DMing is Not Storytelling

[hawkeyefan]

Okay. If gamemastering could be described a falling somewhere on a spectrum between "storytelling" and "referee" then my style would be deep on the referee side of the dial.

How so?

I’m genuinely asking. I’m curious how people view this topic because I don’t really see it as a spectrum, with storytelling on one end and refereeing on the other. They both just seem like things a GM needs to do.

I know that “story” is a loaded term when it comes to RPGs, but I’d love to get past that. I don’t think it’s the GM’s job to tell the players a story….I don’t think I’d find that a truly satisfying game experience.

But I don’t think I can agree that GMing doesn’t involve things that we would otherwise classify as storytelling. Creating characters, setting up conflict, pacing, focus…all kinds of things, although everyone will do each to different degrees.

 

[Fenris-77]

How so?

I’m genuinely asking. I’m curious how people view this topic because I don’t really see it as a spectrum, with storytelling on one end and refereeing on the other. They both just seem like things a GM needs to do.

I know that “story” is a loaded term when it comes to RPGs, but I’d love to get past that. I don’t think it’s the GM’s job to tell the players a story….I don’t think I’d find that a truly satisfying game experience.

But I don’t think I can agree that GMing doesn’t involve things that we would otherwise classify as storytelling. Creating characters, setting up conflict, pacing, focus…all kinds of things, although everyone will do each to different degrees.

I think it's very much about mistaking some the parts for the whole. Different games, genres and tables require those parts to different degrees, but sharing some ingredients doesn't make it a story, any more than it makes it, say, a play, with which RPGs also have some things in common. You need those parts to play an RPG, but that still doesn't make it a 'story' in any of the loaded ways people like to talk about.

 

[robertsconley]

How so?

But I don’t think I can agree that GMing doesn’t involve things that we would otherwise classify as storytelling. Creating characters, setting up conflict, pacing, focus…all kinds of things, although everyone will do each to different degrees.

The difference is same as the difference between setting up a play and performing a play then setting up to film and then actually recording the performance. The setup for both are very similar but the execution of that setup are very different. Two separate but related activities. In the same way the setup of storytelling share a lot of commonality with the setup of tabletop roleplaying but the actual execution is completely different. You could film a play and you use a RPG to tell a story but neither is how either form are commonly used nor represents the fullest expression of either a film or or an RPG.

 

[Acmegamer]

I really think that Fenris-77 last two posts really covered clearing everything up quite well. Anything further really just is grinding the meal into dust. But hey, we're good at doing that here. lol.

 

[Paragon]

You might almost think some games would have devoted supplements to that as well...oh wait, Harn Manor, Maelstrom's Manor supplement and Pendragon's rules for domain management just called in!
And those, BTW, are often sections with procedural rules as well as setting info.

You did notice I said "corebook support" regarding that below, right? Wonder why that tends to only show up in add-ons?

True. But I'd argue that this is 1) because it's on the "above group of PCs" level, and some campaigns would never go above that, and 2) those things would vary so greatly you can't write a universal game supplement about them.

I think it not only has to do with that but with the fact in a lot of adventure gaming no one is interested in bothering. Retiring to become a lord was supposed to be a big part of upper level play in OD&D, but I don't have much evidence most people get into it much. At most they'd buy something to use as a base of operations and then just assume it took care of itself unless their regular DM decided to make it a plot element.

And we were talking about GURPS here. Of course it would be left to GM judgement - with support for individual settings... I mean, a supplement for being the mayor of a village in 11th centure Medieval England and the mayor of a village in 21st century New England would be rightfully laughed at...and let's not even compare villages in rural India and rural Russia!

I'll be pretty blunt here; even among a lot of GURPS players, I suspect the distinction wouldn't matter to them much, and that's even counting people who cared about historical play, which was probably always a pretty small amount of even their fanbase.

OTOH, knowing what happens when a punch or knife is needed in most games, and most people lack enough experience with that to be able to just roleplay it. Unlike, presumably, talking to other people.
Firearms and extranatural elements/powers in slightly less, but probably needs more rules because of the lack common ground to work with (I mean, nobody, AFAIK, has seen working magic that would allow throwing fireballs, or at least I've missed the news)!

Sure, but...how to put this; most people's knowledge of how to sail a ship is probably every bit as poor as their knowledge of fighting or magic, but that isn't usually in a corebook (unless its a custom one for a nautical setting) for the same reason; to do it right takes up too much space for as frequently as its likely to be used.

And again, a group of pirates, roaming pseudomedieval mercenaries, or bounty hunters roaming the space in their beaten ship simply don't need domain management rules, because the PCs don't interact with domain management.

Yup.

Now, if they could become nobility, sure... oh wait, wasn't this actually expected in the first RPG ever published?

In theory. Now ask how often that was actually paid attention to outside of Lake Geneva.

