collaborative story games" is ludicrous and entirely blind to what is actually occurring at every single RPG game table every single time an RPG is played.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Dec 24, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I don't have to create a story during Monopoly because there's no character there.  I don't have to create a story during Bingo, because there's no character, setting OR plot.



To each his own. It's difficult to say what isn't narrative creation. I see story as past in any endeavor, including all those games you listed. Once existence is defined as story creation we have to be careful not to turn it into an absolute. I've been trying to point out some alternate ways of thinking about the process. I bet there are others.


----------



## Matt James (Dec 24, 2011)

So, I think people are missing my intent, which I can totally accept. I wrote that blog post while the idea was fresh on my mind and I could have expanded more. It was never meant to be all-inclusive or a single fix to all problems. It was to promote another way of thinking out story design. The conclusion (card 11, if you will) doesn't have to be black and white. I've see a couple people getting hung up on this. The cards help to lay things out spatially. Some people operate better this way--I am one of them. 

A lot of the AAA video game titles you see out there do the same thing, albeit on a larger scale. Take the recent Skyrim game. While it may appear that there is infinite opportunity and options in play, there is really only a few outcomes (no spoilers, I promise). The same goes for the Dragon Age titles, and others.

If this method doesn't work for you, you shouldn't use it. I don't expect that people will think the same way I do in some regards. I just wanted to provide a separate view, and way of thinking of design concepts.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 24, 2011)

What story is being created during Bingo?  You have no characters, no plot, and no setting.  The choice of one ball has absolutely no impact on the next ball, so there is no logical causal chain.  It's a collection of purely random numbers.  Heck the die roller here at En World can generate the same effect.  Does that mean using the random die roller here I'm creating a story?

I would say no.  And, I'd say that anyone would have a pretty tough time chaining together a narrative based on the random selection of numbers and letters.

Same with Monopoly.  There is no character in Monopoly.  You could add character I suppose, but, by the presumptions of the game, you don't.  There is no causal chain of events either.  I go from one space to another space based entirely on a random die roll.  There's no reason why I go from Baltic to Vermont.  I could add a reason, sure, but, again, the game is, in no way, changed by that.

However, in any RPG, the chain of events from A to B to C is based on an in-game logic that is not only apparent to any observer, but is actually required in order to play the game.  If I open the door, I don't suddenly find myself standing on a mountain without some sort of in-game causal reasoning.  The door was trapped, teleporting me to the top of the mountain.

Every event in an RPG has a causal chain that is defined by the game and the in-game logic.  Thus, every single RPG in existence creates a narrative during play.  It creates a causal chain of events that follows a (hopefully) consistent paradigm of that particular imagined space.  Characters are not simply game pieces randomly jumping from points A to B to C.  They are actors within that fictional space and the primary point of play is to experience that fictional space through the eyes of that fictional character, even if that fictional character is just an avatar for you personally in that fictional space.

All RPG's work like this.  Every single one.  It's the most primary defining element of all RPG's and the biggest distinction of RPG's from every other form of game.


----------



## Matt James (Dec 24, 2011)

I'm not sure how that refutes my blog post in predesigned adventure creation. It offers an option; not a forced absolute. Some groups need to be lightly pulled through. They need purpose, direction, and motivation--key elements to all stories. Card 11 can have 1,000,000 options if you want to cram it on there. That's fine. It's just a connector to the next part of the narritive, or the ending of the story.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 24, 2011)

> > Lots of possibilities lurk between rescued and not rescued in terms of relevant consequences. The how and why she is or is not rescued may matter tremendously.
> 
> 
> 
> Could you elucidate a few for me please? Because I'm really not seeing a big difference here. You have total success and complete failure. Sure there might be some shadings in between, but either you rescue the princess or you don't.




Like I said, the details matter.  The rescue or its failure may only be the beginning of potentially campaign-changing events.


The party rescues her, but she lies about the way she was treated by her rescuers, making the PCs into outlaws.
The party doesn't rescue her because she never needed rescuing- the kidnapping was staged
She is not rescued because she is a succubus, they kill her, and the king believes them.
She is not rescued because she is a succubus, they kill her, and the king does NOT believe them.
The kidnapper killed her just hours after the crime- before the party was even sent to rescue her
They don't rescue her because they find out the King is actually a polymorphed demon
She is not rescued because the kidnapper actually brought her to her one true love, the Prince of a rival kingdom (Romeo & Juliet), but this brings peace.
She is rescued even though the kidnapper actually brought her to her one true love, the Prince of a rival kingdom (Romeo & Juliet), starting a terrible war.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 24, 2011)

Yes, but every single example you gave either the princess is rescued or not.  

Sure, there's lots of possibilities covered under, she's rescued or not rescued, but, at the end of the day, you've only got two possibilities.  Everything else is just details.  And, of all the examples you gave, you would not have all of them be possible in the same scenario would you?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 24, 2011)

> Yes, but every single example you gave either the princess is rescued or not.




I didn't at any time say otherwise.

My point was that the details of why the party succeed or don't matter, and may matter greatly.  In some of those scenarios, rescuing the kidnap victim is a very bad thing- contained within the successful rescue is the hidden twist of a failure; others, the exact opposite.

Some _might_ consider those exemplars of third outcomes.*  It doesn't matter, though: the point is that even though the kidnapped person is rescued, things may not end well for the PCs.

And from that vantage, it isn't the rescue or failure to rescue hat ultimately matter, it's whether you get the happily ever after or not.


> And, of all the examples you gave, you would not have all of them be possible in the same scenario would you?




All of them?  No.  But several are compatible...or at least, are not mutually exclusive.





* and if the kidnapping was staged- scenario #2- she cannot be rescued or not rescued in any meaningful sense: she was never in danger, and you cannot fail to rescue someone who did not need rescuing.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 24, 2011)

But then you run into the problem of DM workload.  If you design your adventures to the point where you can possibly have so many outcomes, you're pretty much required to do a heck of a lot of heavy lifting that will never see play.

Laying out an adventure in a grid format isn't a bad idea.  I like the idea of adventure flowcharts.

After all, if you, the DM, know that the princess is a succubus, then you've just reduced the total number of end results to three - they fail to rescue the "princess", they rescue her, kill her and the king believes/doesn't believe them.

I would point out though, that once you've done this, you've change the initial parameters of the scenario that Matt James outlined.  Which is fine.  But, once you have decided on the initial parameters, the number of end points becomes pretty limited.

If we go strictly by the initial parameters of Matt James' example, then none of those outcomes you listed actually can come up.  The princess is not a succubus.  The kidnappers don't immediately execute their captive.  Etc.

After all, if it's true that the kidnappers immediately execute the princess, then you are left with a very limited number of outcomes.  Since the PC's can't really change that, you might as well start there.  The PC's have no real control in that situation - they are doing what they probably feel is right, but, the situation is such that they've failed before they even started.

Very fun scenario with the right group, but, at that point, I no longer need to worry about preparing any sort of "happy" ending, because, the end point is pretty much carved in stone before the situation begins - the party fails.  How do they deal with that failure?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 24, 2011)

Hussar said:


> But then you run into the problem of DM workload.  If you design your adventures to the point where you can possibly have so many outcomes, you're pretty much required to do a heck of a lot of heavy lifting that will never see play.




You're not where I am.  I'm not talking about workload at all.

I'm not saying all those options need to be in your script and ready to play.  I was just pointing out that even within a seemingly binary set of outcomes- rescued/not rescued- there can still be a wide variety of plot variants that matter, including victories or defeats that are not what they seem.

I'm also saying that a fully plotted out adventure can be cool- i've been through my fair share- but that a live DM has the option of changing things on the fly in order to improve the play experience.  More than once, players at the table have made suggestions during their speculation of the goings-on in an adventure I was running that, instead of running what was in front of me on the paper, I ran with what the players _thought_ was going on.



> If we go strictly by the initial parameters of Matt James' example, then none of those outcomes you listed actually can come up. The princess is not a succubus. The kidnappers don't immediately execute their captive. Etc.




Actually, if you re-read the example, "Premise: The newborn child of King Tanner has been kidnapped. The only clue is a single piece of parchment with an odd riddle scribed on it.", none of the scenarios I put forth was ruled out by MJ's example.  Succubi are shapechangers; nothing in the premise said the child was alive.  Etc.



> After all, if you, the DM, know that the princess is a succubus, then you've just reduced the total number of end results to three - they fail to rescue the "princess", they rescue her, kill her and the king believes/doesn't believe them.



Those are just some I listed.  Actually, there are more possibilities than that.

They could ally themselves with her- willingly or not- and lead her forces to usurp the throne, killing the King.  Then killing her.  Or the King could escape.

Or depending on edition, as part of the rescue, they could nail her with a Helm of Opposite Alignment, bringing the King a powerful ally.  They could get her with the Helm, then have her join a convent.

I could continue, and I'm sure others here could come up with more- don't sell creative players short, nor forget the possibility that the dice will sabotage the plans of the DM, the PCs, or both.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 24, 2011)

In my experience, it's usually not that hard to anticipate most of the player's reactions.

"Nailing her with a helm of opposite alignment" for instance requires an extremely narrow set of circumstances that, unless the party is actually carrying one, is very, very unlikely to come up.  

As far as ally with her, again, this is going to be an extremely limited number of tables and knowing your players will help here.  Let's be honest, the general tone of the game will dictate whether this is realistically possible or not.  Any good aligned group, for example, isn't going to do this in all likelihood.  

Yes, we should realize that from time to time, the players are going to take radical turns, sure.  But, by and large, it's not really that hard to predict.  And, sure, being flexible is great.  Players are amazing sources of inspiration after all.  But, again, most of the time, you can probably guess what your group is going to do.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 24, 2011)

> "Nailing her with a helm of opposite alignment" for instance requires an extremely narrow set of circumstances that, unless the party is actually carrying one, is very, very unlikely to come up.




Seen it twice, so far.



> As far as ally with her, again, this is going to be an extremely limited number of tables and knowing your players will help here.




Succubi are quite persuasive: between their shapechanging, energy drain, DC 22 charms and high Cha, they can really do a good job at finding alies.  Just sayin'.

While I know guys fall into ruts- like my buddy who plays Wizards 85% of the time- if you challenge them, they tend to come up with at least one unusual tactic.  It then becomes a question of whether the oddball plan has the votes to be carried out.

Or, occasionally, whether someone uses it as the basis of their "Leroy Johnson Plan."


----------



## S'mon (Dec 24, 2011)

Hussar said:


> In any RPG, you cannot avoid creating all of the elements of a story.  You have setting, you have character and during play, you generate plot.
> 
> What else is there?  If you have setting, character and plot, you have a story.  There's no avoiding it.  The point of play is to create that story.  Even if you don't want to create a story, you have no choice in the matter.  The second that you are playing a game with plausible consequences which follow a logic sequence based on elements drawn from character and setting, you have a story.




Only in the trivial sense that my daily life also "creates a story".


----------



## S'mon (Dec 24, 2011)

Matt James said:


> A lot of the AAA video game titles you see out there do the same thing, albeit on a larger scale. Take the recent Skyrim game. While it may appear that there is infinite opportunity and options in play, there is really only a few outcomes (no spoilers, I promise). The same goes for the Dragon Age titles, and others.




Yes, for any computer game, the content (including any random content generators) is all pre-created before the players begin play, so this is the best you're ever going to get.  But with a live GM, *new content can be created during play*.  

What I, and I think others, are trying to say, is that the best advice for at-table play is advice which helps the GM to create new content during play, in response to player input.  And a major factor is that, as Danny says, the possible outcomes for tabletop play are effectively unlimited.  So using even good computer game design, or gamebook design, as a model for at-table play, is leaving money on the table; it's not taking advantage of the strengths of the tabletop-RPG medium.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 24, 2011)

Hussar said:


> But then you run into the problem of DM workload.  If you design your adventures to the point where you can possibly have so many outcomes, you're pretty much required to do a heck of a lot of heavy lifting that will never see play.




No, you need to not be nailing everything down pre-play.  The GM creates the start conditions, he should not be trying to pre-determine all possible end points.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Dec 24, 2011)

S'mon said:


> Yes, for any computer game, the content (including any random content generators) is all pre-created before the players begin play, so this is the best you're ever going to get.  But with a live GM, *new content can be created during play*.
> 
> What I, and I think others, are trying to say, is that the best advice for at-table play is advice which helps the GM to create new content during play, in response to player input.  And a major factor is that, as Danny says, the possible outcomes for tabletop play are effectively unlimited.  So using even good computer game design, or gamebook design, as a model for at-table play, is leaving money on the table; it's not taking advantage of the strengths of the tabletop-RPG medium.




I don't see how this approach would prevent one from improvising.

For example, when I sketch out an adventure, I'll use broad strokes to paint the likeliest picture of that adventure.  If the PCs are going after a gangster, I'll stat up the encounter with the thugs guarding the entrance.

That doesn't mean, however, that I won't allow the PCs to use reduce person and fire resistance to pop down a chimney and circumvent the encounter (or simply delay it, should they set off an alarm inside the house).  The PC's choices matter, and I'm still capable of improvising.

I'm not really the kind of DM who can usually run a good game without anything planned though.  As someone mentioned upthread, it's easier to improvise when you have a plan.  I certainly find that to be the case for myself.  I'd rather have an adventure in front of me, and only use 10% of it, than be forced to improvise everything.

As such, I don't see how this method would prevent one from improvising, any more than having a piece of paper in front of you would.  The cards are just there to make your job easier, and that's something I can very much appreciate as a DM.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 24, 2011)

It doesn't prevent improvisation, but I think Matt's gamebook approach may discourage improvisation because it encourages the GM to consider player activity as taking place only within the pre-scripted game matrix.  The risk is that if the GM has put (considerable) effort into detailing 3 options, but the players go 'off script' and choose option 4, then the GM may be less able to react than if he had simply created a situation with the intent that the players address it however they wished.

I see this a fair bit with 4e DMing advice from eg Chris Perkins or the 'ID DM' blog - lots of advice on steering players back 'on script' if they err from the pre-charted course.  I think Matt was the third GM to post something similar in the past 2-3 weeks; plus also having just been reading through EGG's _Yggsburgh_ and seeing a completely different & IMO better approach, I may have reacted a bit too strongly to Matt's advice in particular.  Because it is good advice for video game authors, and it's pretty good advice for writers of plot-based adventures for publication, too.  It's just that IMO it's not such good advice for GMs at their own tables.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Dec 24, 2011)

S'mon said:


> Yes, for any computer game, the content (including any random content generators) is all pre-created before the players begin play, so this is the best you're ever going to get.  But with a live GM, *new content can be created during play*.
> 
> What I, and I think others, are trying to say, is that the best advice for at-table play is advice which helps the GM to create new content during play, in response to player input.  And a major factor is that, as Danny says, the possible outcomes for tabletop play are effectively unlimited.  So using even good computer game design, or gamebook design, as a model for at-table play, is leaving money on the table; it's not taking advantage of the strengths of the tabletop-RPG medium.



These two approaches are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, you can incorporate the on-the-fly adjustments into your grid creation, rearrange the grid, rewrite the grid items to incorporate the on-the-fly nature of the tabletop game, etc.

In fact, I think a blending of both really indicates the sort of facile GM everyone wants. S/he thinks deeply enough and far enough out to have meta-plots and big level plots, and incorporates the choices of the group during each session into the planning for the next session, all while shuffling the meta-plots around to mesh in with the creation of content during play.

Think of it like a branching tree. You plan up to the first splits of the trunk, the first branches, and the first set of twigs. During play the players take a trunk you didn't plan for, but that doesn't mean all the branches and twigs after that split can't be shifted to account for the change in play. And it doesn't mean they all have to shift, either. You can take the split trunk and create entirely new branches and twigs to mesh in with the already created ones.

