DMing styles: Setting versus Story

[BRC]

This may be my personal perspective, but as I see it, there are two primary styles of DMing, Setting based and Story based.

A Setting-based DM begins his campaign by building the world of the game. Maybe it has some unique concept that differs it from the standard swords-and--horses fantasy, maybe it has steampunk elements, or the world is half desert and half tundra, or an Undead empire rules everything. Maybe it is standard swords-and-horses, but it has a well-detailed cast of factions and major characters. In this style, the DM is primarily trying to explore their setting. Each adventure is an opportunity to experience a new face of the world, the PC's go to the desert to experience the world of the warring desert tribes, they go to the bustling coastal city to discover it's seedy underbelly, to chase down thieves in it's busy marketplaces and battle corrupt nobles onboard their Palatial yachts.
Setting-based DM's tend to prefer monster-of-the-week style adventures, which better allow them to explore a new part of the setting without feeling obligated to advance an overarching plot.
At it's best this style of DMing means that the DM has created a fascinating, dynamic setting for the players to experience, and the players look forward to see what is hiding behind the next rock. At it's worst, the DM is so obsessed with their creation that they spend each session force-feeding their players exposition and historical background. A trip to the ancient ruins is nothing more than an opportunity for the DM to lecture them on the history of the empire that built them.

A Story-based DM tends to begin building his campaign around the story he and the players will tell. This doesn't mean he writes the entire story, merely the beginning. He decides he wants to tell the story of a demonic invasion of the material plane, or of a succession crisis within a kingdom and builds the game around that. For the story-based DM, each adventure is an opportunity to advance the plot and see where things lead. A story-based DM can build a detailed setting, but the focus is not on experiencing that setting, but on telling the story of the characters and the challenges they face.

At it's best, you have a DM who works hand-in-hand with the players to create a great story. At worst, you have a railroader who drags the players into the story he wants to tell.

Now, obviously, the ideal DM tells a great story within a fascinating setting, but in my opinion, no matter how great the DM is, the focus will always be on one or the other, either the story will serve as a vehicle for exploring the setting,or the setting will serve as a backdrop for the story.

Personally, I consider myself a Setting-based DM. I tend to focus more on telling small stories within the context of a setting (Like the Western campaign I ran recently), and when I do decide to create an overarching plot, I feel constrained by an obligation to somehow advance it each adventure, rather than simply basing adventures around smaller ideas within the setting. An overarching plot inevitably means some repetition, and frequently I find myself seeing any repetition as a wasted opportunity to do something new.

[Shadowknight12]

I'm both, actually.

Whoops?

[valadil]

There are also combat based GMs who see the campaign as an ordered list of monsters for the PCs to overcome. If a story is present, it is minimal at best. Just a formality until the good part starts, not unlike the story in your average porno.

[BRC]

I'm both, actually.

Whoops?

Nothing whoops about it, but I am going to ask for clarification.

Really, everybody uses some of both styles, you can't tell a story without a world to set it in, and unless you make every session a one-shot, you are going to have an overarching story (even if it's just "A group of adventurers wanders around having adventures").
However, I believe that DM's focus more on one aspect or the other, existing somewhere on the spectrum between setting and story just as exist somewhere between non-interactive storytelling and total free form sandbox gameplay.

So when you say "I'm both", do you mean you have both a setting and an overarching story, because everybody has that. Do you mean you have an equal interest in exploring your campaign setting and in creating an overarching narrative?

There are also combat based GMs who see the campaign as an ordered list of monsters for the PCs to overcome. If a story is present, it is minimal at best. Just a formality until the good part starts, not unlike the story in your average porno.

You know, that's an aspect I totally forgot to consider, probably because I was thinking in terms of campaigns rather than adventures. I couldn't see the trees because the forest was in the way.

Each adventure in a campaign does three things. It advances the overarching plot (even if that plot is nothing more than wandering around fighting monsters), it further explores the setting (Even if the setting is nothing more than a generic tolkien-rip-off fantasy so predictable that players know exactly what to expect as soon as the DM says "Dwarves"), And, of course, there is the content of the adventure itself.

You describe what I'm calling the worst form of this aspect, but you could have a DM who sees each adventure as nothing more than that, a new adventure. They have no interest in exploring the world of the game or furthering an overarching story. This dosn't need to be a simple list of monsters to fight.

