PDA

View Full Version : Dynamic Collaborative Story-Telling (And Why I Love it)



Cluedrew
2019-02-06, 09:33 PM
So this thread is about the play style that has created my favourite campaigns of all time. And that is what I have dubbed dynamic collaborative story-telling. Let me break it down:

Dynamic: The future is uncertain. There is no module or planned series of events. Events just naturally lead from one to the next, things don't get bent back to a convenient line (nearly as much). Similarly content is created to fill in the world ahead of the story. Some times far ahead of the story, sometimes just as we need it.

Collaborative: Everyone is shaping that future. Which is also the reason it is really dynamic. Everyone has there own ideas about where it is probably going and where they would like it to go. And the pull of these different ideas means you get unpredictability. Of course this is collaborative and not competitive, so people also have to know when to abandon their idea and support someone else's.

Story-Telling: Getting at the fiction-first really. Yes they are rules, but you don't use them (directly) in decision making nearly as much as what is going on. I say directly because the rules feed back into what is going on, so it does though that indirection. But you don't optimize, not for raw power at least.

So why do I like it? Because it plays to some of the most unique strengths of role-playing games, being able to improvise and go outside of any drawn lines. Because it blurs spreads out some of the GM role out, everyone has a significant role in shaping the story, the GM has less responsibility and less up front work to do. That part is actually a big deal for me, because even if I swap out a main character for a setting and a bunch of side characters, I still want to play more than work.

I also like it because it works well with rules-light systems and I am making my own system. So it is something I can reasonable aim for, instead of some non-sense like GURPS. But that is mostly its own matter.

So yeah, that is what I call dynamic collaborative story-telling and why I like it. And I wonder how many of the reasons I expect people will disagree will come up.

Kaptin Keen
2019-02-07, 03:05 AM
I like to believe this is how I play (as a GM), but I also have to say: It's bloody difficult.

Because ... as far as I can reliably tell, players expect to get a trail of bread crumbs to follow through the game, from encounter to encounter, to the grand finale and the Big Boss battle. And I don't do that. It's entirely up to the players what they want to do. Should they chose to pursue the story I have in mind, that's great. If they decide to pursue something else, that's also great, and we'll get another story.

But the lack of a nice, visible trail of crumbs often mean that players have no idea what they're supposed to do, and so games just ... fade out.

Pelle
2019-02-07, 04:59 AM
Collaborative: Everyone is shaping that future. Which is also the reason it is really dynamic. Everyone has there own ideas about where it is probably going and where they would like it to go. And the pull of these different ideas means you get unpredictability. Of course this is collaborative and not competitive, so people also have to know when to abandon their idea and support someone else's.


Do you mean every player can establish things in the setting, like people and places? Or are you talking more about goals? The former makes it into storygame territory and latter sounds like a normal (sandboxy) game to me.

I enjoy both these styles of playing, but find that few players are really up for it, prefering more a reactive role and being provided clear goals from a GM.

Cluedrew
2019-02-07, 09:06 AM
I like to believe this is how I play (as a GM), but I also have to say: It's bloody difficult. [...] But the lack of a nice, visible trail of crumbs often mean that players have no idea what they're supposed to do, and so games just ... fade out.It can be difficult, but there I think the real issue is that the players- are falling down. In spreading out the narrative power of the GM also means spreading out the responsibility to keep the narrative going.

Oddly, out of a very small sample size, people who have only played standard D&D before seem have more trouble with it than people who have never played a role-playing game before. It seems to be a matter of expectation than anything else. Once people understand their responsibility, things work out pretty well. Or have in my experience.


Do you mean every player can establish things in the setting, like people and places? Or are you talking more about goals? The former makes it into storygame territory and latter sounds like a normal (sandboxy) game to me.More the latter, but the former definitely creeps in. Style wise because the world is shaped around the characters instead of the other way around. Practically because... once you soften up the character/setting line the players- inserting stuff into the setting doesn't seem so weird at all.

That and the very improvisational nature are what makes it different from sandboxes in my mind.

kyoryu
2019-02-07, 10:07 AM
I think examples of how things would work would go a long way towards making sure everybody knows what you're talking about. I can think of a few play styles that would qualify, and they are not the same.

Max_Killjoy
2019-02-07, 10:41 AM
I think examples of how things would work would go a long way towards making sure everybody knows what you're talking about. I can think of a few play styles that would qualify, and they are not the same.


Same here -- some of the labels you've (Cluedrew) chosen are kinda hot-button terms in these discussions, but the descriptions leave open questions as to what is really going on and whether it all really fits under those terms as they've often been used.

Example (and you all knew I was going here...), Cluedrew, you call it "story telling" but then also call it "fiction first" and describe what might simply be putting the "reality-that-could-be" of the setting ahead of the rules when they conflict, and prioritizing decisions based on the "facts at hand" and that "reality" ahead of letting dice make character decisions.

Quertus
2019-02-07, 11:06 AM
So, I think, as player or GM, I prefer sandboxy games. Now, I may be being slow here, but the only big difference between that and what you've described that I see is perhaps in the degree to which the players have authorial power to just create things in the setting. I draw strange lines on that one, that are difficult to define, and vary with my mood, but I'll try to estimate it like this:

Exploration is my favorite "aesthetic"; thus, the world should have hidden information. Therefore, players have insufficient information to guarantee that anything that they want to insert actually matches the established facts of the world. And, yes, those facts are established, even if the players don't know them yet. Schrödinger's cat escaped the box, and is out hunting mice, even if the players/PCs haven't opened the box to realize that yet.

The thing that concerns me most from your description is your comments about players having to give up on their own things. There may not be any Pokemon to catch in the Tomb of Horrors, but a Pokemon trainer can put his mission on hold (or, you know, train the Pokemon he's got) while helping his friend through the ToH, whereas Quertus could view it as simple one more thing to write about.

But I'm concerned that you mean more than this normal level of "cooperating to play a multiplayer game" that I'm talking about. Care to elaborate on anything that doesn't fall under "plays well with others"?

