Something to consider.

Role-playing was the first gaming I got into. I have enjoyed the thrill of immersing myself in fantasy gaming since 86' and still do to this day. I started off a starry eyed adventurer, a Fighter from OD&D stylized after pirates. I remember running modules and the excitement of getting the next piece of cool gear or level. Rolling dice hoping to land the next killing blow and getting the next level. I played this style of game for a year or two. Then we ran out of modules to run and started making campaigns. I purchased the old Greyhawk Boxed set, my setting of choice, though I like them all. It had a couple of books, describing the world, the people and the religionw and politics. I remember sitting down to read about this new world and immediately I was hooked.

I don't know why or how I ended up being the DM for my group. Relatively shy and reserved, I didn't seem the type, but we were young and no one else was ambitious enough so it was up to me. I spent hours and hours, weeks upon weeks for years, picking TSR NPCs, meshing them into deeper intrigue and plot. I still to this day run my own campaigns. I prefer Greyhawk, as it is flushed out enough to get an idea but vague enough to weave my own twists. That is when I fell in love with the game. I enjoyed D&D as a hobby for a long time, but I truly fell for D&D. Or so I thought.

One session we were running through some ruins in the Cairn Hills. We were escorting a young man who had secrets The Scarlet Brotherhood did not want exposed and with them hot on our heels we needed to rest a bit. I love to role play so much that I had been running a long time, and much valued character of mine, Michael. The group found themselves in a precarious position when the enemy caught up, they were trying to surround the party. But that was not to happen. My character, who happened to be a Paladin, knew he could buy the group valuable time. It was not an easy choice for me at the time, but the mission needed to be accomplished. The Scarlet Brotherhood needed to be exposed because the mayor of the Freecity Greyhawk was in danger. So he mounted up on his horse and rode out into the skirmish of monks and assassins. While the enemy converged on my Paladin, the rest of the group was able to sneak out the backside to safety and ultimately they were able to complete the misison.

I must admit I tried to rationalize how I could keep a long favorite character of mine, but I couldn't imagine the Scarlet Brotherhood ever showing him mercy. My group offered to do whatever they could to retrieve and revive him by whatever means. But I refused, it just didn;t seem organic.

Our next session we all sat around and reminisced about the session before, as we often do. The whole group was abuzz over how cool the last gaming session had been and the more we talked about it the more comfortable I was with Michael's passing. He died doing what he couldn't do on his first tour as a young soldier on the front, he was able to save his comrades. Michael fell asleep on his watch after a siege of four weeks wore his position down. While he was on watch, exhausted from a harrying enemy. He nodded off and orcs were able to climb the wall and he awoke to his fire team having their throats slit. They died because of his weakness, even if it was undertsndable to all but him to by so drained and that was why he vowed to be more honorable, more responsible, to be a Paladin. He redeemed himself in his death.

The point of my long winded post is that I love story, even more then D&D. That is what I had fallen in love with. I enjoy story so much, that I am willing to sacrifice my character for it. To tell a story with substance, weight and authority I have decided that the characters I play are less important then what the narratives I choose them to tell. I hope you all consider this in all your gaming endeavors as well.

Happy gaming no matter your edition of choice.
Well said!
In the long term I believe that is a wise path to take, because if you just play the game to roll dice you are missing out on the most important aspect. But at the same time, there are people that expect the class, rule or mechanic to support their vision of the world and you can never completely seperate the rules (rolls) from the roleplaying. So for those the enjoy roleplaying above everything else, I expect you would be less concerned about the rules. Which would be great, as that is one less segment of the player base that may get caught up rules arguments during the playtest.
I like this. I want the story to be the point.
In the long term I believe that is a wise path to take, because if you just play the game to roll dice you are missing out on the most important aspect. But at the same time, there are people that expect the class, rule or mechanic to support their vision of the world and you can never completely seperate the rules (rolls) from the roleplaying. So for those the enjoy roleplaying above everything else, I expect you would be less concerned about the rules. Which would be great, as that is one less segment of the player base that may get caught up rules arguments during the playtest.