A DM could have an adventure based around fighting a dragon, a dragon that was never mentioned before that will never be mentioned again. This dragon reveals or reflects nothing about the setting except the fact that this specific dragon exists.

Now, I was focusing more on philosophy in terms of campaign design, which the above dosn't really cover. But it is entirely possible for a DM to be motivated entirely by individual adventures rather than the setting or the story.

[Name_Here]

Actually tried to do a setting based campaign with my last campaign. Was frustrating as hell when the group would overlook my clues as to what they could be doing to find adventure and advance themselves and of course the flow of people in and out of the group was a monstrous headache.

Still it was a rewarding experience that I'll definitely work into my more plot driven games.

[Shadowknight12]

Nothing whoops about it, but I am going to ask for clarification.

Really, everybody uses some of both styles, you can't tell a story without a world to set it in, and unless you make every session a one-shot, you are going to have an overarching story (even if it's just "A group of adventurers wanders around having adventures").
However, I believe that DM's focus more on one aspect or the other, existing somewhere on the spectrum between setting and story just as exist somewhere between non-interactive storytelling and total free form sandbox gameplay.

So when you say "I'm both", do you mean you have both a setting and an overarching story, because everybody has that. Do you mean you have an equal interest in exploring your campaign setting and in creating an overarching narrative?

I mean both because I am almost exclusively focused on the story, but the only thing that makes a story worth it in my view (the necessary condition that makes me actually care about the story) is the setting in which it takes place. The setting alone does not suffice. Something must happen or else the setting is utterly useless, like rich soil without vegetation. However, a story in a vacuum is utterly boring to me. If I don't know who these people are, where everything takes place, what's the context in which the story takes place, I find myself wondering, "Why should I care?"

The reason I think I'm equal parts both is because I can't imagine doing away with either. If you do away with the setting, my interest in the story withers and dies. If you do away with the story, the setting cannot hold my interest. I must have them both in equal measure or else I can't get involved in the game. As a DM, I create both more or less at the same time. If I am designing or fleshing out a location within Faerun for the campaign to take place, I find myself coming up with an overarching plot as the setting details begin to take form. And in homebrewed settings, plot hooks, story seeds and hints of a campaign arc dot the lore details because I can't stop myself. I can't create a setting without imagining a way to use it to sustain a story (well, actually, multiple stories), and I can't create a plot for a game without imagining the setting around it.

[BRC]

I mean both because I am almost exclusively focused on the story, but the only thing that makes a story worth it in my view (the necessary condition that makes me actually care about the story) is the setting in which it takes place. The setting alone does not suffice. Something must happen or else the setting is utterly useless, like rich soil without vegetation. However, a story in a vacuum is utterly boring to me. If I don't know who these people are, where everything takes place, what's the context in which the story takes place, I find myself wondering, "Why should I care?"

The reason I think I'm equal parts both is because I can't imagine doing away with either. If you do away with the setting, my interest in the story withers and dies. If you do away with the story, the setting cannot hold my interest. I must have them both in equal measure or else I can't get involved in the game. As a DM, I create both more or less at the same time. If I am designing or fleshing out a location within Faerun for the campaign to take place, I find myself coming up with an overarching plot as the setting details begin to take form. And in homebrewed settings, plot hooks, story seeds and hints of a campaign arc dot the lore details because I can't stop myself. I can't create a setting without imagining a way to use it to sustain a story (well, actually, multiple stories), and I can't create a plot for a game without imagining the setting around it.

So you create the setting and the story simultaneously? Interesting, but I wouldn't say that necessarily means that your style can't be called one or the other. Setting and story are of course interdependent, but that dosn't mean you don't emphasize one over the other.
As I see it, in order to be, as you put it, Both, you would have to be just as excited about exploring the campaign setting as you would about furthering the story. Whether you start with the story or the setting is an important indicator, but it's hardly the only factor.

[Shadowknight12]

So you create the setting and the story simultaneously? Interesting, but I wouldn't say that necessarily means that your style can't be called one or the other. Setting and story are of course interdependent, but that dosn't mean you don't emphasize one over the other.
As I see it, in order to be, as you put it, Both, you would have to be just as excited about exploring the campaign setting as you would about furthering the story. Whether you start with the story or the setting is an important indicator, but it's hardly the only factor.