So, in short, is there any other way(s) that your preferred style differs from mine? Because I find it difficult to imagine that you would choose to use such a complicated way to say "sandboxy" if that's what you meant, but that's about what I see.

kyoryu
2019-02-07, 11:52 AM
Same here -- some of the labels you've chosen are kinda hot-button terms in these discussions, but the descriptions leave open questions as to what is really going on and whether it all really fits under those terms as they've often been used.

Example (and you all knew I was going here...), Cluedrew, you call it "story telling" but then also call it "fiction first" and describe what might simply be putting the "reality-that-could-be" of the setting ahead of the rules when they conflict, and prioritizing decisions based on the "facts at hand" and that "reality" ahead letting dice make character decisions.

Yup! Like, I've seen the following definitions of fiction-first:

-----------
Player: "I use the Notice skill to find information."
GM: "Um, okay, but what are you actually doing? Tell me what you're doing and I'll tell you what roll applies."
Player: "Um, okay, I'm checking out the books on the bookshelf to see if I can get an idea of what kind of person he is."

-----------
Player: "I could do this effective thing that would totally advance my goals and keep me alive, but this other thing that would be pretty dumb would, I think make a more effective story."

-----------
Player: "I use this ability."
GM: "Normally you could, however in this case it doesn't work because that would ruin the plot, and the plot supersedes the rules."

(Note that the last two examples are usually not that blatant).

So, saying "fiction first" can be problematic because people don't know what you're talking about and it could be any of those (and probably more!)

Yora
2019-02-08, 04:03 AM
The difficulty with players having free choice of everything is always that they know far less about the setting than the GM does, and as such they don't know what options there really are to chose from. Because it almost never is everything, but rather "everything that is possible and thematically appropriate in this setting".

My approach is to present the players with a very simple yet distant goal to get the game going. The freedom to do what they want is in chosing the routea a d methods to get closer to that goal. Thesw choices will also create secondary goals, which are then actually freely chosen by the players.

What the players really need to play the game is a purpose. Though it also requires the GM to be flexible and lenient with what would seem realistic. When the players reach a point where they are left with little idea how the campaign could progress from there, the things they come up with to get the game going again should work. Even if they are somewhat implausible or unlikely for how the GM sees the situation. But you don't want to tell the players "this doesn't work, come up with something else so that the campaign can continue". Whatever the players decide to do, it should feel like they are going forward. Even if the direction is completely unknown. That's also an element of fiction first.

Pelle
2019-02-08, 04:52 AM
That and the very improvisational nature are what makes it different from sandboxes in my mind.

I'm not sure, I think many sandbox games use a lot of improvisation, not creating things before it's necessary. But I guess one difference is that if the players decide to go check out the ruins they heard a (improvised) rumour about, the GM is expected to prep it before they get there instead of improvising it at the spot.

It's a little hard to see what you gain at all by pure improvisation, since you can improvise and change things up even if you had prepped something. And you completely lose the exploration/discovery aspect. You save prep time obviously.

One thing I can suspect is a social dynamic where when the players explicitly know that the GM has prepped nothing, they know nothing will ever happen unless they take action and contribute themselves. If you know someone else has prepped something and has the responsibility, you can sit back and afford to be lazy. Players can of course contribute even if the game is heavily prepped, but if it's purely improvised they kind of have to. So if you want to have the players more involved, this playstyle may improve that.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-02-08, 07:35 AM
@Cluedrew I think my style is very similar to yours (at least in broad strokes).

I find that the players need a goal to get them going in the first place, but the actual, in-play goal doesn't have to be that initial goal. They just need a seed and then they'll figure out what to do once the world starts reacting to them.

I build my campaigns around "quest seeds"--requests from NPCs with a short IC description and a bit of OOC information. I might give them 5-6 at the beginning and they choose (both IC and OOC) which seed to pursue for the campaign. If it wraps up before people are done, we find another seed. By then the characters are well-established enough to have their own goals and connections.

An example seed (that I'm currently running for a second year) is

Ruined City of Godsfall
IC: The Society for the Preservation and Investigation of the Past has requested a team of adventurers to help explore the ruins of Godsfall and recover artifacts and lost knowledge. Location: The Orc-lands north of the Council.
OOC: This is mainly an "Indiana Jones" style artifact hunt/exploration. An above-ground dungeon crawl. Expect undead and demons.

Of course that initial seed has significantly morphed. At first it was "loot the place for shinies", then it became "gather allies and form an organization to defeat the demon cult and free the bound undead from their oath of eternal vigilance. Now it's morphed into "navigate a bunch of factions and figure out the mystery of that THING in the center of the city, probably defeating a wanna-be Demon Prince on the way." None of those were planned changes--they happened because the party took the events and ran with them in a different direction than I had planned.

About improvisation vs planning: I find the key difference is when do you plan. I go into a campaign knowing very little more than the seed I posted above. I plant the seeds in areas of the setting I want to know more of, areas that are mostly blanks. The players, through their actions and what they're interested in mold the actual content. I consider it "retro-causal world-building". Figuring out what must have been there if it's now like this. Most of the time I'm planning for the next session (or 2 at the most) based on what they did the previous session, knowing only broad strokes of what else is out there.

For example, that party in Godsfall has infiltrated a section of the city controlled by a brutal demon-mage. Earlier, their actions had cut him off from one power source, so he was recoiling. They linked up with a malcontent group, but were scryed on by the mage (because they had made their identities known earlier). This let him vector the chief of secret police in the area to their location. Instead of fleeing with the rebels (like I thought they would) or fighting him inside, they fought him and his forces out in the open and won. This will spark open rebellion. How this complicates their goal of finding a way across a barrier of broken time (to get at the mage himself and the THING at the center), we have yet to find out.

But everything changes what's coming. I don't have an "end goal" for the campaign. It's really "let's see what happens." Because that, for me, is the best part. Seeing how the setting and characters interact to reveal things that even I, the creator of the setting, didn't think of.