I completely agree with not seperating rules and dice rolls from the game. I guess with so many of these threads and posts focusing on mechanics and how they affect the characters and I honestly do get that, that we have become so focused on character that sometimes we lose focus on the story and just as important having fun. To use a tired cliche, "Don't lose the forest for the tree.' The characters are tools for story telling and though they are the most important aspect of that and no one wants to remake characters all the time and/or lose one they are particularly fond of try to see a bigger picture. There are so many ways the characters can have impacts outside of combat and even winning. In the xample of the situation above, I honestly didn;t need to roll. I guess on some freak chance of horribly bad rolls for the opponent and some crazy good rolls on my end I could have at least gotten away but it wasn't necessary.

Also a failed roll in my campaign may have undesired result but that doesn't mean I am going to kill a character or even a failed mission it just plays out differently then expected. I would like to invite people to do this because it takes the pressure off and places everyone in a position to better enjoy the game from my experience.
I like this. I want the story to be the point.



Then write a book?  What's the point of a game if there isn't a game to be played?
Role-playing was the first gaming I got into. I have enjoyed the thrill of immersing myself in fantasy gaming since 86' and still do to this day. I started off a starry eyed adventurer, a Fighter from OD&D stylized after pirates. I remember running modules and the excitement of getting the next piece of cool gear or level. Rolling dice hoping to land the next killing blow and getting the next level. I played this style of game for a year or two. Then we ran out of modules to run and started making campaigns. I purchased the old Greyhawk Boxed set, my setting of choice, though I like them all. It had a couple of books, describing the world, the people and the religionw and politics. I remember sitting down to read about this new world and immediately I was hooked.

I don't know why or how I ended up being the DM for my group. Relatively shy and reserved, I didn't seem the type, but we were young and no one else was ambitious enough so it was up to me. I spent hours and hours, weeks upon weeks for years, picking TSR NPCs, meshing them into deeper intrigue and plot. I still to this day run my own campaigns. I prefer Greyhawk, as it is flushed out enough to get an idea but vague enough to weave my own twists. That is when I fell in love with the game. I enjoyed D&D as a hobby for a long time, but I truly fell for D&D. Or so I thought.

One session we were running through some ruins in the Cairn Hills. We were escorting a young man who had secrets The Scarlet Brotherhood did not want exposed and with them hot on our heels we needed to rest a bit. I love to role play so much that I had been running a long time, and much valued character of mine, Michael. The group found themselves in a precarious position when the enemy caught up, they were trying to surround the party. But that was not to happen. My character, who happened to be a Paladin, knew he could buy the group valuable time. It was not an easy choice for me at the time, but the mission needed to be accomplished. The Scarlet Brotherhood needed to be exposed because the mayor of the Freecity Greyhawk was in danger. So he mounted up on his horse and rode out into the skirmish of monks and assassins. While the enemy converged on my Paladin, the rest of the group was able to sneak out the backside to safety and ultimately they were able to complete the misison.

I must admit I tried to rationalize how I could keep a long favorite character of mine, but I couldn't imagine the Scarlet Brotherhood ever showing him mercy. My group offered to do whatever they could to retrieve and revive him by whatever means. But I refused, it just didn;t seem organic.

Our next session we all sat around and reminisced about the session before, as we often do. The whole group was abuzz over how cool the last gaming session had been and the more we talked about it the more comfortable I was with Michael's passing. He died doing what he couldn't do on his first tour as a young soldier on the front, he was able to save his comrades. Michael fell asleep on his watch after a siege of four weeks wore his position down. While he was on watch, exhausted from a harrying enemy. He nodded off and orcs were able to climb the wall and he awoke to his fire team having their throats slit. They died because of his weakness, even if it was undertsndable to all but him to by so drained and that was why he vowed to be more honorable, more responsible, to be a Paladin. He redeemed himself in his death.

The point of my long winded post is that I love story, even more then D&D. That is what I had fallen in love with. I enjoy story so much, that I am willing to sacrifice my character for it. To tell a story with substance, weight and authority I have decided that the characters I play are less important then what the narratives I choose them to tell. I hope you all consider this in all your gaming endeavors as well.

Happy gaming no matter your edition of choice.



For those that found the Zone, we salute you.

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

THis is why I insist upon finely tuned mechanics and balanced rules, as I played through 3e it became increasingly apparent that the unbalanced classes caused most of the story and game disruption, either because they marginalized the other players or because the DM had to spend a ton of extra time and effort setting up scenarios that the uber classes couldn't just bat around like a squeaky mouse.
I like this. I want the story to be the point.



Then write a book?  What's the point of a game if there isn't a game to be played?




This is where I fault computer game designers. They call their games RPGs but they are not, or at least not the ones I have played (with the esception of Star Wars: The Old Republic even class has a story line and even tracks your alignment and your interactions with your companions).