Anyway - the ability to become nobility isn't to be taken for granted. It depends on the setting (some settings would require you to acquire land, and all land is already owned by somebody, for example).
And thus we're back to the inability to write setting support for all possible settings out there!


Barony management would depend heavily on the setting, though. A barony in 9th century England would differ greatly from the same barony in 19th century England. And let's not even talk about the differences with 19th century Russia or China, and the baronies in @Ravenswing 's home setting!

Eh. Most use is going to be in fictional settings where adapting a generic approach isn't going to be any worse than dealing with the generic technological assumptions the game has (and likely will be ignored by a lot of people the same way that is).

Conversely, cutting unarmoured people with a sword wouldn't differ that much...though different armours would have to be accounted for, or different blades - but the process itself hasn't changed all that much!

I think you're understating the issue there, though, but part of it is we're just use to cutting some corners there. Consider how relatively few games actually pay attention to the difference between using edged versus blunt weapons against rigid versus flexible armors. Even most people who are aware of the issue just don't care enough to fuss with it; the small amount that do are in the same category as the people who'd care about fine differences about managing holdings from culture to culture, and that's among the people who want or need to care about doing that at all.

Yes, and they'd often feature rules about domain management as well.
Also, a GURPS setting supplement, like Banestorm, can easily dwarf the length of its combat system. So it's not different at all - except for the fact that, it being a generic system, the setting supplements are not part of the corebook!

Honestly, even with dedicated systems, that sort of thing usually gets pushed out for simple space considerations. Note your examples right at the start; even Harn players often don't need to know that stuff, so it was a low priority to have it in the core book. There just aren't that many games where its a core part of play (Birthright and Pendragon are the only ones that jump to mind).

 

[Paragon]

Okay. If gamemastering could be described a falling somewhere on a spectrum between "storytelling" and "referee" then my style would be deep on the referee side of the dial.

I get where you're coming from, but the truth is as long as you're playing NPCs, you're going to have a lot more input on how a story comes out than anyone who accurately calls themselves a "referee" does by its nature.

(I have heard some stories about campaigns where the guy who oversaw the mechanical resolution and other operational things was separate from the guy who ran NPCs and decided what was going on behind the scenes, but I'm doubting you're the former guy alone here).

 

[Acmegamer]

"Honestly, even with dedicated systems, that sort of thing usually gets pushed out for simple space considerations. Note your examples right at the start; even Harn players often don't need to know that stuff, so it was a low priority to have it in the core book. There just aren't that many games where its a core part of play (Birthright and Pendragon are the only ones that jump to mind)." P Paragon

That's where the balancing act comes from where you as the developer don't want to overwhelm the GM and players with a bunch of mechanics and content to learn. It's why a lot of this comes out in sourcebooks. That's more in my opinion on why it's a lower priority in the core book. You don't want to give them too much. HARN manors or one of the other sourcebooks are something you add.

What is and isn't core play though depends on that table, doesn't it? You can't say something isn't core play if "some" groups use it and others don't. There appears to be this mind set in a lot of the posts that because a mechanic isn't front and center it's a throw away or and after thought. I don't think that's the case at all. There does also appear to be a lot of hair splitting and just flat out stubborn refusal to actually accept or concede to some of the points made at times. It's a fascinating and yet frustrating thread to read for me.

 

[TristramEvans]

It's like this - when I got up yesterday I decided that I needed a few staples from the store, so I got dressed and headed to the nearby market. I picked up some food and came home.

I just told a story about what happened yesterday, but when I was doing those things would I describe it as me "creating a story"? No, I think only the most pretensions of people would even think such a thing. Now there are things I could do that would be deliberately for the purpose of creating a story, most of them incredibly artificial, but I'd say most people don't approach life that way. But there are a lot of people that approach RPGs that way. It's just - not all of us do, for some of us, the RPG is moreabout simply "living a life", and the interest comes from that alternate "life", not in "creating a story".

 

[Fenris-77]

I really think that Fenris-77 last two posts really covered clearing everything up quite well. Anything further really just is grinding the meal into dust. But hey, we're good at doing that here. lol.

Now I'm blushing.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The difference is same as the difference between setting up a play and performing a play then setting up to film and then actually recording the performance. The setup for both are very similar but the execution of that setup are very different. Two separate but related activities. In the same way the setup of storytelling share a lot of commonality with the setup of tabletop roleplaying but the actual execution is completely different.

They’re different, yes. Completely different? I don’t think so.

I think there’s a lot of overlap there. A large venn area, so to speak.

You could film a play and you use a RPG to tell a story but neither is how either form are commonly used nor represents the fullest expression of either a film or or an RPG.

Sure, different media function differently, and are engaged differently. They’re also interactive to varying degrees, which is the big difference I’d say, with RPGs being highly interactive.

It's like this - when I got up yesterday I decided that I needed a few staples from the store, so I got dressed and headed to the nearby market. I picked up some food and came home.