As a player, I pay more attention to the story. I explore the setting, but the story is more "urgent," so to speak. It takes precedence in my mind. And if the story isn't keeping me hooked and eager to pursue it, it's not really doing its job.

As a DM, I focus on the setting first and foremost. I can't create a story without a good foundation for it, something that explains where it comes from and where it can go. The setting is the most important thing I have to do, with the story (or stories) arising spontaneously from that without any effort on my part.

[dsmiles]

Well, I build a setting. (Which I am working on with some very good homebrewers here. Yes, that's a shameless advertisement for more homebrewers. ) But then, I start the characters into a story, and let them have at it. If it has to be a binary choice, I'm probably more story oriented, though building the setting is my favorite pastime. If it's a sliding scale, as I see it, I'm probably about 65% story, 35% setting.

The issue, as I see it, is that I don't even create a story, I let the players do it. I just give them the initial plot hooks to choose from. I work on my settings endlessly, with the setting's timeline progressing as the characters do things in the world. But, to me, the story is more important than the setting. To me, the story is more important than the dice, even.

Though there aren't just two concrete, be-all-end-all, styles of DMing. It's a sliding scale from one end to the other. If there even are only two ends.

[Raum]

This may be my personal perspective, but as I see it, there are two primary styles of DMing, Setting based and Story based.

There's at least one more style - I'll term it "player oriented".

That's where the GM runs like ### to stay one step ahead of the players! Wondering if they're actually going to follow up on the researching those mysterious glyphs this time...or if they'll go back to the pirating they gave up on in favor of dragon killing which they left to confront an army of undead...or grab one of the other "plot devices" from the bag full they carry!

I need a breath. :)

[Kaun]

This may be my personal perspective, but as I see it, there are two primary styles of DMing, Setting based and Story based.

Yeah i wouldn't say these were the two primary styles at all.

I personally would have leaned towards the two primary styles as either;

Proactive or Reactive.

or

Storyteller or combat driven.

But in all honesty i doubt you could put all DM's into one of two groups regardless of what the groups are called.

[Eldan]

I'm not sure what to say here. I mean, I tend to put quite a bit if effort in my settings, but I always also have some potential big plots in mind when writing them, pretty much from the beginning.

Example? Etherworld. What happens when the Nathri barbarians decide to unite under a single leader again, this time with all the knowledge of the layout of the core worlds and the garden people's technology? Where did the Shipwright's guild get the plans for the first navigation engines, and why are they so paranoid about anyone finding out? What happened to the prime material plane? Who are the Faceless, and where do they come from? Will the Courts of Daydream and Nightmare ever go to war against each other? Is the Well of Souls running empty, and will new children be born without souls?

So, where does that put me?

[Mastikator]

I'm a setting kind of DM.
I set out the factions, give them history, purpose, motives and traditions, they have goals and attitudes to the players. They will act independent of the players, and depending on the players will put them on the factions's various radars.
A story will unfold as time goes and the players do their part, a story I don't know the end of.

I usually try to multiple "stories" occur at the same time, each beginning and ending at different times, so that the players will never think "ok, so now what?".

[Tyndmyr]

I'm both, actually.

Whoops?

This. A story needs a setting, and its a pretty threadbare setting if it doesn't contain at least the beginnings of a story or three.

[The Big Dice]

I don't think roleplaying games are a good medium for telling stories in the slightest. They are full of the wrong kinds of conflict, if you try following rules of drama or narrative, players either kill the story dead or ignore it completely in favour of interrogating the NPC who was giving them directions to where the story was supposed to be for the next 40 minutes.

In a story based RPG, you can't really have a beginning, middle or end because your protagonists are prone to going off on tangents, forcing you to either railroad or ditch your initial ideas completely.

So in my book, story is a waste of time. The story comes after the event, not before it.

Setting is important to a point. The setting gives flavour and colour, providing a backdrop in front of which events take place. Of course, players are prone to ignore this as well. Like that one person in the group who is playing a Druid with a Dire Wolf Animal Companion and that Wild Shapes into a bear. In a tropical jungle/pirates at sea campaign. Or the one that insists on playing a Wild Elf in a setting that you have made it abundantly clear that there are no Wild Elves.

That's why, rather than story or setting, I concentrate on situation.

So the orcs attack the frontier village, how are you going to deal with it? You find out that the orcs are attacking villages because the baron's soldiers are raiding their territory. So the orcs step up their attacks and the baron increases taxes and starts a forcible recruitment drive. Do you want to find out why the baron is picking a war with the orc tribes, do you want to go all Robin Hood and protect the people from this cruel leader? Do you want to go fight a war against the orcs?

