Tabletop RPG - Does the story really matter?

[AntiAntagonist]

I think that particular division impedes effective game-playing and game-writing.

"Roleplaying" isn't one blob of stuff and it certainly shouldn't be reduced to "in-character acting" -- even though we still see this definition all the time on forums and even in game books. The GM writing down the plot before the game begins isn't doing the same thing that the GM who never even thinks about the game except during play is doing. The guy talking to shopkeepers isn't necessarily participating in "creating a story" -- nor is he necessarily going to find that interesting. The person playing for "deep immersion" is doing something different from the person playing to create a "thematic story".

I'm sure it's just as messy for "rollplayers", too, though I care less about that. Still, it's important to note that the vast majority of munchkins or godmoders or whatever are invested in the fiction -- finding Excalibur and riding dragons and having your own space castle is an essential part of their "I win". Most self-described "powergamers" or "tacticians" definitely seem to care about the fiction, too.

Now, it can be useful, on occasion, to speak of character-driven decisions motivating game-mechanical choices vs. game-mechanical choices motivating character-driven decisions. But, ideally, you should be writing a game where these aren't in opposition. Following the game mechanics should help build interesting characterization and interesting characterization should translate into game-mechanical effectiveness. Forcing you to choose between having an interesting character or a useful game token is terrible game design.

-- Alex

I don't disagree that rolling and roleplaying are two sides of the same coin. I mentioned division as they are often thought of as separate directions (likely due to player conflict).

A thematically driven min/maxer can certainly be coherent in all forms. If a person is more interested in one idea or another (opposing) idea then it gets irksome. Considering retcon the Devil or a plot without comic relief has to be decided from table to table.

The way I see it there is no one way about gaming/roleplaying. Each time a DM takes the helm they have to find a new balance between the various desires and isn't something that a game designer has the power to fulfill (for all people).

 

[WilliamWhite1]

The way I see it there is no one way about gaming/roleplaying. Each time a DM takes the helm they have to find a new balance between the various desires and isn't something that a game designer has the power to fulfill (for all people).

The response I'm getting from plenty of reviewers is exactly this kind of a response, perhaps in not so many words. Jinx_Dragon claims that, like some others have, the story is much more important, because without a story grinding becomes tiresome and fills players with irritation. Others, like Pedro Steckecilo, seem to argue the negative: that the game is more important, because without the game, the story is just arbitrary and boring. I'm not sure how much that has an effect on the GM, and how much of an effect the GM has on the other two elements. Perhaps something to look at/discuss? How much can the GM really warp a situation?

The bottom line appears to be this: it depends on your audience. Sometimes they know what they want, and at other times they don't, but regardless of which it is, the GM is supposed to build a game that everyone can enjoy. This brings me to (yet) another point.

If a GM wants to create a successful storyline and mechanic system for a UNIVERSALLY acceptable game, how would he go about it?

Some game plans have ran well with majorities of groups, of different ages, personalities, and et cetera. How do these games achieve what they do, if our argument clearly states that the creation of the game requires it to be highly reactive, like gut tennis string? Are these games as reactive as their success could make us believe, or are they just so complex and diverse that it appears that way?

 

[WilliamWhite1]

[...] they'll just take the one path that you didn't think of. This is the game.

Truly fills me with ire.
Especially in character creation.

 

[AntiAntagonist]

The response I'm getting from plenty of reviewers is exactly this kind of a response, perhaps in not so many words. Jinx_Dragon claims that, like some others have, the story is much more important, because without a story grinding becomes tiresome and fills players with irritation. Others, like Peder Steckecilo, seem to argue the negative: that the game is more important, because without the game, the story is just arbitrary and boring. I'm not sure how much that has an effect on the GM, and how much of an effect the GM has on the other two elements. Perhaps something to look at/discuss? How much can the GM really warp a situation?

The bottom line appears to be this: it depends on your audience. Sometimes they know what they want, and at other times they don't, but regardless of which it is, the GM is supposed to build a game that everyone can enjoy. This brings me to (yet) another point.

If a GM wants to create a successful storyline and mechanic system for a UNIVERSALLY acceptable game, how would he go about it?

Some game plans have ran well with majorities of groups, of different ages, personalities, and et cetera. How do these games achieve what they do, if our argument clearly states that the creation of the game requires it to be highly reactive, like gut tennis string? Are these games as reactive as their success could make us believe, or are they just so complex and diverse that it appears that way?