I just told a story about what happened yesterday, but when I was doing those things would I describe it as me "creating a story"? No, I think only the most pretensions of people would even think such a thing. Now there are things I could do that would be deliberately for the purpose of creating a story, most of them incredibly artificial, but I'd say most people don't approach life that way. But there are a lot of people that approach RPGs that way. It's just - not all of us do, for some of us, the RPG is moreabout simply "living a life", and the interest comes from that alternate "life", not in "creating a story".

But something tells me that you’re not GMing your PCs’ trip to the store.

And I’m not saying that RPGing is about creating a story. Just that it involves storytelling. Which is a key distinction that usually is conflated.

 

[TristramEvans]

But something tells me that you’re not GMing your PCs’ trip to the store.

Of course I am. Players love to shop. But that specifically isn't the point, more that the focus is on the player characters living their lives, whatever that means for whatever world they are living their lives in and their position within it.

And I’m not saying that RPGing is about creating a story. Just that it involves storytelling. Which is a key distinction that usually is conflated.

And I would say "describing a scene" or "arbitrating player choices" or "playing out a conversation between characters in the gameworld" are not activities that I would personally describe as "storytelling". I can understand, by squinting a bit, how some could sorta describe it that way, but I think it's better not to just for the implications and misunderstandings that can arise, as per the video in the OP.

 

[Brock Savage]

I received a very nice compliment during last Sunday's session when a player told me they appreciate how I "let the dice tell the tale". I am not saying this to brag but to illustrate that even my players recognize that I am not telling a story or a narrative. I imagine our session logs would seem quite boring to an outside observer as there is no story, just a series of events and situations.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Of course I am. Players love to shop. But that specifically isn't the point, more that the focus is on the player characters living their lives, whatever that means for whatever world they are living their lives in and their position within it.

Right, a bit pedantic but yes this is true.

I’ll elaborate to say that I imagine that the lives of PCs tend to be more exciting than the lives of RPG players. Sure, there will be the occasional exception like the international gun runner who plays Call of Cthulhu in his spare time….but generally speaking, the lives of PCs are not mundane, even though they may involve a mundane thing like going to the store.

And I would say "describing a scene" or "arbitrating player choices" or "playing out a conversation between characters in the gameworld" are not activities that I would personally describe as "storytelling".

I think describing a scene absolutely is an element of storytelling. It’s establishing the setting for the scene. I’d say playing out a conversation is also…it’s dialogue. Sure, a GM may only be creating half of it, but that doesn’t change what it is. What would be interesting? What would this specific character say? These are the same considerations as other types of entertainment.

Arbitrating player choices is a little harder to say because ofthe scope of what that includes, but still seems related. What happens next? Hm based on this, I think that would happen next.

Now, I’m not saying that the purpose of all this is to have a story as the end product. What I’m trying to convey (and likely not well) is the set of skills involved. And nor am I saying that this is the GM alone. The players also bring a lot of this to the game.

 

[TristramEvans]

. What I’m trying to convey (and likely not well) is the set of skills involved.

Which is an interesting thought, but in the long history of storygames and narrative games once they appeared in the hobby, not a single one has done anything to identify, develope, or encourage any such skills. And in fact when I was looking to improve y skills as a GM, it's noteworthy that I didn't turn to books on storytelling or writing fiction or the like, but instead to books about Improvisational theatre. I think that RPGs share far more in common with that activity than storytelling, as it were. I actually don't think storytelling has much to offer a GM insofar as advice or ways to improve the experience.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Which is an interesting thought, but in the long history of storygames and narrative games once they appeared in the hobby, not a single one has done anything to identify, develope, or encourage any such skills. And in fact when I was looking to improve y skills as a GM, it's noteworthy that I didn't turn to books on storytelling or writing fiction or the like, but instead to books about Improvisational theatre. I think that RPGs share far more in common with that activity than storytelling, as it were. I actually don't think storytelling has much to offer a GM insofar as advice or ways to improve the experience.

Yeah, that’s a really valid point. And I wouldn’t disagree at all.

I think I’m just kind of looking at all these different media and means of experiencing them as related, and there are tools unique to each, and tools common to all.

I think I have just been focusing on the things I think are common.

 

[aiodjed]

if you take the storyteller title of the gm, you should take a player title as well

 

[aiodjed]

players never really know whats going on could be a video

 

[TristramEvans]

if you take the storyteller title of the gm, you should take a player title as well

I force all my players to call me The Hollyhock God

 

[Fenris-77]

I force all my players to call me The Hollyhock God

You'd never hear anything from me but Poppycock God.