Season with NPCs appropriate to the direction that the players choose to go in and you've got a campaign that can sustain you to 7th-8th level, easy. And then you reveal another layer to the onion. The cruel baron is doing what his head advisor, a wizard, tells him to do. Except the wizard is a lich and he's got an agenda of his own...

And keep on going, peeling off layers of the onion as you go.

Like I said, situation, not story.

[Tengu_temp]

I don't think roleplaying games are a good medium for telling stories in the slightest. They are full of the wrong kinds of conflict, if you try following rules of drama or narrative, players either kill the story dead or ignore it completely in favour of interrogating the NPC who was giving them directions to where the story was supposed to be for the next 40 minutes.

In a story based RPG, you can't really have a beginning, middle or end because your protagonists are prone to going off on tangents, forcing you to either railroad or ditch your initial ideas completely.

So in my book, story is a waste of time. The story comes after the event, not before it.

This goes completely against my experiences. Running a story-based game is not only possible, but it's also a great experience for everyone involved. Yeah, it feels different from a book or a movie, but different doesn't mean worse.

I have a heavily story-based DMing style. I establish various facets of my settings as they become relevant. What's the point of spending a lot of time and effort creating a large, complex setting, if your players are not going to see most of if anyway? That's just wasteful for me.

[SleepyShadow]

I am definitely a Story-heavy DM.

Whether it's taken place in the trackless wastes of Dark Sun, the intrigue-filled Sword Coast in the Forgotten Realms, the steam punk setting of Ebberon, or the PCs' madcap adventures in Spira (I wish I was kidding), the story has always taken precedence over the setting.

I use the setting to determine what foes, allies, and other challenges the PCs face, but at the heart of it, the story always feels more important to me than the place that the story takes place.

[The Big Dice]

This goes completely against my experiences. Running a story-based game is not only possible, but it's also a great experience for everyone involved. Yeah, it feels different from a book or a movie, but different doesn't mean worse.

Dramatic structure doesn't work well in RPGs. Narrative structure tends to fall apart under RPG conditions, too.

Your protagonists might have very different ideas about the story they want to tell. Or simply not be interested in storytelling. The fact that the very word used to describe a style implies passive acceptance of events on the player side of the screen doesn't bode well for storytelling in RPGs.

The whole storytelling thing is really an out of date paradigm in RPGs. It became something of a blockage in the development of the hobby, because in 20 or so years since the term was coined, nobody has tried to move past it. And that's a huge tragedy in terms of the growth of the hobby. And it's also the source of the same elitism that led to the 'narrativism' aspect of GNS.

Ultimately, to my way of thinking, storytelling in RPGs is putting the cart before the horse. Instead of telling a story around and about the characters, put those characters in a situation. Let them play their roles, then tell stories about it after the fact.

[Shadowknight12]

The whole storytelling thing is really an out of date paradigm in RPGs. It became something of a blockage in the development of the hobby, because in 20 or so years since the term was coined, nobody has tried to move past it. And that's a huge tragedy in terms of the growth of the hobby. And it's also the source of the same elitism that led to the 'narrativism' aspect of GNS.

Ultimately, to my way of thinking, storytelling in RPGs is putting the cart before the horse. Instead of telling a story around and about the characters, put those characters in a situation. Let them play their roles, then tell stories about it after the fact.

You have an extremely narrow definition of "story" and "storytelling." A story need not be preplanned by the DM. It's true that if the DM has strict sequence of scenes that he wants the players to follow, all of the things you've said hold water and are perfectly valid and true.

That's not the only way to tell a story in an RPG. In fact, that's the worst way of telling a story in an RPG and you are quite correct in all your affirmations as to what the potential consequences for such a goal can be.

Another way to tell the story is to have a rich setting, a plot idea (not a sequence of scenes, but an idea, such as "mad wizard wants to summon eldritch horror from the Far Realms") and then have the character craft their own story. Something that has been excellently expounded upon in this video is the fact that a game is not like a movie or a book. You cannot apply the same definition of storytelling to games because they do not quite fit. A player is as much of a storyteller as the DM. The DM does not say "Okay, this is what's going to happen: The Big Bad is going to summon an eldritch horror, but you guys are going to sweep in at the last moment and kill him!" he says "The Big Bad is trying to summon an eldritch horror. What do you all do?" and everyone begins to pitch in, much like a bunch of painters working on a communal mural.