For me, the "collaborative" part comes in when I'm trying to find reasons why their plan will work, not try to shut them down in favor of some other plan. I'm working with the party as a DM, not against them. I'm providing the voice of the setting, filling in what the character would know (even if that's false due to misinformation) or consider likely. Together, we discover the "story" of why these characters were special. We're following these characters, not any other characters because they're special. Why? We won't know until they show us why. And this happens through their actions, not by simply declaring it to be so.

@Fiction-first: I use it in the "tell me what you're doing, not what mechanic you're invoking" mode. We'll figure out what mechanics (even if they're decidedly "off books") to use to operationalize those actions later, but focus on what your character is actually doing in the game world. I have played entire games where no one but me knew what the mechanical rules were--they simply said what they were going to do and I told them what to roll and what to add. They had a blast. It was exhausting, but fun.

Cluedrew
2019-02-08, 09:04 AM
To kyoryu: This is partly just to say I will get to those examples when I have more time (already have a lot to say) and I would like to ask if you have any kinds of examples in mind.

To Max_Killjoy: Yeah, I was expecting you to bring that up. I hoped the description would be enough (because I used the "best fitting" term I had, none of which was quite right) but if it wasn't... going to kyoryu's second post, it is mostly the first with a bit of a second. Although more often the "for the story" actually means "because it is what this flawed person would do in this situation", even though it is not the most effective option.

To Quertus: This is character-story focused (Do you remember that model?) but otherwise... yeah it isn't close to what you have described as your ideal game.

To Yora: Hu... the settings in these games tend to be very simple, with interesting twists explained to, or even introduced by, the players- early in the campaign. So the GM actually tends not to no much more about the setting than the players. This might need to be explored more.

To Pelle: I'm actually seeing how much preplanned content I can cram into this while maintaining the same effect. The GM I learned this style from is way better at improvisation I am.

To PhoenixPhyre: Yeah I brought this up before, in my role-playing philosophy thread, and the similarity in styles we like was brought up there.

And running out of time.

Pelle
2019-02-08, 09:45 AM
To Pelle: I'm actually seeing how much preplanned content I can cram into this while maintaining the same effect. The GM I learned this style from is way better at improvisation I am.


I have been running a sandboxy campaign recently, but felt kind of burned out since I feel the players have become too passive, not doing enough themselves to contribute making the action progress. It might be worth it to deliberately not prep anything and tell the players that, seeing if they pick up the slack or not.

Max_Killjoy
2019-02-08, 10:20 AM
To Max_Killjoy: Yeah, I was expecting you to bring that up. I hoped the description would be enough (because I used the "best fitting" term I had, none of which was quite right) but if it wasn't... going to kyoryu's second post, it is mostly the first with a bit of a second. Although more often the "for the story" actually means "because it is what this flawed person would do in this situation", even though it is not the most effective option.


At the risk of terminology-quibbling, I'd definitely call that fiction-first and character-driven, not "story-driven".

There's a HUGE difference in "less efficient decisions" between "character does this thing because of their flaws and limits and who they are as a person, as established over time and/or in backstory"... versus "character does this thing because it advances the desired plot or 'best story', even if it's contrary to established character".

Darth Ultron
2019-02-08, 09:42 PM
Dynamic: The future is uncertain. There is no module or planned series of events. Events just naturally lead from one to the next, things don't get bent back to a convenient line (nearly as much). Similarly content is created to fill in the world ahead of the story. Some times far ahead of the story, sometimes just as we need it.

Well, I do like the vague future is uncertain....but then you mention module or planned series of events. And That sound like you are going down the idea of pure randomness. I'd hope your not talking about a game that just changes everything on the players whims.

Though it does seem like you are talking about a game where things and events automatically change on the players whims. And I don't agree or like that at all. If an event is happening in the game, a player is free to have their character attempt to change it. And for most events of any meaning it will take time and effort and be hard..and there is no guarantee the character will succeed or the out come will be exactly what they want.



Collaborative: Everyone is shaping that future. Which is also the reason it is really dynamic. Everyone has there own ideas about where it is probably going and where they would like it to go. And the pull of these different ideas means you get unpredictability. Of course this is collaborative and not competitive, so people also have to know when to abandon their idea and support someone else's.

I guess ''collaborative" is a fine goal to strive for...but I find most players just want to ''tag along as side kicks''.



Story-Telling: Getting at the fiction-first really. Yes they are rules, but you don't use them (directly) in decision making nearly as much as what is going on. I say directly because the rules feed back into what is going on, so it does though that indirection. But you don't optimize, not for raw power at least.

I'd guess your talking about Collaborative Storytelling, right?

DM: There are woods with orcs.
Player: Goes on and on and builds off what the DM said
DM: Wow, great stuff: Goes on and on and builds off what the player said.
Player: Goes on and on and builds off what the DM said
DM: Wow, great stuff: Goes on and on and builds off what the player said.

As opposed to the DM making an Adventure Module and having the players 'run' though it. But I wonder what makes your style so different from running and Adventure Module?

Cluedrew
2019-02-09, 11:21 AM
I have been running a sandboxy campaign recently, but felt kind of burned out since I feel the players have become too passive, not doing enough themselves to contribute making the action progress. It might be worth it to deliberately not prep anything and tell the players that, seeing if they pick up the slack or not.That is part of the point. If the players- will not drive the story, or simply don't want to, than it is play-style mismatch. So not having prepped stuff helps convey the expectation. Actually saying it out loud does to, but this kind of forces them to get it early. The other issue is that the more stuff you bring the more temptation there is to use it (as opposed to just throw it out) when it isn't appropriate.


At the risk of terminology-quibbling, I'd definitely call that fiction-first and character-driven, not "story-driven".

There's a HUGE difference in "less efficient decisions" between "character does this thing because of their flaws and limits and who they are as a person, as established over time and/or in backstory"... versus "character does this thing because it advances the desired plot or 'best story', even if it's contrary to established character".I feel that is terminology-quibbling, but this is also Giant in the Playground. On the other hand I don't have a convenient title that applies to only one.

