Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 zombiegleemax Dec 20, 2005 14:07:13	There is one common byproduct of playing a continuous, on-going campaign. That is, over the months and/or years, a story develops. Like a written story, conflict is the central theme of these stories. Over time, certain characters and groups will develop both types of common conflict relevant to storytelling, on-going conflict and immediate conflict. The immediate conflicts are always apparent during play; how to deal with the guards, what to do about the dragon breathing fire on us, how to cross the raging river to continue in this direction. The on-going conflicts aren’t always at the front of the stage but they are on the minds of the characters; what about the growing hordes of barbarians in the neighboring kingdom, what about the growing influence of evil cultists in the major cities, what about the guy that escaped during our first adventure that prophesied our doom. All stories evolve around these two conflicts, immediate and on-going, as do all continuous campaigns. However, there are two inherent forms by which a DM will allow these stories to develop. There is the player-driven story mode and the DM-driven story mode. The latter, DM-driven, is oft times called storytelling mode and is confused with railroading by many posters. Storytelling itself was originally applied negatively … as in a storytelling DM is using the game to tell their own story rather than the story of the players’ characters. This is interpreted this way many times because during these campaigns there are critical story arc points where the players are given the perception that their characters have a choice when in fact they don’t in some DM-driven stories. The only thing the players are providing to this ‘story’ is the dialogue. This isn’t to say the storytelling mode of DM’ing is not viable, but that it should be given proper consideration before it is used. There are several common mistakes made by a DM who chooses this style of running a campaign. One mistake that the DM will make is that they try to run the story as being specific location/time based. Another mistake is that the DM will believe any side trek by the players will ruin the timing of the story. Yet another mistake is that the DM will believe that the perceived story they envisioned is better than any story the players can come up with on their own. When a DM looses control of these and is insistent on getting things back on track to their vision of the story, the DM will resort to railroading the players to follow their story line. Railroading is forcing the characters in a certain direction of character development away from whatever the character’s player has envisioned for the character. These mistakes can be easily corrected to allow personal freedom to the characters and still present the conflicts that DM has in mind that will present a story similar to the one they have planned for the party. To begin with, never make part of a story arc relevant to a location within the space-time continuum. That is, do not set the location physically to a geographical location and do not make it dependent on a certain point in time at that specific location. The two can, and should, work separate of each other to give freedom back to the players. A location can be used if it is not dependent on time and an event set in time can be used if it is not dependent on a specific locality. When a storytelling DM feels that a certain point in the space-time continuum of the story arc is jeopardized they will then use whatever means they can rationalize to get players to that point. Making location and time independent of each other allows players the freedom to make choices. If they need to get to a certain location to advance the story arc of the DM, they do have the option to side trek before they get to that location (that is, take whatever route they feel is best for the party to get to that location). Likewise, and even better, if an event needs to happen at a certain time but not a specific location, the DM has the freedom to run the event wherever the players decide to go (they can go off in any direction and the story will still happen and it will happen around them, making them central to the story and not just props for the DM’s production). This leads into the second mistake, player driven subplots are detrimental to the DM’s story. This is not the case. The players should be encouraged to develop their own stories whether in a player-driven campaign or in a storytelling campaign. This will make the story of each player unique if they are all allowed to develop their own stories and, therefore, that much more memorable for the players. The key to this is for the DM to make their story the main plot and not fill in the subplots but leave them open for player development. That is, thing big, and only big, for the story the DM is to tell and let the players fill in the rest. Again, this leads into the final mistake I’m covering in this article. That is the DM story is always better than the player story. This is right out there. The story the players will remember includes mostly the parts that centered around their character. Any DM out there that doesn’t believe me only has to pull their players aside one-by-one to ask them for what they recall of the on-going campaign up-to-date. They are sure to hear a unique story from each player that centers around that player’s character. In fact, if the DM hears a story that doesn’t evolve around a player’s character in some context from any of the players, they are probably doing something wrong. Any player who doesn’t see their character as a focal point in their mind is probably not having fun playing in the campaign; at least not as much fun as the other players are having. Again, by only putting in the big story line, including only the major points relevant to that story line and leaving the rest of the campaign to be filled in by the players, the DM will allow the players to highlight their characters in various subplots while adhering to the story they have envisioned. So, storytelling, or DM-driven style, is indeed fun and is a valid form of running a campaign for any DM, but the DM should concentrate on including the players in that fun. By making only a major story arc with certain major points that he players must cross, the DM will leave room for the players to develop stories of their own. Likewise, by making these points in the story-arc event oriented instead of space-time dependent, the DM also leaves open how the players will progress the story getting from point to point. Simply, the DM only needs to outline the story and the plots relevant to that story. The plots are either time based or location based, but never both. A time based point should be set to X amount of time after the previous point in the outline while a location based point should be set to trigger when the players arrive at that point only. This line of events will allow the players some freedom between points to develop minor plots along player driven story lines while working in the framework of the master story that the DM has developed. If both players and DM are contributing to the story of their campaign, both will enjoy themselves playing the game.