[kyoryu]

Ultimately, to my way of thinking, storytelling in RPGs is putting the cart before the horse. Instead of telling a story around and about the characters, put those characters in a situation. Let them play their roles, then tell stories about it after the fact.

How incredibly old school. I agree completely.

Down with DragonLance!

(not being sarcastic.)

[Tyndmyr]

Everything kyoryu just said. Hell yes.

Ill admit to a twinge of concern whenever as GM describes themselves as story focused or the like. That self description has preceded some pretty terrible railroading and the like.

[Tengu_temp]

Dramatic structure doesn't work well in RPGs. Narrative structure tends to fall apart under RPG conditions, too.

And why are those structures necessary for an RPG? Not all fiction even follows them.

Your protagonists might have very different ideas about the story they want to tell. Or simply not be interested in storytelling. The fact that the very word used to describe a style implies passive acceptance of events on the player side of the screen doesn't bode well for storytelling in RPGs.

Guess what? I DMed many games, and I've yet to have a player complain that they don't like my story or that I'm railroading them or anything like that. So either I'm such a genius DM that nobody minds the flaws of my DMing style, or storytelling is less restrictive than you think. I'd like to think both, because I'm not a very humble person.
Also, why are you assuming that a storytelling DM does not communicate with his players, ask them what they'd like in the game and such? Most good DMs do that.

The whole storytelling thing is really an out of date paradigm in RPGs. It became something of a blockage in the development of the hobby, because in 20 or so years since the term was coined, nobody has tried to move past it. And that's a huge tragedy in terms of the growth of the hobby. And it's also the source of the same elitism that led to the 'narrativism' aspect of GNS.

From a look at storytelling-based games such as Fate, Weapons of the Gods or Burning Wheel... Yeah, if this mindset is supposed to be blocking the growth of the hobby, then don't let it stop! Beats plotless dungeon crawling any day for me.

Ultimately, to my way of thinking, storytelling in RPGs is putting the cart before the horse. Instead of telling a story around and about the characters, put those characters in a situation. Let them play their roles, then tell stories about it after the fact.

Putting the cart before the horse is clearly wrong. Are you saying that people who play RPGs in different ways than you are wrong? For me, the only wrong way to play RPGs is when people at the table are not having fun.

[The Big Dice]

And why are those structures necessary for an RPG? Not all fiction even follows them.

if 90% of fiction follows a certain pattern, perhaps there's a reason for that.

Also, why are you assuming that a storytelling DM does not communicate with his players, ask them what they'd like in the game and such? Most good DMs do that.

Ahhh, here we have it with the No True Scotsman thing. Because no good GM would do such a thing.

From a look at storytelling-based games such as Fate, Weapons of the Gods or Burning Wheel... Yeah, if this mindset is supposed to be blocking the growth of the hobby, then don't let it stop! Beats plotless dungeon crawling any day for me.

You can't find Fate or Burning Wheel on Amazon.co.uk and Weapons of the Gods is £94 from a dealer. I'd hardly call them pushing the boundaries of successful gaming if I can't get them from the biggest online distributor of books in my country.

Putting the cart before the horse is clearly wrong. Are you saying that people who play RPGs in different ways than you are wrong? For me, the only wrong way to play RPGs is when people at the table are not having fun.

Why is story after the event wrong, but story first is the only possible right? Because that's what you're saying. Completely ignoring my qualifiers in the process, I might add.

Just because in 1991, Mark Rein-Hagen said his way is the One True Way doesn't make it so. All he really did was put elitist names to things that games like Warhammer FRPG, Cyberpunk and Call of Cthulhu were doing anyway. Except he did it in such a way that he invalidated something that was already happening. And, of course, he paved the way for arrogant claims that story is the best, the right and the True Way, courtesy of Ron Edwards and the Forge.

To which I say, in two years time we'll be in the very year that the first edition Cyberpunk game was set. We don't have to be constrained by ideas from a guy who doesn't even write RPGs anymore. The so-called storytelling paradigm has been in place for longer than the things it was allegedly a reaction against. It's time to change things up.

[Tengu_temp]

if 90% of fiction follows a certain pattern, perhaps there's a reason for that.