Malcapricornis, there are books based off of D&D, many of them and many of those were played out in real home games. This thread was an open invitation to consider the whole aspect of D&D and Role Playing games. Playing D&D and not role playing is not bad but it's kind of like having a Formula 1 car and only using it on a go kart track. You can do but you are not geting all of the experience. Not saying your wrong for using the mechanics for a strategy game.
I like this. I want the story to be the point.



Then write a book?  What's the point of a game if there isn't a game to be played?




This is where I fault computer game designers. They call their games RPGs but they are not, or at least not the ones I have played (with the esception of Star Wars: The Old Republic even class has a story line and even tracks your alignment and your interactions with your companions).

Malcapricornis, there are books based off of D&D, many of them and many of those were played out in real home games. This thread was an open invitation to consider the whole aspect of D&D and Role Playing games. Playing D&D and not role playing is not bad but it's kind of like having a Formula 1 car and only using it on a go kart track. You can do but you are not geting all of the experience. Not saying your wrong for using the mechanics for a strategy game.



I am not picking at the RP aspect. I am merely stating that if that's your primary motive for this particular game then the particular implementation and all the debate about the particular implementation of rules that will most likely be discarded anyways by the super RP heavy crowd then to a large degree you are wasting your time caring about the debate. 
I like this. I want the story to be the point.



Then write a book?  What's the point of a game if there isn't a game to be played?




This is where I fault computer game designers. They call their games RPGs but they are not, or at least not the ones I have played (with the esception of Star Wars: The Old Republic even class has a story line and even tracks your alignment and your interactions with your companions).

Malcapricornis, there are books based off of D&D, many of them and many of those were played out in real home games. This thread was an open invitation to consider the whole aspect of D&D and Role Playing games. Playing D&D and not role playing is not bad but it's kind of like having a Formula 1 car and only using it on a go kart track. You can do but you are not geting all of the experience. Not saying your wrong for using the mechanics for a strategy game.


I consider most computer and console rpgs every bit as much roleplaying as I do D&D.
Color me flattered.

LIFE CYCLE OF A RULES THREAD

Show
Thank_Dog wrote:

2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I think that if you have to argue to convince others about the clarity of something, it's probably not as objectively clear as you think.

No, what it means is that some people just like to be obtuse.

I like this. I want the story to be the point.



Then write a book?  What's the point of a game if there isn't a game to be played?




This is where I fault computer game designers. They call their games RPGs but they are not, or at least not the ones I have played (with the esception of Star Wars: The Old Republic even class has a story line and even tracks your alignment and your interactions with your companions).

Malcapricornis, there are books based off of D&D, many of them and many of those were played out in real home games. This thread was an open invitation to consider the whole aspect of D&D and Role Playing games. Playing D&D and not role playing is not bad but it's kind of like having a Formula 1 car and only using it on a go kart track. You can do but you are not geting all of the experience. Not saying your wrong for using the mechanics for a strategy game.


I consider most computer and console rpgs every bit as much roleplaying as I do D&D.



Please do not take this as argumentive but how? We are not getting into a role but taking part in a predescribed story that we have no say in, in most cases. Aside from select few titles you get very little say in how the story plays out, you just level up, get better gear and fight the next boss fight. They are fun but not role playing to me anyways.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Please do not take this as argumentive but how?


Character growth management. That's one of the hallmarks of rpgs for me. What other people call just levelling up I think is one of the true cornerstones of the genre. it may be a bit nonsensical to think so, but there you are.

That and the fact that even in the oldest computer rpgs you can make choices that alter the plot. Check out the old gold box games for reference.

Even then, being able to alter the plot is not the definition of roleplaying to me when it comes to video gaming.
Color me flattered.

LIFE CYCLE OF A RULES THREAD

Show
Thank_Dog wrote:

2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I think that if you have to argue to convince others about the clarity of something, it's probably not as objectively clear as you think.

No, what it means is that some people just like to be obtuse.

the story of the game is part of what makes rpgs so good, but it isn't the most important thing.

the most important part is spending time with your friends, experiencing the game as a group. 
the story of the game is part of what makes rpgs so good, but it isn't the most important thing.

the most important part is spending time with your friends, experiencing the game as a group. 




