There is a commonly recognized dichotomy of gamers who like linear, "scene-based" games where the DM is a storyteller and has an epic and enchanting plot prepared in advance they're trying to deliver, versus games where the DM is a referee who impartially simulates an active world and hands the reigns off to the players to do whatever the hell they want. In the latter game, to the extent that there's a "story" or "plot" at all, it's usually one that emerges naturally and unplanned out of the consequences of the PCs' actions and how the world responds to them, but the point is that "player agency" is maintained above all else. In the former game, there's usually a much-needed Session 0 conversation where the DM convinces their players to try to "play ball" as often as possible so as not to "ruin the game," and typically as long as you're playing with reasonable people then you'll have a great time.
It's not actually as though all gamers fall strictly into one of these two types, but boy do these two types fight a lot and get very defensive.
There are essentially three main ways to think of this situation:
- Broke: DMs are/aren't storytellers and that's the only correct way to play
- (most sensible people recognize this is a childish take)
- Woke: There are many different playstyles that are all equally valid, and you should try to just figure out the one you prefer and then go find players who agree
- (this is what most sensible people settle on)
- Bespoke: A good DM can achieve a game that both keeps player agency perfectly intact and features a good amount of "emergent story" from the simulated world and has a DM-prepared plot that unfolds and wows the players with their storytelling prowess.
I am here to explain how.