And although it is mostly character-over-effectiveness, other cases it can even be "story"-over-character. Usually not by much. The most extreme example is I had my unflappable character be stunned to silence by another character's introduction. While this was different than what I had planned, it didn't contradict anything that had actually happened yet so whether it made a more consistent (or more interesting character) is debatable. The reason I did it was for a story/meta concern. My character had gotten a lot more time than theirs at this point, so I gave them another chance to shine. And that is the collaborative part.


And That sound like you are going down the idea of pure randomness.Its unpredictable, not random. We make decisions and continue forward based on the current situation. You can even predict a few steps ahead. But the more steps ahead the chance of something you didn't think of comes in and messes things up. For instance I (my character) one time was attacked by another PC, there was a moment of shock and in some ways it was one of the biggest twists that had come up in any campaign I've played. Seems random? It did, then I remembered that this had been publically announced in session 0 and I just forgot about it.

Some Examples, I'm actually having trouble thinking about good examples, but I think I have two. The first is about the setting. The GM only makes setting guidelines and we fill in a lot of details. One time another player knew some stuff about a town made on ice in the Arctic, so we had a game in alt-world northern Canada. Baffin Island as I recall. He knew more background information than the GM and we created most of the broad strokes of the alterations together.

In the same campaign we were resting in a town and the question came up of "what do we do next?" We had no active quest or anything. But someone did have an ongoing quest to find "mystic secrets" (they were crazy so it wasn't much more well defined than that). There are some Vikings ruins in the north (north east and probably not that north, but we skipped that) so the character who was a local claimed to know where some are and we went there as the next thing. The GM approved the idea and made the trip... well technically everyone survived. Technically.

jayem
2019-02-09, 12:26 PM
It seems to me that there are games that are called Rp-X-G's* that don't have much of the Roleplay or the X* and are almost all Game
This is an example of the other side it's all Story* and depending on the way it plays out suppresses either the roleplay or the game.

And as such, it's no surprise that if players try to play it like the thing it's not, it gets confusing. But, if it's what you want to play, it sounds quite fun (even if that does come across as circular logic).

*the X is to represent the 'story', side. It's X to appreciate that that stretches story too far (perhaps Interactive Fiction?).
But in Cluedrews game, Story probably actually still works as a word, or else we have problems with "1001 Nights" (if it were real), it's game that's getting stretched.

Knaight
2019-02-09, 12:35 PM
I feel that is terminology-quibbling, but this is also Giant in the Playground. On the other hand I don't have a convenient title that applies to only one.

Apart from the small group who despises the very concept of stories, storytelling, and narrative everyone here is going to read "collaborative story telling" the way you're conveying it. I wouldn't worry about it.

Max_Killjoy
2019-02-09, 12:59 PM
Apart from the small group who despises the very concept of stories, storytelling, and narrative everyone here is going to read "collaborative story telling" the way you're conveying it. I wouldn't worry about it.


At least one person who has posted in this thread has expressed the same distinctions in the past and here, but IIRC is fond of narrative-heavy gaming.

But you go right on with your attempt to belittle and dismiss.

Darth Ultron
2019-02-09, 01:20 PM
That is part of the point. If the players- will not drive the story, or simply don't want to, than it is play-style mismatch. So not having prepped stuff helps convey the expectation. Actually saying it out loud does to, but this kind of forces them to get it early. The other issue is that the more stuff you bring the more temptation there is to use it (as opposed to just throw it out) when it isn't appropriate.

So you encounter a lot of players that force themselves to do prepared things? Like they say ''the DM made a dragon cave in the west mountains...guess we have to go do that encounter."

I'm not sure what you mean by ''temptation"? Anything a DM makes will get used: the whole point of making a thing is so it's used.



Its unpredictable, not random.

Though most things are predicable, right?




Some Examples, I'm actually having trouble thinking about good examples, but I think I have two. The first is about the setting. The GM only makes setting guidelines and we fill in a lot of details. One time another player knew some stuff about a town made on ice in the Arctic, so we had a game in alt-world northern Canada. Baffin Island as I recall. He knew more background information than the GM and we created most of the broad strokes of the alterations together.

Well, does not this example add more to your type of game? Maybe like ''collective"? If each player in a game can just make up stuff on a whim and force the DM to use it in the game, that would seem to be a huge style element.

Or are you talking about more ''collaboration" here, where the DM lets the players make suggestions and other things that the DM can ultimately approve?




In the same campaign we were resting in a town and the question came up of "what do we do next?" We had no active quest or anything. But someone did have an ongoing quest to find "mystic secrets" (they were crazy so it wasn't much more well defined than that). There are some Vikings ruins in the north (north east and probably not that north, but we skipped that) so the character who was a local claimed to know where some are and we went there as the next thing. The GM approved the idea and made the trip... well technically everyone survived. Technically.

Well, this sounds like a normal enough pre-adventure? So are you ten just talking about having ''dynamic downtime", if we count ''downtime" as any time the characters are not on a adventure quest?

A-Your way: The characters head north and the DM makes up ''unpredictable" stuff right in front of the characters.

B-Module way: The DM pulls out the module Viking Ruins and runs the characters through that.

So for both games the DM makes the Rune Stone of Mystic Secrets and puts it in the lair of the Zombie Wolf Lord Kjarji.

Game B has a ton of local setting information, NPCs, encounters and detail all pre made in the module. Game A has....well, nothing, right?

So for game A, where is the 'dynamic' part?

jayem
2019-02-09, 02:01 PM
So you encounter a lot of players that force themselves to do prepared things? Like they say ''the DM made a dragon cave in the west mountains...guess we have to go do that encounter."

So for game A, where is the 'dynamic' part?

Game B, you have one persons work where either a lot of effort is 'wasted' preparing unused things or the DM has to find players that do the prepared things.
Game A, the content is created nearer it's use time (hence the dynamic) and has 11 peoples creativity and knowledge

On the negative side, this runs the risks of solutions being a bit Deus Ex Machina losing imersion. Also it loses a lot of the exciting 'game'.
On the plus side it loses a lot of the tedious 'game' and lack of imersion from the mechanics getting in the way. I'm guessing things bounce along at a fair pace.

