Community

Oct 6, 2012 -- 2:06AM, JTheta wrote:

What you have always advocated is shared storytelling should trump the rules, which, IMO, diminishes the game or removes it entirely in some aspects.

I agree with this idea, but I don't think it matters. D&D has always had the concept that the rules are not absolute, but just strong guidelines which the DM can override. If this is taken to an absolute extreme, to where you have no rules and everything is DM-fiat, you could argue that that's only a game to the extent that the DM rulings are consisent. At the other extreme, you could have a DM who tries to enforce the rules at all times. Since 4th edition rules are not complete or entirely self-consistent, this will require a local set of house rules that are. In that extreme it's purely a game (although it likely is a shared story as well), and this extreme is a lot more viable than the other. But in a typical situation, the DM enforces the official rules along with whatever set of house rules most of the time, overruling in specific situations. And a very common reason for overruling is because it's better for the story. Does that mean people who play that way, by not always following the rules, have made it less of a game? Yeah, I think it does. But so what?

Fair point.

Oct 7, 2012 -- 2:22AM, pilgaard wrote:

The original post:

Oct 3, 2012 -- 1:05PM, iserith wrote:

I thought this was a really good blog post on building an imaginary play space in which a story can be built collaboratively rather than building the story first and then playing in it. It's relevant to a number of conversations going on here in these forums.
(...)

This seems to be a matter of preference (obviously ). As I see it, each approach has a number of advantages (they are debatable, of course):

Traditional DM'ing:
- allows the DM to build and flesh out a world (for some DMs this is an important incentive to be a DM). Thus this kind of creativity gets plenty of room here
- a consistent and (potentially) 'deep' world, since one person (DM) has the 'overview' of it
- a (more or less) preplanned storyline allows for foreshadowing etc., giving the feel of - players get to explore a world and plotline unknown to them (some players like this, if they just feel they have some room for making their own decisions and are able to have impact on the development)
- requires less improvising from the DM (if the DM doesn't feel to the results of improvisation are satisfactory, either because of his creativity lies elsewhere (ie simply not good at it), feels a bit uneasy about it, gets better results when things are thought through first etc.)
- retains a feeling of 'danger' and thus accomplishment for overcoming (DM-created) obstacles for the players, that is created in advance by the DM; also (unless the DM adjust during a session) the feeling that their actions get true impact in the sense that since things are predertimed, if they do well this is not 'countered' by adding new obstacles along the way
- adhering strict to the rules (especially in 4th ed.) may reduce players' feeling DM fiat or (as named by some) 'DM-may-I'
- players that likes the rules mechanics (and/or optimizing) might feel that this approach matches the conception of a 'game' better
- encounters can be thought out and created in advance (less of a problem in non-4th ed. campaigns, but 4th ed. encounters are often quite 'rigid' and since the battles takes long to resolve they often requires some preparation and thought)
 
Structure before Story:
- no feeling of railroading on the players' part (for many an important advantage) / less linearity in plots/adventures
- allows for a lot of player creativity - and DM creativity as well (but, it may be argued, a different kind of creativity than the one mentioned above)
- players getting more influence and commitment to how the story unfolds/the world is shaped
- a 'yes, and...'-approach may reduce players' feeling (as named by some) 'DM-may-I'
- less preparation time for the DM (a major issue for some DMs)
- the DM discovers the story as it is created, and thus gets an experience that matches the players' on this point
- if difficult finding a DM to run a campaign (due to amount of preparation required; everyone wanting to be players, etc) it might be easier to get one to DM
- less risk of prepared stuff getting wasted due to the PCs never reach the location in question etc.

And probably more advantages on each approach...

So I think it is really a matter of which type of campaign the players and DM want (could of course fall somewhere in between the two approaches) - although this conclusion is probably not adding much new enlightenment to the thread discussion... 


PS: I haven read only the first and the last couple of pages of this thread, so my apologies if some of the points have been made already.

An interesting post. I have thoughts on several points first.

Labeling the first part as "traditional DMing" and the second part as "Structure before story" seems to imply that traditional DMing is "story before structure"...I am not sure if thats what you mean.

In general, what I see in the blog post and with some post in generals is the use of "bread crumbs" as "structure"...but they aren't really the same thing.

I pride myself on the "structure" I give my players in the world. Things in the blog like this..

"More succinctly:  What sort of story do we want to see in play, and what is the best “box” for that story? For example, I’ve decided that I want to do a murder-mystery.  I know that structurally, the characters must be introduced to a crime (someone getting murdered), and then they the group will be involved in scenes where the interrogate and explore the people and environment. Finally, they will confront their suspect."

...does not suggest structure to me. On the contrary, it suggests "story"...the exact opposite of what it is talking about. This is full of narrative. I am a bit bothered by the following - "I've decided that I want..." and "the characters must" and "the group will" and "they will". This is not actually structure...this is story. Things are being pre-determined. A narrative is being created before-hand. What if everything after "introduced to a crime" doesn't happen? What if the players see "Whoa a dead body. Pffft whatever" and head off on their merry way.

