How to Reconcile Different Expectations About Whether a Game Is About Storytelling
When players disagree about whether a game should focus on storytelling, they may mean different things by “story.” One person may want character scenes and memorable turns; another may want tactical challenges, exploration, or room to make plans. Before changing the game, identify the experience each person wants, agree on a few observable priorities, and try that agreement for a session or two. The goal is a shared game that gives everyone meaningful ways to participate—not a debate about whether one play style is correct.
Find the disagreement beneath the word “story”
Ask each player what they hope to spend more time doing at the table. Invite concrete answers: “I want our characters to have more conversations,” “I want choices to change what happens next,” “I want puzzles and exploration,” or “I want fights where our decisions matter.” These answers reveal more than asking whether someone likes story. A player who says “I’m here for the story” might want dramatic character choices, while another might mean a clear plot that moves briskly.
Separate three questions that often get bundled together: what activities the group enjoys, what tone they want, and how much control they expect over the fictional world. A person may enjoy a cinematic tone but prefer the game master to describe places and outcomes. Someone else may want to invent details but not spend much time in character dialogue. Those preferences can coexist if the group makes them explicit.
Official Dungeons & Dragons guidance offers useful prompts for this conversation: combat versus immersive roleplay, cinematic versus gritty, serious versus silly, and planned versus improvised. Treat these as discussion starters, not fixed categories. A group can want tactical combat and vivid character moments in the same campaign; the question is how much table time each should receive. D&D Beyond’s Basic Rules: The Basics
Describe the game with activities, not labels
“Story-focused” and “game-focused” are too broad to settle expectations. Translate them into activities the group can picture. For example, a campaign might include one character scene at the start of each session, a consequential group decision during the main adventure, and a tactical encounter when the fiction leads there. That is a tentative mix, not a promise that every session will follow a script.
Try a quick round in which each person names one activity they would like more of and one they are content to see less often. Keep the options neutral: “shorter planning conversations” is more useful than “less stalling,” and “more chances to describe what my character notices” is clearer than “more roleplay.” Ask what a satisfying session would contain, rather than asking people to defend their tastes.
Then summarize the common ground in a sentence: “We want an adventurous game with meaningful character choices, brisk scenes, and regular tactical challenges.” If the sentence sounds too general, add a practical detail: “We’ll usually move from the opening situation to a decision or obstacle within the first half hour.” That timing is an example for the group to adjust, not a universal rule.
Agree on a short trial, not a permanent identity
A useful agreement should be easy to notice and easy to revise. Pick one or two changes for the next session, such as asking players what their characters want before resolving a scene, or ending with a brief check-in about which parts they want more of. Avoid redesigning the whole campaign after one frustrating evening; a single session may have been unusual.
You can borrow the shape of a session from the D&D rules: describe the situation, let players say what they want to do, then resolve their actions and describe what happens. The procedure keeps player choices visible while leaving room for rules, obstacles, and character interaction. It is guidance for running D&D, so adapt it to your game rather than assuming every system uses the same steps. D&D Beyond on running a session
After the session, ask each person two specific questions: “Which moment made you want to keep playing?” and “Where did the pace or focus stop working for you?” Compare answers with the agreement. If the group wanted more character-driven choices but the session had none, decide whether to create a scene around a character goal next time. If the scene was offered but nobody engaged, the issue may be how it was framed, or the group may prefer a different activity.
Give story moments a practical handle
Storytelling becomes easier to share when it connects to what characters want and to choices they can make. Before a new adventure, ask each player for one modest goal their character could pursue in the next few sessions: find a missing mapmaker, earn an invitation to the observatory, or prove that the village bridge is safe. Link those goals to places, people, or obstacles the whole group can encounter.
This approach does not require every player to write a detailed backstory or perform extended dialogue. A goal can create a reason to explore, negotiate, solve a problem, or take a risk within the game’s usual procedures. D&D’s preparation advice suggests tying some encounters to a player character’s goals or motivations over the course of several sessions, rather than trying to personalize everything at once. D&D Beyond on preparing encounters
If the group wants to share more authorship, ask for small, bounded contributions: “What familiar food is sold in this harbor town?” or “Which local landmark would your character recognize?” Magpie Games recommends using a Session Zero to discuss tone, theme, and setting, and describes inviting players to add details to the world during play. The same article notes that some players may be reluctant to co-create in this way, so offer the invitation without making it a requirement. Magpie Games, “5 Tips for New PbtA GMs!”
Use character connections without forcing one kind of play
Characters who know or depend on one another give the group a natural reason to stay involved in a shared adventure. Ask players to establish one simple connection during character creation: “We both promised to return the brass compass,” or “Your character once helped mine cross the salt flats.” A connection can supply an opening for scenes and decisions without demanding long speeches or a particular emotional tone.
This is a design choice, not a cure for every mismatch. Evil Hat’s discussion of Fate describes collaborative character creation and relationships between player characters as ways to establish a cohesive group and a foundation for the story. Fate’s procedure is an example from that game; other systems may handle character creation and connections differently. Evil Hat, “The Core of Fate Core”
Make room for different kinds of fun in the same session
Do not assume every player must enjoy the same part of play in the same way. One player may contribute most during tactical planning, another while exploring a location, and another through character conversations. A session can move among these activities, provided each person gets chances to make choices that matter and the transitions do not repeatedly frustrate the group.
For a practical test, sketch a flexible session rhythm: open with a clear situation; give the group time to choose an approach; resolve an obstacle using the game’s rules; then let the consequences create the next decision. Add a character-focused scene when it grows naturally from a goal or consequence. This keeps the fictional events connected while avoiding the assumption that “story” means uninterrupted roleplay.
Watch who gets opportunities to contribute. D&D’s rules say that outside combat, characters do not need to take turns, but the Dungeon Master should give each player a chance to say what their character is doing. That is a useful table habit even when adapting it to another game: ask quieter players what they want to try, while making it clear that passing is fine. D&D Beyond on player actions and encounters
Know when the expectations cannot be combined
Sometimes the preferences differ in degree, not just wording. If one person wants most of the evening devoted to tactical encounters and another wants nearly every scene to center on character dialogue, a small adjustment may not satisfy both. Try one honest session plan and discuss the result. If the same conflict persists, consider a different campaign format, alternating games, or letting some players opt out of that particular game.
A useful conversation is not a vote on whose taste is legitimate. D&D’s guidance says groups should discuss the experience they hope for and that the enjoyable style is the one players agree to. Its advice is specific to D&D, but the underlying table practice—state expectations clearly and take one another’s preferences seriously—can help recreational groups decide whether a particular game is a fit. D&D Beyond on setting expectations
A simple agreement to take into your next session
Before play, ask each person to name one activity they want more of, one they want less of, and one moment that would make the next session satisfying. Turn the overlap into a short trial agreement with visible actions: for instance, “We’ll give every character a chance to pursue a goal, keep planning scenes focused on a decision, and include challenges where different approaches can work.” Afterward, compare the session with that agreement and adjust one thing at a time.
The answer to “Is this game about storytelling?” depends on what the group means by storytelling and what they want to do together. Define the activities, connect them to player goals, and test a manageable change. If the group still wants incompatible experiences, naming that clearly is useful: it lets everyone choose the kind of recreational game they would enjoy playing.