 

[Paragon]

"Honestly, even with dedicated systems, that sort of thing usually gets pushed out for simple space considerations. Note your examples right at the start; even Harn players often don't need to know that stuff, so it was a low priority to have it in the core book. There just aren't that many games where its a core part of play (Birthright and Pendragon are the only ones that jump to mind)." P Paragon

That's where the balancing act comes from where you as the developer don't want to overwhelm the GM and players with a bunch of mechanics and content to learn. It's why a lot of this comes out in sourcebooks. That's more in my opinion on why it's a lower priority in the core book. You don't want to give them too much. HARN manors or one of the other sourcebooks are something you add.

Yeah, but what exactly you decide to put in a core book is based on what you expect the majority of people to get use out of, given what your game is aimed at. Since most RPGs are aimed at action-adventure types of games, they put in systems needed to support that and other things can come later.

What is and isn't core play though depends on that table, doesn't it? You can't say something isn't core play if "some" groups use it and others don't. There appears to be this mind set in a lot of the posts that because a mechanic isn't front and center it's a throw away or and after thought. I don't think that's the case at all. There does also appear to be a lot of hair splitting and just flat out stubborn refusal to actually accept or concede to some of the points made at times. It's a fascinating and yet frustrating thread to read for me.

See my comment above. "Core play" is about what the developers expect most people using the game to do. Whether some people do other things with it doesn't really change that. You can argue whether assumptions about what "most people" do with a given game are well founded, but at a certain point that requires one to assume the people doing other things are doing a rather successful job of hiding from view.

 

[Paragon]

I force all my players to call me The Hollyhock God

I would swear I remember one game that used that as its generic GM title...

 

[TristramEvans]

I would swear I remember one game that used that as its generic GM title...

Nobilis

 

[Paragon]

Nobilis

Ah, yeah.

 

[AsenRG]

You did notice I said "corebook support" regarding that below, right? Wonder why that tends to only show up in add-ons?

You mean, like in the Pendragon's corebook, which provides rules for dealing with your manor already, and the sumplements merely go deeper?

I think it not only has to do with that but with the fact in a lot of adventure gaming no one is interested in bothering. Retiring to become a lord was supposed to be a big part of upper level play in OD&D, but I don't have much evidence most people get into it much. At most they'd buy something to use as a base of operations and then just assume it took care of itself unless their regular DM decided to make it a plot element.

Shrug.
Anecdote, plural, not data, and none of us really knows.

I'll be pretty blunt here; even among a lot of GURPS players, I suspect the distinction wouldn't matter to them much, and that's even counting people who cared about historical play, which was probably always a pretty small amount of even their fanbase.

To be equally blunt, the people who don't care about such distinctions probably don't play GURPS anyway...in fact, I'd expect them to prefer D&D, where the mish-mash of cultures is basically madnatory!
And I'm pretty sure that, given the usual attention to detail involved in the publication of GURPS supplements, no "generic manor supplement for all ages" is ever going to pass muster!

Sure, but...how to put this; most people's knowledge of how to sail a ship is probably every bit as poor as their knowledge of fighting or magic, but that isn't usually in a corebook (unless its a custom one for a nautical setting) for the same reason; to do it right takes up too much space for as frequently as its likely to be used.

It is in the rulebook: roll Sailing when it gets though.
Again, nautical supplements might have a bigger subsystem, but that's one for the ships (and corresponding weapons and tactics) in this setting.

In theory. Now ask how often that was actually paid attention to outside of Lake Geneva.

Answer: nobody fucking knows. At best, you'd know about yourself and the groups you played with, or knew people from. That's...not statistically relevant.

Eh. Most use is going to be in fictional settings where adapting a generic approach isn't going to be any worse than dealing with the generic technological assumptions the game has (and likely will be ignored by a lot of people the same way that is).

You keep underestimating gamers' intelligence. Probably more than they deserve, methinks.

I think you're understating the issue there, though, but part of it is we're just use to cutting some corners there. Consider how relatively few games actually pay attention to the difference between using edged versus blunt weapons against rigid versus flexible armors. Even most people who are aware of the issue just don't care enough to fuss with it; the small amount that do are in the same category as the people who'd care about fine differences about managing holdings from culture to culture, and that's among the people who want or need to care about doing that at all.

...so what? The decision to keep rules less detailed is a fully legit one as far as I'm concerned.

Honestly, even with dedicated systems, that sort of thing usually gets pushed out for simple space considerations. Note your examples right at the start; even Harn players often don't need to know that stuff, so it was a low priority to have it in the core book. There just aren't that many games where its a core part of play (Birthright and Pendragon are the only ones that jump to mind).

Oh, you mean in the same Harn corebook which leaves out magic/religion as well, relegating it to supplments?
Yeah, I don't think that example is as relevant as you seem to think it is...
And I can give you another example or two: Ars Magica, Maelstrom.

Now I'm blushing.

Who are you trying to impress, on this forum?

You'd never hear anything from me but Poppycock God.

My own suggestion was going to be shorter (omitting the flower), but dirtier!