Max_Killjoy
2019-02-10, 11:27 AM
I feel that is terminology-quibbling, but this is also Giant in the Playground. On the other hand I don't have a convenient title that applies to only one.

And although it is mostly character-over-effectiveness, other cases it can even be "story"-over-character. Usually not by much. The most extreme example is I had my unflappable character be stunned to silence by another character's introduction. While this was different than what I had planned, it didn't contradict anything that had actually happened yet so whether it made a more consistent (or more interesting character) is debatable. The reason I did it was for a story/meta concern. My character had gotten a lot more time than theirs at this point, so I gave them another chance to shine. And that is the collaborative part.


The basic courtesy of "don't hog the table" would be separate from a story concern.

First problem I've come across over and over with the notion of "but that doesn't make a good story" is that it's so very often a complaint against a player by someone else at the table regarding how they're playing their character. It's not collaborative at all, it's someone thinking that the story they want to tell is better or more important or whatever. And when it's the GM saying it, expect railroading to follow, because they want to tell a story, not run a campaign.

Second problem, "but the story" is very often followed by the kinds of things that inspired these pages:

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheoryOfNarrativeCausality
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThePlotDemandedThisIndex




Its unpredictable, not random. We make decisions and continue forward based on the current situation.


DU has made it quite clear over the years that he considers "random" and "unpredictable" as two words for the same exact thing.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-02-10, 12:10 PM
The basic courtesy of "don't hog the table" would be separate from a story concern.

First problem I've come across over and over with the notion of "but that doesn't make a good story" is that it's so very often a complaint against a player by someone else at the table regarding how they're playing their character. It's not collaborative at all, it's someone thinking that the story they want to tell is better or more important or whatever. And when it's the GM saying it, expect railroading to follow, because they want to tell a story, not run a campaign.

Second problem, "but the story" is very often followed by the kinds of things that inspired these pages:

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheoryOfNarrativeCausality
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThePlotDemandedThisIndex


In my experience, most of the "doing things to make a good story" efforts come in characterization. Specifically, deciding that they will make characters whose traits (flaws and virtues) will contribute to a good story even if those are "suboptimal" from a mechanical perspective. That is, on creating plausible, "realistic" characters instead of super-competent, "optimal" people. It's recognizing that characters, like real people, are frequently sub-optimal and quirky.

I've seen quite a bit of "it's what my character would do" as an excuse for certain behaviors (mainly recklessness or rudeness), but always within bounds. For example, my current game has us assaulting a known cult location head on in the middle of the night (with basically no prep) because one character's family was killed by members of this cult. She was going to do that with or without us...and we were all going to do it too (subtlety is not our strong point).

And as a DM I've made lots of decisions "because it would make a better story". Mostly those involved leaving Evil Overlord-style holes in the defenses (because the party getting wrecked at level 1 by scrying Demon Princes doesn't make a good story) or finding ways that the players' actions can possibly work, despite being off-the-beaten-path (like knocking a fleeing enemy down by throwing a jar of soup at them or befriending someone using another jar of soup...that campaign had lots of soup in it for some reason.). I never have a "Story" planned out--whatever the players decide to do becomes the story. It's told in the present tense, but we're discovering why we're watching these particular characters do their stuff (instead of watching some other characters do stuff).

Cluedrew
2019-02-10, 12:44 PM
I'm not sure how much time I have so I am going to pick a few things I have relatively snappy replies to. Thank you for some of the comments and I will try to get back to the other good questions.


Well, does not this example add more to your type of game? Maybe like ''collective"? If each player in a game can just make up stuff on a whim and force the DM to use it in the game, that would seem to be a huge style element.

Or are you talking about more ''collaboration" here, where the DM lets the players make suggestions and other things that the DM can ultimately approve?The thing is... I don't know. The system of things getting added to the game has been never been formalized. I can tell you that if we have some people who like an idea and everyone else is indifferent it gets used. But there is no formal system of approval, veto or voting. No one has ever flat out vetoed an idea in the games I've been it. I've seen people raise concerns or give alternative ideas and then we just talk until people have agreed on a solution. Which is just "people seem happy with this", because again there has never been a formal system.


On the negative side, this runs the risks of solutions being a bit Deus Ex Machina losing imersion. Also it loses a lot of the exciting 'game'.
On the plus side it loses a lot of the tedious 'game' and lack of imersion from the mechanics getting in the way. I'm guessing things bounce along at a fair pace.Your second plus it completely true. You do not play this type of game for deep mechanical interaction. You are looking in the wrong place.

The first is a also a risk. Practice helps and there are a few play-style choices that I think help solve it as well. First we don't really go for twists. Sometimes there is a twist but they are usually signs and so it is not out of the blue, and you get the best kind of twist (in my opinion) which are the ones that make you go "in hindsight I really should of seen that coming". More broadly it doesn't handle unknowns about the current state of things very well. Even if things aren't known exactly, usually everyone has a rough idea. Mechanically having broad rules helps, covering a lot of situations is more important here than going into a lot of detail. Also particular obstacles (including enemies) rarely have special rules.

On the plus side, yeah things go fast. We have done full campaigns in two sessions several times.

Darth Ultron
2019-02-10, 01:53 PM
DU has made it quite clear over the years that he considers "random" and "unpredictable" as two words for the same exact thing.

I'm just trying to understand. You have a plan with some sort of linear progression that makes sense....or you don't. A lot of people seem to be talking about how they like some ''other" way, but are always vague on the way the ''other" way is.

And when people talk about it, they seem to get stuck in the pre-gaming session zero metagame. I only see two ways to do this: The players pick something to do and the DM then runs that adventure or the players 'don't care' what they do and the DM just picks and runs an adventure. So, it's like two minutes of time...and on with the game.