That's how I see it, and that's how I try to GM. Does it mean I create a lot of content no one will ever see? Sure, but more often I find a way to logically tie the content together. And many times it actually seems to fit in better than the original plan.

Maybe you'd be surprised, but maybe not, but this is exactly how military planning works, and I think that probably accounts for it being the way I approach my GM planning sessions, my personal writing projects, and my classroom instruction. To wit--I have specific content I'm trying to get students to understand (I teach college composition), but no two classes are ever the same, even if I start from the same base for each lesson. Some classes work better than others, and I reflect on those to see why, then alter plans to suit the new lessons.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 24, 2011)

Mercutio01 said:


> Think of it like a branching tree. You plan up to the first splits of the trunk, the first branches, and the first set of twigs. During play the players take a trunk you didn't plan for, but that doesn't mean all the branches and twigs after that split can't be shifted to account for the change in play. And it doesn't mean they all have to shift, either. You can take the split trunk and create entirely new branches and twigs to mesh in with the already created ones.




Yes, I think this kind of lattice approach is very good.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Dec 24, 2011)

S'mon said:


> Yes, for any computer game, the content (including any random content generators) is all pre-created before the players begin play, so this is the best you're ever going to get.  But with a live GM, *new content can be created during play*.
> 
> What I, and I think others, are trying to say, is that the best advice for at-table play is advice which helps the GM to create new content during play, in response to player input.  And a major factor is that, as Danny says, the possible outcomes for tabletop play are effectively unlimited.  So using even good computer game design, or gamebook design, as a model for at-table play, is leaving money on the table; it's not taking advantage of the strengths of the tabletop-RPG medium.



*Someone XP S'mon for me, please*

The extemporaneous interaction of the participants with a human referee that can alter the game environment in response to player action is the heart of what a role-playing game is. We should cultivate advice that assists this process.


----------



## Quickleaf (Dec 24, 2011)

Matt James said:


> So, I think people are missing my intent, which I can totally accept. I wrote that blog post while the idea was fresh on my mind and I could have expanded more. It was never meant to be all-inclusive or a single fix to all problems. It was to promote another way of thinking out story design. The conclusion (card 11, if you will) doesn't have to be black and white. I've see a couple people getting hung up on this. The cards help to lay things out spatially. Some people operate better this way--I am one of them.



Heh. Yeah I got what you were saying - it's about method not outcome. Some DMs don't plan anything in advance, so your blog post obviously wasn't aimed at them. It's simply a framework that can be as complex or simple, as binary or expansive as you want. And like all plans it won't live up to players perfectly. 

One of the advantages I see in your index card grid is how you can move ideas around to see new relationships/connections. I notice when planning in bullet point or table that the graphic presentation makes that challenging. I do most of y planning on the computer, and the closest I've found to the "perfect" solution for me is Freemind. But I'm going to try your method after new years and see how it works.

Nothing like trial and error!


Oh yeah, about the succubus is the princess to rescue scenario...I think on major option is missing. Hint: it was the premise for one of the most awesome story hours on ENworld


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 25, 2011)

Just to be clear, while I rarely write out whole adventures a-la commercial product, even at my most improvisational, I try to work with a flow chart and some general notes.



> Oh yeah, about the succubus is the princess to rescue scenario...I think on major option is missing. Hint: it was the premise for one of the most awesome story hours on ENworld




Do tell!

No, really, do tell- some of us don't do story hours.


----------



## Quickleaf (Dec 25, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Do tell!
> 
> No, really, do tell- some of us don't do story hours.




[MENTION=650]sepulchrave[/MENTION] wrote up his campaign "Tales of Wyre", and I think it's still going. Here's the link: http://www.enworld.org/forum/story-hour/58227-tales-wyre.html. Once you start reading it's very hard to start, so you've been warned 

The basic premise (and this isn't giving anything away) is a succubus who claims to be penitent and the dilemma this poses for the party's paladin. Can a devil of pure evil be redeemed? The answer in the story hour is not what you'd expect.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 25, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Seen it twice, so far.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Twice in thirty years of gaming?  I'd say that qualifies as not too bloody likely.

It's not a case of falling into ruts.  It's the fact that most players are fairly rational people and you can, by and large, predict what they're going to do most of the time.  If they don't have a helm of opposite alignment, they're not going to run out and find one to "save" the succubus.  If the party is good aligned, it's unlikely they're going to ally with the succubus against the guy that hired them.

Again, it's possible, but, not very likely.



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> Only in the trivial sense that my daily life also "creates a story".




Could you expand on this?  Can you provide examples of how play in any RPG cannot result in a story with setting, plot and character?


----------



## S'mon (Dec 25, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Could you expand on this?  Can you provide examples of how play in any RPG cannot result in a story with setting, plot and character?




Those are two completely different questions.  What I said is that my daily life, or yours, inherently has setting, plot & character to the same extent as there is inherently setting, plot and character in an RPG session.

What I am saying is that the events of an RPG session are no more inherently 'a story' than are the events of somebody's actual life.   An RPG is not inherently a story-creation medium in the sense of creating something that much resembles an actual dramatic (or comedic) story of the sort that you see in eg a film, novel or play.

But of course it* can** give rise to such a story, whether by accident (just like real life), or by design.  For the latter there are actual story-creation RPGs, such as the Indie Narrativist games.

*Your second question is based on a false reading of what I said.


----------



## Matt James (Dec 25, 2011)

Guys, it was not my intent for this to to rile up the community. It is just one way of doing things and not necessarily the right way for everyone. It might spark some ideas in someone, who then takes the barebones idea I gave, and turns it into something that works for them.

Adventure design is only successful if you, and the consumers of your fantasy, are having a fun and enjoyable time. Merry Christmas. Remember to hug your dog or cat.

Now, it is time I do something that is very difficult for me, personally: I must go put on some pants.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Dec 25, 2011)

S'mon said:


> It doesn't prevent improvisation, but I think Matt's gamebook approach may discourage improvisation because it encourages the GM to consider player activity as taking place only within the pre-scripted game matrix.  The risk is that if the GM has put (considerable) effort into detailing 3 options, but the players go 'off script' and choose option 4, then the GM may be less able to react than if he had simply created a situation with the intent that the players address it however they wished.
> 
> I see this a fair bit with 4e DMing advice from eg Chris Perkins or the 'ID DM' blog - lots of advice on steering players back 'on script' if they err from the pre-charted course.  I think Matt was the third GM to post something similar in the past 2-3 weeks; plus also having just been reading through EGG's _Yggsburgh_ and seeing a completely different & IMO better approach, I may have reacted a bit too strongly to Matt's advice in particular.  Because it is good advice for video game authors, and it's pretty good advice for writers of plot-based adventures for publication, too.  It's just that IMO it's not such good advice for GMs at their own tables.




I haven't read Yggsburgh myself (everything I know about it is second hand) but it seems to me that might be setting the bar a bit high.

Different people have different DMing styles.  

We have one DM in my group who's sort of a Yggsburgh type, though moreso regarding the big picture than the small.  He has pages upon pages of detailed notes about his epic setting, which spans hundreds of thousands of years of time and two universes (as well as numerous alternate timelines).  That's by no means to imply that things are set in stone.  We've more than once overturned the "anticipated" result, thereby resulting in far flung changes to the setting.  He's quite detail oriented.

Then there's arguably the best DM in our circle.  He runs from maps.  No real notes to speak of; he'll scribble the names, encounters, treasure, etc. right there on the map and just runs.  He's by far the most flexible and improvisational DM I've ever gamed with, going so far as to allowing us to create a temporal paradox even though he'd never intended anything of that sort, and wasn't initially sure how to handle it.  We paid a dear price for it, but he nonetheless ran with it where most DMs would likely have just said no, thereby creating one of the most memorable events in my group's history.

Then there's me.  I won't lie; I started out as a crappy, railroading DM.  In the beginning, I'd write out pages upon pages of adventure notes that I'd try to stick to like a script, going so far as to write out long monologues.  In all fairness though, I constantly sought to improve my style, regularly reading about the art of DMing as well as studying DMs whose games I admired.  Over time I improved significantly, both in offering open ended adventures and in streamlining my prep time.  I've tried my hand at creating a Yggsburgh style game; it doesn't work for me.  I lose interest in running the game long before I have the area fleshed out to that level of detail.  I've learned that I need to prepare just a bit more than I'll need for my first game, then jump in feet first.  That works for me.  Nowadays I use a short bullet point list or a flowchart, jotting down important names, encounters, and drawing little maps.  It's really just there to facilitate a lot of improvisation though.  I don't force my players in any direction; they're free to do as they wish, even to the point of ignoring the adventure and doing something else (which rarely occurs, but when it does I improvise).

I think the matrix would actually help break DMs out of the scripted adventure mode of thinking, because it engenders a level of dynamism.  One group might proceed through the adventure via encounters 1, 5, and 9, while another does 2, 3, 6, and 8.  Yggsburgh might do the same, but I think it could discourage many DMs by seeming like an unattainable standard.  Indeed, one could look at Yggburgh as being a massive, multi-dimensional matrix of encounters.  Certainly more dynamic in it's design, but also less manageable for DMs without limitless free time on their hands.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 25, 2011)

Fanaelialae said:


> Then there's arguably the best DM in our circle.  He runs from maps.  No real notes to speak of; he'll scribble the names, encounters, treasure, etc. right there on the map and just runs.




Yeah, me too.  Sandboxes like Yggsburgh or the 3e Wilderlands of High Fantasy are actually very sketchy at the operational level, and require a lot of improvisation to function.  I see them as improvisational aids, and they can be seen as matrices (or lattices, per a previous post).  Where they differ from the typical gamebook approach is that they do not funnel the PCs to a particular pre-scripted end point.

I don't create anything like Yggsburgh or Wilderlands either, I just see them as useful GMing aids.

I can't personally use notes or cards the way Matt describes, I find I lose everything! I need stuff stuck together in one document.   But I think a one-page matrix type flowchart can be a good way to describe a physical environment that can be navigated.  I don't personally find the sort of timed flowcharts used in plot-based adventures useful; the only thing that works well for me is a description of what the NPCs will do in the absence of any PC intervention, written with the expectation it will be deviated from.  Clearly different peoples' minds work differently and I'm sure this is a good approach for some.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 25, 2011)

> Twice in thirty years of gaming? I'd say that qualifies as not too bloody likely.



Context: I don't play just D&D, and I've moved many times.  In those 30 years, I've played in nearly 70 different RPG systems in 11 groups in 5 metropolitan areas in 3 different states.

So to my eyes, while it isn't too common compared to old standbys like Rock to Mud/Mud to Rock (a fave) or Scry-Teleport-Attack (which, for the record, I've never seen), as a _thinking outside of the box tactic_, that's amazingly high frequency.

And even within D&D, some DMs simply don't use cursed items, meaning its simply not an option since the Helm wouldn't exist in the campaign.

Hmmmm...given 4Ed's take on alignment, is the Helm even a part of the game anymore?


----------



## Hussar (Dec 26, 2011)

S'mon said:


> Those are two completely different questions.  What I said is that my daily life, or yours, inherently has setting, plot & character to the same extent as there is inherently setting, plot and character in an RPG session.
> 
> What I am saying is that the events of an RPG session are no more inherently 'a story' than are the events of somebody's actual life.   An RPG is not inherently a story-creation medium in the sense of creating something that much resembles an actual dramatic (or comedic) story of the sort that you see in eg a film, novel or play.
> 
> ...




See, I disagree here.  An RPG is inherently a story-creation medium.  Every single adventure begins with some sort of set up - the DM then creates some series of events that facillitate play in a particular direction based around a pre-defined theme and then, during play, you develop a plot which (hopefully) climaxes at some form of resolution.

In other words, the princess is kidnapped (set-up), the players interact with the adventure (play) and the princess is rescued or not (resolution).  

Real life rarely works this way.  

So, can you give me an example of playing an RPG where you do not follow this general track of set-up, play and resolution?  Which is what I meant by my second question.  It's not a misunderstanding of what you said, it's disagreeing with what you said.

You stated, that your daily life creates a story.  Not really.  Sure, I could write down the events that occur in your daily life, but, that's not a story.  There's no set-up, there's no resolution (well, everyone has the same resolution, but that's a slightly different thing  ).  

Sure, there might be a million different things going on in your life, but, they are not set up along any given themes or planned (again, ignoring somewhat existential discussions for the moment).  Writing down the events of your life, there is no real beginning or ending, other than birth and death which aren't really under your control (typically).  

However, the beginning and ending of adventures are typically under the players (partial at least) control and are built with particular events in mind by the DM.  A dungeon is a flowchart of a story.  Playing through a dungeon crawl develops a narrative that can be traced from a concrete beginning to a concrete (usually) ending.

And most adventures work this way.  You start the adventure, you have the adventure, you get the xp for the adventure, you start the next adventure.

So, again, can you give an example of playing an RPG where a story is not generated?  Where the person running the game has no interest, and no control over what narrative is generated during play?  I certainly can't.

I realize that there is this need for some reason to distinguish "collaborative storytelling" from "RPG's" but, I've never really got it.  So, could you elucidate for me?  Because I fail to see any meaningful difference between "Game where we play characters that adventure in an imagined space" and "Game where we create a narrative with plot, character and setting."


----------



## S'mon (Dec 26, 2011)

I get up, I go to work, I deal with challenges, I come home, I go to bed (resolution).  Every day is a story!  Or not.

There's a reason why "You should go write a book" is a pejorative among RPGers.  An adventure like The Keep on the Borderlands in no wise resembles a real story like The House on the Borderland.  And adventures which do resemble real stories tend to suffer from linearity and can encourage railroading.  I'm running one of these right now (Heathen, Dungeon 155) and I find it takes more work, not less, to take somebody else's idea of a dramatic narrative and render it useable as a game scenario.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 26, 2011)

S'mon said:


> I get up, I go to work, I deal with challenges, I come home, I go to bed (resolution).  Every day is a story!  Or not.




How are the challenges you face resolved by going to bed?

In what way are the challenges you face designed by a single individual and based around pre-defined themes?

Sure, it's easy to be glib, but, I think that there really is an issue here that keeps getting avoided.  So often I see people, including some in this thread, claim that their games don't have any story.  Which is utter ballocks on the face of it.  It's simply not true.

So, again, how can you have an RPG without a story?



> There's a reason why "You should go write a book" is a pejorative among RPGers.  An adventure like The Keep on the Borderlands in no wise resembles a real story like The House on the Borderland.




Oh, agreed, there are good adventures and bad adventures.  But, claiming that there is no story in Keep on the Borderlands is ignoring the actual text.  There are a number of stories in there.  And, let's not forget, KotB was deliberately left half finished as a means of "training" new DM's.  DM's are SUPPOSED to supply a story to finish that module.  

Look at GDQ - very definite thread of a story throughout the entire series of modules.  And, generally considered one of the top three modules ever produced.  



> And adventures which do resemble real stories tend to suffer from linearity and can encourage railroading.  I'm running one of these right now (Heathen, Dungeon 155) and I find it takes more work, not less, to take somebody else's idea of a dramatic narrative and render it useable as a game scenario.




See, this is where the problem lies.  The thought that story=railroad.  Look at KotB again.  It's not a railroad.  I think we can all agree there.  But, there is defintely a framework of a story there.  The protagonists will travel from the Keep to the Caves, searching out what they find in the caves, with additional side threads coming from the Evil Priest in the Keep.  There are any number of stories that can be generated from KotB.

But, if we were to make a matrix of the stories, it wouldn't be all that difficult.  Groups that go into the higher lettered caves first, die.  Very short story.  So, let's start our matrix with caves A, B and C.  Maybe chuck in D as well.  By the time they clean out those caves, they're ready for the next four options.  So, we don't put Cave L beside Cave A because Cave L is too tough of a challenge for the party.  We make the training wheel caves the most easily accessible.

