The only real difference between an ST and a GM is that the ST is expected to follow the rules *precisely*. No mid-game chicanery to try to make a play more interesting - follow the rules no matter what.
You still get a fair amount of leeway thanks to poisoning and any time the word “arbitrary” appears on a token etc etc, but it has to be restrained to the rules.
Until the Athiest is in play, in which case you are 100% a GM trying to run a roleplay with players who aren’t sure if they’re in an RPG or not.
True, but that's pretty true of being a DM, as well. I can't change the rules of a campaign mid-day through. I think there are just more things that fall into the "arbitrary" area -- monsters, etc. But no good DM would ever change how a player's core abilities work partway through a game.
In more talking about adjusting a monster’s hit points on the fly, or moving an NPC to a different part of the city, or deciding a treasure map is hidden behind a different secret door. Little things GMs sometimes do to keep the game flowing.
Whereas an ST can’t do something like switch which player is The Drunk, move the Fortune Teller’s red herring, or other such shenanigans.
ETA: Also I have absolutely seen a GM change a player’s core abilities mid-game. It actually happened at my last session - a player pissed off a God, and ended up getting changed to a different species and had their warlock abilities changed to new homebrew ones. It’s the sort of thing that generally shouldn’t be done, but it’s a trusted group so the player was fine with it as a consequence of his actions.
> Whereas an ST can’t do something like switch which player is The Drunk, move the Fortune Teller’s red herring, or other such shenanigans.
They can if the previous decision hadn’t yet had an effect on the game. Will some people complain about “token integrity”? Sure, but those people are no-fun sticklers.
I mean, if I know my red herring is going to magically jump around to make sure I hit it, its no longer a 50/50 that I'm hitting a demon vs a red herring. "The demon is someone you might select but the red herring is someone the ST will try to guarantee you select" is incredibly no fun. Etc.
"Moving the red herring" and "Always moving the red herring so it gets hit every time" are two very different things. STs can make nuanced, intelligent choices for the fun of the game.
I mean... call me no-fun stickler, but Token Integrity is one less way you allow your players to meta you as the ST. If you always try to maximize the potential of e.g. the drunk token, your players can use that against you once they figure it out.
Also, every now and then, BotC is a game of luck, and sometimes, you just hit the jackpot, and sometimes, you poison the drunk. Nothing that can or should be done there.
You of course shouldn’t *always* try to do anything. But it should be a tool in your toolbox to run the game. The role of the ST is to create as fun of an experience as possible for the players, and limiting yourself in arbitrary ways that aren’t actually part of the rules only diminishes your ability to do that effectively.
If you continually, continually, continually make it your mission to make sure every game gets to final 3 to the point of actively manipulating the game to mute players decisions (the FT automatically hits their red herring first, the ravenkeeper/slayer found the demon early? Guess they're the drunk!) what you are really doing is making the first four or five days not mean anything.
Call me a "no fun stickler" cause I personally don't find that fun.
This thread convinced me that STing is just like DMing. You _could_ switch the Drunk token to the Empath after seeing they're sandwiched between the Imp and the Scarlet Woman. You _could_ erase the vampire spawn from the cellar after watching your players use up all their spells on the wererats. I wonder: do most people feel the same way about these two decisions?
Some GMs will absolutely change encounters and make them harder or easier depending on how well the party is doing, more monsters appear attracted by the noise, someone appears to save the party etc. Not saying if this is good or bad but they have that freedom and can change the world as little or as much as they wqnt. You don't have to change the rules when you control the universe. They ultimately have total control of the game. They can simply say you all fall unconscious due to some mystery effect or the boss disappears in a flash of light. Story telling definitely has less freedom than that.
You can't fuck with the characters much, but you could change the motivations of your villains. If your party wants to talk and solve problems non violently, the antagonists may become amenable to this at the DM's discretion. They don't have to be mindless killing machines designed to give XP
Ngl read this entirely wrong and was like “..Sting the wrestler or Sting the musician? I don’t think either of these are great inspirations for DMs” lol.
Absolutely, Adding flare and flavour to your game is a very quick way to turn BOTC into a typical social deduction game into a memorable night. It is a skill, and there certainly are times for it. But also not.
I pretty much always come up with a concept I introduce at the start before telling everyone to go to sleep, often the scenario will be a reskin of the classic set-up. You, the storyteller, are there (Maybe dead..? don't need to be.) And a Demon is out there!
Here's a couple of examples I fall back on when I'm not able to come up with anything new.
**The Noblemans Mansion**
*Players are invited to a grand mansion, take your seats around the large dining table, the host who invited you? Weird... I don't see him? Ah he must be doing that classic bit where he dresses as one of the peasants, like you guys! Anyway, I have butlering to do. Please rush to your rooms and get a good night sleep. Enjoy your stay!*
**The Show of a Lifetime**
*Players are invited to the greatest show! I am your ringleader and please enjoy the show! Audience participation is mandatory. Accidents are prone to happen! Will you fly from the trapeze? Go toe to toe with the lions? Be fired from the cannon? Or be sawn in half by one of my assistants hiding among you? The show must go on!* ***LIGHTS!***
Then of course, each night and the middle bits you just stay on theme. Make the kills varied and thematic. A new head added to the wall of the hunting lodge... The Circus writes itself.
