How I think about story games

What follows isn't an attempt at a codification or taxonomy or definition. In fact, it deviates from some of the language people use to describe TTRPGs and story(-telling) games.

It's a way of looking at the design space that I've personally found useful, and a sketch of some of the ways people end up arguing at cross-purposes about story.

 

Story  ∈  TTRPG

First, the process of playing a tabletop role-playing game does inevitably create stories: whether you think that's the point of playing or not; whether you think the GM should try to steer it or plan it or not; whether you think there's story from start to finish or only after the fact.

Back in 1987, Gary Gygax advised that

When the principal characters in a story (the campaign) are free-willed and have a multitude of choices regarding how to proceed, it is counterproductive – and, in fact, impossible – to preordain just how the events in the campaign will unfold.

In 2009, the Alexandrian made the firm case most of us are familiar with: don't prep plots.

A plot is the sequence of events in a story.

And the problem with trying to prep a plot for an RPG is that you’re attempting to pre-determine events that have not yet happened. Your gaming session is not a story — it is a happening. It is something about which stories can be told, but in the genesis of the moment it is not a tale being told. It is a fact that is transpiring.

In 2021, the Angry GM noted that

the story—the narrative—is an emergent thing. Your game’s going to have a narrative when it’s done. Like it or not. And people are going to interpret it based on how they think stories work. Players won’t experience the game as it was. They’ll experience it based on their warped perception of it. [...]

Once your game’s done, it’s going to have had a plot. It’s going to have followed a single sequence of events. There’s going to have been a climax. People—even you—will remember that s$&%. You can either use what power you have to steer the game toward the best narrative possible. One that does the things that thirty millenniums of storytelling have taught us make for good stories. Or you can hope and pray that the emergent narrative is accidentally a good one. It’s your call.

And just recently in 2024, Tom van Winkle wrote a superb article about the nuances of all this. If you only have time to read one blog post today, go read that one instead of this.

The assumption seems to be that to create a story, you need a plot in advance. It's important for the entire entry here to understand that that is not true. [...]

What all the "anti-story" gamers have in common today is that they allowed other people to define the term "story" for them as "pre-designed plot," even though that's not what story means.

He analyses "anti-story" gamers, who

have, apparently unwittingly, accepted the false idea that RPGs would need plots designed in advance to have stories in a story-telling game. Their objections are therefore confusing for many people who are aware that they experience stories arising spontaneously in RPGs.

The underlying claim is: playing a tabletop role-playing game is intrinsically a process of telling a story. And yes, in a technical sense, this is absolutely true. In a TTRPG session, real-world people are making deliberate decisions that lead to the details of a fictional universe and events within it being filled in. Therefore, definitionally speaking, the players and GM have collaborated to tell a story.

Tom van Winkle in particular discusses the literature, and what scholars of story and narrative have agreed on, and how that applies.

The problem, though, is that in everyday, natural English for the layperson, the phrase "tell a story" comes with all sorts of baggage that doesn't necessarily apply to TTRPGs.

The phrase is laden with subtle implications in common English:

1. Telling a story means the storytellers are doing so with the primary goal of producing a 'good story', or at least are telling a story intentionally
2. Telling a story means the storytellers have equal parts, or at least similar amounts of creative control
3. Telling a story means the process is done selectively, without random elements
4. Telling a story means that core elements of the narrative are planned (at least a little in advance), not suddenly discovered
5. Telling a story means that people are making choices in order to further the narrative in a satisfying way, which might not be the 'optimal' or even plausible choices for a particular character
6. Telling a story is unregulated by formal mechanics, or at least largely so

None of these are true of TTRPGs in general. They're not even all true simultaneously for most story-telling games!

So telling a novice who's interested in entering the hobby that a TTRPG is necessarily 'about telling a story' is frankly just misleading that person, unless you stop and break down why 'telling a story' doesn't mean most of what they think it means. (And it may lead to further misunderstandings, like when they hear the term 'player agency' and think it means creative agency over the fictive world, and so on...)

...We still have this phrase, 'story game'.