 

[robertsconley]

I think it not only has to do with that but with the fact in a lot of adventure gaming no one is interested in bothering. Retiring to become a lord was supposed to be a big part of upper level play in OD&D, but I don't have much evidence most people get into it much. At most they'd buy something to use as a base of operations and then just assume it took care of itself unless their regular DM decided to make it a plot element.

It wasn't retiring, the campaign was expected to continue.

You mean, like in the Pendragon's corebook, which provides rules for dealing with your manor already, and the sumplements merely go deeper?

Come to think of it while OD&D had a basic yet functional domain system. And it got somewhat detailed when it came to building one's castle/stronghold.

From Book 3.


Castles



Also Adventurer, Conqueror, Kings makes this part of their core book and extends a bit. One of ACKS appeal that its treasure system, it pricing, etc, are all built on a common set of assumptions about last classical/medieval economies giving everything a bit more consistency then what one would expect from a D&D variant.

 

[Gabriel]

That DM is, however, pretty close to the word narration. Narration as an idea is a great one for RPGs,

I think Coordinator is a more descriptive label.

 

[Fenris-77]

I think Coordinator is a more descriptive label.

But it isn't half of 'narrating a story'. My point was to index the value of the one word despite the presence of the other. Ranking labels isn't what I was about.

 

[Paragon]

You mean, like in the Pendragon's corebook, which provides rules for dealing with your manor already, and the sumplements merely go deeper?

There are exceptions to every generalization, because there are going to be systems that are dedicated to things that require them. I mentioned Pendragon as one at the end of my post you'll notice. Outside of it and Birthright I'm hard pressed to think of a third, though, and I don't think that's a coincidence.

Shrug.
Anecdote, plural, not data, and none of us really knows.

When you can find me regular discussion of it outside a game that's actually focused on it, I'll change my opinion, but this is a case where I really do consider the lack of seeing that over the years evidence. You're not required to, but there we are.

To be equally blunt, the people who don't care about such distinctions probably don't play GURPS anyway...in fact, I'd expect them to prefer D&D, where the mish-mash of cultures is basically madnatory!
And I'm pretty sure that, given the usual attention to detail involved in the publication of GURPS supplements, no "generic manor supplement for all ages" is ever going to pass muster!

The latter may be true, but as to the former, there are all kinds of reasons people play GURPS (there's really only a limited number of games that get into character specifics in that detail for example) and even among the ones that care about detail in combat there's no requirement they have similar concerns elsewhere. Detailed setting expression might be higher among GURPS preferences than in the general hobby, but that's setting the bar pretty low.

It is in the rulebook: roll Sailing when it gets though.
Again, nautical supplements might have a bigger subsystem, but that's one for the ships (and corresponding weapons and tactics) in this setting.

If that's your standard of "support" for something, almost any skill system will do that. For, well, everything.

Answer: nobody fucking knows. At best, you'd know about yourself and the groups you played with, or knew people from. That's...not statistically relevant.

Or, you know, discussion I've seen in APAs, forums, mailing lists and other gaming sources for 40 years now. If that's not significant to you, that's your choice but I feel no need to follow you there.

You keep underestimating gamers' intelligence. Probably more than they deserve, methinks.

Has nothing to do with intelligence. Has everything to do with priorities. There are plenty of people playing modern games that neither know nor care how realistic computer hacking is done. That doesn't say a thing about their intelligence, just their areas of interest.

...so what? The decision to keep rules less detailed is a fully legit one as far as I'm concerned.

So people will do the same thing with issues you see as far more important, because they also consider detail in that particular areas unimportant.

Oh, you mean in the same Harn corebook which leaves out magic/religion as well, relegating it to supplments?
Yeah, I don't think that example is as relevant as you seem to think it is...
And I can give you another example or two: Ars Magica, Maelstrom.

I didn't count Ars Magica because I didn't consider it quite the same thing, but I'll accept it as legitimate from a different perspective. Maelstrom isn't completely obscure, but I suspect if you asked most gamers (even those outside the D&D bubble), I'd better they'd never have even heard of it (I never had until the PDF republish in 2008). There are probably a few others scattered here and there, but I don't see it as changing my point much.

 

[robertsconley]

To Narrate
give a spoken or written account of.

account (relevant definition)

1. a report or description of an event or experience.
   "a detailed account of what has been achieved"

I would agree that referees narrate all the time even when the focus is on first person roleplaying and using miniatures. RPGs are largely conducted through verbal exchanges. Just to throw some meta in there, there are times a referee will narrate a character narrating a story within the setting of the campaign.

 

[Paragon]

It wasn't retiring, the campaign was expected to continue.

It seemed to be expected you'd retire from what we think of as adventuring, though.

Come to think of it while OD&D had a basic yet functional domain system. And it got somewhat detailed when it came to building one's castle/stronghold.

From Book 3.