If you have setting, character and the outline of a plot - which is precisely what any module actually is- what more do you need to generate a narrative?


----------



## S'mon (Dec 26, 2011)

Hussar said:


> In what way are the challenges you face designed by a single individual and based around pre-defined themes?
> ?




Story is about being "designed by a single individiual"?  Again, for RPGs that's what I want to avoid - the world needs to be open enough for the PCs to choose their challenges, at least as much as a real person chooses what they're going to do.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by 'pre-defined themes' but obviously being an academic in London I face different challenges than if I were a militiaman in Mogadishu.  Likewise in an RPG there are different challenges in different environments.  Very few D&D games have pre-defined themes in the narrativist "What would you do for love?" sense of an actual dramatic premise, though.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 26, 2011)

Hussar said:


> How are the challenges you face resolved by going to bed?
> Oh, agreed, there are good adventures and bad adventures.  But, claiming that there is no story in Keep on the Borderlands is ignoring the actual text.  There are a number of stories in there.  And, let's not forget, KotB was deliberately left half finished as a means of "training" new DM's.  DM's are SUPPOSED to supply a story to finish that module.




No.  It's not some defective, half-finished work that the DM needs to complete before presenting to the players for their admiration.  The *decisions of the players* are supposed to determine what happens.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 26, 2011)

Hussar said:


> So, again, how can you have an RPG without a story?




Since I've told you, and you've rejected my answer and called me glib, I don't see much point endlessly repeating myself.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 26, 2011)

You _can_ get a story out of any organic rpg session. Just because you can tell a story about what happened in a particular game session doesn't mean the session _was played with creating that story as a play objective._

Can you play it that way? Certainly, and many do. It by no means a requirement for playing an rpg though.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 26, 2011)

But, Exploder Wizard, creation of a story is unavoidable.  You can't play an RPG without it.  It might not be your intent to create a story, but, without fail, that's what you are doing.

S'mon - Ahh, now I see the problem.  You are equating narrative (which is just a fancy word for story) with narrativist (a Forge term with a fairly specific definition distinct from narrative).  

Like I've said, you cannot play an RPG without creating a story.  It's not possible.  Therefore, RPG's are collaborative story telling games.

Oh, and I never said that the Keep was defective btw.  I said that it was half finished with the assumption stated clearly in the introduction to the module that the DM would fill in the details.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 26, 2011)

> ...narrativist (a Forge term with a fairly specific definition distinct from narrative).




And that definition would be?


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 26, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Like I've said, you cannot play an RPG without creating a story. It's not possible. Therefore, RPG's are collaborative story telling games.




It is true that they very well can be, as long as the participants are all in agreement to such including a willingness to adopt the role of storyteller.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 26, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And that definition would be?




Paraphrasing:

Story Now
Commitment to producing, heightening, and resolving a generalizable, problematic aspect of human interaction through play itself.


----------



## the Jester (Dec 26, 2011)

Hussar said:


> S'mon - Ahh, now I see the problem.  You are equating narrative (which is just a fancy word for story) with narrativist (a Forge term with a fairly specific definition distinct from narrative).




In all fairness, it isn't very useful to rely on definitions that only a small subset of the community uses and buys into, at least unless you specify your terms in advance.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 26, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> It is true that they very well can be, as long as the participants are all in agreement to such including a willingness to adopt the role of storyteller.




Most activities in human experience have what we could call, "unintended consequences".  What you intend, claim, agree, or want to happen does not fully define all the results of an endeavor.  

Now, for a particularly undesirable consequence, you can minimize the result.  You can proceed such that the consequence does not influence how you go about your activity.  You can stick the consequence off in the corner where nobody really cares about it.  But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Dec 27, 2011)

Is it perhaps that some are taking issue with the idea of the game as a predefined story?  Because I don't think that's what Hussar is necessarily saying.

More that, an rpg has story-like elements such that, after play, you could describe what happened as a story.  I'd agree with that.

After all, "We wandered around in the woods for 4 hours and nothing happened.  Then we went home," sounds like a terrible game to me, and it would also make for a terrible story.  While I realize that not everyone plays for this reason, in one sense playing an rpg is much like engaging in collaborative story writing (or storytelling).

The goal of our games isn't to tell a story, but many times we've sat around and reminisced, telling stories of games long gone.

It doesn't imply that an rpg has a fixed ending or destination.  Good games should respond to the player's actions.  If you're playing a Yggsburgh game, it isn't unreasonable to assume that the "story" will eventually involve Castle Z.  Of course, your players may surprise you and it might not go there at all.  That's one of quirks of collaborative story creation; no one necessarily knows for certain where the story will end up.


----------



## D'karr (Dec 27, 2011)

Fanaelialae said:


> Is it perhaps that some are taking issue with the idea of the game as a predefined story?  Because I don't think that's what Hussar is necessarily saying.
> 
> More that, an rpg has story-like elements such that, after play, you could describe what happened as a story.  I'd agree with that.
> 
> ...




I was reading some old threads and found this very interesting quote from Gary himself:


> An RPG creates a story, does not follow a script. That's a play, possibly improv theater. In a real RPG the GM develops a backstory and plot, sets the scenes, and then the PCs interact with those and by their actions create the actual tale, the events and conclusion of which are indeterminate until that occurs.




I think this dovetails nicely with the "framework" that Matt is presenting.  As the DM, the index card array serves as the plan for the scenes/decision points of the adventure.  They don't restrict the players in any way, they simply serve as a plan for the DM.

The tale is actually in the telling, not in the framework.  The actual story/tale is the recounting of the adventure as it's happening.  The decisions are made by the players, the "framework" allows the DM to have something prepared based on those decisions, the scenes if you will.  Each "index card" is a node that a player *might* visit based on his decisions - as the tale unfolds.  But the tale is unfolding based on what the players are deciding, and the setup that the DM has prepared is fluid.  

The framework allows the DM to have preparation - as Gary said, "the backstory, and plot, and the scenes."  The actual story happens when the player's PCs interact with those elements.

Matt, and Hussar are not talking about a predetermined story in the typical sense.  In Matt's framework the two likely outcomes are the conclusion of the adventure based on one or more of the resolutions for which he is prepared.  How either of those resolutions happens is based on the scenes/nodes that the players interact with.  If the players completely get off any of the prepared nodes, the DM can use the existing nodes as preparation of new scenes, or go completely improvisational and make up new nodes in response to the changes.  At the end of the adventure the benefactor still has the two conclusions.  Did the little princess get rescued or not?  Because that was the initial premise which he sent out the adventurers to accomplish.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 31, 2011)

Yeah.  D'karr and Fana... Fannn... Fan* basically get it.

Like I said, you cannot play an RPG without a story.  It's not possible.  Even something as basic as a single cave in Keep on the Borderlands outlines a story.  You enter the cave, generally facing light opposition, penetrate further in, hitting larger enemies, then finally come to the boss monster at the end.  Everything else is just variations on the theme.

Now, how that actually plays out at the table will vary wildly.  Sure.  No problems.  But, it's probably easy to say that the party isn't going to start digging (not really feasible), nor are they going to use advanced magics (not available), nor are they likely to start recruiting (difficult even if they wanted to given the inherent hostility in the Caves).  So, upon entering the cave, your matrix isn't all that difficult to lay out - that's what a dungeon map is after all.

In Matt's presentation, you have a fairly simple set up - Rescue the Princess.  Sure, you can complicate it - the Princess is a Succubus - but, since you, the DM, KNOW that complication at the outset, that automatically shapes how things will turn out.  "The Princess is killed at the outset" stops being an option since the kidnappers don't actually want to do that (and may very well lack the means - depending on edition, Succubi can Gate BALORS!).

One of my favorite ideas that I've seen come out on Enworld is using a random map generator like donjon; d20 Random Dungeon Generator to create something similar to Matt's matrix framework.  You design the adventure using the map as a flowchart.  Start with the general shape of the adventure and then design to spec.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Dec 31, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Like I said, you cannot play an RPG without a story.  It's not possible.  Even something as basic as a single cave in Keep on the Borderlands outlines a story.  You enter the cave, generally facing light opposition, penetrate further in, hitting larger enemies, then finally come to the boss monster at the end.  Everything else is just variations on the theme.



By your terms, what game can be played without a story?

When I play the Talisman board game, I play a character on a quest to obtain the Crown of Command. I have encounters along the way. I encounter and compete with other players in my quest. A story results. Therefore, the Talisman board game is a collaborative storytelling game.

Any human activity can create a story. That does not mean the purpose of that activity is to create a story. This is a meaningful distinction when analyzing the form and execution of that activity.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 31, 2011)

To be fair, I've never played Talisman, so I don't know how the mechanics work.  However, let me ask a few questions.  When you take a turn, do you have any control over the events that occur during that turn?  In something like Monopoly, there is no control - it's entirely random, thus, no plot.  In Talisman, is there any difference between your playing pieces?  In other words, is there any actual character there or are you just moving a piece around the board?  And, finally, in Talisman, does the setting have any impact on the story?  If you were to completely change the board from it's original, to, say, spots on the board that look like mushrooms, would it change the way the game is played?

Because, in an RPG all those things matter - character, setting AND plot -  The holy triumvirate of any story.  Take away any one of those three and you no longer have a story.  At a guess, I'd say that there is no character in Talisman.  While your choice of playing piece might have some mechanics tied to it, the choice of playing piece does not actually have any meaningful impact on what happens from turn to turn.  

Lots of boardgames have story elements, that's true.  The Game of Life, for example, certainly has plot elements - the events that occur over the lifespan of your piece.  However, there's no character there.  It doesn't matter one whit whether you play a white car or a red car, male player, or female player or anything else.  There's no character.  And thus, no story.

And, even if some board games do create a story, that doesn't really change what I said.  Not all board games create a story.  That's de facto truth.  Bingo does not create a story.  Poker does not create a story.  Intent doesn't matter.  No matter what, playing Bingo does not create a story whether you want to or not.

OTOH, it is impossible to play an RPG without creating a story.  Whether you want to create a story or not doesn't matter.  The second you sit down with your players and begin play, you are creating a collaborative story.  You simply have no choice in the matter.  About the only way you could play an RPG without creating story would be to have a series of random charts with no actual link to each other.  Since I doubt anyone actually plays that way, I'll stand by my claim that in order to play any RPG, you MUST create a story.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Dec 31, 2011)

Fantasy Flight Games [Talisman - Description] - Leading publisher of board, card, and roleplaying games.

In Talisman, you’ll embark on a perilous quest for the ultimate treasure, the legendary Crown of Command. You’ll choose the warrior, priest, wizard, or one of eleven other heroes with powers both magical and mighty, and you’ll race your opponents through a perilous realm. Each player will roll a die to determine his movement around the regions of the board, where he will encounter dangerous foes and claim powerful rewards, all in preparation for his final climactic test.

But for those unfamiliar with this classic world of fantasy adventures, Talisman is a game like no other – indeed, it is no ordinary game at all, but a fantastic quest in a world of magic and monsters. As play progresses, a story unfolds from turn to turn: a heroic epic of brave deeds, of daring encounters, of treasures and magic, of battles fought and sometimes lost, but always a tale that challenges and enthralls!

The events behind this exciting game begin with a mighty wizard, now long dead, who once ruled over the land of Talisman using the power of a magical crown, forged in the Valley of Fire by spirits cruelly enslaved to arcane magic. For many centuries the wizard reigned supreme until, after a long life spent amongst his books and spells, he sensed his days were drawing to an end. He resolved to hide his crown in the most perilous part of the most dangerous region in his realm, setting fearsome guardians around it. Once he had done so, he perished, proclaiming with his dying breath that only a champion with the strength, wisdom, and courage to take his crown would rule in his stead.

Hundreds of years have passed, and the realm, long ungoverned and unprotected, has grown ever more dangerous, becoming infested by monsters and troubled by innumerable evils. To this very day, the ancient legend draws gallant heroes to the troubled land – each seeking the Crown of Command and the kingship of the realm of Talisman. So far no one has proven worthy of the challenge. The seekers’ bones lie bleached and broken upon the Plain of Peril or else cast idly aside to be gnawed by wild beasts and monsters.

In Talisman, up to six players assume the roles of hopeful characters–the would-be rulers of the land of Talisman. Each character is unique and has his own strengths, weaknesses, and special powers. To win the game you must journey to the heart of the land’s most perilous region to find the Crown of Command, then use its ancient magic to cast a mighty spell to subdue all your rivals. Your travels will be hard and fraught with danger – and it is in overcoming these dangers that the challenge of the game lies. Only by gradually building up your adventurer’s powers, gathering valuable allies, and winning potent magical items will you stand a chance of surviving the ultimate test that lies beyond the Portal of Power.

The object of the game is to reach the Crown of Command in the centre of the board and then, by casting Command Spells, force the other characters to yield to your might. Characters should first adventure in the Outer and Middle Regions to build up their Strength, Craft, and lives, until they feel they are powerful enough to tackle the Inner Region. They must also first find a Talisman, a rare artifact serving as a magical key, to permit them to enter the Valley of Fire and so reach the Crown of Command.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Dec 31, 2011)

Gentlegamer said:


> Any human activity can create a story. That does not mean the purpose of that activity is to create a story. This is a meaningful distinction when analyzing the form and execution of that activity.




To be honest, in 20 years of gaming I've not yet heard people argue that role-playing is not a form of story-telling.

So, since making stuff up and pretending to be someone else is, apparently, NOT story-telling, what exactly is the purpose when you sit around a table with a bottle of coke and a bag of cheetos, surrounded by some guys and girls who are pretending to be someone else?


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 31, 2011)

Hussar said:


> But, Exploder Wizard, creation of a story is unavoidable.  You can't play an RPG without it.  It might not be your intent to create a story, but, without fail, that's what you are doing.
> 
> Like I've said, you cannot play an RPG without creating a story.  It's not possible.  Therefore, RPG's are collaborative story telling games.



I disagree with you (finally!). A quick look at wiki (reliable as always) reveals:


			
				http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storytelling_game said:
			
		

> *Storytelling game*
> 
> A storytelling game is a game where two or more persons collaborate on telling a spontaneous story. Usually, each player takes care of one or more characters in the developing story. Some games in the tradition of role-playing games require one participant to take the roles of the various supporting characters, as well as introducing non-character forces (for example, a flood), but other systems dispense with this figure and distribute this function among all players.
> 
> ...



I think, from a more colloquial standpoint, that most people would not classify all RPGs are "collaborative storytelling." While I do agree that all RPG play will produce a story that can be told, I think that most people use something akin to the above definition to separate "collaborative storytelling" from other forms of RPGs. The article even mentions GNS theory, which is a good example of how people will attempt to divide RPGs into different subtypes to help discuss the subject.

Just my thoughts on it, though. I agree that RPGs produce a story, but I think that, colloquially, a collaborative storytelling RPG is an RPG that includes the intent of all the players to produce a compelling story as its main goal, rather than see one emerge through decisions in-game. As always, play what you like


----------



## S'mon (Dec 31, 2011)

Gentlegamer said:


> By your terms, what game can be played without a story?




NOOO!!!!  

Don't start it up all over again!


----------



## S'mon (Dec 31, 2011)

Mercutio01 said:


> To be honest, in 20 years of gaming I've not yet heard people argue that role-playing is not a form of story-telling.
> 
> So, since making stuff up and pretending to be someone else is, apparently, NOT story-telling, what exactly is the purpose when you sit around a table with a bottle of coke and a bag of cheetos, surrounded by some guys and girls who are pretending to be someone else?




To win the game?


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jan 1, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Like I said, you cannot play an RPG without a story.  It's not possible.



I've heard story defined as "stuff happening", or "expressing", which can then turns into an absolutist definition of everything. "You can never have stuff not happening", "even absence is a story", and "we are always expressing."