Hanging out with friends is more fun when you are not debating over the rules, but are co-operating in the process of something greater then the sum of the parts, is all i was trying to say. I have always found, regardless of what table I am playing at that if we keep that in mind it is better for everyone. Compromise for the sake of what we game for, the story we are trying to tell, and put our own interests aside for that sometimes. That is why I say if we make the story our focus, instead of trying to make the game about the way to make it the most fun for me, then everyone else is having more fun and by proxy myself.




I guess I would equate it raiding in let's say WoW. Yeah it is fun to hang out with people and B/S, but when you get to PvPing and doing it as a cohesive team or raiding the end game progression and are accomplishing something many can't and you are focused on a shared goal it is more fun. I admit getting the gear to drop is fun but being a part of the synergy in working as a team on a goal bigger then oneself is more fun for me anyways. I guess that is what the story is to ME in D&D. And when I find a new food I really like, like Pad Thai, I want to share it with my friends. Just trying to share a passion in my life and hping to maybe inspire someone to find it as well.

if it isn't your thing, that's fine at least I tired.
We interact with the story through our character, so I don't see how we can put the story ahead of our character. Without the character we aren't part of the story.
We interact with the story through our character, so I don't see how we can put the story ahead of our character. Without the character we aren't part of the story.




Characters can die and the story can still go on. Characters can retire and the story can still go on. Players may move away and no longer be a part of your group, but the story can still go on. Characters are a part of the story.
the story of the game is part of what makes rpgs so good, but it isn't the most important thing.

the most important part is spending time with your friends, experiencing the game as a group. 




Hanging out with friends is more fun when you are not debating over the rules, but are co-operating in the process of something greater then the sum of the parts, is all i was trying to say. I have always found, regardless of what table I am playing at that if we keep that in mind it is better for everyone. Compromise for the sake of what we game for, the story we are trying to tell, and put our own interests aside for that sometimes. That is why I say if we make the story our focus, instead of trying to make the game about the way to make it the most fun for me, then everyone else is having more fun and by proxy myself.







if telling a story was the beating heart of the dnd experience, people would start writing groups instead of gaming groups.

the rules and mechanics of the game are the interface through which the players interact and engage in the game. the story is a result of their interaction and engagement. the rules aren't just something to argue over, they create the internal consistency of the story and dictate just how much the players can influence the world.

i'm two years into a creative writing degree, so i know that the stories that i end up making with my dnd friends would never be able to stand on their own if it weren't for the fact that we're playing them rather than writing them.

i don't think that putting a hard focus on telling a good story is very conducive to a fun game of dnd. the plots of even the greatest fantasy novels would make for pretty awful gaming sessions. it's better to focus on making the game fun for the people involved, even if that means catering to one person's interest in loot or another's enjoyment of tactical encounters.

Specifically the part that the players play in the story, so while any one character's success or failure doesn't bog the story down characters as a whole have to be cool enough to keep people engaged in the story.

Arrows are spent quickly and soon forgot, but they're still important if one wishes to practice archery.
I like this. I want the story to be the point.



Then write a book?  What's the point of a game if there isn't a game to be played?

I like story too, but I'm with you, brother.

OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E.

"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."

"People treat their lack of imagination as if it's the measure of what's silly. Which is silly." - Noon

"Challenge" is overrated.  "Immersion" is usually just a more pretentious way of saying "having fun playing D&D."

"Falling down is how you grow.  Staying down is how you die.  It's not what happens to you, it's what you do after it happens.”

I'm struggling to understand what distinction the OP is trying to make and what practical effect it would have on the game. So if my character dies, I'm supposed to do what? Get up and leave? Keeping coming to sessions but not playing, just watching the other people play?

I like a good story and making sure everyone is having fun, but isn't that normal?
We interact with the story through our character, so I don't see how we can put the story ahead of our character. Without the character we aren't part of the story.




Characters can die and the story can still go on. Characters can retire and the story can still go on. Players may move away and no longer be a part of your group, but the story can still go on. Characters are a part of the story.


A movie keeps playing if I leave the theater. So what? Recognizing that fact doesn't make the movie any more enjoyable for me.
I am not a master of quotes so please forgive that I am not quoting.

People do write books about D&D, their campaigns and sessions. Many of the old modules even tell how they were developed, who play tested the content and how many game conventions they enjoyed it at. Every gamer I have ever watched Lord of the Rings triology, Merlin the television series, Legend of the Seeker, Legend the movie etc etc want to game after. Good story is both made by and inspires a lot of gamers. I would think someone who has two years of creative writing would appreciate the influence of good story.