Two axes

When I think about 'story games' and TTRPGs, I envisage two parallel tracks running left to right.

On the first axis, we have 'rules' to the left and 'freeform' to the right. This axis mostly has to do with the GM, if the game has one.

• A game can be towards the left, 'rules', with lots of rules and processes for decision-making. A game here encourages system mastery for both the GM and the players. It doesn't necessarily imply more control or omniscience for the GM: the game could be heavily reliant on random tables, for instance, or there could be lots of codified rules for how the players get to mess around with the game world directly rather than through their characters.
• A game can be towards the right, 'freeform', taking an open-ended and freeform approach to actual gameplay. In this case the GM is making up a lot as they go along, relying more on the characteristics of the world that have so far been determined than on rules and frameworks provided by the game.
• A game can be somewhere in the middle, with moderate rule support.

On the second axis, we have 'decisions' to the left and 'insertions' to the right. This axis has more to do with the players than the GM.

• A game can be towards the left, 'decisions', where players control their character's mind – the decisions they make – and nothing else. The GM determines what is in the world, controls events and NPCs, and adjudicates PC decision outcomes. (But even the most leftward TTRPGs usually have a carve-out here for character generation, where players get to pick things about their character which the character realistically couldn't have chosen within the world.)
• A game can be towards the right, 'insertions', where players have power over aspects of the game that isn't through their characters. In some situations characters can create, choose, affect, invent, or veto, but in games like this the players have an ability to create, choose, affect, invent, or veto.
• A game can be somewhere in the middle, mixing approaches.
  

The reason I picture the tracks as parallel is that many games, if you map them onto the axes, make a line that's close to vertical. That is,

• Most, though not all, 'traddish TTRPGs' (games with few to no overt player-available story-telling elements) are also mechanically rigorous. They are towards the left on both axes. In general, the GM has lots of power and mechanical support, and the players will know that most things they choose to do will be covered by rules. Whether those rules are good or bad, players may be uneasy with situations where the GM has to go with their gut over having an 'official' answer. It will be unusual (troubling, even) for a GM to invite a player to fill in gaps in the world or determine action outcomes.
• Most, though not all, 'collaborative story-telling games' (in which players are permitted to insert content directly into the world rather than being restricted to attempts to alter the world with their characters) have relatively few rules and processes. They are towards the right on both axes. In general, there isn't anywhere near as much of an authority disparity between the GM and the players, or there might not be a GM at all. The game rules tend to be 'softer' or 'fuzzier', the players are given more overt license to override or ignore them, and the mechanical framework is usually designed more towards 'crafting a satisfying narrative' than towards 'playing a skill-requiring game' or 'simulating a fictional world'.

I'm personally most interested in the leftward side of both scales. I've designed at least one little game that wanders around the middle of the axes, and have a few others sitting on the project pile, but as a designer and player I mostly lean left, towards 'traddish TTRPGs'.

But I'm also interested, from a design point of view, in the rare oddballs. The really open-ended, rules-light TTRPGs with high GM authority, perhaps like this idea. And the highly constrained, rules-heavy, almost formulaic, versions of story-telling games, with no referee.

 

Ways of playing

We can map the way people actually play games onto these two tracks, too. As opposed to how games were designed to be played.

The big example here is (as it often is) D&D 5e. The system is to the centre-left on the rules/freeform track: it's crunchy and extensive compared to a lot of indie games, but not as much as previous editions of the same game, or GURPS, or whatever). And it's quite far left on the decisions/insertions track: the official rules only contain (outside character generation) a few optional and tacked-on suggestions about direct player control over the world.

Interestingly, this isn't always borne out in play. It's possibly due to the rise of people entering the hobby via watching televised 'actual play' by actors, or possibly a trend that's always been there but is just more visible now. A lot of people these days play D&D as if it was further right on the decisions/insertions scale. Players in a lot of games end up with a certain amount of creative control over the world.

To put it in fuzzier terms, they inject elements of a collaborative story-telling exercise into a relatively traddish TTRPG when they play. And that's fine. I suspect they might be better served by playing an actual story-telling game with design elements supporting that, but ultimately, let people have their own fun.