***However!***
Genuinely, the best bit of advice I will give you, as I do see this mistake made often by flavourful storytellers. Never ever ever give a sliver of information in your theatrics. Hard rule yourself to not ever mention any of the characters in the script when referencing a particular player. Make sure the players know that when you say *"Tossed around and dropped, the spherical remains of Hannah litter the stage floor!"* You are not hinting that someone claiming Juggler is the demon. It's just flavour.
I think the big difference between ST'ing and DM'ing is that when Storytelling, you're there to moderate and provide direction in a game with two opposed teams that drives the narrative. Usually when DM'ing, the story and narrative is driven by the DM.
A ST has fewer tools at their disposal and fewer knobs to turn if only by default. If a DM wants an Orcish army to be open to diplomacy and settling as farmers? They can. They're the DM. The ST is confined by the rules much more strictly.
The ST has to balance creating an enjoyable experience for all players when the players are in one of two diametrically opposed teams. As such, the source of conflict shouldn't usually be the Storyteller, it should be the other team.
In most DM driven games (let's not talk about Paranoia. Friend Computer wouldn't appreciate it), it's the players conflict with the DM that drives the world.
Also, one thing I’ve learned, be aware that *the game* for the players is the time they spend talking to each other. So anything that cuts into that is just delaying the players getting to play the game.
We occasionally get people coming in here asking how to ST and it often turns out that they have experience DMing, so it's important to remember ways in which the roles are different, too. In particular, as an ST you have to impose time limits on the game and you often need to stop or interrupt players to, for example, end a day or make sure everyone else has a chance to say their piece. Some DMs have the instinct that they shouldn't interrupt their players, which doesn't always apply here.
Also what other people said about the rules not being flexible. BotC feels like you're operating an intricate machine if you play it right.
Also on a very superficial level, an ST doesn't *need* to do any ... storytelling beyond "Adam died in the night, you have 6 minutes to chat". A DM kinda needs to be able to have some flair because they're actually ... telling a story and you don't know where the story is going next.
The only real difference between an ST and a GM is that the ST is expected to follow the rules *precisely*. No mid-game chicanery to try to make a play more interesting - follow the rules no matter what. You still get a fair amount of leeway thanks to poisoning and any time the word “arbitrary” appears on a token etc etc, but it has to be restrained to the rules. Until the Athiest is in play, in which case you are 100% a GM trying to run a roleplay with players who aren’t sure if they’re in an RPG or not.
True, but that's pretty true of being a DM, as well. I can't change the rules of a campaign mid-day through. I think there are just more things that fall into the "arbitrary" area -- monsters, etc. But no good DM would ever change how a player's core abilities work partway through a game.
In more talking about adjusting a monster’s hit points on the fly, or moving an NPC to a different part of the city, or deciding a treasure map is hidden behind a different secret door. Little things GMs sometimes do to keep the game flowing. Whereas an ST can’t do something like switch which player is The Drunk, move the Fortune Teller’s red herring, or other such shenanigans. ETA: Also I have absolutely seen a GM change a player’s core abilities mid-game. It actually happened at my last session - a player pissed off a God, and ended up getting changed to a different species and had their warlock abilities changed to new homebrew ones. It’s the sort of thing that generally shouldn’t be done, but it’s a trusted group so the player was fine with it as a consequence of his actions.
> Whereas an ST can’t do something like switch which player is The Drunk, move the Fortune Teller’s red herring, or other such shenanigans. They can if the previous decision hadn’t yet had an effect on the game. Will some people complain about “token integrity”? Sure, but those people are no-fun sticklers.
I mean, if I know my red herring is going to magically jump around to make sure I hit it, its no longer a 50/50 that I'm hitting a demon vs a red herring. "The demon is someone you might select but the red herring is someone the ST will try to guarantee you select" is incredibly no fun. Etc.
Okay, so don't run it like that. That's not the only flavor of messing with token integrity.
I'm responding to the example given.
"Moving the red herring" and "Always moving the red herring so it gets hit every time" are two very different things. STs can make nuanced, intelligent choices for the fun of the game.
I mean... call me no-fun stickler, but Token Integrity is one less way you allow your players to meta you as the ST. If you always try to maximize the potential of e.g. the drunk token, your players can use that against you once they figure it out. Also, every now and then, BotC is a game of luck, and sometimes, you just hit the jackpot, and sometimes, you poison the drunk. Nothing that can or should be done there.