My message was supposed to be that good can happen where we don't expect but it is not something everyone will understand or even embrace. That characters and mechanics are tools to have fun and "for me and I stated that in my OP" working with friends around a table to tell a story is the biggest reward and all of my gamers understainding that we are telling a story of weight and substance gives us a common goal and we can talk out situations in an intelligent and constructive manner to that end. A character dying can be just as memorable, and in a good way, as the character killing the enemy warlord.

First off I used death as an example that a "bad thing" happening can be great for story. It was an example. It seems people want to maximize their gain and in that lose focus of just having fun with it. It's like losing a piece in a game of chess. No one wants to lose a piece because that equates to losing but why play a game if you are not going to embrace the full range of things that can happen? I am not advocating death but to see the bigger picture, the story you and your friends and yes, even the game is telling.


I'm struggling to understand what distinction the OP is trying to make and what practical effect it would have on the game. So if my character dies, I'm supposed to do what? Get up and leave? Keeping coming to sessions but not playing, just watching the other people play?

I like a good story and making sure everyone is having fun, but isn't that normal?




I had to answer this one directly. I always have a back up character or two but honestly I have only had two player characters die in campaigns. If one of my characters doesn't fit the campaign I would one and hang out and just have fun with my group.

About the highlighted and underlined part, it would seem not for some. I have taken a lot of flack for trying to take the focus out of the negative, trying to put a positive spin on things, all for the sake of enhancing the fun in D&D because I feel many people's tension in gaming comes from rules (which I am not saying don't matter and should not be that big a deal because they are story telling tools too) and people focusing too much on their character. All these things take away from having fun with your friends. I used an extreme example of one of my characters dying as making the most out of what some people have quit gaming groups over.


Can you give an example of how other people you have played with have objected to your approach?
Can you give an example of how other people you have played with have objected to your approach?




I would be dishonest to say that there are not times when we are not all satisfied. It is the nature of cooperation and human nature. My most recent occasion happened because a bard with a really high Diplomacy skill and Charisma wanted to have what I felt was an undue amount of influence on a hated enemy. They had a long history and I didn't think it would be reasonable for the enemy to drop the grudge. My player wanted the enemy to join their side. In a different situation that may have been something I would have allowed, but his anatgonist had too much face to lose to just drop everything in that moment. he was a noble and had a seat as a high rtanking member of the military. I did however allow the enemy to withdraw the field of battle and consider the proposition because he did roll relatively well. I use a risk/reward and reputation/history DC system that made it very hard to sway this particular person. We still debate the situation and this was four or five sessions ago but he understands, even if he may have played it diferently if he were the DM at the time.

Also I admit that some people are looking for different styles of play. I tend to be a bit more narratively driven. In my campaigns things tend be grey and less black and white. Once there was an army rushing the city of Greyhawk and the merchants and travelers stacked up outside the gates were trying to push their way in to safety, but the guards started to close the gates, fearing that if they didn't close them now that th eflood of people would make impossible to close the gates before the enemy got in. What is the right thing to do? Tell the guards to close the gate and allow the people outside to die, or let the people in and hope that the enemy doesn;t make their way in as well? The Bard in this case told the guard he had the rank and position to order the gate to stay open, to give the people outside a chance, so the guards did. The enemy over ran the gate and took the southern half of the city. was he wrong to do that? He got in trouble with the authorities but got the chance to redeem himself later in the campaign.

Some people don't like my DM style. Some people don't want to make these hard decisions, after all we have to make them in real life. A select few have even quit, but most who see that I don't punish the players for their choices even if they may get a little heat from the authorities. Ultimately something great comes from those moments. My Bard is now running for a position as a member of the Oligarchy in the Freecity of Greyhawk because the people trust him and feel he is a good man. That Bard trusted the story and honestly I had no idea he would ever be in a position to be a member of political importance and neither did he, but he loves it and so do I.
I like this. I want the story to be the point.



Then write a book?  What's the point of a game if there isn't a game to be played?




This is where I fault computer game designers. They call their games RPGs but they are not, or at least not the ones I have played (with the esception of Star Wars: The Old Republic even class has a story line and even tracks your alignment and your interactions with your companions).

