The other day I heard a GM say he had no control over something that happened in game, that it was because story and not because of his actions. That's a little crazy in my opinion, but I was thinking about the dynamics of creating a story. In the past year I've seen a few styles. PFS gave me absolutely no control outside of my own character, and on the other extreme I like group storytelling where anyone can add details to the story, and as another extreme my last group gave me no control over the meta story and the DM is definitely all about following whatever he laid out.
So how do you handle storytelling? How much control do you feel you have? How much do you feel you should?
|
For me it depends on the campaign.
- If we're playing a Sandbox then the DM has pretty much no control, it's a Sandbox!
- If we're playing a published adventure or playing with a new DM, the DM has almost all the control and the PCs follow along.
- If we're playing a complete homebrew or a mix/mash of published adventures, homebrew and adventure-redo, then it's more 50/50% on "game control."
And I prefere a game that's much more 70/30% -- where the DM has closer to 70% control.
Different games have mechanics that facilitate these styles of play. I prefer my Pathfinder games to limit player agency to their PC... probably because everything is so codified and they give *so many knobs* to twist with a single PC.
I definitely enjoy the style of play that allows players to add plot twists and characters to the mix.
There's room for both in the hobby, and I think it's good for any player to diversify a bit. There's this tendency for people (forum people, I guess) to shoehorn styles of play into Pathfinder that don't really fit. It works, but it could be better. I think those people would be happier and more fulfilled if they would branch out a bit — they'd probably be more satisfier with Pathfinder for what it is if they were getting the itch scratched by another game.
I believe in the 'you don't use it you lose it' school of gming..
If you don't practice keeping the game fun while still letting your players do whatever they feel like doing at the spur of the moment... If you don't practice ways to subtly get them back on the rails while still giving them the freedom to get off the rails any time they feel like it...
Well then you'll just progressively get worse at it and never get better.
-
But i'm a sandboxer... My improv skills are strong.
If the logic of the shared imaganed space is "gravity = 1g", and a player steps out into thin air, and I follow the internal logic of the shared imagined space, then it is not my decision to have there be consequences for the character.
If an NPC or the settings, has been defined to have certain characteristics, and the players act in a way that interact with those characteristics to cause conflict it is not my decision, merely a logical out growth of the story.
I let the player's influence the world around them to the extent that I have not established it already. If one of them asks me something like "Are there any panicky-looking old lady's in the inn?" I decide really roughly what the likelyhood is as just say "Pick a number out of X that you like/don't like" or go high/low, and see what happens.
One of my players is a fan of oddball situational strategies. He asks me things like "Do any of the crates contain vegetables?" frequently.
As for how much control I have... well, if I feel like something would naturally follow something else, I go with that. I agree sort of with the GM's sentiment but not his wording: of course he has control over what happens, but if the players decide to rob a bank without any planning and someone gets imprisoned or killed, they can't claim it's the GM's fault.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The other day I heard a GM say he had no control over something that happened in game, that it was because story and not because of his actions. That's a little crazy in my opinion, but I was thinking about the dynamics of creating a story. In the past year I've seen a few styles. PFS gave me absolutely no control outside of my own character, and on the other extreme I like group storytelling where anyone can add details to the story, and as another extreme my last group gave me no control over the meta story and the DM is definitely all about following whatever he laid out.
So how do you handle storytelling? How much control do you feel you have? How much do you feel you should?
I believe the DM has absolute control(even if just by enacting Final Say) of the story and game in general. I also believe a lot of DM's easily forget this, and get rolled over by events they could have easily handled. Not really trying to start a "to Fudge or not to Fudge" debate, but sometimes, a game can be damned or saved by a DM call.
Our current PF DM, he's a really good DM. We really enjoy the games he runs, but he has a tendency to let oddball or game-breaking things happen in his game just because some odd roll on a table, or some side-bar in a module says so. This would be fine, but he gets visibly frustrated with aspects of the game he has absolute control over. The players only know what the DM tells them, so by holding back a little bit, we'd truly be none the wiser. The way it happens in our games, I wish he'd hold back and not spill the beans so much about things he dislikes, yet lets happen anyway.
For example; if he's rolling for loot, and some item gets rolled up that is way, way "too good" for our group ECL or whatnot, he'll visibly get frustrated and hand it out. If a npc does something that doesn't make sense, he has the npc do the thing, then looks as if he's questioning himself(the adventure) in the process, which just further confuses the rest of us. I guess he just has no internal dialogue.
Now, fudging/not fudging are both valid styles of play. I'm not saying all groups need to play one way, at all. But, what I am saying, is that the DM shouldn't visibly get disgruntled at the results of a randomly rolled table. He has the power to say(at least in his head) "no way, this would be bad for the game, etc etc." Our DM doesn't do this.
Personally, I tend to more open sandbox style worlds, and outsource most of the details out to the players allowing them to fill in based on the races and classes they end up playing. I'll sometimes step in to help if something needs to be smoothed over, but usually I tend to be hands off. So...I suppose I would be hands-off/having little control over the overall story.
