I don't know if I'm the only person who thinks that roleplaying should be about storytelling,

Therefore, I have set this post up to see how many people share my feelings. RPG's shouldn't be just a three-letter acronym, but a journey into the unknown, with the Game Master as the guide. This may be my own showmanship shining through, but I need some other souls who agree.

Cheers

I am 100% positive you are the only one left. Storytelling is so '90s, everyone else has moved on to embrace the improved BS/Traitzore/Mega-gun combos (btw, RPG is DPS 12+ w/o RF @ R2, kk?)

Oh, and the obligatory remark:

Well, sir, I am 100% sure YOU are incorrect, for I agree with the OP...

Being a GM, I have a lot of power to bend the game in this way, and thus far, every single one of my players have been this way (granted thus far I have only introduced people to the game, not played with pre-existing players).

Actually I lie, I have run for one guy who was a pre-existing, from the hey days of DnD 2 etc, and he was a min-maxer munchkin.

First house rule for all of my games: never let the rules get in the way of the story.

Well it is not really meaningful to yell “Storytelling most important!!!!1”, because it isn't. To you it might generally be that way, but it not an universal truth.

Roleplaying is about -different- play styles. Different agendas. Storytelling is one, immersion is one, gameism is one, humour is one, just socializing with you buddies is one, stimulationism (enjoying facts and stimulating a different world) is one, escapism is one, romance is one, cinematism (big explosions!)... and so on. And you mix them all the time.

Every group, every campaign should set the creative agenda, and the mix of styles you strive for that time.

Putting storytelling first can be the right ting to do, but so is putting gameism first, or humor first. As long as you aware that you just choosing a possible agenda, and its nothing wrong other people with choosing other agendas, or you choosing a different agenda some other time..

I for once run a Terry Prachett style Discworld campign, an epic DH camping about hard choices and an old school dungeon crawl in different ways with different priorities.

To much humor would be a deal breaker in the two others, and so would to much rule focus or too much drama. But all three could be great games. If not for you, I'm sure that someone else cup of tea.

My preference as a GM is a storytelling style, that being said I a style that the players at my table prefer.

Of course, given that GM's are a scarce commodity in my area, that usually means that I pick the players, which means storytelling FTW.

I always try and put Good fun, the story and adventure before rules!!

Story > Rules, 100% the time.

I am a big fan of cohesive story arcs and character development. What I am not so sure about is the rules being completely stuffed into the backseat in the process. Your players will largely expect the game they are playing to follow established rules as far as determining results and consequences of their declared actions (and the associated dice rolls). They expect certain consistency and they deserve the solid bedrock of a game system to plan their intrigues and schemes around. In my case this means I tend to spend a bit of extra effort trying to integrate whatever I scheme up for plot developments into the existing game mechanics in some way. Coming up with some strange new ability that a villain whips out at the appropriate time is alot more acceptable if you base the mechanics off of something already worked out.... "This ability is sorta like Psychic Power X, but instead of using pain it uses pleasure to achieve similar results" or whatever the plot calls for. I find this goes over alot better than just pulling "The baddie does something cool, you can't stop him because I said so."

DH is pretty "Storyteller" friendly in alot of ways thanks to the inherent flexibility of the task resolution system. "OK, the baddie has this strange aura that is very distracting and more than a little annoying, so that slaps you with a -20 for being around him, but since you had the Bishop bless your wargear this morning that is easily worth a +20 and the fact that you are chanting prayers to the Emperor nonstop over the team's vox is good for another +10, so test Will for me at +10 to overcome his power." If you are comfortable with the game mechanics and the background material then it is remarkably easy to "wing it" when weird and unexpected things crop up.

ZillaPrime said:

Well, speaking for myself, while I won't "let the rules get in the way of the story" that doesn't mean the game doesn't have rules. What it means is that I'm more likely to just wing something rather then spend a lot of time digging though the rulebook.

For example, I have a friend who once complained that her entire rpg group spent the better part of session looking up, calculating and arguing about the rules for jumping a certain distance when they came across a wide pit that they had to cross. That is letting the rules the way of the story.

In contrast, I've watched my group grinnnig wildly while one p;ayer declared his characters intention to leap onto the truck full of escaping gangers, toss in a grenade, and tumble clear before the whole thing blew. Rather then worrying about the rules, I just called for a couple of checks and 'boom' - one smoking truck, bunch of dead gangers and a great gaming memory. Story before rules, every time.

Story > Rules 100%, but consistency is required.

If you're not consistent in your rulings your players will think your cheating in favor of one player over another.

It's a balancing act to make things work where the rules aren't as important as the story.

Frankly, I hold the players to the rules and I do all of the Story Vs. Rules stuff behind the screen.

But personally, my cup of tea is immersion and story over rules any day. I'm most happy playing games totally free form.

I like a balance of rules and story, trying to keep both working together.

That said, while I play for the story, there is a big mistake many GMs make who believe they're all about story. The players should have as much control over the story as the GM. To me it's about creating a story together with your actions and the rules provide a framework for that.

As a GM, if you are writing a story with a definite beginning, middle and specific end, then you are a poor GM and should stick to writing fan fiction. Roleplaying is about being able to make meaningful choices as a character and affect the world.

I tend to create events that are happening inside the world, with NPCs fighting and plotting. These plots will continue with or without the PCs and they can get as involved as they like in whatever plots.

When I say 'story' in roleplaying, don't think novel, think sandbox.