Malcapricornis, there are books based off of D&D, many of them and many of those were played out in real home games. This thread was an open invitation to consider the whole aspect of D&D and Role Playing games. Playing D&D and not role playing is not bad but it's kind of like having a Formula 1 car and only using it on a go kart track. You can do but you are not geting all of the experience. Not saying your wrong for using the mechanics for a strategy game.



I am not picking at the RP aspect. I am merely stating that if that's your primary motive for this particular game then the particular implementation and all the debate about the particular implementation of rules that will most likely be discarded anyways by the super RP heavy crowd then to a large degree you are wasting your time caring about the debate.

Bottom line: if there's no narrative, you've got no game in an rpg. There's nothing fun about the white room campaign setting 'cause you're just rolling dice against some formless badguy and getting loot at the end.

The game provides a random element. It means that things don't always go to plan and the challenge rests in turning bad rolls into good outcomes and inventing around situations where you know the random element can't go in your favour.


So yeah, the story needs to be the point and the game needs to reinforce the story. The game is about telling stories with friends where everyone contributes and nobody has total control over the outcome. Writing a book is a totally different creative experience with the same goal.


On a scale of one to ten,

with one being "the story is mostly an interesting bit of color to explain why we are smacking these XP pinatas and stealing their gold" and

with ten being "I want an in-depth and dramatic storyline, and rules can take a backseat to that all day along - if we go a whole session without rolling dice, I'm happier":

There is a definite bell-curve - you'll find very few players that take it down to 1, and very few players that crank it to 11. Most players want something in the middle. They want an interesting story, but they want the details of that story determined by the success and failure of their characters - something that is left to character design and chance of the dice.

Where you - and equally as important, your group - wants that dial set is a matter of personal game preference. Should the RPG you are playing accomodate that playstyle as easily and seamlessly as possible? Yes. Should D&DN accomodate that playstyle? Probably. Personally, I would rather the game cater to the middle 80% than the upper or lower 10% (easy to say because I fall in that 80%, but I think it makes more sense in the whole business aspect too), but it would be nice if it could cater to the 80%, and still support the outlaying 20.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

I like this. I want the story to be the point.



Then write a book?  What's the point of a game if there isn't a game to be played?




This is where I fault computer game designers. They call their games RPGs but they are not, or at least not the ones I have played (with the esception of Star Wars: The Old Republic even class has a story line and even tracks your alignment and your interactions with your companions).

Malcapricornis, there are books based off of D&D, many of them and many of those were played out in real home games. This thread was an open invitation to consider the whole aspect of D&D and Role Playing games. Playing D&D and not role playing is not bad but it's kind of like having a Formula 1 car and only using it on a go kart track. You can do but you are not geting all of the experience. Not saying your wrong for using the mechanics for a strategy game.



I am not picking at the RP aspect. I am merely stating that if that's your primary motive for this particular game then the particular implementation and all the debate about the particular implementation of rules that will most likely be discarded anyways by the super RP heavy crowd then to a large degree you are wasting your time caring about the debate.

Bottom line: if there's no narrative, you've got no game in an rpg. There's nothing fun about the white room campaign setting 'cause you're just rolling dice against some formless badguy and getting loot at the end.

The game provides a random element. It means that things don't always go to plan and the challenge rests in turning bad rolls into good outcomes and inventing around situations where you know the random element can't go in your favour.


So yeah, the story needs to be the point and the game needs to reinforce the story. The game is about telling stories with friends where everyone contributes and nobody has total control over the outcome. Writing a book is a totally different creative experience with the same goal.






Thank you for your concise and eloquent explanation. I honestly feel that if we all approach the game from the highlighted stand points it would be a little more fun during those challenging times of gaming. I guess in my earnest interest to talk about gaming in a way that helped balance out all the posts about mechanics, not nullify them, I may have had some people thinking that I was saying mechanics aren't important. They are but sometimes numbers don't favor us and that is okay, make the most of it. 
I like this. I want the story to be the point.



Then write a book?  What's the point of a game if there isn't a game to be played?



I like story too. I love a great game where people tell stories about it for years. Afterwards. 

As a GM I like to remember that I am not the playwright. I'm the set designer and the minor characters. The play is made by and about other people and their characters, and it's their story.

These, in the day when heaven was falling, The hour when earth's foundations fled, Followed their mercenary calling, And took their wages, and are dead. Playing: Legendof Five Rings, The One Ring, Fate Core. Planning: Lords in the Eastern Marches, Runequest in Glorantha. 

Sign In to post comments