View attachment 34686
Castles

View attachment 34687

Also Adventurer, Conqueror, Kings makes this part of their core book and extends a bit. One of ACKS appeal that its treasure system, it pricing, etc, are all built on a common set of assumptions about last classical/medieval economies giving everything a bit more consistency then what one would expect from a D&D variant.

Well, do note I acknowledged that was theoretically part of the game from day one. That makes it all the more notable how rarely that material was apparently used (though you can also legitimately write that off to the fact it was assumed to be about high level play, and the way experience was handled in OD&D could easily mean few campaigns lasted long enough for you to reach that level.) But it still didn't seem to be engaged with much even among games where those levels were reached. I can only speculate, but I'd suspect that people who got into the game because they wanted to explore haunted tombs weren't suddenly going to decide what they really wanted to do was domain management just because their Fighting-Man had reached 9th level. That's why I think it worked better for Pendragon and Birthright because anyone getting into those was at least going to expect some of that right out the gate (though its been enough time since I've seen Pendragon I don't remember to what degree the rank-and-file knight had holdings, at least ones that were going to require attention beyond "seneschal, let me know if any problems crop up you can't handle" which would probably be sufficient for the most basic cases.

I almost mentioned ACKs in the post, but I'm not familiar enough with it to talk about it intelligibly.

 

[robertsconley]

Answer: nobody fucking knows. At best, you'd know about yourself and the groups you played with, or knew people from. That's...not statistically relevant.

Actually we are a bit ahead in that department as a result of the release of the Elusive Shift which documents which focuses on what happens to the hobby and industry after the release of Dungeons & Dragon.

I highly recommend this as the events and debates this describes form the foundation of our hobby and how people view tabletop roleplaying.

The Elusive Shift

How the early Dungeons & Dragons community grappled with the nature of role-playing games, theorizing a new game genre.When Dungeons & Dragons made i...

mitpress.mit.edu

The ten cent summary is that D&D first spread through two major channels wargamers (not surprising) and science fiction fandom. As a result two broad approaches developed. One emphasizing the game aspect of RPGs, the other emphasizing the roleplaying aspect. Of course it nuanced with numerous example straddling the line making it extremely blurry. However Jon Peterson using articles, fanzines, APAs, and other accounts traces out what happens after the introduction of D&D.

And it eerie that the debates and point of contention are still ones battled over today.

 

[Paragon]

The ten cent summary is that D&D first spread through two major channels wargamers (not surprising) and science fiction fandom. As a result two broad approaches developed. One emphasizing the game aspect of RPGs, the other emphasizing the roleplaying aspect. Of course it nuanced with numerous example straddling the line making it extremely blurry. However Jon Peterson using articles, fanzines, APAs, and other accounts traces out what happens after the introduction of D&D.

And it eerie that the debates and point of contention are still ones battled over today.

You could see that strongly even among overlap groups depending on which one was dominant. A&E at one point had two dominant contingents (along with, of course, stragglers and outliers from other areas): people who got their start in Bay Area or Los Angeles based SF fandom (which weren't identical but interacted enough there was a lot of common culture) and ones spread out in a penumbra from MIT and surrounding groups. The difference in how the two approached the game was pretty striking (though its also telling that Mark Swanson, one of the more visible MIT luminaries, later wrote an article for Different Worlds mentioning the conflict with people who just wanted to do dungeons and otherwise adventure and his own desires to have things like the whole domain management thing; even among the game-centrics, there were people there for very different things).

 

[robertsconley]

It seemed to be expected you'd retire from what we think of as adventuring, though.

And is not clearing out that 20 mile radius and keeping it clear of monsters not adventuring? Is contending against rival lords not adventure.

Well, do note I acknowledged that was theoretically part of the game from day one. That makes it all the more notable how rarely that material was apparently used (though you can also legitimately write that off to the fact it was assumed to be about high level play, and the way experience was handled in OD&D could easily mean few campaigns lasted long enough for you to reach that level.) But it still didn't seem to be engaged with much even among games where those levels were reached. I can only speculate,

I don't need to speculate because my whole thing as far as refereeing goes was allow players to trash my setting which invariably involved carving out a place for oneself and continuing to adventures to expand one's power or reach. I did it far more than most other I knew but I wasn't alone in doing this even in my rural hometown in NW PA.

What people forget that the late 70s and early 80s were also a wargame boom. So when our character had the means most of time we used our wargame experience in adventures meant to make us more powerful in the sense of the setting not solely character advancement. But it was better because weren't limited to define scenario we can do whatever we thought was best given the resources we had. It never went away but dwindled because of the advent of wargames with rich background like Battletech and Warhammer.

but I'd suspect that people who got into the game because they wanted to explore haunted tombs weren't suddenly going to decide what they really wanted to do was domain management just because their Fighting-Man had reached 9th level.