My hypothesis is this: there's no way to make a universally acceptable way to make a game system, but a plot may be within reach. Systems cover different genres and varieties of playstyles.

GURPS: Simulationists with wide interests
Savage Worlds: Brutal battles that don't take all night to resolve
DnD/d20: Traditional fun with a few extra options, good starting point
ShadowRun: Without wits & planning you're dead
The Window: Dice are only there to decide an argument

A universally acceptable system has to:
1. Work regardless of game setting
2. Work with different playstyles (character roles & player roles)
3. Be simplified or extended easily
4. Be easy to read/understand & complex enough to form strategies

Plots can be a little easier, without a specific group in mind may end up feeling like a railroad to players.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

The game's focus ought to be determined by the players. If the players care little about story and character development but have a lot of fun with the mechanics of combat and whatnot, then clearly the focus should be on the combat. If players are more interested in the story/character elements, the focus should clearly drift in that direction.

Some game universes lend themselves better to one side over the other. The World of Darkness for example focuses heavily on the story elements and the combat system is quite underdeveloped. In D&D on the other hand, combat is quite clearly the focus, and in fact most of the skills, perks, spells and feats a player has available are only truly useful in combat.

 

[Alex_P]

If a GM wants to create a successful storyline and mechanic system for a UNIVERSALLY acceptable game, how would he go about it?

Players have a variety of play goals and they're capable of modifying their play goals for different situations.

Therefore, to make an approximation of a "universal" game, you should make a game that telegraphs its purpose very, very obviously. Aim to make something that is one specific thing to most people rather than all things to all people. That way people know "I should approach it this way and try to do this with it and that is how it will create fun".

-- Alex

 

[Draygen]

If a GM wants to create a successful storyline and mechanic system for a UNIVERSALLY acceptable game, how would he go about it?

If you manage to create a "universally acceptable" ANYTHING, you'll have achieved a feat that nobody else ever has. That is the very reason so many variations of the same basic concept exist. All you can do is try to create as adaptable and balanced system as you can, and then hope for the best.

Your game system probably won't convince my munchkin friend to not covet that next big bad enchanted item or set his stats to the absolute best arrangement to achieve his goal. At the same time, it won't make the soap opera queen not write up a 10 page backstory that she insists that everyone in the group read, and they better pay attention because there will be a quiz afterwards.

This is the very reason GM/DM/ST positions exist within the game system. Without them, the rules are meaningless. Someone has to interpret the arbitrary rules, emphasize those that are important to their individual game, and ignore the ones that are detrimental.

 

[RufusMcLaser]

I'm not the best GM in the library, but I believe you have to tailor your approach to the players. The point, after all, is to have FUN. If you have a story you want to tell, don't fall into the classical trap of setting the whole campaign on rails and never straying far from them. The GM has to walk the line between engaging the players and advancing the plot.

 

[McClaud]

I don't know if anyone has said this yet, because I started to get really bored and tired reading the really long posts that went on tangents. So if it has been already addressed, let me re-enforce this particular concept:

If you are playing a game with miniatures that focuses on combat and no in-depth role-playing, then you are playing a miniatures game. Even a campaign with background is still a miniatures game if there's no role-playing involved.

And if you are doing it on hexes, squares, circles of a map, then it's a boardgame. Granted, some boardgames are almost role-playing games by rights (Warhammer Quest, HeroQuest, Descent, etc.), but if you are not actually describing your actions in detail to influence the outcome of a greater story or event between combats, you are not really "role" playing.

Nothing wrong with miniature or board gaming in the fashions I mentioned either. I don't want 4e people getting pissed off at me for calling 4e D&D a "boardgame with a light RPG as it is written," because that's just how I feel after playing it for two months now. It is what you make of it, but if your characters aren't deeply involved in some plot and you aren't playing all the events that happen between combats (because there's always something happening between combat that advances a story in an RPG), then you aren't really role-playing in the original sense of "RPG."

NOTE: That's my take on it. And I'll tell you that every time you ask me to play with you, so if you don't like how I feel, don't play with me. And I'm with about 50% of all role-players out there. I'm sorry that some of us are intolerant to the new style. I'll play the game, just don't expect it to redefine my ideas. I'll still call 4e D&D a boardgame.