Yeah, but RPG is not ordinary fiction. It's interactive, and as such it handles some things differently.

Ahhh, here we have it with the No True Scotsman thing. Because no good GM would do such a thing.

I have no idea what are you saying here. Are you saying that a good DM shouldn't have to listen to his players?

You can't find Fate or Burning Wheel on Amazon.co.uk and Weapons of the Gods is £94 from a dealer. I'd hardly call them pushing the boundaries of successful gaming if I can't get them from the biggest online distributor of books in my country.

You know what is the only big storytelling game? WoD and its spinoffs. Or are you saying DND is a game that focuses on storytelling? In either case, you need to decide - either storytelling games are small and hard to get, or their predominance is holding the industry back. You can't have both at once.

Why is story after the event wrong, but story first is the only possible right? Because that's what you're saying. Completely ignoring my qualifiers in the process, I might add.

No. I'm saying I prefer a story-based campaign. Me. Other people can play their games different ways, I don't really care much. Just because they're having fun in different ways doesn't mean they're wrong.

Just because in 1991, Mark Rein-Hagen said his way is the One True Way doesn't make it so. All he really did was put elitist names to things that games like Warhammer FRPG, Cyberpunk and Call of Cthulhu were doing anyway. Except he did it in such a way that he invalidated something that was already happening. And, of course, he paved the way for arrogant claims that story is the best, the right and the True Way, courtesy of Ron Edwards and the Forge.

I don't really care about any of those people. All I know is that most people who like story-based RPGs are not as arrogant as them. Very few actually are, in fact.

To which I say, in two years time we'll be in the very year that the first edition Cyberpunk game was set. We don't have to be constrained by ideas from a guy who doesn't even write RPGs anymore. The so-called storytelling paradigm has been in place for longer than the things it was allegedly a reaction against. It's time to change things up.

Once again, give me an example of a big RPG company other than White Wolf that actually consciously follows the storytelling paradigm. I don't think if anyone is constrained by anything here.

[kyoryu]

I think you two need to agree on a definition of "storytelling in games." I suspect that you're arguing against extreme positions that neither has.

While Rein-Hagen only made a few games, they were a massive influence on the hobby, even on games not written by White Wolf. You could easily argue that he finished the paradigm shift that DragonLance started.

And that paradigm shift has influenced just about every game out there. Including D&D.

[BRC]

"Storytelling" probably isn't the right word when discussing RPG's. Storytelling implies that the story already exists.
What you do with an RPG is Create a story. The DM and the players work together to create a story, this means that, unless the group is linked by some sort of hive-mind, nobody knows how the story is going to turn out unless the DM is railroading.
This is part of why RPG's are fun, they can combine the joy of reading a book for the first time, with the creative expression of writing a story yourself.

[The Big Dice]

Yeah, but RPG is not ordinary fiction. It's interactive, and as such it handles some things differently.

And those differences are what makes it a dreadful medium to tell a story in. Play to the strengths of the medium. Don't try and make a guitar sound like a tambourine.

I have no idea what are you saying here. Are you saying that a good DM shouldn't have to listen to his players?

You said, "ask them what they'd like in the game and such? Most good DMs do that." The implication being that a GM that doesn't do that is a bad GM. That's a logical fallacy right there, a No True Scotsman fallacy.

You know what is the only big storytelling game? WoD and its spinoffs. Or are you saying DND is a game that focuses on storytelling? In either case, you need to decide - either storytelling games are small and hard to get, or their predominance is holding the industry back. You can't have both at once.

WoD is the Storytelling (TM) game. But try games like L5R, Burning Wheel, Mouse Guard, Dogs in the Vineyard and so on. They are all storytelling games. L5R even goes as far as to say if you're not using it to tell stories, you're playing it wrong.

No. I'm saying I prefer a story-based campaign. Me. Other people can play their games different ways, I don't really care much. Just because they're having fun in different ways doesn't mean they're wrong.

Have you ever tried the alternative I'm suggesting? My idea actually came from reading an interview with Mark Millar back when he was working on The Flash comic books. To sum up, he said he didn't always know where a story was going, past having a vague goal in mind. Each issue was written as the next step in a run with the actions of the characters guiding the way.

The net effect being, when you look back over it, there's a coherent story there. But it wasn't there at the start.

Situation, then story, as I call it.