To me, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's a means to manipulate others to think and talk about what they are doing and who they are as someone else desires them to. Something is story, if we choose to address it as story. It isn't, if we don't. If story means we use these ideas and those words and these other concepts to describe what's going on - _and not others_ - then it is limiting the people engaging in the enterprise. That's good, now we have focus, but to force others to obey the same thinking isn't. Let them focus how they choose to. Think, speak, play, and design games according to your own way and let others have theirs.

If you want to "smurf" story by removing all definition to it, that's up to you. But then the entirety of narrative and the narrative vocabulary is in no way relevant to telling a story nor is it what the term story refers to. That may be okay with you. 

I use mathematical game theory and focus on pattern recognition in games. I don't happen to think games like Go should only be construed as anemic storytelling games, but that's me. For me, memory matters. And removing the vocabulary to conceive or address it is a nihilistic act, not a creative one - however much one may hold it as an illusion.

"All things are possible"


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jan 1, 2012)

To be clear, I'm not trying to be antagonistic above. My point is there are many ways of addressing gaming in this Land of Maybe of ours. I'd like if we could avoid certainties and absolutes in regards to how we engage in them. Conclusions are one thing, impossibilities quite another. I hope you have a happy new year and are enjoying the holidays.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 1, 2012)

S'mon said:


> To win the game?




How does one win an RPG?


----------



## Hussar (Jan 1, 2012)

Again, HowandWhy99, can you give me an example of playing an RPG that doesn't result in a story with the holy triumvirate- character, setting and plot?

I'm sorry about the Talisman example, but, cut and pasting the text from the back of the box really doesn't answer the question.  Nor, does it actually counter my point.  Even if playing some board games results in a story, that doesn't change anything.  It just means that some board games are closer to RPG's than other games.  I'm pretty sure that Talisman comes under this umbrella.

You can play non-RPG's without generating a story.  Bingo and Poker, no matter what, will not result in a story.  You cannot play an RPG without generating a story.  It's impossible.  Thus, all RPG's are an exercise in collaborative storytelling.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 1, 2012)

Hussar said:


> How does one win an RPG?




Crush your enemies, drive them before you, and hear the lamentation of their women.

Edit:  And then gather the gps to you.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jan 1, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Even if playing some board games results in a story, that doesn't change anything.



Change what? By your terms, Talisman the board game is a game of collaborative storytelling.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 1, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Again, HowandWhy99, can you give me an example of playing an RPG that doesn't result in a story with the holy triumvirate- character, setting and plot?




Even if you manage to bludgeon HowandWhy99 into submission through constant repetition, it doesn't mean you're right.  It just means you have more stamina than anybody else.

RPGs have 'characters' and 'settings'.  So do lots of other things that are not stories.

RPGs do not necessarily have 'plot'. They may have an environment - a setting - that can be engaged in any number of ways.  Thus any 'plot' is only discernable _ex post facto_.

But you will of course ignore this point, as you have ignored myself and everybody else umpteen times before, and keep repeating your mantra.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 1, 2012)

Gentlegamer said:


> Change what? By your terms, Talisman the board game is a game of collaborative storytelling.




So what?  How does that change the fact that no RPG can be played as anything other than a game of collaborative storytelling?  Just because a board game can be played the same way, what difference does that make?



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> Crush your enemies, drive them before you, and hear the lamentation of their women.
> 
> Edit: And then gather the gps to you.




And then?  Right, you go and do it again.  And again.  And again.  Until such time as you decide to retire those characters and do it again.  

Again, it's easy to be glib, but, at the end of the day, that's one of the defining characteristics of most RPG's - a lack of win conditions.

But, again, how does this change the basic point - that it's impossible to play and RPG without generating a story?


----------



## S'mon (Jan 1, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Again, it's easy to be glib...




Charming as ever, I see.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 1, 2012)

Sorry S'mon, but, are you able to provide an example of RPG play which does not result in the creation of a story by the people at the table?




Yeah, didn't think so.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 1, 2012)

Hussar said:


> can you give me an example of playing an RPG that doesn't result in a story with the holy triumvirate- character, setting and plot?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> You cannot play an RPG without generating a story.  It's impossible.  Thus, all RPG's are an exercise in collaborative storytelling.



If by "plot" you mean "sequence of fictional events" then I think there can be a plot without story - assuming "story" means something like "sequence of fictional events rising to a climax and then coming to a resolution". I've played RPGs with no resolution, either because the game didn't support one and the GM didn't know how to work around this lack, or because there was no story to come to a resolution (it was just an ad hoc series of fictional events).

Also, the mere fact that the participants in an RPG produce a plot, or even a story, doesn't make it collaborative storytelling. In fact, one of the main goals of narrativist RPG design is to ensure that play results in a story _without_ anyone having to have production of a story as a goal of play. (There is a nice discussion of this phenomenon here.)



Hussar said:


> How does one win an RPG?



From Tunnels & Trolls 5th ed, sections 1.2, 1.9:

Every time your character escapes from a tunnel alive, you may consider yourself a winner. The higher the level and the more wealth your character attains, the better you are doing in comparison to all the other players...

As long as a character remains alive - regardless of how many adventures he or she participates in - you are "winning." If ill fate befalls the character, or if you overextend yourself in playing your character's capabilities, the character dies and it is your loss. Of course, these games allow you to play any number of characters (sometimes referred to as a "stable of characters") and some will survive and advance, and everyone wins in the end.​
(And to be fair, I was sent to these sections by Ron Edwards, who says more about winning in RPGs here.)


----------



## Mercutio01 (Jan 1, 2012)

From the Gamma World Box set -- "A roleplaying game is a cooperative storytelling experience."

From Slasher Flick -- "It’s a game about cooperatively telling an entertaining story."

From the B/X books by Tom Moldvay -- "A good D&D campaign is similar to the creation of a fantasy novel, written by the DM and the players."

From the 3.5 PHB -- "It's part acting, part storytelling, part social interaction, part war game, part dice rolling.

From the 4th Edition PHB -- "A roleplaying game is a storytelling game that has elements of the games of make-believe that many of us played as children. However, a roleplaying game such as D&D provides form and structure, with robust gameplay and endless possibilities."

From Cartoon Action Hour Season 2 -- "Roleplaying games revolve around the concept of an interactive story. ... People playing an RPG are working cooperatively to entertain themselves and each other in an improvised story told through imagination, description, acting, strategy, and a little luck."

From Shadowrun, 3rd Edition -- "A roleplaying game is part improvisational theater, part storytelling, and part board game."

From Mutants and Masterminds, 2nd Edition -- "All of the action takes place in your imagination, and the story can go on for as long as you want, with one exciting adventure after another."

That's a smattering from different popular and indie games, all of which define roleplaying games as cooperative storytelling, and frequently in just that language.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 1, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Sorry S'mon, but, are you able to provide an example of RPG play which does not result in the creation of a story by the people at the table?
> 
> Yeah, didn't think so.




But, as I have said many times, by your trivial definition of story, any real life sequence of events also gives rise to a story.  Which is where I came in.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 1, 2012)

pemerton said:


> If by "plot" you mean "sequence of fictional events" then I think there can be a plot without story - assuming "story" means something like "sequence of fictional events rising to a climax and then coming to a resolution". I've played RPGs with no resolution, either because the game didn't support one and the GM didn't know how to work around this lack, or because there was no story to come to a resolution (it was just an ad hoc series of fictional events).)




Agreed.  RPGs do not necessarily result in 'story' in the non-trivial sense.  Hence the existence of narrativist and story-creation games, as you say.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jan 1, 2012)

If we want to do quotes:

A month has not gone by in the last two years when I haven’t been interviewed by one or more newspaper writers or independent journalists who want to know all about D&D. I have likewise been interviewed by radio and TV news media, generally for the same reason. At the risk of claiming too much for the game, I have lately taken to likening the whole to Aristotle’s POETICS, carrying the analogy to even more ridiculous heights by stating that each Dungeon Master uses the rules to become a playwrite (hopefully of Shakespearean stature), scripting only plot outlines however, and the players become the Thespians. Before incredulity slackens so as to allow the interviewer to become hostile, I hasten to add that the analogy applies only to the basic parts of the whole pastime, not to the actual merits of D&D, its DMs, or players. If you consider the game, the analogy is actually quite apt. DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is like none other in that it requires the game master to create part or all of a fantasy world. Players must then become personae in this place and interact with the other populace. This is, of course a tall order for all concerned — rules, DM, and players alike.

Relating a basic adventure, an episodic game session in the campaign, to a trip in an underground labyrinth does help the uninitiated to understand the simplest D&D fundamentals — discover an unknown area, move around in it by means of descriptive narration from the Dungeon Master, overcome whatever obstacles are there (traps, problems, monsters), and return with whatever has been gained during the course of the whole. The DM takes the part of everything in this fantasy world which is not operated by a player. While this should not mean it is then a game of DM versus the players, it does mean that DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is a co-operative game where players must interact successfully amongst themselves first, and non-hostile portions of the campaign milieu thereafter, in order to be successful. The Dungeon Master is incidentally against the players when he or she is operating that part of the “world” which is hostile, or potentially so, but in general the referee must be disinterested.

At about this point I am always asked: “Well, then, how do you win? who wins?!” The answer is, EVERYBODY — providing that the game is well run. The DM gets the satisfaction of testing his abilities against those of the players, the fun of taking the non-player parts, and the accolades of participants when a particularly well-done adventure or series has been completed. Players enjoy the challenges of each situation and have the prospect of continuing adventures and puzzles to confront them, each with his or her game persona. Thus all taking part in the campaign get something besides a momentary diversion. Winning no more applies to D&D than it does to real life. The successful DMs and players gain renown via their campaigns or their superior characters. To enthusiasts of the game it is far more satisfying than triumphing in a single game or whole series of games.

Gary Gygax, The Dragon, February 1979​Gary makes analogy to drama in the basic parts of the activity, not the whole of it. When he goes to specifics of game-play, the objectives are on challenges to the participants that do not include 'creating a collaborative story,' but posing and overcoming in-game challenges, puzzles, etc. The aftermath of this in-game activity is a story, in the sense that any recounting of tales of derring-do are also stories. The meaningful distinction is whether the purpose of the activity is to create a story or a story is its mere by-product. The distinction is meaningful because it impacts the structure and premise of the activity and how the participants are expected to engage in it. D&D is a role-playing game. Stores are created by the in-game activities of the participants. But it is not a game whose purpose is collaborative storytelling. The structure and premises of the game are not suited to this purpose. There are other RPGs that have been designed with this purpose in mind (Torg, for example, players had cards that could influence the plot/narrative on a meta level).


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jan 1, 2012)

I don't think there's any winning this discussion because you're all correct (except that one guy; you know who you are  ).

Hussar is right about all rpgs creating a story.  Even in a hack-and-slash, I could afterward write up what happened as an action heavy story about a group of murder hobos.  It wouldn't be the finest tale ever told, but it would be story.  As such, even a campaign that doesn't intend to make a story creates a story (albeit, not necessarily a very good one).

Everyone opposing his position is also correct.  Just because an rpg has the side effect of creating a story during play, doesn't mean that that's the focus of every group.  Some groups, in fact, go out of their way to avoid constructs that appear too "story-like".

Some people play to enjoy a series of (hack-and-slash) encounters (that isn't meant as an insult by the way; my group has done and enjoyed this kind of beer and pretzels game on occasion).  Others do it for a challenge; a kind of test of wits between the DM and his players.  

There are groups that aren't interested in the creation of a story per se, but rather in immersing themselves as completely as possible in an imaginary setting, and exploring the implications thereof.  This last is similar to a story driven game in some respects, but the "goal" of play (being wholly immersed in the setting) is not the same as a story game (which seeks to emulate the structure of a fantasy novel).  An immersive game may actively seek to avoid certain constructs that are readily accepted (as with all good things, in moderation) in a story game, such as the deus ex machina.

Seeing as how the end-goal of playing rpgs is fun (except perhaps for masochists  ) none of these styles is objectively better than the other.  The thing that matters most is that everyone enjoys themselves.  This can be challenging when not everyone enjoys the same style of play, but in my experience it's rare to find a game that focuses exclusively on one style or another.  Even a hack-and-slash can have immersive interludes, for example.

Neither "side" is wrong.  They're merely two different perspectives about the same thing.  Someone standing on a cliff will describe a shipwrecked boat differently than someone looking at the boat from under the water, but that doesn't mean that either will ever be able to prove the other objectively wrong.


----------



## Aeolius (Jan 1, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Sure, there's lots of possibilities covered under, she's rescued or not rescued, but, at the end of the day, you've only got two possibilities.  Everything else is just details.




"The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, but it is by far the least interesting." - Doctor Who

Suppose the daughter was due to succeed the king, so he had her assassinated and will frame her murder on the PCs who "rescue" her. 

Suppose she was not kidnapped. Instead she willing left to pursue a pastoral life unconcerned with political matters. 

Suppose the PCs find the princess as a ghost, yellow musk zombie, or petrified statue?

Getting there is half the fun!


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jan 1, 2012)

Gentlegamer said:


> Gary makes analogy to drama in the basic parts of the activity, not the whole of it. When he goes to specifics of game-play, the objectives are on challenges to the participants that do not include 'creating a collaborative story,' but posing and overcoming in-game challenges, puzzles, etc. The aftermath of this in-game activity is a story, in the sense that any recounting of tales of derring-do are also stories. The meaningful distinction is whether the purpose of the activity is to create a story or a story is its mere by-product. The distinction is meaningful because it impacts the structure and premise of the activity and how the participants are expected to engage in it. D&D is a role-playing game. Stores are created by the in-game activities of the participants. But it is not a game whose purpose is collaborative storytelling. The structure and premises of the game are not suited to this purpose. There are other RPGs that have been designed with this purpose in mind (Torg, for example, players had cards that could influence the plot/narrative on a meta level).



I can't XP you, but this is an extremely good post.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 1, 2012)

Stories generally have plots. A roleplaying game technically doesn't need one.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jan 1, 2012)

Aeolius said:


> "The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, but it is by far the least interesting." - Doctor Who




The whole point of the matrix is that it _isn't_ a straight line.

Instead of plotting out the adventure as A > B > C, you instead plot it out so that A > D > G is just as viable as B > A > E > H (or any other combination of the numerous permutations of the matrix).  Please keep in mind that I am using "plot out" in the loosest sense.  You're simply laying out what _might_ happen; a framework to act as a starting point for the improvisation every DM inevitably has to do.



> Suppose the daughter was due to succeed the king, so he had her assassinated and will frame her murder on the PCs who "rescue" her.
> 
> Suppose she was not kidnapped. Instead she willing left to pursue a pastoral life unconcerned with political matters.
> 
> ...




He means if you've already decided that it's a straight forward rescue the princess plot.  It was an example.  Obviously, if you decide to add a twist the potential outcomes will change.

If you write an adventure where the PCs find the princess as a ghost, then the outcomes you write down might include sending her to the afterlife, or attempting to raise her.  That doesn't mean that the party wizard can't do the unexpected and bind her ghost to serve him for eternity.  It just means that that wasn't one of the outcomes you planned for, so you'll have to improvise.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Jan 1, 2012)

Gentlegamer said:


> But it is not a game whose purpose is collaborative storytelling. The structure and premises of the game are not suited to this purpose.



That is not objective fact. It is merely an opinion.



			
				Fanaelialae said:
			
		

> I don't think there's any winning this discussion because you're all correct



Fair enough.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 2, 2012)

S'mon said:


> But, as I have said many times, by your trivial definition of story, any real life sequence of events also gives rise to a story.  Which is where I came in.




But, that doesn't make sense.  Your life is not structured by some outside agency to produce a series of events that get progressively more challenging culminating in a final, most challenging event.  