To sum up

This is just how I think about things. It's not a formal system or a position on how things ought to be done.

I think it's fair to say that all TTRPG involves the creation of story – and again, go read van Winkle's article for a really well-considered take – and that some people have the creation of that story as a more primary concern than others. I think that the phrase 'telling a story' has misleading implications when it comes to TTRPGs, which is why I personally avoid saying that TTRPGs deeply involve it, even if (getting into the weeds) it's true. And I find it interesting that when it comes to story, we can try to pin games onto two axes which quite often correlate with one another.

Character class: Gestalt of magic items

Game idea status: Non-instantiated; untested

The pitch

In your next tabletop role-playing game, you play as a mismatched assortment of sapient magic items. You are seeking like-minded paraphernalia to add to your burgeoning hivemind. Underneath the magical finery and glowing gemstones is a small, timid commoner who doesn't really know what is going on, but who you have formed a fierce attachment to.

Being a magical treasure hoard

Character idea: You are four or five magic items, of various levels of intelligence and various capabilities. Parts of you can move. Others can perceive their environment. Others can communicate with the fleshy types, or puppet their movements. You work in superb co-ordination, each making the others stronger, and forming a gestalt entity stronger than the individual nodes in your network.

Possible appearance: An old biddy is napping in an ornate wooden throne which walks on four clawed feet, careful not to wake her. She grips a glowing sword as she snoozes – its blue blade dances this way and that, clearly moving her bony arm rather than the other way around. A griffon's head graven upon a shield glares from the top of the throne, held by an animated rope. In the old lady's lap is an hourglass absolutely dripping with fretwork skulls; within, the sand is frozen in time.

Motivation: You are lonely and incomplete. You seek missing members of once-paired items, objects of particular aesthetics to complete your look, magical swords of similar alignment, bored cursed amulets, and so on.

Terminology: You are a gestalt entity. Your prospective compatibility with other sapient magic items you might come across is your gestalt personality. The person you have convinced to carry all of your components around (the ones that can't carry themselves) is your host. They perform tasks for you and in return you shower them in good luck, ability bonuses, conjured food, saleable abilities, magical protections, and adventure.

Legal status: Chances are, the local magistrates' willingness to recognise you as a self-actualised individual is highly questionable. Even in the kind of utopia which does grant personhood to smart objects, you are likely still on the run from covetous dragons and other unsavoury types.

Niche protection: Are you kidding me?

Player characters and hosts

These objects have achieved concordance, or at least codependence, through a history of amicable cooperation. They fundamentally want to remain together; they have no interest in being separated.

Therefore, the character is never at risk of being "parcelled out" by other PCs.

Sapient artefacts are notoriously difficult for a living wielder or wearer to get on with nicely. You have problems of:

• Personality or alignment conflict
• Jealousy or disparagement of other magic items (and their different nature or perceived utility)
  
• Jealousy of the capabilities of the living, or criticism of their perceived weaknesses
  
• Pridefulness; expectation of obedience or submission from all other than the item's maker
  
• Disrespect of the long-lived and unbreakable for organic intelligences
  
• The desire to be carried at all times, to be treasured, to be maintained and given consideration above the bearer's more intrinsic goals
• Items having instinctual control over their wielder or wearer in various ways, and unwilling or unable to suppress it for long
  

It's a rare person indeed – and a meek, biddable one – who meets all the slightly different criteria of a whole assemblage of such items.

Therefore, the character is not at risk of disappearing because it "makes sense" for some other PC to wield and wear them all at once.

At some point, the gestalt entity's host – a person who is probably regarded as something between a valued servant, a sapient home, and a fascinating pet – might die. This is not sufficient reason for another PC to stand in, except as an extremely short, uncomfortable stopgap until the gestalt entity can travel to a population centre to begin the long, arduous search for another truly suitable host. This may or may not be considered a form of character death, dependent on the nature of the particular game.

Game mechanics

Take a character sheet and some scissors, and cut away everything but the important box which says 'equipment list'.

I'm not going to go so far as to instantiate this character class for any particular game system.