#2 wotc_mel Jan 27, 2006 13:54:31	bump
#3 gilean_dup Jan 28, 2006 1:30:54	There is one common byproduct of playing a continuous, on-going campaign. That is, over the months and/or years, a story develops. Any transcript of happened events (IOW: is recounting events always a story) A line of events that carry thematic meaning or a point A line of events with conflict in them A line of events with a protagonist A combination of the above, or something else Story is too ambiguous a word to use without further specification. I feel that any comments given before those specifications are likely to agree or miscommunicate.
#4 zombiegleemax Jan 30, 2006 15:12:33	Any transcript of happened events (IOW: is recounting events always a story) A line of events that carry thematic meaning or a point A line of events with conflict in them A line of events with a protagonist A combination of the above, or something else Story is too ambiguous a word to use without further specification. I feel that any comments given before those specifications are likely to agree or miscommunicate. I feel your commentary is really opening an argument in semantics where, otherwise, no argument should exist. Looking up story using the old (new?) Merriam-Webster online, we find: archaic : HISTORY 1, 3 a : an account of incidents or events b : a statement regarding the facts pertinent to a situation in question c : ANECDOTE; especially : an amusing one a : a fictional narrative shorter than a novel; specifically : SHORT STORY b : the intrigue or plot of a narrative or dramatic work : a widely circulated rumor : LIE, FALSEHOOD : LEGEND, ROMANCE : a news article or broadcast : MATTER, SITUATION This list is fairly similar to your list. I also feel that in my use of the word story, they all apply, both Merriam-Webster meanings and yours, as the definition intends for the popular use of the word story. By developing a story in a continuous campaign, I do indeed mean that a transcript of events or a history is created. Any player or DM of a continuous campaign, when asked to describe the campaign, will relate a story from the perspective of their character (all characters from the DMs perspective) that is a transcript or history of the campaign, usually but not always in chronological order. I believe that everyone agrees with the note of 'especially: an amusing one' - or from your list, a line of events with conflict. A line of events (a story) is the root of my terminology. An ongoing campaign, by its very nature, is a line of events. It does not have to be amusing, contain conflict, or have antagonists/protagonists to be a story, it merely has to be a line of events (a history or transcript of said events). So, both the 1st meaning on your list and the 1st meaning in the on-line dictionary are exactly what I mean. The amusing portions, including conflict and antagonism/protagonism, are the parts that make the game interesting, without these DM and players alike would loose interest. I believe that the context in which I have used 'story' is in complete agreement with the common English vernacular for that word. I believe you're making it more ambiguous by suggesting that the word is too broad to either easily give my original post simple merit or it is too broad that my intent can be easily misconstrued. I feel that my suggestions as to how the story (line of events) develops, DM driven or player driven (who decides which event falls next in the line), is received and understood far more easily than you imply. Your argument seems to suggest a misconception of the term where none was implied. Almost as if I had made an argument to discuss dice and used the singular term die and that could be confused with die as in to pass from physical life. It assumes the reader is base or dense to become confused by the word story where I imply that by using the word story everyone will know I am referring to a line of events, especially a line of amusing events that involves some sort of conflict. So yes, recounting events is always a story. By human nature the recounting of any events is done so because it is seemingly amusing or entertaining to the narrator. However, it is never assumed by default that a story should be amusing, that is the value of a story is subjective and not objective. Sorry this response is long winded, but I do believe that my use of the word story, as in a history (or line of events), especially an amusing one, is easily understood but your response will lead to more confusion than would have been inferred from my original post.