None of this, to me, is structure...it is, in fact, "story".

Structure to me is a town, the NPCs in it, their goals & personalities, the events that are transpiring in that town (and the system used to resolve how those things might play out since I do not decide that in the course of the game), etc etc. That is structure for a game, to me. That is structure for a game world to me. It creates structure for the players PCs to interact with...but, in and of itself, it does not create story. It is like a scientist setting up a lab...yes, there are a few things bubbling and some reagents and catalysts around...but after that is set up (the structure) it's up to the players to start mixing those things, ignoring them or start assembling their own concoctions from the ingredients strewn about.

To get back to what pilgaard posted, however, very few of those things listed seem to necessarily fit into the category they are in. Specifically things like "no feeling of railroading on the players' part" and "less risk of prepared stuff getting wasted due to the PCs" seem in direct contradiction of one another. The way I structure things in my game, it is impossible for ANYTHING to be "wasted" because it will still have logical results on the world. Dominoes are constantly falling all around the PCs, and the world is in motion...nothing can be wasted because the world is not Schrodinger's Campaign...things do not stop existing when PCs stop looking at them or interacting with them because that is actually a more rigid system in its disingenuousness.

Oct 7, 2012 -- 9:19AM, pilgaard wrote:

Oct 7, 2012 -- 8:13AM, YagamiFire wrote:

An interesting post.

Thanks . And thanks for your Thoughts.

Oct 7, 2012 -- 8:13AM, YagamiFire wrote:

 I have thoughts on several points first.

Labeling the first part as "traditional DMing" and the second part as "Structure before story" seems to imply that traditional DMing is "story before structure"...I am not sure if thats what you mean.
(etc)

I fully agree with your thoughts about 'structure'. I only chose those wordings due to the original post and the title of this thread ('Structure First, Story Last') as a different approach to the 'normal' way of playing (which thus became 'traditional DMing') - at least that is how I interpretated the original post. So just a matter of terminologi rather than content from my part .

Oct 7, 2012 -- 8:13AM, YagamiFire wrote:

To get back to what pilgaard posted, however, very few of those things listed seem to necessarily fit into the category they are in. Specifically things like "no feeling of railroading on the players' part" and "less risk of prepared stuff getting wasted due to the PCs" seem in direct contradiction of one another. The way I structure things in my game, it is impossible for ANYTHING to be "wasted" because it will still have logical results on the world. Dominoes are constantly falling all around the PCs, and the world is in motion...nothing can be wasted because the world is not Schrodinger's Campaign...things do not stop existing when PCs stop looking at them or interacting with them because that is actually a more rigid system in its disingenuousness.

Schrodinger's Campaign - nice one  (Maybe a campaign in a Quantum World would satisfy that )
What I meant by 'wasted' was if a DM has constructed and fleshed-out e.g. a dungeon (or other location or 'static' plot-device) and the PCs choose to ignore it or take a different course, and never get to visit it (this is of course under the assumption that the DM prepares in such detail beforehand).

And thank you for your thoughts as well as the clarification on some things.

I see what you mean and yes it does seem that the terminology is a bit out of whack...probably just another reason to dislike "convenient" labels that are usually anything but. It really does seem as if the OP does confuse terminology.

Hmm Quantum World campaign...hmm, that does actually give me an idea for an illusion-based "dungeon" where things only occur according to the PCs expectations, essentially trapping them in their own mini-campaign within a campaign but where things are clearly too convenient. I might have to use that at some point.

What you mention about "wasting" is one of the primary reasons I steal and/or generate-on-the-fly things like that. It is enough to know that a dungeon IS somewhere in a particular given space. Perhaps a dungeon someone else made that has already been slightly modified by the DM is sitting there waiting to be explored...or maybe it is generated on the fly. Either way, there is little risk of "wasted" effort so it is how I generally do it. There are more acceptable "dungeons" or ruins or such online than a single group could ever hope to explore, especially since more and more are being made every day. Additionally, if it's between sessions and the group has made it clear they are delving deeper into a dungeon or about to enter one, then it is safe to put forth the effort...and that is when I do. Otherwise, there's far more good to be had coming up with compelling NPCs, etc to populate the area.

Oct 7, 2012 -- 11:39AM, JTheta wrote:

Hmm Quantum World campaign...hmm, that does actually give me an idea for an illusion-based "dungeon" where things only occur according to the PCs expectations, essentially trapping them in their own mini-campaign within a campaign but where things are clearly too convenient.

 I've tried this before. My players saw through it in about thirty seconds.

Ah very cool! Sounds like a perceptive group! I tip my hat to them! The speed with which a group might see through a situation like that doesn't really impact whether or not I would use it though. Did the group have a particular visceral/emotive reaction to it?