And we are talking about a game play with a plot and story: the characters are doing something with a linear progression that makes sense. It's not the ''pure sandbox" where stuff just 'pop's up as needed, right?

So all that being said, one one side we have the Adventure Module....and across the table is the Other Way, the Dynamic Collaborative Story-Telling way. And the DCST way has to be different then the Adventure Module way....so in what way is it different?

Xuc Xac
2019-02-10, 03:51 PM
I'm just trying to understand. You have a plan with some sort of linear progression that makes sense....or you don't. A lot of people seem to be talking about how they like some ''other" way, but are always vague on the way the ''other" way is.

For anyone tempted to try explaining this to Darth Ultron, first read this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?550178-Why-Sandbox-is-a-meaningless-phrase) then choose something else to do with your limited time on this Earth.

Max_Killjoy
2019-02-10, 06:31 PM
For anyone tempted to try explaining this to Darth Ultron, first read this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?550178-Why-Sandbox-is-a-meaningless-phrase) then choose something else to do with your limited time on this Earth.

Yup -- thus my comment above.

Max_Killjoy
2019-02-10, 09:31 PM
In my experience, most of the "doing things to make a good story" efforts come in characterization. Specifically, deciding that they will make characters whose traits (flaws and virtues) will contribute to a good story even if those are "suboptimal" from a mechanical perspective. That is, on creating plausible, "realistic" characters instead of super-competent, "optimal" people. It's recognizing that characters, like real people, are frequently sub-optimal and quirky.

I've seen quite a bit of "it's what my character would do" as an excuse for certain behaviors (mainly recklessness or rudeness), but always within bounds. For example, my current game has us assaulting a known cult location head on in the middle of the night (with basically no prep) because one character's family was killed by members of this cult. She was going to do that with or without us...and we were all going to do it too (subtlety is not our strong point).

And as a DM I've made lots of decisions "because it would make a better story". Mostly those involved leaving Evil Overlord-style holes in the defenses (because the party getting wrecked at level 1 by scrying Demon Princes doesn't make a good story) or finding ways that the players' actions can possibly work, despite being off-the-beaten-path (like knocking a fleeing enemy down by throwing a jar of soup at them or befriending someone using another jar of soup...that campaign had lots of soup in it for some reason.). I never have a "Story" planned out--whatever the players decide to do becomes the story. It's told in the present tense, but we're discovering why we're watching these particular characters do their stuff (instead of watching some other characters do stuff).

As a GM, whatever holes I put in the "antagonist's plan", or defenses, I'm going to think out and make sense of those holes. Is this a lack of defense against something they couldn't know the PCs can do? Was the antagonist in a hurry or possessed of limited resources such that they could only do so much? Are they forced to deal with a "you can't get good help any more" situation? Or it flows from the nature of the plan, the antagonist's personality and abilities, or the circumstances. Has to be something, they're not just going to have holes in their defenses "because story".

As for the characters themselves -- comes down to a question of whether we're "watching" them because they're interesting people doing interesting things (good), or interesting things are happening to them because we're "watching" (bad).


@Cluedrew -- I've posted this before, but this covers a chunk of why "storytelling" as a description can lead to some confusion, a certain type of system and gaming beat you to it: https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/6517/roleplaying-games/roleplaying-games-vs-storytelling-games

PhoenixPhyre
2019-02-10, 09:50 PM
As a GM, whatever holes I put in the "antagonist's plan", or defenses, I'm going to think out and make sense of those holes. Is this a lack of defense against something they couldn't know the PCs can do? Was the antagonist in a hurry or possessed of limited resources such that they could only do so much? Are they forced to deal with a "you can't get good help any more" situation? Or it flows from the nature of the plan, the antagonist's personality and abilities, or the circumstances. Has to be something, they're not just going to have holes in their defenses "because story".

As for the characters themselves -- comes down to a question of whether we're "watching" them because they're interesting people doing interesting things (good), or interesting things are happening to them because we're "watching" (bad).

My protagonists tend to come out of nowhere and blindside the enemies (usually forcing them to react on a hurry). That, and many tend to be "long-game" types who don't react well to sudden changes. Or are super arrogant. Or both.

My whole style revolves around putting the PCs in at the crucial moments, the pivot points and letting them act. Someone would be there regardless, and we're just zooming in on the ones who will be interesting to watch. We're watching them because they ended up being special, not vice versa.

From a world building perspective, I identify areas where important events will/did happen (from future history view) and then point PCs at them to figure out what happened. Whose plans did they mess up? What did they discover? That's up to them. I just try to make sure it's fun to "watch" (play through) and the party has a decent chance of success with whatever their goals might be (within the setting and game rules, of course). If I have a choice between two things that both fit the pre-existing facts, I'll choose the one that makes the better play experience for those players, to the best of my ability. But once it's said at the table, it's fixed unless I have to retcon something because I screwed up badly. But that's rare.

kyoryu
2019-02-11, 12:35 PM
I feel that is terminology-quibbling, but this is also Giant in the Playground. On the other hand I don't have a convenient title that applies to only one.

I really don't. I mean, I'm into a bunch of "story-focused" games (Fate, PbtA games, even some more "pure" storygames like Fiasco/Microscope/etc.), and I see there's a huge difference between:

A) Creating a character with flaws/etc. that will likely make an interesting story and then playing them true to that (IOW, during play, moment-to-moment decision-making is primarily predicated on "what would the character do")

and

B) Having "what will make the best story" be a primary consideration in moment-to-moment play.

And I've seen people argue for both of those. So, no, if somebody just says it I don't really know what they mean, and that's not strawmanning or coming from a place of "hating story or narrative".

Ultimately, the term is, overall, super-overloaded even if it's not within your circles.

Like, if I'm talking to Person, and the conversation goes like this:

Person: "let's play an RPG!"
Me: "Cool! I'll run! What are you thinking?"
Person: "Something with more collaborative storytelling! I'll see you Sunday at 8!"

... and then for some reason their phone dies and I can't communicate with them? I have no idea of what to bring.