Obviously it's going to take some GM work. The following guidelines occur to me.

How to handle advancement:

• Start out with four or five magic items, able to communicate amongst themselves telepathically, visually, and/or tactilely. Between them they should have the ability to move around, communicate with other folks, protect themselves, perceive their environment, and do something that could be leveraged to make money to pay their way. They should also have a short list of utility or battle powers – say, one per item.
• The player should be (e.g.) picking from a set of pre-prepared candidate objects/powers rather than getting to pick all the details of the magic items for their starting gestalt character.
• For character progression, switch up between unlocking new powers per item, and adding new friends to the convergent hivemind. This character class is the perfect use case for 'found advancement'.
• Try to treat this as special; seed the world with possibilities. Don't just say "you're level seven now, so I guess another magic tiara with a compatible personality shows up and integrates with you. Here are its powers." Ideally, you should provide the player characters with leads and clues as to all sorts of things out there in the world and/or lost long ago, and if they pursue the more difficult, elusive, and dangerous ones, the rescued artefact is correspondingly stronger as a reward (after all, the other PCs will be getting more experience because of the higher challenge).
  

Possible items and powers:

• Three cuts from the elsewhere axe open a semi-permanent portal to wherever the last such cuts were made. Also breaks into extradimensional spaces.
  
• Hood of invisibility blinds the wearer while making them invisible. Not too much trouble when other items in the gestalt can do the seeing.
  
• Old slippers of agility are very comfortable; improve reflexes and stealth; worn through at the heels.
• Cursed hat of headlessness flies through the air carrying small weights; seeks legendary 'hatrack of lichkind'.
• Wand of force emanates dangerous gravitational waves and can be used to get around in a pinch.
• An old artefact has expended all its uses as a rod of reincarnation but can still summon woodland creatures and force them to sing.
• Classic flying carpet has powerful mobility and speed, little intelligence, follows its fellow objects like a lost puppy.
• Scarf of glittering fascination seeks other accoutrements in complementary colours; grants wearer powers of hypnosis and authoritative voice.
• Demanding helm keeps full-face visor open except to turn aside blows; acts as immovable rod in times of great and specific need.
• Half-finished golem, creator's whole civilisation long dead and their secrets gone with them, is missing its voice, one arm, and ability to turn around.
• Just the left glove of giant strength only provides said strength to the left side of the body; yearns for its twin.
• Animated tent can pitch self and walk short distances, dragging things with it; also predicts the weather and cleans shoes and tack.
  
• etc.
  

Peril, hit points, and death:

• The host should have baseline commoner statistics, likely boosted by some of the magic items in the gestalt. The person's hit points and skills and things never really go up, and don't matter too much. The player playing the gestalt entity is just kind of puppeteering them, just like the gestalt entity is in-world.
  
• It's possible to play this kind of character in 'high score mode', where the goal is to keep the same host alive for as long as possible while racking up as many magic items discovered and checked for compatibility as possible.
• Alternatively, to better fit in with other character types in a game where everyone is meant to experience true peril, the GM needs to do some work. I mentioned above that you can treat host death as character death by making it incredibly difficult to find a new host: the magic items can't get the quality of life they prefer without a host, so if it happens, they disappear from the campaign.
• You can also start rolling saves or tracking hit points and hardness or making destruction checks or whatever your system already uses for smashing objects up. This means it needs to be possible to repair at a similar pace to the in-game healing rate; that might already shake out of the system neatly, or you might need to make it a property of one of the sapient items.
  
• Regardless of approach, you could usefully level threats directly towards the aggregated items. After all, everyone wants a magic object or two, and this set is hanging around in the possession of some nobody! Alternatively, some of the items might be cursed or diabolic or spiritually aligned, in danger of being exorcised or corrupted or disenchanted. Note that a lot of players really hate when their characters are stolen from or kidnapped, so tread carefully with this.
  

Let me know

If you've tried this or something like it!