#5 the_one_true_shea_dup Feb 04, 2006 15:39:47	As far as me is concerned, I have a problem with letting players railroad me. I had a plot where this one character started with a real cool, really overbalancing weapon. I of course proceeded to take this away (providing motivation for her character to participate with the others). She was supposed to not get it back till the endgame sequence. I thought that had a perfect golden symmetry. However, it became such a focal point between two of the playersthat I caved and reduced the power of the weapon and gave it back earlier. This involved killing one of the major bebg's and sent the two players who "had accomplished something" into spasms of happy. I had to redraft half a dozen scenes (she has the scythe and that dudes dead) but what does that matter? That character didn't even make it the end game. Got stuck in a magic jar. Via an unexpectedly bad roll. She would have never made it to the end game, she would have never gotten the scythe had I stuck to "the plan" but she remembers getting the scythe back. She remembers getting locked in the gemstone, and she remembers that her buzzword for the game was "doooom" (in a husky voice). She also remembers all the other characters that were playing. The names of each of the bebgs that assaulted her character, the fact that I fudged her XP penalties, but when asked was hard pressed to recall the details of the locations of that game. "It was, like, in a cavern right?" To put a twist on your "railroad" analogy, “Don't railroad your players. Let them drive the train.”
#6 gilean_dup Feb 08, 2006 10:42:33	I feel your commentary is really opening an argument in semantics where, otherwise, no argument should exist. Nope. I made the post simply to not start an argument on semantics. I do understand why people use story as in a transcript of events, but likewise I feel that it makes the word almost meaningless in the context of RPGs. But, this is not the place to argue about that.
#7 zombiegleemax Feb 08, 2006 14:48:53	You bring up some very good points Shea. They could be articles here in Regdar's, I'd imagine. 1) Even the DM's 'master plot' is not concrete and 2) Never cave into the players completely. As for the master plot, you admit you caved in to let them get the weapon back and beat one of the major BBEGs (big bad evil gals/guys). Both were part of an endgame sequence you had planned. In my original post, I mention not to make any location in the plot arch dependent on both a geographical location and a specific time. It can be over-generalized also to say do not make a point on a plot arch too complex. The more complex it is the more railroading that a DM may feel they have to use to keep players within their vision of the story. Perhaps you could of decided what was more important to your plot, A) getting the weapon back at the end or b) defeating this specific BBEG. You could of given them the least important of the two and used that point to direct them back in the direction of the actual plot you had envisioned. It seems that you became stuck on both portions having to be dependent on each other and you wanted other things to happen in the story arch that were not related to these two points (getting the weapon and defeating this particular BBEG). This leads to the point that could be another article all together. Once a player feels they have deviated from their characters 'comfort zone' of play, they will do everything in their power to return their character to that comfort zone or, more drastically, they sometimes will give up on that character if they cannot easily reach their defined character goals. The weapon was overpowered and probably should of not been given to the player, which you admit. Taking it away was, perhaps, not the best answer. The player received the weapon for their character and this became part of the characters comfort zone. Once you took it away, the player felt they had to do anything in their power to get that weapon back right away regardless of your intended story arch. Once you knock a player out of that comfort zone, there is little you can do to adjust it without righting whatever wrong they feel has moved them away from that comfort zone. I learned this lesson while playing a published adventure (I mix these into most of my campaigns if I really like the adventure). In the 'A Dozen and One Adventures' boxed set for the Al-Qadim campaign setting there is an adventure (To Steal the Steel) where the module is set up for the players to not complete a quest. The story arc in the box set is an ongoing wager between two genies to see who has the most influence over mortals. The players accept a mission from a mosque to escort a weapons shipment from one city to another, journeying over sea and through some desert. They get poisoned along the way, and, if they split up to help get medicine, they lose the weapons shipment in a night raid. If they lose the shipment, they fail and must report this to the church. Well, protecting the weapons became a comfort zone for my player's characters and they felt responsible for assuring