A) Something traditional, but maybe sandboxy.
B) Something like Fate or a PbtA game, but played in a mostly character-driven game
C) Something liek the above, but played in a mostly "what would make a good story" way
D) Primetime Adventures or Hillfolk or something like that.
E) Something like Fiasco
F) Something like Microscope or Kingdom

Literally, I have no idea what the expectation is. Those are all different things, and they all can be reasonably called "collaborative storytelling." About the only things I wouldn't expect with that term are:

1) old-school, heavily exploration based dungeon/hex-crawls
2) linear "adventure path" style play.

Since the first style of play is pretty much a strong niche, that leads me to "collaborative storytelling" mostly meaning "not linear/railroaded adventure paths." Which... while useful, is not exactly precise.

Thrudd
2019-02-11, 03:31 PM
Right, there's a difference that isn't made clear or is glossed over by some folks regarding "story focus" and "character focus" or "story telling".

What I'd call "character focus" is to say - I'm playing a character that is a paladin who struggles with his faith. Sometimes he doubts his choices and the dictates of his order, he's trying to do what's right but he isn't always sure what that is. (The GM will look at this and hopefully will decide to include some situations that will present my character with difficult choices.)

Another form, which I would call more "story focused" is like this - I'm playing a paladin who will have a crisis of faith. At a critical moment, he is going to choose to defy his order and lose his powers, and then be corrupted by a dark power to turn to evil and become a black guard. Over time, his loyalty to his friends will thaw his heart and he will see the error of his ways and return to the light at another critical moment. (I expect the GM to facilitate the story I want to tell with this character and weave it into the campaign's overall plot, along with all the other players' planned character arcs.) Another version of this has the player not informing the GM of their plans, but having a predetermined character story in their head which they will act out and plead with the GM to go along with the stuff they want to happen - "can't you have a devil approach me now, that I've fallen from my faith, and make me a black guard?" and then "wouldn't it be cool if he turned back to the light-side? If I repudiate my diabolical master and call out for forgiveness, can't I get my old paladin powers back? That would make a really classic complete story of fall and redemption for me..."

Another sort of "story focus" is not so premeditated, but involves the players thinking about the overall narrative, and deciding how their characters act from the stance of - "it'll be more exciting if we don't defeat the bad guy right now, but let him go so there can be a climactic confrontation later. I'll give up the fight and take a Fate die for now. GM - that sounds good - let's say civilians are crying out from the top floor of a nearby building, the bad guy's last blast that missed you just set it on fire! The bad guy is flying away, you can't catch him and save them at the same time. Player:"Oh no! I better save the civilians - you may escape this time, but we'll still find you, villain!"
GM: "ha ha! stupid do-gooder, you'll never be able to do what it takes to stop me!"

The last example is closest to what I'd consider "collaborative storytelling" - It isn't necessarily contrary to characterizations - the GM and players work together to come up with situations that let their characters be "in-character" while also forming a narrative that will play out like whatever sort of story they have in mind - a superhero comic book, or an 80's action movie, a James Bond spy film, or a fantasy epic novel, or whatever.

The second example would also be "collaborative storytelling", assuming the GM agrees to cooperate. It's just that the story is decided on at the beginning, instead of during play, which would feel far less satisfying to play, for me at least.

Cluedrew
2019-02-12, 08:41 AM
So life has a bit busy time for me and I also got hooked on one particular question. Which is (if I may use my own system) is this character-story focused or player-story focused. Do you make the decision at a character (~role-playing) level or player (~story-telling) level.

The answer turned out to be a bit of a trick. It doesn't actually matter. You could play in this general framework with either mindset. So I suppose this is a group of styles and it includes some that are on different places on the role-playing to story-telling scale.

That being said I do have a particular place I like on that scale, so if you want to be more narrow the answer is also a trick: both. Often split up along a kind of character creation/active play divide but I don't make the entire character at the beginning. I create the base character and fill in more as time goes on, then use the filled in traits to actually make the decisions. I rarely erase or modify anything though.

Pelle
2019-02-12, 09:35 AM
The last example is closest to what I'd consider "collaborative storytelling" - It isn't necessarily contrary to characterizations - the GM and players work together to come up with situations that let their characters be "in-character" while also forming a narrative that will play out like whatever sort of story they have in mind - a superhero comic book, or an 80's action movie, a James Bond spy film, or a fantasy epic novel, or whatever.


It doesn't have to be that explicitly presented even. All it takes is for players to make decisions for their characters based a little on what themselves as players would find interesting. So not only based on previously defined character traits, but also deciding during play what the character traits are, so that the decisions are still made in-character (roleplaying). What you are going for doesn't have to be expressed, but you put something out there that maybe others can pick up on and improvise with. As long as the players build on what the others are doing, with the intention of shaping something cool, I would call it collaborative storytelling. Regardless if it succeeds in creating a good story or not. It's about the mindset when playing, when observed from the outside it can look the same as in strict roleplaying.




That being said I do have a particular place I like on that scale, so if you want to be more narrow the answer is also a trick: both. Often split up along a kind of character creation/active play divide but I don't make the entire character at the beginning. I create the base character and fill in more as time goes on, then use the filled in traits to actually make the decisions. I rarely erase or modify anything though.

Sounds familiar to me.

Max_Killjoy
2019-02-12, 11:00 AM
It doesn't have to be that explicitly presented even. All it takes is for players to make decisions for their characters based a little on what themselves as players would find interesting. So not only based on previously defined character traits, but also deciding during play what the character traits are, so that the decisions are still made in-character (roleplaying). What you are going for doesn't have to be expressed, but you put something out there that maybe others can pick up on and improvise with. As long as the players build on what the others are doing, with the intention of shaping something cool, I would call it collaborative storytelling. Regardless if it succeeds in creating a good story or not. It's about the mindset when playing, when observed from the outside it can look the same as in strict roleplaying.


If you have multiple choices as to how to proceed, that are all within the established characterization, then choosing based on additional criteria such as "what would be the most awesome" or "what would be the most fun for other players" or "what would create a better story in the later telling", then do use those other criteria to the degree you find them useful.