OTOH, what I just described is virtually every single D&D adventure ever produced.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 2, 2012)

Aeolius said:


> "The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, but it is by far the least interesting." - Doctor Who
> 
> Suppose the daughter was due to succeed the king, so he had her assassinated and will frame her murder on the PCs who "rescue" her.
> 
> ...




But, this is the same thing that DannyA brought up earlier.  You, as GM, KNOW these things beforehand.  Thus, you can plot out you decision tree based on these facts.  If the princess is already assassinated, then an end point, "The princess is rescued" isn't going to happen.  It can't because she's already dead.  Same if she's a petrified statue.  But, the petrified statue means that they are most likely going to try to find some way to un-stoning her.  Thus, you build your matrix around that idea.

Oh look, we have a plot and story.

[MENTION=53980]Fanaelialae[/MENTION] - I'm not 100% convinced.  I think there is a real resistance to the idea that RPG's=collaborative storytelling games that is based on the idea that story=railroad and plot=railroad.  It's also strongly based in the idea that the one true way of gaming is the sandbox and that sandboxes don't have plots.

All of which is utterly ridiculous.  But, it is a persistent meme in gaming.  The opposite of sandbox is linear, railroading is just as easy to do in a sandbox as a linear adventure.  And, sandboxes are simply a collection (or matrix) of plots for the players to interact with, otherwise you wind up with a litterbox campaign where the players run around in circles never actually accomplishing anything.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jan 2, 2012)

Hussar said:


> But, that doesn't make sense.  Your life is not structured by some outside agency to produce a series of events that get progressively more challenging culminating in a final, most challenging event.
> 
> OTOH, what I just described is virtually every single D&D adventure ever produced.



D&D adventure, perhaps. But not a single one of my campaigns has been built with that premise.


----------



## Connorsrpg (Jan 2, 2012)

Whoah, sorry James, I did not read all of the posts until this point. My head nearly exploded reading the 1s two pages of detailed analysis of your idea.

Another one of many tools to help a GM prep a game. As such I like it and would look to using it some of the time. Thanks. (Not sure why such an idea drew so much criticism - if you write adventures for others, there has to be some parameters/limits. Of course it relies on GMs making the adventure their own a running with it).

Anyway, another concept/idea in the arsenal. BTW Popplet | Collect, curate and share your ideas, inspirations, and projects! may be an online method to present this, that may suit you visual learners ... I like it and it would suit this set-up, it is extremely easy to use, and looks pretty


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jan 2, 2012)

Hussar said:


> [MENTION=53980]Fanaelialae[/MENTION] - I'm not 100% convinced.  I think there is a real resistance to the idea that RPG's=collaborative storytelling games that is based on the idea that story=railroad and plot=railroad.  It's also strongly based in the idea that the one true way of gaming is the sandbox and that sandboxes don't have plots.
> 
> All of which is utterly ridiculous.  But, it is a persistent meme in gaming.  The opposite of sandbox is linear, railroading is just as easy to do in a sandbox as a linear adventure.  And, sandboxes are simply a collection (or matrix) of plots for the players to interact with, otherwise you wind up with a litterbox campaign where the players run around in circles never actually accomplishing anything.




You have to keep in mind that the idea of a story game has certain definitions associated with it in the general RPG community (or at least the online community).  While this is a bit of an oversimplification, it's basically the idea of a campaign that's built along the lines of what would make a good novel.  Those adventures are designed to achieve climax rather than anti-climax (because an anticlimactic ending usually makes for a bad story).

What folks are saying is that not all campaigns are played for that reason.  It can be a lot of fun (I've done at least one campaign that would fall into the story-game category) but it isn't everyone's cup of tea.  Some people like the idea that, just like in real life, an anti-climax is possible or even likely.  Again, not everyone's preference, but some enjoy it.

Effectively, like it or not, you're using loaded terminology.  Yes, every campaign tells a story.  However, not everyone plays to tell a collaborative story.  Some people play because they enjoy the combat, some enjoy matching wits with the DM, and others simply want to experience what it's like to be an elf for a few hours.  In these latter cases, even though you end up with a story, it isn't necessarily a _good_ story, because the goal is something other than telling a good story.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Jan 2, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> Effectively, like it or not, you're using loaded terminology.  Yes, every campaign tells a story.  However, not everyone plays to tell a collaborative story.  Some people play because they enjoy the combat, some enjoy matching wits with the DM, and other simply want to pretend to be an elf for a few hours.  In these latter cases, even though you end up with a story, it isn't necessarily a _good_ story, because the goal is something other than telling a good story.




None of that is important to the purpose of the game, though. Individual purposes for playing may differ, but the basic conceit of a roleplaying game is to provide a framework to take character from one adventure (story) to the next. They extended out of wargaming to provide a reason that a particular piece is a hero, and to allow for individual control of that hero as a character in a shared campaign. All of which really means collaborative story-telling.

I think some people are, as Hussar noted, getting hung up on Forge terminology for "Story" games. Again, while not everyone has a goal of creating a collaborative story, that is what they are doing when they play a role in a campaign, whether they see it that way or not.

And yes, indeed, everyone's individual life experiences DO form a story.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2012)

As I look at the controversy this article has generated, I see another conflict between sandbox and plot based campaigns, plain and simple.

For those who run games with at least some shell of framework of a story, I think the idea Matt has presented is an excellent one. If you can work out the major plot/story points of an adventure, you can better prepare individual encounters and make your setpieces more interesting: you can create the encounters to make better use of 4E's dynamic battlefields by putting together terrain powers, making better maps, and choosing monsters that work together.

If the players go "off card," you're in no worse shape than if you didn't do any of this work, and still have a series of interesting encounters to run eventually, even if you don't use them in the current game.

When I run a convention scenario, I do exactly this sort of thing, and it tends to structure play in a game with a time limit very well. It's especially useful for timing the pacing of the game.

Now for a sandbox player, all of what I've said is an anathema to their whole play style, and so this practice would seem to be less than useless. The point, I'd say is that the card setup isn't for you if you run a completely sandbox game. That's fine, but it also makes comments less useful, since if you run that kind of game, you won't use this system by default.

What this article continues to convince me, is that if Matt ever designs his own RPG, I'm pre-ordering it right away, since his playstyle seems to be very similar to my own. So get that kickstarter going, pronto!


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jan 2, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> None of that is important to the purpose of the game, though. Individual purposes for playing may differ, but the basic conceit of a roleplaying game is to provide a framework to take character from one adventure (story) to the next. They extended out of wargaming to provide a reason that a particular piece is a hero, and to allow for individual control of that hero as a character in a shared campaign. All of which really means collaborative story-telling.
> 
> I think some people are, as Hussar noted, getting hung up on Forge terminology for "Story" games. Again, while not everyone has a goal of creating a collaborative story, that is what they are doing when they play a role in a campaign, whether they see it that way or not.
> 
> And yes, indeed, everyone's individual life experiences DO form a story.




I've already stated that I believe RPGs are collaborative storytelling games, however it seems to me that the disagreement is due to looking at the games at different levels.

Play style appears to be one of those levels, and it disregards the Platonic nature of an RPG as irrelevant.  For example, let's assume that you're a storyteller and I'm a hack-and-slash gamer.  I don't think the fact that we're playing a collaborative story-telling is going to matter to you as much as the fact that my game more closely resembles a wargame than a novel.  Sure, the narrative elements are there, but they're not in focus.  Since you're a storyteller, my game will probably seem awful to you, despite that we're still technically involved in story telling.

(For the record, the above is just an example.  I have nothing against hack-and-slash, but it isn't my preferred style of play.)

The other level asks what is an RPG?  At this level, sure, you can't play an RPG without telling a story.  Even the most basic hack-and-slash game is still an action story.

I still believe that both answers are correct; it's simply that they're addressing subtly different questions or viewpoints.  As with the number 42, the question can sometimes be more relevant than the answer.  I don't think I'm expressing myself as well as I might, but I'm rather tired tonight and this seems about as good as it's going to get for the moment.


----------



## Connorsrpg (Jan 2, 2012)

Holy Sh...........what the hell happened to this thread? Save the analysis for the many sandbox vs plot threads. Has anyone used this idea? Did it work? Will you try it?

I for one am happy to see people put out their ideas...but I will understand if Matt James doesn't do so again


----------



## S'mon (Jan 2, 2012)

Hussar said:


> But, that doesn't make sense.  Your life is not structured by some outside agency to produce a series of events that get progressively more challenging culminating in *a final, most challenging event*.




Uhm, Death?  

In fact the very reason why the Campbellian quest works so well translated into an RPG adventure is that it does have very strong resonance with our actual lives.

I think you're hung up on 'structured by an outside agency', when in fact the events of a sandbox D&D game are structured by the players themselves, with random chance also often a major factor.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 2, 2012)

Hussar said:


> The opposite of sandbox is linear, railroading is just as easy to do in a sandbox as a linear adventure.  And, sandboxes are simply a collection (or matrix) of plots for the players to interact with, otherwise you wind up with a litterbox campaign where the players run around in circles never actually accomplishing anything.




IME the best open-campaign sandbox players are Nietszchean "value creators" who set their own goals and accomplish them, or fail to accomplish them.  Eg in my Wilderlands campaign a player decided to rally the barbarian clans and fight the encroaching orcs to the south, and recent sessions of the campaign have centred around that, which was not something I had anticipated.  The bunch of published adventures I had nested in the campaign area have mostly gone unused, but I'm fine with that.

Not that there is anything wrong with the 'matrix' campaign either - although when I ran the Vault of Larin Karr matrix campaign the players did start mocking the way everything was interlinked, eg how every surface dungeon had its Underdark connection.  So it's possible for a matrix to be too heavy-handed.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 2, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> In these latter cases, even though you end up with a story, it isn't necessarily a _good_ story, because the goal is something other than telling a good story.




IME, where I've run a campaign with the intent of it having a story-like structure, it tends to be considerably less entertaining than the open approach where PCs set their own goals.  I think for a structured story-game to work well, it needs to centre around themes central to the PCs themselves: 'blank slate' generic PCs are terrible for a novelistic approach.  And this raises the problem that if it centres on the PCs, the PCs are indispensable, so character death can derail the campaign.  If Buffy dies (permanently) then Buffy the Vampire Slayer gets derailed.  Likewise Luke Skywalker, Thomas Covenant, et al.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 2, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> And yes, indeed, everyone's individual life experiences DO form a story.




OK, well, as I said: RPGs are indeed story-creation games in that sense.  Hussar seemed to be pushing beyond that though, claiming that RPG sessions MUST have elements that are lacking in the story of real-life events.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 2, 2012)

S'mon said:


> IME the best open-campaign sandbox players are Nietszchean "value creators" who set their own goals and accomplish them, or fail to accomplish them.  Eg in my Wilderlands campaign a player decided to rally the barbarian clans and fight the encroaching orcs to the south, and recent sessions of the campaign have centred around that, which was not something I had anticipated.  The bunch of published adventures I had nested in the campaign area have mostly gone unused, but I'm fine with that.
> 
> Not that there is anything wrong with the 'matrix' campaign either - although when I ran the Vault of Larin Karr matrix campaign the players did start mocking the way everything was interlinked, eg how every surface dungeon had its Underdark connection.  So it's possible for a matrix to be too heavy-handed.




However, all those elements that your characters and players interacted with were placed there for the purpose of being interacted with.  The "encroaching orcs" were done, presumably, by you the DM (or possibly the setting creators, I'm not overly familiar with the setting).  Thus, we have a setting - Wilderlands, characters - both PC and NPC and a plot generated by both the players (rallying the barbarians) and the DM (encroaching orcs).

Again, how is that not collaborative storytelling?  The reason the orcs are encroaching is because it's interesting.  It builds tension in the setting.  A setting where nothing is happening would be boring.  So, blow  up - have an invasion.  There.  Now we have a challenge.

You keep trying to draw this connection between real life generating a story and an RPG.  However, you're ignoring the collaborative part of an RPG.  In real life, no one is introducing challenges because it would be interesting to do so.  In fact, most poeple are perfectly happy when there are no serious challenges going on in life and everything is smooth sailing.

But, all this is still besides the point.  The same as board games, even if real life does generate stories - So what?  That doesn't change the fact that you cannot play an RPG without generating a story.  You keep dodging that central fact and trying to point to other stuff that's unrelated.

----------



			
				Fan* said:
			
		

> Effectively, like it or not, you're using loaded terminology.




Yeah, it appears so.  For some bizarre reason, story and plot are both considered 4 letter words whenever they get brought up in relation to RPG's.  To me, saying that RPG's are an exercise in collaborative storytelling is like saying rain is wet.  It's just true and there's really no way around it.  The fact that despite several pages, not one person has managed to make a single example of playing an RPG without generating story pretty much proves that.

But, yeah, I've thoroughly derailed this thread.  Matt J, my appologies.  I really shouldn't have gotten into this.  It's chasing my own tail.  Your idea is very cool and I'd like to give it a whirl sometime soon.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 2, 2012)

Hussar said:


> However, all those elements that your characters and players interacted with were placed there for the purpose of being interacted with.  The "encroaching orcs" were done, presumably, by you the DM (or possibly the setting creators, I'm not overly familiar with the setting).  Thus, we have a setting - Wilderlands, characters - both PC and NPC and a plot generated by both the players (rallying the barbarians) and the DM (encroaching orcs)..




The encroaching orcs were placed there by the setting creator, who I think in this case was Rob Conley, working off some 35-year-old one-line entries in the original Wilderlands of High Fantasy.  They became a focus of play because the player found them interesting, not because I found them interesting.  AFAICR I had barely noticed them when deciding to set the campaign in that area - my initial campaign idea centred around an inn on the edge of the Lagoldurma Jungle, but the focus of play has moved well south from there.  I hadn't developed the orcs until the player(s) decided to focus play on them, and doing so has been quite a challenge for me.  I had done more development in other areas, especially the Neo-Nerathi, who were my own creation inspired by the 'Grey Company' entry in 'Threats to Nentir Vale'.   Different players and PCs would have taken things in completely different directions again, eg hunting pirates on the ocean.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 2, 2012)

But, S'mon, that's the point.  You developed it further because your player's were interested in it.  Of course you did.  That's what Dming is all about - developing the interesting stuff.  If the players didn't latch onto this bit, you'd likely ignore it because, well, why bother developing stuff that isn't interesting to your players.

Thus, collaborative storytelling.  The players latch onto something, that something gets developed further, and a story comes out of that.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 2, 2012)

Hussar said:


> H
> Yeah, it appears so.  For some bizarre reason, story and plot are both considered 4 letter words whenever they get brought up in relation to RPG's.




IMO: Story and 'plot' are fine when they're dynamically generated in play, visible only in hindsight.  However, attempts to create a specific story & 'plot' by the GM or adventure author pre-game tend IMO to be highly deleterious to the play experience for any but the most passive players.  The nadir of this approach was in the 1990s, with worst of all being the published 'metaplot' - plot centred on official NPCs, with no possible player input!  But it still casts a long shadow over today's gaming.  So you get people like me who are a bit touchy about terminology.

Edit: I remember doing some terrible railroady campaigns in the mid '90s.  They were disastrous, and led to me leaving the tabletop hobby for about five years.  I still see a lot of DMs who see it as their role to provide a 'story' for the PCs to play through.  As an approach, it sucks.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 2, 2012)

Hussar said:


> But, S'mon, that's the point.  You developed it further because your player's were interested in it.  Of course you did.  That's what Dming is all about - developing the interesting stuff.  If the players didn't latch onto this bit, you'd likely ignore it because, well, why bother developing stuff that isn't interesting to your players.
> 
> Thus, collaborative storytelling.  The players latch onto something, that something gets developed further, and a story comes out of that.