 

[WilliamWhite1]

If you are playing a game with miniatures that focuses on combat and no in-depth role-playing, then you are playing a miniatures game. Even a campaign with background is still a miniatures game if there's no role-playing involved.

I wish I had enough money to pay for miniatures, honestly.
I've since looked into trading card games.
Still big fan of miniature, board-game-like RPGs.

 

[Simriel]

I play in a monthly Star Wars Saga game, And yeah the story and role playing factors matter as much as the combat and such. It makes things fun and interesting. We usually get round to maybe 2 encounters per game, With a lot of role playing in between. Keeps things funny, Entertaining, and captivating

 

[Meatstorm]

Rule of thumb:
If there's so much talking people are bored, roll some dice.
If there's so much rolling people are bored, tell some story.

I have to disagree with you. I believe the story is more important, as best TT-RPG's i've played included no rolls or very few.

...so if people are bored with the story... you'd tell it to them more..?

I don't understand. Stop me if I'm wrong, but most people play role playing games to have fun with friends, be part of some sort of fantasy world and let the crule fates of chance help shape how the story goes.

If you're a story loving DM, and your PC's are ruining the story line, write a book instead.
If your a Player who wants to beet down on a few beasties without any care for storyline, there are a bunch of flash games on the internet.
Role playing games are in between these two extremes and flexable: that's all I'm saying.

I can understand that some people may prefer a story intese gaming session and others a roll-a-thon, what I don't really get is how people think there is a right way and a wrong way: as far as I can tell every gaming group will have a different preference and that's it. This may even change depending on the mood of the group in that particular session!

Your Right. I was mostly refering to my own preferences. My gaming group mostly plays Hack&slash style RPG and im getting bit bored of it, but would like more actual story telling.

I also like spending time optimizing my characters, so i dont only seek storytelling.

 

[chunkynut]

Me and my friends started a new 3.5 campaign recently and at the ripe old age of 27 I've only played 3 games including the current one (bit of back story for ya haha) ...

Our stories have evolved often from a small amount of back story of the characters or the world set in motion by the DM (who is really creative in a funny way which helps). So once we start playing the story has started. That aside I think the story is very important but a part of the whole enjoyment - accidents are funny, what PCs do is often funny and what the DM has NPCs do is ofthen funny. You may be able to tell we are not very serious about our games but I've nearly wet myself playing DnD through laughing so hard at a sequence of events or an incident.

In conclusion I would say it depends on your audience but all of one thing is not going to be as fulfilling as a varied game. Fun is the main thing and I've had some unforgettable moments in table top games.

On a side note anyone played a Conspiracy X game?

 

[Your once and future Fanboy]

story and the freedom that the players can have in this story is the reason why we play table-top, or we would just play oblivion or similar games all the time.

but if your players are getting bored with to mutch story and no dice, then your style needs polishing or your players are not in the wright mind sett.

i actualy once had a long campaign that crossed themes.
it started in D&D 3.5e then to D20 past (before world war 1) and once more during the cold war, and then we went to d20 modern (year 2005).
all within one campaign with the same characters.

it was a realy fun to see how the players reacted to the changes (i had some good players, who realy when deep in the roles).

 

[CallmeMerry]

If you're going to play a TTRPG, a story is generally the most important aspect if actually planning to play for any decent length of time. With consoles/PC's, there is an actual visual aspect of the game that allows you to get into the game fairly easily. In a TTRPG, that lack of an actual scene shown to you forces the players to immerse themselves in their imagination. Sure, the occasional campaign can be as simple as "Go to the woods and kill the goblins." or whatever, but if planning to be a regular player, that won't be enough. I used to play Iron Kingdom's(generic D&D system, but with robots) on a weekly basis. If there was no sort of story, I know I wouldn't have played nearly as long as I did. Plus, the campaigns, are really never played exactly the way they are written.
For example, my friends and I had to battle some imps in a town, which should have been an easy fight. However, my friend shot at an imp, missed, blew up a barrel of gunpowder, and started a guy's house on fire. The guy then came out, yelled at us, we tricked him into believing it was the imps, he pulls out a gun, shoots at an imp, misses, and hits my 2-headed dog (I was a druid, we had sweet pets)and kills him. I got pissed and killed the guy before getting captured by the town guard, which meant I had to escape from prison and be a hawk for the rest of the time in the town.
If there is any campaign book than can predict an outcome like that, I'd love to see it. And stories like that are way better than any situation I've run into in a video game.