I don't really care about any of those people. All I know is that most people who like story-based RPGs are not as arrogant as them. Very few actually are, in fact.

You should care about them. They are the two people that I'd say have the biggest influence on where the non-D20 gaming world is today.

Once again, give me an example of a big RPG company other than White Wolf that actually consciously follows the storytelling paradigm. I don't think if anyone is constrained by anything here.

AEG.

[Tengu_temp]

And those differences are what makes it a dreadful medium to tell a story in. Play to the strengths of the medium. Don't try and make a guitar sound like a tambourine.

What makes you say that? I love my games, my players love them, and I love the story-driven games I'm playing and not DMing too. If I'm not playing to the strengths of the medium, then I don't know who is. If you only encountered dreadful storytelling games then that's just your experience, by mine is very different.

You said, "ask them what they'd like in the game and such? Most good DMs do that." The implication being that a GM that doesn't do that is a bad GM. That's a logical fallacy right there, a No True Scotsman fallacy.

But that's not a fallacy, it's the truth. Good DMs listen to what their players have to say. There might be some exceptions (which is why I said "most"), but generally this is the case.

WoD is the Storytelling (TM) game. But try games like L5R, Burning Wheel, Mouse Guard, Dogs in the Vineyard and so on. They are all storytelling games. L5R even goes as far as to say if you're not using it to tell stories, you're playing it wrong.

And none of those games are big and popular enough to be the movers and shakers of the industry. They have their dedicated fandoms, but those fandoms aren't significantly large even when added together.

Have you ever tried the alternative I'm suggesting?

Yeah. I actually played much more open games when I started, and shifted to more story-driven games with time. The reason for this shift was because the story-driven games were much more fun for me, and I found their deeper, more interesting plots to be much more enjoyable. My more recent experiences with more open games only further reinforce my opinion.

[kamikasei]

You said, "ask them what they'd like in the game and such? Most good DMs do that." The implication being that a GM that doesn't do that is a bad GM. That's a logical fallacy right there, a No True Scotsman fallacy.

No it isn't.

No True Scotsman would be:
"No DM would fail to ask their players for their input!"
"Lots of DMs do."
"No proper DM would, though."

What you're objecting to is simply the statement "I think doing this is a mark of a good DM". That's not a fallacy by any stretch of the imagination.

[RPGuru1331]

You can't find Fate or Burning Wheel on Amazon.co.uk and Weapons of the Gods is £94 from a dealer. I'd hardly call them pushing the boundaries of successful gaming if I can't get them from the biggest online distributor of books in my country.

Did... you just mix an argumentum ad populum with an argument regarding the obvious lack of innovation?

How does that even make sense? "It clearly wasn't good and didn't try anything new because nobody liked it" is.. good lord.

Eos Press, the producers of WotG, has always been niche. That's why if you've heard of Nobilis, you probably know nothing of it beyond maybe the fact that it has flowers. Being niche doesn't mean yo'ure bad. It means you're niche. They're different things.

You said, "ask them what they'd like in the game and such? Most good DMs do that." The implication being that a GM that doesn't do that is a bad GM. That's a logical fallacy right there, a No True Scotsman fallacy.

No, No True Scotsman is if Tengu_Temp said "no DM does X" "But I've seen X done by a DM" "No REAL DM does X". After defining a member in a class Y as X, preferably by a nonessential (But typically positive or negative) trait, someone presents someone who is demonstrably a member of the class,, and is not-X, and you then equivocate and redefine Y to include PROPER Y. It has nothing to do with qualifiers. It's not "No True Scotsman" to say a good lawyer actually wins a non-zero number of their cases, it's describing how an adjective applies to a class. A good DM listens to players, but whether or not you listen to players you're still a DM.

Just because in 1991, Mark Rein-Hagen said his way is the One True Way doesn't make it so. All he really did was put elitist names to things that games like Warhammer FRPG, Cyberpunk and Call of Cthulhu were doing anyway. Except he did it in such a way that he invalidated something that was already happening. And, of course, he paved the way for arrogant claims that story is the best, the right and the True Way, courtesy of Ron Edwards and the Forge.

Do you really want to play argumentum-ad-yoursideestjerkum when you're arguing against story? I've seen absolutely, truly appalling things from setting-happy in the name of 'setting', and it's not like arrogance and One True WAy doesn't happen to folks who just want to kick down the door and loot the room.