No argument from me there(!)   Of course as 'story' goes, it tends to the picaresque - it resembles the jumbled nature of real life far more than it resembles a novel trilogy.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 2, 2012)

S'mon said:


> IMO: Story and 'plot' are fine when they're dynamically generated in play, visible only in hindsight.  However, attempts to create a specific story & 'plot' by the GM or adventure author pre-game tend IMO to be highly deleterious to the play experience for any but the most passive players.  The nadir of this approach was in the 1990s, with worst of all being the published 'metaplot' - plot centred on official NPCs, with no possible player input!



I agree that this sort of game, in which the GM has predetermined the plot - and particularly the key features of the plot like antagonists, nature of the climax, etc - makes for bad RPGing.

What I think is the contemporary pernicious influence on (at least some mainstream) RPGing is the idea that the only solution to dysfunctional GM plot authority is to abandon story altogether in pursuit of the minutiae of ultra-simulationist play and mechanics.



S'mon said:


> I think for a structured story-game to work well, it needs to centre around themes central to the PCs themselves: 'blank slate' generic PCs are terrible for a novelistic approach.



Agreed. At least as I understand it, the basic rationale of the mechanics and techniques of situation-focused narrativist play is for the "novel" - the story with a recognisable aesthetic point - to emerge out of the players pursuing the themes/story elements they articulate via their PCs, as mediated through the situations the GM creates to engage those themes/story elements.

Authority over backstory is shared between players (for their PCs and other relevant parts of the gameworld) and the GM (everything else, especially the situations); authority over situation rests with the GM; and no one has authority over plot - it emerges from the players engaging the situations via their PCs.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jan 2, 2012)

S'mon said:


> IMO: Story and 'plot' are fine when they're dynamically generated in play, visible only in hindsight.  However, attempts to create a specific story & 'plot' by the GM or adventure author pre-game tend IMO to be highly deleterious to the play experience for any but the most passive players.  The nadir of this approach was in the 1990s, with worst of all being the published 'metaplot' - plot centred on official NPCs, with no possible player input!  But it still casts a long shadow over today's gaming.  So you get people like me who are a bit touchy about terminology.
> 
> Edit: I remember doing some terrible railroady campaigns in the mid '90s.  They were disastrous, and led to me leaving the tabletop hobby for about five years.  I still see a lot of DMs who see it as their role to provide a 'story' for the PCs to play through.  As an approach, it sucks.




I wouldn't go so far as to say it sucks.  It's just a different play style.

If you only ever played in a hack-and-slash where the DM delighted in finding new ways to cheat the system and kill the players, you might hate hack-and-slash.  However, that's an oversimplification.  It's possible you'd enjoy a hack-and-slash where the DM is an impartial arbiter seeking to challenge his players.

Skill and style are irrevocably linked together, and there are many different skills as well as styles.  If your skills do not suit the style of your campaign, then likelier than not that campaign will be a poor one.  It does not follow, however, that that style is a poor one.  Merely that it's a poor one _for you_.

Aside from very early on (when I was a kid, and plain sucked as a DM) I can only think of one campaign that I've run that fits firmly in the storytelling style (other campaigns have had a variety of elements).  However, my players still recall that one, calling it one of my best.  Clearly then, story games don't suck because there's at least one group out there that enjoyed a story campaign.  And yes, it was essentially a story that my players played through.  While I did give them reasonable leeway with their choices, the major plot events were essentially fixed in stone.  It allowed me to pour enormous time and effort into making those events incredible.  IMO, my campaign didn't suck largely due to the fact that my story-style-DMing-skills don't suck.  I made it a point, as with any campaign, to keep my players' interest and fun above any other priorities.  As such, they were interested and had fun.

Based on this spirited discussion, I would guess that Hussar's skills are more story-aligned while S'mon's are more sandbox-oriented.  IMO, they're both equally good skill sets to have, assuming that your group enjoys that style.  In my experience though, skill trumps style (assuming you're applying your strong skills to the appropriate style).  If the DM is amazing at running a hack-and-slash, I'd rather do that than have him run a sandbox (assuming he sucks at the sandbox skill set).  I'm happy to play most any style, provided the DM is capable within said style.  As such, I postulate that your groups may enjoy your styles because you are good at it.  If Hussar and S'mon swapped groups, it seems likely to me that both groups would still enjoy themselves.  Perhaps some players would prefer one experience over the other, but nonetheless they wouldn't come away thinking that either game sucks.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jan 2, 2012)

Hussar said:


> The fact that despite several pages, not one person has managed to make a single example of playing an RPG without generating story pretty much proves that.



Right. However, the term _collaborative storytelling_ is generally used to describe something else. As I mentioned in the last few pages of this thread. "Generating a story through play" is different in colloquial use than "storytelling game" or "collaborative storytelling".



			
				http://bleedingplay.wordpress.com/push/collaborative-roleplaying/ said:
			
		

> In “collaborative” games, rights and responsibilities formerly held solely by the GM have been extended to all the players. Players may be given more input about the background and setting, play multiple characters, be responsible for creating situations, invoke rules, resolve outcomes and more. With these features, collaborative roleplaying games take advantage of the multiple viewpoints people bring to a game. Instead of primarily utilizing one person’s ideas – those of the GM – they find ways to intentionally weave together the many creative strands that are present. The historical GM/Player split is but one possibility along a continuum of collaboration, and new games that incorporate ways to make gaming more of a team effort capitalize on the inherent potential of gaming: the creativity of the entire play group.



As you can see from this link, a "collaborative" role-playing game relates more to players getting in on traditional GMing, not "people sitting around having a story arise from play."



			
				http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storytelling_game said:
			
		

> A storytelling game is a game where two or more persons collaborate on telling a spontaneous story.
> 
> ["Story" link: Plot is a literary term defined as the events that make up a story, particularly as they relate to one another in a pattern, in a sequence, through cause and effect, or by coincidence.



"Story" is this sense is used as "plot", which means that each player would need to "collaborate" on the game by making a conscious decision to add events that make up a story. If you make decisions in-game, but without the intent to create plot points in the story, you are not engaging in the "collaborative storytelling" as used in this sense.



			
				http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troupe_system said:
			
		

> ([or http://dictionary.sensagent.com/collaborative+roleplaying/en-en/) A Troupe system is a way of playing role-playing games which spreads the game master's responsibilities among each of the players. The term was coined in Ars Magica. *It is also known as collaborative role-playing*, a term used by other games with a similar mechanism.
> 
> In a "traditional" role-playing game, one person typically acts as the gamemaster (known as Story Guide or SG in Ars Magica), and largely controls what happens in the game-world, what non-player characters do, and how the world at large reacts to the actions of player characters. However, in "Troupe" style play there is a presumption that different players will be SG at different times, when the game strays into their area of responsibility. There are multiple SG's who apportion various parts of the game-world and have more-or-less full control within their domain. One player may be the SG for a particular noble (the Duke of Burgundy, for example) and any adventures (stories) played in the Duchy of Burgundy or where the Duke is the antagonist. Another may control all the faeries in the campaign, and most or all faerie-focused stories. Most often, one player will be the "alpha" SG and coordinate overall interactions and continuity between these "beta" SG's and their various spheres of play.



In this method, also known as "collaborative role-playing", people take turns taking over normal "GM" duties. Again, there's a common theme to the term "collaborative role-playing" that exceeds "people sitting around having a story arise from play" or the like.

Basically, like it's been said, it seems like you're using a loaded term in that it means something else from what you mean (to some people). Saying "every RPG will produce a story" means something else from the above definitions of "collaborative storytelling" in the context of an RPG. And, if you're approaching things from a more literal definition standpoint, I'd say that unless the players explicitly intend to create a story, then they aren't "collaborating" on it. I can link those definitions and make my argument if you'd like, but linking definitions gets me enough flak to discourage me from doing it more often, no matter how clarifying it is.

I'm really not trying to be purposefully argumentative here. I do agree with you in that every campaign will result in a story. But, the phrase "collaborative storytelling" is charged with meaning already within the context of RPGs, and arguing with people who disagree might seem bewildering without knowing why that is. As always, play what you like


----------



## S'mon (Jan 2, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> If Hussar and S'mon swapped groups, it seems likely to me that both groups would still enjoy themselves.  Perhaps some players would prefer one experience over the other, but nonetheless they wouldn't come away thinking that either game sucks.




I know that I don't enjoy pre-plotted games, even with a pretty good GM.  I know this because I just played in one for several months, about 6 sessions, but eventually I couldn't take it any more.  I tolerated it in the opening 'intro' adventure, but when we got to the point where things should logically have opened up, yet we kept chugging along the rails, I couldn't take it anymore.

OTOH 3 of the other players in that linear campaign are still playing it as well as playing my 'open' Forgotten Realms campaign on the alternate weeks, and they seem happy with both, like you suggest. Maybe they don't see my campaign as open, maybe they don't see the other campaign as linear.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Jan 2, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> But, the phrase "collaborative storytelling" is charged with meaning already within the context of RPGs, and arguing with people who disagree might seem bewildering without knowing why that is. As always, play what you like



I think, although I have no real evidence to support this, that this specific definition of collaborative storytelling is a subset of the larger definition and that its application to this charged meaning is a later construct of game theory.

If you were to ask a "layperson" only passingly familiar with D&D if the term collaborative storytelling fit their impressions, I'd wager that there would be overwhelming support. Granted, this is anecdotal, but in my college writing classes, I do share with students that I play D&D and other RPGs, and my experiences support my supposition.

I think it's like the nitty-gritty details of any specific term as used by a subset of a subset of people. The finer details give more nuance to those in the know, but don't mean the same thing outside of that subset. If I discuss 1970s L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E poetry among poets, they'll understand what I mean in that specific context. If I were to try to discuss it outside of the poetry community, the word "language" would mean something not nearly as specific. Hell, even within the poetry community, it's not well understood.

tl;dr

I think you're right that the term has loaded meaning, but only within the small subset of gamers actually interested in game theory and terms like Story Now and "gamist" or "simulationist."


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jan 2, 2012)

S'mon said:


> OTOH 3 of the other players in that linear campaign are still playing it as well as playing my 'open' Forgotten Realms campaign on the alternate weeks, and they seem happy with both, like you suggest. Maybe they don't see my campaign as open, maybe they don't see the other campaign as linear.




Might it be that perhaps they see each campaign as having different merits?


----------



## S'mon (Jan 2, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> Might it be that perhaps they see each campaign as having different merits?




Maybe, I don't know, and since I dropped that other campaign it's tricky to ask.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 2, 2012)

S'mon said:


> I know that I don't enjoy pre-plotted games, even with a pretty good GM.  I know this because I just played in one for several months, about 6 sessions, but eventually I couldn't take it any more.  I tolerated it in the opening 'intro' adventure, but when we got to the point where things should logically have opened up, yet we kept chugging along the rails, I couldn't take it anymore.



Was this the "Sellswords of Punjar"(?) game that you mentioned earlier this year, where (in a post on these boards) you reached the conclusion that perhaps all you were getting to do as a player was add colour?


----------



## S'mon (Jan 3, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Was this the "Sellswords of Punjar"(?) game that you mentioned earlier this year, where (in a post on these boards) you reached the conclusion that perhaps all you were getting to do as a player was add colour?




No, it was War of the Dead, a zombie apocalypse campaign for Savage Worlds.  Sellswords of Punjar is a pretty good intro adventure, and the GM did a nice job making it more dynamic.  Unfortunately the sequel, Scions of Punjar, was pants, and we eventually dropped that campaign.

Where the Punjar Saga is Dungeon A - Dungeon B - Dungeon C, War of the Dead felt railroaded down to the individual scene level.  Also, Adventure Paths have the premise "You will play adventure A, then B, then C", which allows for player buy-in, but War of the Dead doesn't have that - the premise is very open - you're survivors of a zombie apocalypse - and there are a million different potential ways you might try to survive a zombie apocalypse.  But the campaign only allows for one track.  There are all sorts of ways it could have been constructed differently to allow for player buy-in, eg PCs could have been created as being local to a particular community with an investment in defending it through the campaign, and the understanding that that was the campaign goal.  Instead I just felt interminably pushed around by the plot.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jan 3, 2012)

S'mon said:


> No, it was War of the Dead, a zombie apocalypse campaign for Savage Worlds.  Sellswords of Punjar is a pretty good intro adventure, and the GM did a nice job making it more dynamic.  Unfortunately the sequel, Scions of Punjar, was pants, and we eventually dropped that campaign.
> 
> Where the Punjar Saga is Dungeon A - Dungeon B - Dungeon C, War of the Dead felt railroaded down to the individual scene level.  Also, Adventure Paths have the premise "You will play adventure A, then B, then C", which allows for player buy-in, but War of the Dead doesn't have that - the premise is very open - you're survivors of a zombie apocalypse - and there are a million different potential ways you might try to survive a zombie apocalypse.  But the campaign only allows for one track.  There are all sorts of ways it could have been constructed differently to allow for player buy-in, eg PCs could have been created as being local to a particular community with an investment in defending it through the campaign, and the understanding that that was the campaign goal.  Instead I just felt interminably pushed around by the plot.




To me that just sounds like a subpar game (FWIW though, I'm unfamiliar with War of the Dead).  In a good story game (IMO), the players ought to have plenty of input. While certain events are "destined to be" by necessity in this style, many ought to be quite mutable, especially if a player has an awesome idea that makes for an even better story (the best possible story is the goal of this style, after all).  The players should feel like the shining stars of the show, not sailboats perpetually pushed about upon the stage of a stormy sea.

Put another way, that doesn't sound like something I'd enjoy, despite that I like a good story game.  You can build a railroad without chaining your players to the one train of your choosing.  The problem becomes more acute the less collaborative the storytelling is.  Sucky story games arise most often (again, IMO) when the DM decides that the story game is going to be "my" story instead of "our" story.  (In this instance it sounds more like it's "this" story rather than "our" story, but same difference.)


----------



## Hussar (Jan 3, 2012)

S'mon said:


> IMO: Story and 'plot' are fine when they're dynamically generated in play, visible only in hindsight.  However, attempts to create a specific story & 'plot' by the GM or adventure author pre-game tend IMO to be highly deleterious to the play experience for any but the most passive players.  The nadir of this approach was in the 1990s, with worst of all being the published 'metaplot' - plot centred on official NPCs, with no possible player input!  But it still casts a long shadow over today's gaming.  So you get people like me who are a bit touchy about terminology.
> 
> Edit: I remember doing some terrible railroady campaigns in the mid '90s.  They were disastrous, and led to me leaving the tabletop hobby for about five years.  I still see a lot of DMs who see it as their role to provide a 'story' for the PCs to play through.  As an approach, it sucks.




But, the DM always has to have some idea of a "specific story & plot" in order to prepare something for tonight's session.  You know that the players want to organize the barbarians, so you prepare situations in which this can be brought about.  

Granted, it's easily possible to fail to organize the barbarians - that would also be part of the matrix.  But, "abandon all efforts and go and be pirates" probably wouldn't need to be part of the matrix unless your group is very fickle.

Even a straight up dungeon crawl is exactly a "specific story & plot".  Well, I suppose for a given value of specific.   

The term I think you're looking for here is a proscriptive story and plot where player choices are immaterial.  However, I still think that it's people's pre-conceptions that are getting in the way here.  The fact that Jameson Courage feels the need to start playing dueling dictionaries proves that.

Can "Collaborative storytelling" be defined in a narrow way which leads to railroad campaigns?  Sure.  But, that's no different than saying that a sandbox must be defined as a rowboat campaign where the players simply have no direction or focus, ever and row around in circles accomplishing nothing.  That is a definition of sandbox, but not a very good one.

Collaborative storytelling means exactly what it says on the box - a group of people coming together in order to create some sort of narrative.  Which is exactly what we all do when we play an RPG.  That might not be the goal of the players, but, it's still what you do.  Catch a ball is not really the goal of a baseball team playing baseball.  But, it would be pretty difficult to play baseball without doing it.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 3, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Collaborative storytelling means exactly what it says on the box - a group of people coming together in order to create some sort of narrative.  Which is exactly what we all do when we play an RPG.  That might not be the goal of the players, but, it's still what you do.