So how do you handle storytelling? How much control do you feel you have? How much do you feel you should?
Personally, I prefer the "Players stick to their own character" model.
There's more than enough story in the group of characters without needing to let them (the player, not the character) directly affect the entire world. I'm far more interested in seeing them do that through their character's actions.
So it's not a case of putting them on rails, they can steer the direction the story is going in - I don't tell them which side to back in a disagreement between two empires, for example - or even that they have to back either. Their actions could end up shaping the world, and I feel that's where the story is strongest, rather than letting the players bring other nations into the story and giving them control over them (unless, of course, their character actually rules that nation.)
There are a few exceptions, such as if they're bringing a race into play that isn't already detailed in the setting then I may involve them in the setup of that race in the world design - but typically only during the setup of the game with possible revisits between game sessions to flesh out other details. The same could be true on a smaller level of a character's home town, for example.
As far as I'm concerned, my PCs only control their characters, and when I PC, I actively don't want to control anything beyond my character.
When I GM, though, I play the same way. I, personally, have no greater agenda or plans--each NPC only controls themselves, and events play out in the fashion that logic dictates. I create everything initially, but then things are put into motion and I take a step back and watch.
There are probably times when I would say I have little to no control, because things that are happening are not a result of my choosing, they are simply the logical conclusion of events put into motion by the PC's actions.
To me, this is the ideal way to run and play RPGs, though I wouldn't suggest people who have fun another way is wrong, just that I probably wouldn't enjoy playing with them and vice versa.
As far as I'm concerned, my PCs only control their characters, and when I PC, I actively don't want to control anything beyond my character.
When I GM, though, I play the same way. I, personally, have no greater agenda or plans--each NPC only controls themselves, and events play out in the fashion that logic dictates. I create everything initially, but then things are put into motion and I take a step back and watch.
There are probably times when I would say I have little to no control, because things that are happening are not a result of my choosing, they are simply the logical conclusion of events put into motion by the PC's actions.
To me, this is the ideal way to run and play RPGs, though I wouldn't suggest people who have fun another way is wrong, just that I probably wouldn't enjoy playing with them and vice versa.
While I agree in general ... Here is where I may say I differ; Rarely is there only one way a given NPC could react to a situation. There are multiple ways. I feel it is incumbent upon me to choose whichever of those plausible reactions I think will result in the most fun. This works for pcs as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I agree in general ... Here is where I may say I differ; Rarely is there only one way a given NPC could react to a situation. There are multiple ways. I feel it is incumbent upon me to choose whichever of those plausible reactions I think will result in the most fun. This works for pcs as well.
I don't think in meta-terms like that when I roleplay. My NPC would choose with fidelity--whichever choice makes the most sense in the context of his knowledge/abilities. In the end, for us, that is the most fun because it is the most immersive.
In my opinion, the "story" is not a thing that is currently happening when I roleplay. The story is what happens later, when we talk about the events of the game and recall what happened. Not everything that happens during a session becomes part of the story, because it's not all that interesting or noteworthy, but without those uninteresting things happening, the cool bits lose context and meaning and become less cool.
It's just like in real life when something funny happens at work. Later on, that event becomes a story. The paperwork you did before it does not become part of that story, even though without it, the story might never have happened.
While I agree in general ... Here is where I may say I differ; Rarely is there only one way a given NPC could react to a situation. There are multiple ways. I feel it is incumbent upon me to choose whichever of those plausible reactions I think will result in the most fun. This works for pcs as well.I don't think in meta-terms like that when I roleplay. My NPC would choose with fidelity--whichever choice makes the most sense in the context of his knowledge/abilities. In the end, for us, that is the most fun because it is the most immersive.
In my opinion, the "story" is not a thing that is currently happening when I roleplay. The story is what happens later, when we talk about the events of the game and recall what happened. Not everything that happens during a session becomes part of the story, because it's not all that interesting or noteworthy, but without those uninteresting things happening, the cool bits lose context and meaning and become less cool.
It's just like in real life when something funny happens at work. Later on, that event becomes a story. The paperwork you did before it does not become part of that story, even though without it, the story might never have happened.
Or, put it a different way. If a certain reaction from an NPC would completely ruin a storyline everyone is having fun with and another plausible reaction exists, I'm going with the one that doesn't deep six what everyone is enjoying.
Or, put it a different way. If a certain reaction from an NPC would completely ruin a storyline everyone is having fun with and another plausible reaction exists, I'm going with the one that doesn't deep six what everyone is enjoying.
Can you give an example?
Or, put it a different way. If a certain reaction from an NPC would completely ruin a storyline everyone is having fun with and another plausible reaction exists, I'm going with the one that doesn't deep six what everyone is enjoying.Can you give an example?
A natural reaction might be to send out an assassin to take care of the nuisance that is getting in her way. Her assassins would likely be more than they could handle. I could send out the assassin ... Or instead prick her competitive nature instead and have her decide that it would be a worthy challenge to have opposition. That it would "keep her on her toes". Etcetera. Just to coin a random example.