Other reading

Willful weapons and the trouble they cause: https://www.sjgames.com/pyramid/sample.html?id=1648

Interesting magic items: https://periaptgames.blogspot.com/2023/04/a-puzzle-from-1978-ad-1st-edition.html

Ideas for awoken magic items: https://githyankidiaspora.com/2015/04/20/wake-up-magic-items-wake-up-dccrpg/

A history of swords with ego: https://www.paulsgameblog.com/2018/01/28/ego-through-the-ages/

Difficulties with intelligent swords: https://www.tenkarstavern.com/2012/12/intelligent-swords-in-ad-1e-whats-with.html

Sapience in AD&D: https://periaptgames.blogspot.com/2023/04/a-puzzle-from-1978-ad-1st-edition.html

The 'Four Humors' Theory of TTRPG Players

The Angry GM recently published an article about the distinct ways in which players play RPGs, with the specific example of D&D.

He mentioned in particular the rise, or increase, of an attitude towards the game as an intrinsically theatrical activity, adding that to the old GNS classification:

Some players see D&D as a Game. They think it’s about overcoming obstacles, winning adventures, accomplishing goals, and advancing characters.

Some players see D&D as a Narrative. They think it’s about telling a story of fantasy adventure and they want to share the most interesting story possible.

Some players see D&D as a Simulation. They think it’s about entering a world as a character and dealing with it as it is. Whatever happens happens.

And now, some players see D&D as a Performance. They think it’s about putting on a show. They have a role to play and they’ve got to play it to the hilt. In the most interesting and engaging way possible.

It's a good article, worth checking out. While reading, it occurred to me that we could treat GNS Theory as just a way to describe some of the emergent properties of a simple pair of dichotomies, along the lines of another well-respected and evidence-based organisational schema, that of the humoral theory of human health.

Take all of this very seriously please.

A simple pair of dichotomies

Somebody is playing a tabletop role-playing game. They are engaging with an activity, making decisions, thinking about what they are doing. The act of play is, ultimately, a realisation of the act of thought. What is the player spending most of their brainpower thinking about?

There are two dichotomies here.

1. Is the player thinking mostly about their real world environment (the people they are playing with, the game rules, the miniatures, the side conversations)? Or are they thinking mostly about the fictive setting? Or something in between?
2. Is the player thinking mostly in an inward-looking away, about themself and what is theirs or squarely within their purview? Or are they thinking mostly in an outward-looking way, about things around them and outside of their control? Or something in between?

We can put this on a pair of axes, as in this professionally-drawn image.

And now a picture emerges, of what GNS+P is describing, but defined in terms of these innate characteristics of human thought: wet, dry, hot, and cold fictive, reality, inward-looking, and outward-looking.

 

These of course are what modern medicine ludology teaches us are the fundamental building blocks of blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile different ways to engage with a role-playing game.

GNS+P Theory doesn't map precisely to the four resulting quadrants, of course. There's some interplay and outliers. We have debatable blobs, not square pigeonholes.

Let's break this exciting new bit of science down.

Yellow bile 'TTRPG as Game'

Temperament: choleric (ambitious, driven, aggressive)

What is a Gamist player thinking about?

Their thoughts tend to be INWARD-LOOKING: upon their own (and usually necessarily, the group's) ability to win; to this end they channel attention into their own player skill, their own knowledge of the rules, and making decisions about their own character's capabilities.

Their thoughts typically tend towards REALITY: the nature of the game and how to win it, the rules and mechanics, win and lose conditions, and how to get other players to go along with their plans. But they do still focus some of their attention on parts of the fictive environment: the obstacles to winning that their character encounters, and the mechanical ways they can get advantages with their character (in particular, advancement). The yellow blob in the diagram therefore stretches away towards the left.

To put it another way, Gamists have an excess of yellow bile.

Black bile 'TTRPG as Narrative'

Temperament: melancholic (sad, delusional, deep in fantasy)

What is a Narrativist player thinking about?

Their thoughts tend to be OUTWARD-LOOKING: towards the group having a satisfying play experience and how the game's play will become a story after the fact. At times, they may care more about their own enjoyment of the game-as-story, thus leaning towards the inwards-looking position.