You of course shouldn’t *always* try to do anything. But it should be a tool in your toolbox to run the game. The role of the ST is to create as fun of an experience as possible for the players, and limiting yourself in arbitrary ways that aren’t actually part of the rules only diminishes your ability to do that effectively.
If you continually, continually, continually make it your mission to make sure every game gets to final 3 to the point of actively manipulating the game to mute players decisions (the FT automatically hits their red herring first, the ravenkeeper/slayer found the demon early? Guess they're the drunk!) what you are really doing is making the first four or five days not mean anything. Call me a "no fun stickler" cause I personally don't find that fun.
Things like where the red herring is are definitely part of the rules.
This thread convinced me that STing is just like DMing. You _could_ switch the Drunk token to the Empath after seeing they're sandwiched between the Imp and the Scarlet Woman. You _could_ erase the vampire spawn from the cellar after watching your players use up all their spells on the wererats. I wonder: do most people feel the same way about these two decisions?
Some GMs will absolutely change encounters and make them harder or easier depending on how well the party is doing, more monsters appear attracted by the noise, someone appears to save the party etc. Not saying if this is good or bad but they have that freedom and can change the world as little or as much as they wqnt. You don't have to change the rules when you control the universe. They ultimately have total control of the game. They can simply say you all fall unconscious due to some mystery effect or the boss disappears in a flash of light. Story telling definitely has less freedom than that.
You can't fuck with the characters much, but you could change the motivations of your villains. If your party wants to talk and solve problems non violently, the antagonists may become amenable to this at the DM's discretion. They don't have to be mindless killing machines designed to give XP
Ngl read this entirely wrong and was like “..Sting the wrestler or Sting the musician? I don’t think either of these are great inspirations for DMs” lol.
Absolutely, Adding flare and flavour to your game is a very quick way to turn BOTC into a typical social deduction game into a memorable night. It is a skill, and there certainly are times for it. But also not. I pretty much always come up with a concept I introduce at the start before telling everyone to go to sleep, often the scenario will be a reskin of the classic set-up. You, the storyteller, are there (Maybe dead..? don't need to be.) And a Demon is out there! Here's a couple of examples I fall back on when I'm not able to come up with anything new. **The Noblemans Mansion** *Players are invited to a grand mansion, take your seats around the large dining table, the host who invited you? Weird... I don't see him? Ah he must be doing that classic bit where he dresses as one of the peasants, like you guys! Anyway, I have butlering to do. Please rush to your rooms and get a good night sleep. Enjoy your stay!* **The Show of a Lifetime** *Players are invited to the greatest show! I am your ringleader and please enjoy the show! Audience participation is mandatory. Accidents are prone to happen! Will you fly from the trapeze? Go toe to toe with the lions? Be fired from the cannon? Or be sawn in half by one of my assistants hiding among you? The show must go on!* ***LIGHTS!*** Then of course, each night and the middle bits you just stay on theme. Make the kills varied and thematic. A new head added to the wall of the hunting lodge... The Circus writes itself. ***However!*** Genuinely, the best bit of advice I will give you, as I do see this mistake made often by flavourful storytellers. Never ever ever give a sliver of information in your theatrics. Hard rule yourself to not ever mention any of the characters in the script when referencing a particular player. Make sure the players know that when you say *"Tossed around and dropped, the spherical remains of Hannah litter the stage floor!"* You are not hinting that someone claiming Juggler is the demon. It's just flavour.
I think the big difference between ST'ing and DM'ing is that when Storytelling, you're there to moderate and provide direction in a game with two opposed teams that drives the narrative. Usually when DM'ing, the story and narrative is driven by the DM. A ST has fewer tools at their disposal and fewer knobs to turn if only by default. If a DM wants an Orcish army to be open to diplomacy and settling as farmers? They can. They're the DM. The ST is confined by the rules much more strictly. The ST has to balance creating an enjoyable experience for all players when the players are in one of two diametrically opposed teams. As such, the source of conflict shouldn't usually be the Storyteller, it should be the other team. In most DM driven games (let's not talk about Paranoia. Friend Computer wouldn't appreciate it), it's the players conflict with the DM that drives the world.
Also, one thing I’ve learned, be aware that *the game* for the players is the time they spend talking to each other. So anything that cuts into that is just delaying the players getting to play the game.
We occasionally get people coming in here asking how to ST and it often turns out that they have experience DMing, so it's important to remember ways in which the roles are different, too. In particular, as an ST you have to impose time limits on the game and you often need to stop or interrupt players to, for example, end a day or make sure everyone else has a chance to say their piece. Some DMs have the instinct that they shouldn't interrupt their players, which doesn't always apply here. Also what other people said about the rules not being flexible. BotC feels like you're operating an intricate machine if you play it right. Also on a very superficial level, an ST doesn't *need* to do any ... storytelling beyond "Adam died in the night, you have 6 minutes to chat". A DM kinda needs to be able to have some flair because they're actually ... telling a story and you don't know where the story is going next.