I'm of the storytelling type and my motto would be to never put rules before good storytelling. Still, I do use rules a lot because they give that extra element of unpredictability to the stories, sometimes leading to something you would not have made up without the rules. An example from my last session:

A group of Acolytes gets charged by a warscythe wielding necron pariah. The pariah promptly cuts down one of the acolytes and one NPC arbiter, coming face-to-face with black priest acolyte armed with chainsword and bolt-pistol. If I would have fudged it by pure "whats probable" the pariah would have gone through the priest in two or three strikes. As it happened, the priest stopped the charge by parrying all three hits the pariah caused during next four rounds and put several bolts through its chest-plate... It wasn't probable (the probability of scoring three parries in row with measly 39 WS is something like 6%) but it was heroic and made for a great, memorable event in the story when the priest stopped the charge and survived long enough for the others (who were stunned or out cold due to missed Fear checks) to get back into fight and bring in the heavy weapons.

Plastic Rat said:

Balance is the most important and is how I DM. I do have story to tell, but the specifics are not yet written because no DM can foretell what the players are going to do next. Do they fight the guards at the gate or try to sneak in the back way or try to teleport in or bribe their way in or any other way they can think of. There's nothing worse than forcing a fight between PCs and NPCs; or forcing any specific singular path. I have prewritten antagonists, places of interest, friendly NPCs, groups of bad guys to fight (that are worked in as needed), staged story line fights, etc. etc, but none of these are forced. If the PCs decide not to visit the Mr. Shank the bar keep who just happens to have the one vital piece of info, then eventually along comes Mrs. Shank the hooker at the corner with the same info.

In the end I dump the players into my sandbox and let them build most of the sandcastle as they see fit within the rules of the game.

I say good use of rules add to storytelling. What is the point of rolling dice to determine success? To add drama and suspense! The point of increasing stats? To make the players feel powerful!

Rules can also be a support for consistency regarding competence levels and threat levels.

Of course, when used poorly, rules can just as well detract from the experience, and to complicate things further, everyone has their own idea of "good" and "bad" rules. Know your players, know your rules, know how much and how little to apply in certain situations.

/Joel

Dammit wheres the 'Like Button' on this thread

I agree, id much rather run/play a game that is more storyline and has more depth then just having your character having the biggest pluses and the least minuses.

LuciusT said:

This is exactly the point I have tried to put across. I've known at least two or three GM's from various systems (not mentioning any names) who have just let obscure rules become the be-all/end-all of a session... literally! Me and my group have been bored stiff waiting while the GM rifles through some tome of knowledge to find some daft wording for an otherwise simple rule. The way I run it is with as little recourse to the rules as possible, mainly because everyone knows them. Minutiae are fine once in a while, but a bit of prep beforehand goes a long way when it turns up, rather than bringing everything to a screeching halt when it occurs so the GM can look up "How to do XYZ".

I'm not saying that story and rules can't get along, what I'm saying is that the games I and my players prefer run on a storyline rather than just a generic dungeon-womp. The way I see roleplaying is like a good book or movie, where the GM should be dangling the players from the edge of their seats most games.

Enthrallment! Enjoyment! Entertainment! My three big E's

There is a phrase used in story-telling arts: "the suspension of disbelief". It refers to creating a setting and situations that are plausible enough to make the readers/listeners/viewers willingly ignore the fact that they know "it isn't real" and enjoy the story. In my opinion, the whole point of rules in RPGs is to facilitate that "suspension of disbelief"- to establish a framework where things happen logically enough for the players to accept the fictional scenario. The players need to know that their actions will have logical consequences, rather than events occurring that are so preposterous or random that their input becomes meaningless. I guess what I'm saying is that a framework of rules are necessary to facilitate the storytelling fun- otherwise characters can just flap their arms and fly away when things get tough, suspension of disbelief be damned.

I once ran a story arc only using a magic-8 ball. If what the characters wanted to do sounded plausable and they had the skill to back it up I let them succed without a roll. If it was an implausable idea or something they were unskilled at I'd shake the 8-ball. Reply hazy try again. At the end of the day I think it's important that everyone has fun.

I also know a lot of people enjoy the rules and min max for optimal dice rolls, so when I play with them I let them roll. I just don't like when the game stalls out to look up something, so I make a decision and we move on. I make it a point to remind them it's their job to know the rules of what their character can do. That way they can't complain if I make a ruling that's different than what's in the book. Most of my players are also Gm's so it works out ok.

Well, I've always been a big believer in story telling. Growing up with World of Darkness games and their heavy emphasis on plot and story over hack and slash meant its always been a primary focus for me as a GM.

With that said, I absolutely agree with Adeptus-B when he says that impartial and fair application of rules is essential to building a proper campaign. Without an agreed upon "neutral" structure (IE the rules) it feels entirely too much like a sojourn in the GM's head. Is this a bad thing? Not really...but it does make it very easy to disconnect the players from the game if there are too many arbitrary GM decisions going on.

Without rules, its a fluid world where the GM is god. I know that's an old, corny RPG stereotype...but not a good one. A GM should be the story narrator, not the alpha and the omega of a game world.

Rules are a good way to have some common ground and a way to empower players (Note: Not the characters...that's entirely different.). Like Penpen pointed out, It gives them tools for dramatic resolutions and sense of growth and power. Knocking over the rules regularly as a GM is...in my opinion...the sign of a bad GM. Its a violation of the trust you build with your players, and the consistency of your campaign and/or game world will suffer for it.

The mark of a good and experienced GM (in my opinion) is the ability to balance storytelling with knowledge and application of the rules. So long as the story is shaped by players and the GM together, and the rules are unobtrusive and above all fair tools for sharing that storytelling experience, you know you're doing it right. Phew. That was a hell of a sentence. I think its going to need some more commas to read properly, but oh well...

Good rules can supplement and help a GM come up with an engaging scenario for the players, but they should always take a back seat to the story itself. It is the whole 'Form over function' thing...