Their thoughts tend towards REALITY: making decisions for the good of the players' play experience, the emergent story, and what will be 'interesting'. If they care about the game rules, it is in case those become an impediment to higher-order goals. (The Narrativist's thoughts may also drive towards a story with verisimilitude and/or immersion, creeping towards engagement with the fictive environment.)

To put it terms we can all understand, Narrativists may have an excess of black bile.

Phlegm 'TTRPG as Simulation'

Temperament: phlegmatic (calm, reserved, analytical)

What is a Simulationist player thinking about?

Their thoughts tend to be OUTWARD-LOOKING: at the world around their character, and at things they don't already know. They want to discover things about the fictive world and see how they mesh together, and inwards things like their knowledge of the rules and their character are mostly ancillary to that. But the act of engagement still requires making plausible decisions about the character, and the Simulationist does typically spend some attention on their character's place within the world (thus, the blue blob on the chart reaches upward).

The Simulationist's thoughts are almost strictly FICTIVE: They care most about the world they are playing in. The game's rules are meant to simulate a world, the GM is the arbiter of those rules, and the outcome of those rules is to be accepted and examined, never challenged or overruled for the sake of higher-order player/GM goals.

So of course, Simulationists have an excess of phlegm.

Blood 'TTRPG as Performance'

Temperament: sanguine (passionate, mirthful, self-indulgent)

The Angry GM suggested 'Performance' as a new and increasingly popular playstyle category, characterised by (amongst other things) creating

characters with clearly defined motivations, personalities, beliefs, goals, and fears right from the get-go. Their character’s character doesn’t emerge from gameplay and it doesn’t change as the game plays out.

What is a Performer player thinking about?

 

Their thoughts are ultimately INWARD-LOOKING: Most of all, they care about their own character, deciding its intrinsic properties, and then getting across those preselected properties.

Their thoughts are largely on the FICTIVE: How to affect the fictive world by determining a tiny part of it; looking for opportunities in the world to accomplish their secondary goal of expression. External things like 'the game rules' and 'the other players' don't impact this very much for trad RPGs.

Or as we normal, modern people would definitely say in normal, modern terms, "Performers have an excess of blood".

I put something weird on that chart, though.

 Entertainer island

I think there's a little outcrop of the Performative playstyle occupying the diametrically opposite position.

A player can start with a solid foundation of hot, wet inward, fictive humors. That is, they have a firmly imagined static character with predetermined characteristics and sometimes even an intention to pursue a 'character arc', whatever on earth that means when you're (a) playing a game that (b) involves, at its most fundamental level, making decisions about situations that you have no foreknowledge of.

But with those humors as a firm foundation, most of the player's attention is freed up to focus on the actual performative act, which is ultimately outward-looking in reality (given that it is a process of interaction with an audience). With this inversion of the expression of their bodily gameplay humors, the Performer is now thinking primarily about the theatrical entertainment of the other players / the GM / their Twitch audience / passersby in the real world. When taken to excess, to the game's detriment.

Balancing the humors

So it seems likely that people can have a predisposition towards certain humors, and we might or might not regard this as an imbalance of humors.

What are the implications? Let's sketch just a few, presupposing (naturally) that two thousand years of high-quality humoral medicine can be extended to the modern environment of the game table.

• A player who is desirous of a more neutral or 'balanced' playstyle may examine the degrees to which they are inward- or outward-looking, in the fictive world or reality, and deliberately change their behaviours accordingly.
• If the players and the GM at a table all have a similar humoral temperament, then we would expect their games to run well if they indulge in that temperament, although players of a different style would scarcely recognise the game they were playing!
• In rare circumstances where the group dynamics are just right, players of completely opposite humoral temperaments may 'cancel out' at the table due to the ways they use and express those temperaments, resulting in (against the odds) a harmonious, near-maximally-enjoyable game.
• Obviously, players may be able to select the right foods and drinks to modulate any excess of humors. By careful review of TTRPG play I have discerned some of the modern-day nostrums: pizza (hot + dry); coffee (hot + wet); soda (cold + wet); chips (cold + dry).

Science marches ever onwards.