OK - if "collaborative" means something like "resulting from a collaborative endeavour" rather than "the goal of a collaborative endeavour".

But what about "story"? Not every sequence of fictional events is a plot or a story in the conventional sense - with an aesthetic rationale, a climax, a resolution etc.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 3, 2012)

What are the three elements of a story?  Plot, character and setting.  Any given RPG, during play, will generate that.  Most of the time, you will also generate build-up and climax as well (a game without any climaxes would be pretty boring).  The design of most adventures follows the rough outline of a story as well.

While I'm sure you could play endlessly without achieving any climax, I'm thinking that that's not a particularly interesting way of playing and a far enough outlier to be safely ignored.  Players, through their characters set goals, work to achieve those goals and either succeed or fail.  Sounds like a pretty classic story to me.

Granted, the actual story isn't finished until after play is done.  That's true.  But, actions taken during play can be seen as a group effort (collaborative) towards creating a resolution that is enjoyable by all participants.

That's close enough to a story for me.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 3, 2012)

In a (probably vain) attempt to turn this topic back to the original issue, I've been thinking about this system, and I think Matt is definitely on to something for adventure development.

For me, one of most difficult things to get right is to pace an adventure correctly. In the course of most adventures, there are natural moment where it makes sense to pause things and have a bit of downtime, where characters can rest and recover resources. With this system, a GM could take those moments and use a different color card (since many 3x5 card sets come with multiple colors).

That way the GM can make these major plot points obvious as he's developing an adventure and properly pace scenes out. That way he can more easily see how the adventure might be expected to consume party resources, and make sure that the different stopping points both make sense and are also useful.

In the same light, you might use a third color card to represent optional encounters that you can include or remove based on how the group handles issues and how beaten up they've been.

I would think this would be especially effective for a convention game (something that I'm working on at the moment) but it could be a useful tool for a certain kind of more traditional game.

Now, obviously this isn't the sort of thing that would be appropriate for a sandbox game, so if that's your thing... I get it, you won't like it. Any other thoughts or comments?


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jan 3, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> I think it's like the nitty-gritty details of any specific term as used by a subset of a subset of people. The finer details give more nuance to those in the know, but don't mean the same thing outside of that subset. If I discuss 1970s L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E poetry among poets, they'll understand what I mean in that specific context.
> 
> tl;dr
> 
> I think you're right that the term has loaded meaning, but only within the small subset of gamers actually interested in game theory and terms like Story Now and "gamist" or "simulationist."



I agree, which is why I pointed out that when you talk about RPGs on an RPG board and use a term with a specific game theory meaning, you should understand why people disagree. I don't disagree with Hussar's notion that playing an RPG will result in story, I'm just trying to clarify why people are disagreeing in this thread.

You mentioned talking about poetry terms among poets; we're talking about RPGs amongst RPGamers. To that end, I was trying to clarify for Hussar. As always, play what you like 




Hussar said:


> But, the DM always has to have some idea of a "specific story & plot" in order to prepare something for tonight's session.  You know that the players want to organize the barbarians, so you prepare situations in which this can be brought about.



Does it surprise you that I never prepare like this? I never think, "the party will be going here, best to flesh this out?" 



Hussar said:


> However, I still think that it's people's pre-conceptions that are getting in the way here.  The fact that Jameson Courage feels the need to start playing dueling dictionaries proves that.



See, I always get slapped down for definitions 

I'm using definitions because you're saying something that is contrary to their colloquial use, and then saying "I don't understand why people are disagreeing" when they disagree. I was more trying to clarify for you than to disagree with the thrust of your point (in that I agree that all RPG play will produce a story).



Hussar said:


> Can "Collaborative storytelling" be defined in a narrow way which leads to railroad campaigns?  Sure.  But, that's no different than saying that a sandbox must be defined as a rowboat campaign where the players simply have no direction or focus, ever and row around in circles accomplishing nothing.  That is a definition of sandbox, but not a very good one.



Oh, totally. I wouldn't define "collaborative storytelling" as inherently railroad in the slightest. I think it's different from "all RPGs" or the like, but it's still nowhere near inherently railroad.



Hussar said:


> Collaborative storytelling means exactly what it says on the box - a group of people coming together in order to create some sort of narrative.  Which is exactly what we all do when we play an RPG.  That might not be the goal of the players, but, it's still what you do.



This is where you and the colloquial use diverge, I think. That's your definition, but don't be surprised when English majors and game theorists disagree (and for justifiable reasons). 

If I am not explicitly intent on creating a story, I cannot collaborate on it. That rules out collaborative storytelling. I might be intimately involved in my friend's life, and yes it will produce a story (watched too much How I Met Your Mother, perhaps), but unless both of us explicitly intend to create one, I'm not participating in "collaborative storytelling". The same is true of RPGs, in my mind.

Again, not trying to argue with the thrust of your point (playing an RPG results in story), but promoting your definition over the colloquial usage when it's also wrong from an English definition standpoint seems odd, to me. As always, play what you like


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jan 3, 2012)

SteveC said:


> In a (probably vain) attempt to turn this topic back to the original issue, I've been thinking about this system, and I think Matt is definitely on to something for adventure development.
> 
> For me, one of most difficult things to get right is to pace an adventure correctly. In the course of most adventures, there are natural moment where it makes sense to pause things and have a bit of downtime, where characters can rest and recover resources. With this system, a GM could take those moments and use a different color card (since many 3x5 card sets come with multiple colors).
> 
> ...




I think you're spot on.

Your sandbox comment did give me an odd notion though.  It could be interesting to create a sandbox using this method.  You'd need more than 11 cards (unless it's a very small sandbox), but each card would represent an area (akin to a hex on a sandbox map).  The DM would start with a starting area card (the town or camp or whatever), and deal three cards in front of it (the adjacent areas).  When the PCs enter those areas, new cards are dealt to adjoining areas, and as a result the map grows during play.  I'll grant you, I can't see much practical use to it aside from perhaps challenging the DM's improvisational skills (since the map would grow as the players explored), or some kind of journey into a chaotic fae realm where areas constantly move about.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 3, 2012)

Hussar said:


> But, the DM always has to have some idea of a "specific story & plot" in order to prepare something for tonight's session.  You know that the players want to organize the barbarians, so you prepare situations in which this can be brought about.




No, I think we still have a fundamental disconnect here.  I don't prep 'story & plot' (except the rare occasion where I'm GMing a published linear adventure), I prep the* environment*.  The PCs interact with the environment however they wish.

In my Wilderlands game I had no idea the PCs would want to rally the barbarians; when they went to the first barbarian camp, I had nothing prepped other than the knowledge there were Tigerclaw clan in that area.  I didn't break the game so I could create a 'rally the barbarians' plot; it all happened in-game.  You could say I improvised it - I didn't even have names for that clan's war-chief & wise-woman, so the whole thing was improvised/adjudicated at table, based on my general knowledge of the clan, some skill checks etc.

In my Yggsburgh 1e game which I am running for a month over Dec-Jan, I prep by reading the Yggsburgh book, again it's an environment, having that environment be reactive to the PCs, and having things happen as suggested by the book.  If you have awhile you can see how it works, the campaign is online here:  S'mon' s Yggsburgh Blog
I only run the setting, plot is generated dynamically in play through the actions of the PCs and an element of random chance - eg one sub-plot is a PC courting a young noblewoman, this was generated through (a) his dashing behaviour towards her, and (b) her infatuation with him - which was generated by a random roll of "100%" on the d100 reaction table, higher the better.  Likewise plot hooks are discovered/uncovered by the PCs' activities - they went to the Gaol looking for rewards posted for wanted outlaws, so I went through the books, found likely candidates, and set appropriate rewards for them.  Going after each of those outlaws will generate a different adventure, but I don't know much about what that adventure will look like; it will be generated in-play.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 3, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Granted, it's easily possible to fail to organize the barbarians - that would also be part of the matrix.  But, "abandon all efforts and go and be pirates" probably wouldn't need to be part of the matrix unless your group is very fickle.




That would be fine in a sandbox campaign, including any of my current campaigns - though it would be a bit of a surprise in the Loudwater Forgotten Realms one, I could certainly see the Yggsburgh PCs as River Pirates, or the Wilderlands PCs as corsairs.  In fact in the Wilderlands case future conflict with the trading nation of Antil could well conceivably lead the PCs to become pirates, I'd put it at around a 20% possibility.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 3, 2012)

Sorry about the multiple quotes.



Hussar said:


> Even a straight up dungeon crawl is exactly a "specific story & plot".  Well, I suppose for a given value of specific.




It can be if you prep Dungeon X and the PCs have to go do dungeon X for there to be an adventure tonight.  But in my sandbox games there are a bunch of dungeons nested in the environment, the PCs can go delve any of those, or do something completely different.  In that case I don't see any 'specific story and plot' other than what is generated in play.

This can certainly result in prep that goes unused.  Eg in my Wilderlands game I created the Neo-Nerathi 'Fortress of Thulseus Doomfire', but the PCs did not go there.  An hour or so of mapping & design went unused!   Likewise I might take 15 minutes to read over a bit of the Yggsburgh book that the PCs might get involved with, but in the event never get to.

Even unused dungeons can enrich the campaign though.  The Wilderlands group likewise has not gone to the 'Tomb of the Demon Empress' (Tomb of the Tiefling Empress, Dungeon Delve #5), but its existence and the events around it (Neo-Nerathi Necromancer engaged in long-term research) create a backdrop to actual campaign events.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 3, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> I think you're spot on.
> 
> Your sandbox comment did give me an odd notion though.  It could be interesting to create a sandbox using this method.  You'd need more than 11 cards (unless it's a very small sandbox), but each card would represent an area (akin to a hex on a sandbox map).  The DM would start with a starting area card (the town or camp or whatever), and deal three cards in front of it (the adjacent areas).  When the PCs enter those areas, new cards are dealt to adjoining areas, and as a result the map grows during play.  I'll grant you, I can't see much practical use to it aside from perhaps challenging the DM's improvisational skills (since the map would grow as the players explored), or some kind of journey into a chaotic fae realm where areas constantly move about.



You're right: and thinking about it I say this sort of thing could be useful to sandbox play as well. I'm thinking of having the cards be encounters rather than strictly terrain. If the GM develops the different creatures around the area, he could place each of them on a card in positions that correspond to the local map. As time goes by, he could develop some movement rules for how they would drift, and then as the group moved into an area, he'd know what danger would exist in the area at the moment. The bandits might have a camp in the nearby woods, and move periodically from that camp to one of the roads out of town, where they'd be waiting for passers by and be a potential encounter at that point.

The end result would be a high level picture of what was going on in the game at any one time. It would be a lot of work, but it would be more satisfying to me then using a random encounter table. Interesting!


----------



## Hussar (Jan 4, 2012)

SteveC - I've often thought that a "Campaign matrix" would work well for campaign design.  

I've also seen people ([MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] IIRC) advocate using a random dungeon generator to create that matrix.  Set the interstices very high, and you get a nice layout to create your content.


----------



## kitsune9 (Jan 4, 2012)

Matt James said:


> I put up a post on D&D's official blog and I wanted to share it. It is applicable to more than just D&D 4e and I hope it helps DMs in developing their next campaign or adventure.
> 
> Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible
> 
> I wanted to extrapolate more on the process in the blog, but I didn't want to cloud the message too much.




I like the idea of using cards to flow one scene to the next and deal with other potential outcomes. I personally use a flowchart though with loops so that an adventure "stays on the rails" without it seeming like the players are being railroaded.


----------



## Rogue Agent (Jan 4, 2012)

Hussar said:


> What are the three elements of a story?  Plot, character and setting.  Any given RPG, during play, will generate that.




And that, right there, is the difference: Are you generating the plot? Or are you *pregenerating* the plot?

Everything in life generates a plot. Everything becomes a sequence of events. The question being discussed here is whether or not those events are being predetermined.



Hussar said:


> But then you run into the problem of DM workload.   If you design your adventures to the point where you can possibly have  so many outcomes, you're pretty much required to do a heck of a lot of  heavy lifting that will never see play.




That's only because you insist on prepping plots. Don't prep plots, prep situations.

Also: Node-Based Scenario Design, which sounds like it would be a more effective and less restrictive method of achieving what James is trying to achieve with his note cards. (You could even use the notecards in accord with the node-based methods.)


----------



## Hussar (Jan 5, 2012)

Rogue Agent - what difference does it make whether or not you are pre-generating plot?

The fact is, you are generating the plot.  Playstyle will dictate whether it's done mostly by the DM before play or mostly by the players during play, but, at the end of the day, plot still gets generated.

While, yes, life generates plot, that doesn't change my point.  Just because life generates plot does not mean that RPG's don't.  

To me, the level of sophistry that people are willing to engage in to avoid saying, "RPG's are collaborative story telling games" is amazing.  I mean, earlier in this thread we have a lengthy post quoting a dozen or so different RPG's saying EXACTLY what I've been saying here - including some versions of D&D.  The intro paragraph of virtually every RPG includes something along the lines of "What is an RPG?  An RPG is a game where you and a bunch of your friends come together and create stories through play."

Everything else is just variations on the theme.

It doesn't change my point WHEN the plot is generated.  It doesn't change my point WHEN the story is generated.  Nor does the intent of the players change my point either.  The fact of the matter is, when you play an RPG, you will create a story.  It's 100% completely unavoidable.  Whether you create it in the most lock stepped railroad, or in a completely ad-libbed improvised game is irrelavent.  It just doesn't matter.

During play of every single RPG on the market, you and the people at the table will, collectively, through play, create a story with character, setting and plot.

Again, the fact that no one, not one single person, not even the most ardent, "MY GAME HAS NOT PLOT" pundit can give a single, solitary example of play that doesn't generate a story proves my point.  EVERY single RPG out there does exactly the same thing - generates a story through the group effort of play.

People can keep pointing to other things that might also generate stories all day long.  That doesn't change the central fact.  It's not like there is only one way to create a story after all.  There's many, many ways to create a story.  And RPG's are certainly one of them.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 5, 2012)

Just added a thought - what is the difference between Node based design and Matt James' matrix design?  I saw Matt James' example and thought that the two were virtually identical.  I guess presentation is everything.


----------



## Rogue Agent (Jan 5, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Rogue Agent - what difference does it make whether or not you are pre-generating plot?




Well, as you said yourself, it's incredibly difficult to prep the branching structure necessary to deal with divergent player choices if you're trying to pregenerate those plots. This leaves you with two options:

(1) Don't pregenerate plot.

(2) Negate player choices.

Negating player choices has a few consequences:

(1) It negates the defining point of playing a roleplaying game. Roleplaying is, after all, the process of making choices as if you were your character. If you negate those choices, you are negating the very process of roleplaying. (The open question, of course, is whether or not the benefits you're theoretically accruing from negating choices outweighs the penalties.)

(2) For similar reasons, you are negating the group creativity of the table. If you can't figure out why that's a bad idea, I can't help you.

(3) It reduces the spontaneity of the game experience. This is usually noticeable by the players (even when GMs fool themselves into thinking the players haven't noticed); it is always known to the GM.

Some people have effectively zero tolerance for this sort of degradation of the roleplaying experience. Other people have a very high tolerance for it, particularly if it brings with it other benefits that they value. But there is a clear and distinct difference of experience.

If you have honestly never experienced a non-railroaded experience while playing an RPG and are honestly incapable of imagining what that would be like, I feel a little sad for you.



> To me, the level of sophistry that people are willing to engage in to  avoid saying, "RPG's are collaborative story telling games" is amazing.




You have an unfortunate tendency of talking to the crowd instead of actually talking to individuals. This is not a habit conducive to positive interactions on a public forum.