that the weapons reached their destination. Instead of reporting back to the mosque, they instead set off on a side venture that lasted several months of in-game time and about 6 weeks/sessions in real time. Despite them reporting their failure being a part of the story arc, I altered my story arc to accommodate their desire to retrieve the weapons. I had to free form RP for 6 sessions as they tried to retrieve the weapons. They ended up purchasing a ship from one of the genies which was part of a future plot in the planned story arc, sailed out to the pirate isles, investigated to find out that someone was trying to sell weapons, interrogated some people, found the hidden island base of a major NPC/BBEG from a different part of the story arc, went back to get Mamluks (royal slaves, who the shipment was destined to originally) and assaulted the island to have this particular pirate group captured. I had to readjust some points of my intended story arc to accommodate the player characters, but it was memorable to the players and when the other plot points came up (that I had to makeshift introduce earlier while free-forming) the players where more eager to take the hook, line and sinker for those plot points. Perhaps you could of decided which was least important and ran with that idea with your players. It sounds like retrieving the weapon was the highlight of the campaign for that one player (from that characters perspective). You could of let them defeat the BBEG to learn that the BBEG didn't have the weapon; but instead a clue to the weapons location. You could of included new clues in all of your scheduled plot points from that point on that led to the real location of the weapon which a part of the end sequence you had initially planned. For that player to get the next clue about their weapon, they had to go to the next plot point you had come up with. They will most likely catch on that the overarching plot involves around getting the weapon back but as they are determined they will likely eat it up and continue to follow your story arch (drive the train as you put it).
#8 zombiegleemax Feb 09, 2006 16:33:37	Nope. I made the post simply to not start an argument on semantics. I do understand why people use story as in a transcript of events, but likewise I feel that it makes the word almost meaningless in the context of RPGs. But, this is not the place to argue about that. That's just it. Saying a story is merely a transcript of events leaves the amusement or interesting aspects of any story as a subjective value. I think this is very true. I can tell you that I was not amused by every story I have ever read. Saying every story should have meaning, be expressive, and/or be amusing is saying that the art of story telling is really objective. If story telling where truly objective, we'd all have best selling books - or, more realistically, the value of a good story would decrease (and a lot of forms of entertainment would be rendered useless if we could all tell good stories - ranging from books to movies and theatre). I am saying that in the stories created by groups with a story-telling oriented DM, they can leave the subjective value of the story that makes it amusing somewhat in the hands of their players. A better way to say this would be: Too much railroading makes for a boring story. Nevertheless, it still makes a story by default because a transcript of events by its very nature is a story. Allowing interpretive elements from the players to the developing story will allow players to insert bits and pieces that they find interesting. Thus, any recollection (telling of the story) will be subjectively amusing to all story tellers. Simply, allowing the players input into the story will make the story entertaining for them.
#9 gilean_dup Feb 15, 2006 7:21:46	Brknlf, I am not getting your argument. And this is not the place to debate it. If you want to, PM me.
#10 zombiegleemax Feb 15, 2006 16:26:53	Brknlf, I am not getting your argument. And this is not the place to debate it. If you want to, PM me. For there record, there is no argument over the term 'story' and its 'implied' use in my article. Any ambiguity or 'argument' that may seem to be arising off of the term is because in your response you implied that the word 'story' was too ambiguous and because of this ambiguity, any comments made afterwards could either easily disagree or be misleading without the intention thereof. I attempted a response to say there is no ambiguity, whichever vernacular of the word you prefer, it would easily apply to my actual argument in the article. Also for the record, the actual argument is that storytelling can be a valid form of DM'ing without being strict railroading. My argument is that the DM can build a 'master plotline' but still give the players plenty of choices. I'm submitting a response to this here because I feel that you're implying some argument over the terminology of story with your post and it will mislead readers of this thread. I will send a PM when I get a chance to see if we can figure out where our communication is going astray.