So OD&D is what is in this regard because of two thing, Dave Arneson's Blackmoor campaign and Gygax's Greyhawk Campaign. Greyhawk was largely focused and centered around exploring the Greyhawk Dungeons and in a later campaign centered around the Village of Hommlet and the Temple of Elemental Evil.

In contrast Dave Arneson's Blackmoor was first and foremost a campaign about players acting a lords, priest, and mages fighting out among themselves. Yes there was the Blackmoor Dungeons which was the first dungeon adventure and was popular. But the bulk of what Dave focused on was the domain aspect of the campaign. And what many don't realize that in Blackmoor the "good guys" and "bad guys" were both groups of PCs. Whether it was mass combat or within the various Blackmoor Dungeons, players when head to head with other players each out to win the day, whatever that meant in terms of their goals.

Domain play isn't an afterthought. Nor it is the main point. It is an important option often used within the context of OD&D and later edition. Just as Traveller is not always about being a merchant in charge of a tramp freighter roaming the star lanes, but also about being mercenaries blowing shit up and kicking some ass (human or alien)., and also about exploration of the unknown.

 

[Paragon]

And is not clearing out that 20 mile radius and keeping it clear of monsters not adventuring? Is contending against rival lords not adventure.

At least the second isn't in the sense its usually used in the hobby. The first is at least arguable, but there was no assurance that'd be an ongoing problem, and at some point there was no requirement that your character actually be involved at all; after all, all those military henchmen and the like were around for something.

Domain play isn't an afterthought. Nor it is the main point. It is an important option often used within the context of OD&D and later edition. Just as Traveller is not always about being a merchant in charge of a tramp freighter roaming the star lanes, but also about being mercenaries blowing shit up and kicking some ass (human or alien)., and also about exploration of the unknown.

I'm afraid I still have to stand by my opinion that early on any domain play pretty much was--perhaps "afterthought" isn't the right term considering its early intent, but something that had largely falled by the wayside as a point of interest to most players and groups. There were obviously going to be places and groups where this was not true, but I have little evidence that this was more than, at best, a significant minority. And even that fell away more and more over time.

 

[robertsconley]

At least the second isn't in the sense its usually used in the hobby.

The hobby has much wider view of what is an adventure than you do.

The first is at least arguable, but there was no assurance that'd be an ongoing problem, and at some point there was no requirement that your character actually be involved at all; after all, all those military henchmen and the like were around for something.

It is a roleplaying game there is no requirement for anything in particular. In my experience, when in this situation players as their character delegate and reserve the most important task for themselves. For example in a recent campaign, the players needed a bunch of logistic stuff done and assigned that to their henchmen, while they, the player characters, took on the task of entering the enemy city to understand its situation and they could do about it. They did this rather than relegate this to a spy because the ruler was in league with a magical guild. So for this they wanted to see the situation and exploit any opportunities for themselves.

I'm afraid I still have to stand by my opinion that early on any domain play pretty much was--perhaps "afterthought" isn't the right term considering its early intent, but something that had largely falled by the wayside as a point of interest to most players and groups. There were obviously going to be places and groups where this was not true, but I have little evidence that this was more than, at best, a significant minority. And even that fell away more and more over time.

Birthright


But snarky remarks for me aside, yes interest waxed and waned but that is true of any particular style of adventures. If you look at the mass of adventures that was produced for organized play or adventure paths, you see that they ranged across the spectrum.

Another one is Kingmaker by Paizo widely considered to be one of their best adventure paths. And as the series progress, the players gain their domain and yet continue to have adventures.



Different products, different eras, both focused on supporting domain play as a central feature. Also note that when Paizo opted to make a computer game they chose to build it on top of the above.

 

[Fenris-77]

I think the fact that Strongholds and Followers topped two million bucks in it's kickstarter is a reasonable bellwether for current interest in domain style play. Birthright saw releases over more than a decade, well into the 2000's, which gives us a solid continuum of interest in domain level play (given it's obvious presence in AD&D and previous). Now, that said, it is certainly not the most popular way the game was played at any time IMO, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a core part of the game or an idea that generated a lot of interest for some significant portion of the hobby. I'm not sure why anyone bother to argue the contra there, but this is the internet I suppose.

 

[xanther]

It's like this - when I got up yesterday I decided that I needed a few staples from the store, so I got dressed and headed to the nearby market. I picked up some food and came home.

I just told a story about what happened yesterday, but when I was doing those things would I describe it as me "creating a story"? No, I think only the most pretensions of people would even think such a thing. Now there are things I could do that would be deliberately for the purpose of creating a story, most of them incredibly artificial, but I'd say most people don't approach life that way. But there are a lot of people that approach RPGs that way. It's just - not all of us do, for some of us, the RPG is moreabout simply "living a life", and the interest comes from that alternate "life", not in "creating a story".