It's when one of those other criteria end up being prioritized such that it results in decisions and actions that violate the established characterization that it makes my skin crawl.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-02-12, 11:33 AM
It doesn't have to be that explicitly presented even. All it takes is for players to make decisions for their characters based a little on what themselves as players would find interesting. So not only based on previously defined character traits, but also deciding during play what the character traits are, so that the decisions are still made in-character (roleplaying). What you are going for doesn't have to be expressed, but you put something out there that maybe others can pick up on and improvise with. As long as the players build on what the others are doing, with the intention of shaping something cool, I would call it collaborative storytelling. Regardless if it succeeds in creating a good story or not. It's about the mindset when playing, when observed from the outside it can look the same as in strict roleplaying.


I agree with this post. I build characters (and hope my players build characters) with an eye to making (in retrospect) cool stories with them. This walls off a lot of possible characters: the self-sufficient loner, the backstabber (literal or figurative), the "reluctant" one that has to be dragged along, the crafter who'd just rather be a merchant, etc. Not because these are bad characters, but because the stories that they'd produce aren't the stories I'm trying to tell. Because forcing them into the mold of an Adventurer would require disrespecting both the narrative being constructed and the character themselves.

And I totally consider that (having an eye for the stories I'll tell, and shaping the growth of the character based on the actions in a way that supports those good stories) part of collaborative storytelling. Sometimes it fails. Other times it works. But it's an additional layer on top of just the straight role-play, a part I find fun.

kyoryu
2019-02-12, 01:20 PM
I agree with this post. I build characters (and hope my players build characters) with an eye to making (in retrospect) cool stories with them. This walls off a lot of possible characters: the self-sufficient loner, the backstabber (literal or figurative), the "reluctant" one that has to be dragged along, the crafter who'd just rather be a merchant, etc. Not because these are bad characters, but because the stories that they'd produce aren't the stories I'm trying to tell. Because forcing them into the mold of an Adventurer would require disrespecting both the narrative being constructed and the character themselves.

I definitely think that at character creation time, you should have an eye towards what's going to come out of the character - in terms of group cohesion, where it's going to take things, etc.

And even in play, even in a less "do what makes the best story" situation, there's certainly a place for that. Like, "what would the character do" often has multiple answers, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with, at that point, having that be a consideration for choosing between the possibilities - even in a non-"what makes the best story" context. Truth is, when we decide what our characters do, there's any number of things we really take into consideration. The question really then comes down to which is the *primary* focus and really defines what options are available.

I'd also argue that doing something the character wouldn't do, but makes a "good story", isn't really a good story. Consistency of character makes good stories (including character development of course).

Max_Killjoy
2019-02-12, 01:24 PM
I definitely think that at character creation time, you should have an eye towards what's going to come out of the character - in terms of group cohesion, where it's going to take things, etc.

And even in play, even in a less "do what makes the best story" situation, there's certainly a place for that. Like, "what would the character do" often has multiple answers, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with, at that point, having that be a consideration for choosing between the possibilities - even in a non-"what makes the best story" context. Truth is, when we decide what our characters do, there's any number of things we really take into consideration. The question really then comes down to which is the *primary* focus and really defines what options are available.

I'd also argue that doing something the character wouldn't do, but makes a "good story", isn't really a good story. Consistency of character makes good stories (including character development of course).


That's why I just about always put "but it makes a good story" and similar phrases in quotation marks.

Because very often... it doesn't, for the reason you give. Stories that rely on incoherent / inconsistent characterization, incoherent / inconsistent character abilities and competence, etc, are not good stories. Same thing applies to fiction here, and seeing it happen so often in fiction feeds back into why it irks me so in gaming.

Pelle
2019-02-13, 05:11 AM
If you have multiple choices as to how to proceed, that are all within the established characterization, then choosing based on additional criteria such as "what would be the most awesome" or "what would be the most fun for other players" or "what would create a better story in the later telling", then do use those other criteria to the degree you find them useful.


And sometimes you can improvise new character traits, that neither don't conflict with nor is based on established characterization. Then what the player wants is the main priority, and the character is continually created to fit that during play. This can be done by intentionally leaving space for improvisation at the initial character creation.



I'd also argue that doing something the character wouldn't do, but makes a "good story", isn't really a good story. Consistency of character makes good stories (including character development of course).

The amount of storygaming I do when roleplaying isn't about creating a "good story" after the fact (with beginning, middle, end, etc). The goal is to get into potentially interesting situations and see what happens in the moment. The collaborative part is building on what other players are doing, and trying to throw things out there that gives the other players the opportunity to improvise on likewise. So while I probably agree that consistency of character makes a good story, actually creating a "good story" isn't my main concern when storygaming here. It's more about the process and the moments, not the end product, so failing isn't a problem as long as everyone at tries and act in good faith.

Cluedrew
2019-02-16, 10:00 PM
And sometimes you can improvise new character traits, that neither don't conflict with nor is based on established characterization. Then what the player wants is the main priority, and the character is continually created to fit that during play. This can be done by intentionally leaving space for improvisation at the initial character creation.I'd say "exactly" except that I never found the need to intentionally leave space. The level of detail I can create in... even the first few sessions, is such that there will be more to decide about the character.

Hey, I have played campaigns with characters that I could continue to detail. And if you are Quetus you take that character to the next campaign to fill them in even more. But generally I am satisfied with the broad strokes.


It's more about the process and the moments, not the end product, so failing isn't a problem as long as everyone at tries and act in good faith.I once wrote a campaign log of one of my best campaigns. It was "done", although I suppose it could of used a round of editing to clean it up. I showed one person it and then left it. Improv. is just not quite as fun to go back to.

On consistency in particular: I am big on consistency, but at the same time people are complicated, the grow and change and situations are different. So at a certain point I stop worrying. Actually last week I had a thing happen that had happened to me many times over the past few years. This time I reacted very differently than the other times and I am not sure why. I just felt like I should.