With that being said, my personal agreement or disagreement with your statement would depend largely on your definitions of "collaborative", "story telling", and/or "story telling game".

This may, or may not, have anything to do with what I'm discussing.



Hussar said:


> Again, the fact that no one, not one single  person, not even the most ardent, "MY GAME HAS NOT PLOT" pundit can give  a single, solitary example of play that doesn't generate a story proves  my point.  EVERY single RPG out there does exactly the same thing -  generates a story through the group effort of play.




Consider two games of Chess.

(1) For the first game, the rules include a list of moves. You and your opponent must make the moves on the list in the sequence they're listed. Other moves are not allowed.

(2) For the second game, you're simply playing Chess. You and your opponent can take any moves you want (within the normal rules of the game).

At the end of both games, you have a list of moves. You claim, therefore, that the games are identical. The "my game doesn't have a pregenerated plot" pundits, OTOH, are pointing out that the games are significantly different.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 5, 2012)

Rogue Agent said:


> If you have honestly never experienced a non-railroaded experience while playing an RPG and are honestly incapable of imagining what that would be like, I feel a little sad for you.




There are players who believe all games are railroads, and see walls/tracks where they don't exist.

Here's a post where a DM discusses running an improvised game, one of the players spent the session searching for the rails, and was only happy once he thought he was 'back on track'.  In fact the rails he thought he was on, did not exist.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jan 5, 2012)

S'mon said:


> There are players who believe all games are railroads, and see walls/tracks where they don't exist.
> 
> Here's a post where a DM discusses running an improvised game, one of the players spent the session searching for the rails, and was only happy once he thought he was 'back on track'.  In fact the rails he thought he was on, did not exist.




According to the player's response to you, that wasn't the case. What I took from it (which is also what the player said) was that he simply was concerned about whether his choices were relevant, which is definitely not something that a player who just wants to get back on the rails would be concerned about.

There are strengths and weaknesses to each approach. 

A plotted game can marginalize the value of having choices (or in particularly bad plotted games, offer no choices at all), but can offer an epic storyline that keeps players riveted to their seats. The plotted story allows the DM to pour all of his time and energy into a single storyline, and thereby maximize the awesome thereof. In a good plotted game it shouldn't matter that players don't have a sandbox of choices, as the players shouldn't have any interest in leaving the "rails", because those rails are part of the best roller coaster they've ever ridden.

A sandbox game rewards choice, but may feel too unfocused for some. A good sandbox game makes player choices matter, and enables them to play exactly how the players want to play. A bad sandbox, on the other hand, may leave the players aimless, wandering without any clue as to what they might do next. In a good sandbox, the DM drops plenty of clues about, and gives the players the freedom to succeed or fail based on their own choices. This style relies at least as much upon the players as the DM to make it awesome.

In my own games, I prefer a blend. Sometimes I give them the freedom to do whatever they desire. (Even when not, I always make sure that their choices matter.) Other times I want to lead them to a specially prepared scene; one that will stand out in their memories for a long time to come. It's possible to do so without being heavy handed; you just have to know your players and how to properly motivate them. I think each style has a place and a time.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 5, 2012)

Rogue Agent said:
			
		

> Well, as you said yourself, it's incredibly difficult to prep the branching structure necessary to deal with divergent player choices if you're trying to pregenerate those plots. This leaves you with two options:




What?  You must have me confused with someone else.  I'm the one who said that it's generally pretty easy to predict the actions of players and that most prep time should probably be spent on that.

Again, why am I getting labeled as a pre-scripting DM?  I have made absolutely no comments about my own game.  

My point is, it doesn't matter.  You're describing things that have nothing to do with what I'm talking about.  

Look, if plot=pre-scripted actions with no allowance for player choice, then we really can't continue here.  That's NOT what plot means.  Again, it's the whole, "Plot=railroad" thread that continues throughout these types of conversations.  Which is utter and complete ballocks.  

S'mon, by his own example, has a plot.  The orcs are invading.  The players decide to try to rally the barbarians.  The players generate the plot.  And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.  OTOH, some DM's might frame things a little more strongly and start the adventure with the decision to try to get the barbarians to help already made.  Fair enough so long as the player's are groovy with that, no harm no foul.

However, you're trying to say that having a plot means that the resolution is pre-scripted.  Again, that's not what plot means.  Plot is simply the actions taken during a story (or during play for that matter).  In a novel, the plot is obviously pre-scripted, but, in improvised play, obviously the plot isn't pre-scripted.  It can't be, since that would generally defeat the purpose of improvisation.

But, just because you have improvisation doesn't preclude plot.  So your example of the two chess games falls entirely flat.  You could have two chess games, one where the players are only planning one move ahead, and one where the players are both planning 5 moves ahead - that's the difference that I'm talking about.

But, they're still playing Chess.  The end result is not fixed, nor should it ever be.  The two games will be different, given the level of forward thinking that's going on, but, that's just playstyle and each group should find a level that they are comfortable with.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 5, 2012)

Hussar said:


> S'mon, by his own example, has a plot.  The orcs are invading.  The players decide to try to rally the barbarians.  The players generate the plot.




The orcs were not intended as a plot, just backdrop.  I didn't expect the game to focus on them.  The players decided to attack the orcs, and as you say they generated an orc-killing plot, in retrospect.  That (sequence of events) is not the normal meaning of 'plot' used in games, and that's where people have take issue with you, but I'm not going to argue it's not plot.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 6, 2012)

Ok, S'mon, what is the "normal" meaning of plot used in games?


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 6, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> A sandbox game rewards choice, but may feel too unfocused for some. A good sandbox game makes player choices matter, and enables them to play exactly how the players want to play. A bad sandbox, on the other hand, may leave the players aimless, wandering without any clue as to what they might do next. In a good sandbox, the DM drops plenty of clues about, and gives the players the freedom to succeed or fail based on their own choices. This style relies at least as much upon the players as the DM to make it awesome.




This is certainly true. The greatest thing a DM can ask for is motivated and engaged players. A sandbox game doesn't come together if the players simply look to to the DM and say " Here we are now. Entertain us."


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 6, 2012)

> A sandbox game doesn't come together if the players simply look to to the DM and say " Here we are now. Entertain us."




That sounds stupid and contagious.


----------



## Rogue Agent (Jan 6, 2012)

Hussar said:


> > Well, as you said yourself, it's incredibly difficult to prep the  branching structure necessary to deal with divergent player choices if  you're trying to pregenerate those plots.
> 
> 
> 
> What?  You must have me confused with someone else.




Are you sure? I could have sworn you said it was a heck of a lot of heavy lifting that will never see play.



Hussar said:


> But then you run into the problem of DM workload.   If you design your adventures to the point where you can possibly have  so many outcomes, *you're pretty much required to do a heck of a lot of  heavy lifting that will never see play*.




Guess you're right. I must be mistaking you with the guy who hacked your  account and has been posting messages under your name. My bad. 



Hussar said:


> Ok, S'mon, what is the "normal" meaning of plot used in games?




Here's the thing: We've done that. Most recently, in post #136, I clearly defined plot as "a sequence of events". (For purely narrative purposes we might want to nail that down a little more specifically as "the sequence of events which occurs in a story", but since you apparently don't want to define the term "story", either, let's not open that can of worms.)

You're the one who refuses to explain what you mean by the use of the word "plot".



Hussar said:


> Look, if plot=pre-scripted actions with no  allowance for player choice, then we really can't continue here.  That's  NOT what plot means.  Again, it's the whole, "Plot=railroad" thread  that continues throughout these types of conversations.  Which is utter  and complete ballocks.
> 
> S'mon, by his own example, has a plot.  The orcs are invading.  The players decide to try to rally the barbarians.  The players generate the plot.   And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.  OTOH, some DM's might  frame things a little more strongly and start the adventure with the  decision to try to get the barbarians to help already made.  Fair enough  so long as the player's are groovy with that, no harm no foul.
> 
> However, you're trying to say that having a plot means that the resolution is pre-scripted.




And here, again, we see your sophistry.

(1) You attempt to re-conflate pregenerated plot with plot generated during gameplay.

(2) You use the latter to claim that the former isn't railroading.

(3) Then you slide right back to talking about pregenerated plot.

(4) And then you, yet again, claim that a pregenerated/pre-scripted sequence of events isn't pre-scripted because it's also possible to have a sequence of events that is generated during play.

If you literally can't figure out the difference between "events I determined before play began" and "events that were determined during play", then there's really not much more to discuss, right? At that point you'll be telling us that you have a complete conceptual block where this topic is concerned and continuing the discussion with you would be like attempting to discuss color choices with a blind person.



Rogue Agent said:


> Negating player choices has a few consequences:
> 
> (1) It negates the defining point of playing a roleplaying game. Roleplaying is, after all, the process of making choices as if you were your character. If you negate those choices, you are negating the very process of roleplaying. (The open question, of course, is whether or not the benefits you're theoretically accruing from negating choices outweighs the penalties.)
> 
> ...




Also, as an addendum that occurred to me overnight:

(4) It increases the GM's responsibility for player satisfaction. (If the players are free to choose their own path and their own solutions, they can generally be relied on to choose the stuff that they'll find entertaining. If the GM is negating those choices, however, the GM makes himself responsible for satisfying the players.)


----------



## S'mon (Jan 6, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Ok, S'mon, what is the "normal" meaning of plot used in games?




Plot created pre-play, by the GM.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 6, 2012)

ExploderWizard said:


> This is certainly true. The greatest thing a DM can ask for is motivated and engaged players. A sandbox game doesn't come together if the players simply look to to the DM and say " Here we are now. Entertain us."




Very true.  'Must spread XP' etc.  
Sandbox needs active, self-motivated PCs.  With my 1e AD&D Yggsburgh sandbox, all the players seem such - maybe it helps they're all 'old school' guys - but there's still a notable disparity between (a) on the one hand the guy who wants to take the setting and twist it to his own own ends, by eg marrying into Yggsburgh nobility, another guy who pays lots of attention to events & NPCs and immediately groks what's going on so he can use it to his/the group's advantage, and (b) at the bottom end the distracted player who takes no notes, doesn't pay attention, doesn't remember stuff, doesn't even know what's in his PC's spellbook.  If I had a group of type (b)s I don't think the game would be a success.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jan 6, 2012)

The idea that players who prefer a pre-plotted game rather than a sandbox are somehow lacking in some respect is a clear logical fallacy. As I stated before, both styles have their merits and drawbacks.

I've personally known good players who enjoy both styles of game! So what, do they magically turn "stupid and contagious" when playing in a pre-plotted campaign, but become self-motivated when playing in a sandbox?

It comes down to a play style choice, and it really is that simple. There's plenty of creativity to be had in either. It's not even necessarily an either/or choice; my campaigns combine elements from both styles.

If _you_ don't like the pre-plotted style, then don't play it. However don't try to imply that sandbox players are a superior breed; that's both illogical and smacks of badwrongfun.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 6, 2012)

ExploderWizard said:


> This is certainly true. The greatest thing a DM can ask for is motivated and engaged players. A sandbox game doesn't come together if the players simply look to to the DM and say " Here we are now. Entertain us."




I wonder how much the game system can do here.  I mean, if the players really _want_ the DM to entertain them, there's not that much that can be done; but for your average player, even ones who're used to DM-driven games, is it possible to use the system to get the kind of play you want?

The last campaign I ran floundered because of this.  Most of the players were used to DM-driven games but I wanted player-driven games, and I was experimenting with the "urban sandbox" which I don't know how to do.  The combination made the game drag more often than not.

I've made some changes to my system based on this and I'm starting up again tonight!  One of the players is, I think, used to more of a DM-driven game; after he made his PC he started asking about jobs the NPCs wanted him to do, instead of coming right out with a self-defined goal.  (Which could be a property of the setting; it may not be exciting enough to grab his interest.)  Anyway, it'll be a decent test of the changes I've made.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 6, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> The idea that players who prefer a pre-plotted game rather than a sandbox are somehow lacking in some respect is a clear logical fallacy. As I stated before, both styles have their merits and drawbacks.
> 
> I've personally known good players who enjoy both styles of game! So what, do they magically turn "stupid and contagious" when playing in a pre-plotted campaign, but become self-motivated when playing in a sandbox?
> 
> ...




Sandbox play is more demanding of the players.  Linear play is less demanding.  You can have good story-path players, and you can have weak sandbox players.  IME weak sandbox players are more detrimental than weak story-path players.  Arguably this makes sandbox an inferior play style.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jan 6, 2012)

S'mon said:


> Sandbox play is more demanding of the players.  Linear play is less demanding.  You can have good story-path players, and you can have weak sandbox players.  IME weak sandbox players are more detrimental than weak story-path players.  Arguably this makes sandbox an inferior play style.




Lol, but hardly. Sandbox does demand more from the players in terms of creating plot. However, because the goal of a pre-plotted game is to create an incredible story, it can actually be more demanding in terms of playing a role than a sandbox game. Sandbox games are defined by the players being able to do just about anything. A pre-plotted game, on the other hand, is more focused (though some would say restricted). It's like having a destiny constantly drawing you toward an end; you may not be able to alter it but how you choose to embrace that destiny then defines you.

It's not that it's less of a challenge, merely a different kind of challenge. A good pre-plotted game can be like an improv troupe. You're given a scenario, now run with it and make it grand! A sandbox can be more like a mental duel of wits between the DM and the players. Some may prefer one over the other, but it's silly to say that debating is more demanding than improvisational theater; both demand different skill sets yet both demand skill. At most all that can be said is that one is more left brained, while the other is more right sided. I have an abiding admiration for Richard Feynman, but that doesn't diminish my appreciation of Raphael's artwork in any sense.

A good pre-plot is just as challenging as a good sandbox, to everyone at the table. What I will grant you however, is that because bad pre-plots are one of the easiest types of games to run, examples of them abound.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 6, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> A good pre-plot is just as challenging as a good sandbox, to everyone at the table. What I will grant you however, is that because bad pre-plots are one of the easiest types of games to run, examples of them abound.




Well leaving aside the quality of the pre-plot/quality of the sandbox, just talking about the quality of the players, I don't think you have to be great actors or immersive players for a decent Adventure Path to be fun.  You don't have to do much other than roll dice. Whereas a decent Sandbox will definitely fail if the players just sit back and wait to be entertained.

If anything, I suspect good APs are harder to write than good sandboxes, because the load is much more on the writer to provide the entertainment.  Hence the many crappy APs.  There are plenty of sandboxes that turn into litterboxes at the table, but I don't think I've ever heard anyone complain "This published sandbox is a litterbox!".


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jan 6, 2012)

S'mon said:


> Well leaving aside the quality of the pre-plot/quality of the sandbox, just talking about the quality of the players, I don't think you have to be great actors or immersive players for a decent Adventure Path to be fun.  You don't have to do much other than roll dice. Whereas a decent Sandbox will definitely fail if the players just sit back and wait to be entertained.
> 
> If anything, I suspect good APs are harder to write than good sandboxes, because the load is much more on the writer to provide the entertainment.  Hence the many crappy APs.  There are plenty of sandboxes that turn into litterboxes at the table, but I don't think I've ever heard anyone complain "This published sandbox is a litterbox!".




I've looked at a few APs, but admittedly I've never played one.

That said, I'm not so certain about your conclusion. I suspect that the modular nature of the sandbox may have something to do with the difference. If the caverns of the jester king are terrible, the players simply leave and head to the chasm of doom or the forest of endor. APs are linear in nature and therefore (I suspect) one or two bad modules can have a far greater impact on how the overall AP is received.

In that respect, I suppose you are correct. Good APs are harder to write. However I don't think it has anything to do with rolling dice. You can have that in what many would consider to be a poor sandbox; one that is merely a collection of hack and slash dungeons. Personally, I'm quite certain I'd find any game where we just roll dice to be boring after a short time.


----------