Exactly. This is what I call emergent story.
I am all for "stacking the deck" as perhaps you dressed to impress the cute person behind the counter.

I personally have a negative reaction to "storytelling" as I often see it interpreted by people new to RPGs as literally writing out a story about what is going to happen in the game (like a screen play or short story, just not edited). I suspect as this is the understanding of the term outside the RPG space, as in it's typical being a story teller where you tell and others sit and listen (or read). Not my cup of RPG tea, more a script and player demoted to merely actors who dare not stray off script much and certainly not change scene or scene order.

 

[xanther]

And is not clearing out that 20 mile radius and keeping it clear of monsters not adventuring? Is contending against rival lords not adventure.


I don't need to speculate because my whole thing as far as refereeing goes was allow players to trash my setting which invariably involved carving out a place for oneself and continuing to adventures to expand one's power or reach. I did it far more than most other I knew but I wasn't alone in doing this even in my rural hometown in NW PA.

..

Domain play isn't an afterthought. Nor it is the main point. It is an important option often used within the context of OD&D and later edition. Just as Traveller is not always about being a merchant in charge of a tramp freighter roaming the star lanes, but also about being mercenaries blowing shit up and kicking some ass (human or alien)., and also about exploration of the unknown.

Indeed. I love domain play. So much so land productivity "rules" are key in my setting building and politics (and the associated reputation rules) cannot be ignored, although they can be avoided.

Heck even players who just want to dungeon delve need to worry about politics. You walk into a lord's domain decorated with all these magical items...sure as shootin' how you interact ands are perceived (politics) is the difference between being an enemy of the state and long awaited friend.

Few of my players could be bothered with domains though...but I tricks them, tricksy GM. First just need to secure the base camp, then you know maybe a palisade to protect ones horses and acquired loot...before you know it

As to the popularity of domain building, the whole settlement building in Fallout 4 was a huge hit. I just loved how Fallout 4 integrated what you did solo with supporting a settlement...but I love to scavenge...all of a sudden 6 rusty shopping baskets have whole new meaning, and bowling ball priceless

 

[hawkeyefan]

Exactly. This is what I call emergent story.
I am all for "stacking the deck" as perhaps you dressed to impress the cute person behind the counter.

I personally have a negative reaction to "storytelling" as I often see it interpreted by people new to RPGs as literally writing out a story about what is going to happen in the game (like a screen play or short story, just not edited). I suspect as this is the understanding of the term outside the RPG space, as in it's typical being a story teller where you tell and others sit and listen (or read). Not my cup of RPG tea, more a script and player demoted to merely actors who dare not stray off script much and certainly not change scene or scene order.

I get that take on the term from folks new to RPGs. And I get the need to correct that idea in those instances; if you’re explaining RPGs to a newcomer, you probably want to make it clear that (ideally) the results of play are not set ahead of time by the GM but are the result of a combination of player choice, dice rolls, and GM input. That this is one of the key elements that make it different from other experiences.

But for those of us in the know, I don’t think that dead horse needs to be beaten so fervently. My idea of storytelling is akin to the way it’s sometimes used in other media. Like a comic book artist who knows how to break down a page in an interesting way, or can convey a lot of information with art alone is said to have strong storytelling skills. A film or TV director who frames shots in ways that are interesting or that complement the material is said to be a strong visual storyteller.

To me it’s more about the methods that a GM employs to enhance the experience for the audience(which is usually the players and the GM himself, although with the advent of streaming games that has expanded).

To me, a GM’s ability to instill mood or feeling through description is a storytelling skill. A GM’s (or player’s) ability to inhabit a character to make what is happening seem specific to the character is a storytelling skill. These are akin to what the comic artist or the director are doing.

That’s the way I’ve been approaching the topic.

 

[robertsconley]

I gotten mileage out of describing an RPG as a pen & paper virtual reality although that would have not worked as well back in the day.

My view that RPGs create experiences, the use of the human referee is key in order bring the setting that is to be experienced to life. That the system used (often involving dice) is important in several respect.

• It convey how the setting works at the level of an individual character.
• It provide a certain level of consistency
• It provide a feeling of fairness.
• It save time in resolving common situations that arise in the setting.
• It offers something to master as a player.

But the use of a game is not required to run a tabletop roleplaying campaign, although the consequence of doing that means the referee will have be a good coach, teacher, and communicator in order to achieve the effects described above.

But playing the system is not the point. The point is for the referee to describe a setting, you describe a character you want to play in the setting, the referee then describe the initial circumstances the character(s) find themselves. Then the players describe what they do, the referee describe the results, rinse and repeat throughout the life of the campaign even if it is just one session.

The rest are there to make it fun and interesting for a specific group of people with a specific set of interests.

What remarkable is that Dave Arneson, and Gary Gygax together figured out how to make a pen & paper holodeck years before the idea appear in fiction. And it was doable and fun in the time one had for a hobby.