Why is it a bad thing to optimise?

[Vyvyan Basterd]

It might become part of some story later but story has no meaning during the event in actual play. The PC's are not participating in a story about a rockslide, they are experiencing one.

Sorry, but the PC's never experience anything. Ever. They are fictional creations. OTOH, the players are most certainly participating in a story about a rockslide.

I agree with Hussar here and I think EW is picking at nits.

And, that landslide is still plot.

plot (noun) - The organization of events in a work of fiction.

What each side of this debate is focusing upon may be where we split in opinion, yet actually mean the same thing.

What I (and I think Hussar) call plot are "events in a work of fiction." As Hussar pointed out, the rockslide is a 'work of fiction.' My point is that whether the fiction was determined directy by the DM or his choice to use a random table does not make it any more or less a work of fiction. Thus, the rockslide, as a work of fiction, is plot.

What I think EW, S'mon and others are focusing on is "organization of events" as if plot necessarily dictates organizing plot points as an author would in a novel. I disagree with this premise. The organization is what I refer to when I say the DM can choose to have the event occur because he believes that would be an occurance to happen during mountain travel or because he chose to use a random chart. To me each DM is organizing via his own preferred method, events of plot in his fictional world.

Another possibility is that some are linking to another definition of plot. The meaning of the verb plot, as in plotting the future course of the campaign before player input. I'm not calling for that to be clear and I presume neither is Hussar.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Sorry, but the PC's never experience anything. Ever. They are fictional creations.

OTOH, the players are most certainly participating in a story about a rockslide.

This is the difference between roleplaying and storytelling.

When roleplaying you are (through the perspective of the character) experiencing a rockslide.

When storytelling you are participating in a story about a rockslide.

 

[pemerton]

I don't want to split things quite that far to be honest. What is a "situation" if it's not a plot?

Well, generally - in a novel or a movie, say - the plot would be what happens when the protagonist engages with the situation.

Plot is quite simply the events that occur in a story.

<snip>

I really don't see the need to cloud the issue when plot is a perfectly serviceable word here.

For me, the need to "cloud the issue" results from a desire to be clear about which participant in the game has authority over what sorts of events.

Because there a distinct group of participants - the non-GM players - who have a special sort of control over the protagonists, I think it is helpful to distinguish those events in the story which create a context for protagonism and those events in the story which are the expression of protagonism.

Drawing this distinction has relevance for practical techniques of play, too, as well as for avoiding railroading. In a sandbox, for example, the events that provide the context for protagonism might be determined by rolling on random tables, or by decisions made in the course of world building ("status quo" encounters). Whereas in my personally preferred approach to play they are determined by deliberate choices on the part of the GM having regard to the particular players at hand, and the particular PCs that they are playing.

(This also shows the significance of the difference between "setting" and "plot". A sandbox game relies upon a setting, whether predetermined or encoded in random tables. A BW-style situation-driven game doesn't need a setting in the same way. I get frustrated when world-building sandboxers misunderstand, or ignore, how a situation-driven game is played. But I think it is equally mistaken to ignore the distinct role that "setting" plays in a sandbox.)

What I (and I think Hussar) call plot are "events in a work of fiction." As Hussar pointed out, the rockslide is a 'work of fiction.' My point is that whether the fiction was determined directy by the DM or his choice to use a random table does not make it any more or less a work of fiction. Thus, the rockslide, as a work of fiction, is plot.

The definition you cited did refer to "the organisation of events in a work of fiction". Very crudely, this is "what happens next". Deciding who, in an RPG, gets to decide what happens next, is not a small thing. It's one of the most fundamental issues of RPG play.

The organization is what I refer to when I say the DM can choose to have the event occur because he believes that would be an occurance to happen during mountain travel or because he chose to use a random chart. To me each DM is organizing via his own preferred method, events of plot in his fictional world.

There are no doubts that a GM can adopt different approaches to framing situations. As I've indicated above, these different approaches can suit different broader playstyles.

What is key, in my view, is who gets to decide what happens next. Once the GM has decided that a rockslide is occurring, who gets to decide how the PCs respond? And to what extent must that response be taken seriously in framing future situations?

Classic D&D doesn't use this sort of language, but it clearly cares about the issues. If the players decide that their PCs consume certain resources in dealing with the situation, for instance, then those resources are not available for future use, and the GM must frame future scenes having regard for that - for example, if the PCs decide to shelter under an overhang while leaving their mule to its fate, then the GM is precluded from beginning the next bit of play by saying "As your mule continues up the mountainside, . . ."

In the Burning Wheel, if the players succeed at a check in the course of dealing with a particular event, then the results of that check stand. The GM can't just override it, either by fiat, or by calling for recheck after recheck until a check is failed. (Likewise for a failed check - a player can't check-monger for success, but must find a new way forward for her/his PC.)

Because, as a general rule, the GM cannot know what resources will be deployed and consumed, what checks attempted, and of any checks attempted whether they will succeed or fail, the GM cannot, as a general rule, know what the upshot of any given event in the fiction will be. And therefore cannot know what will come next. This is at the heart of the way in which both classic D&D, and a modern game like BW, avoid railroading (although in other respects they are oviously very different games supporting very different playstyles).

Conversely, a GM who has already decided what will come next, and who ignores the upshot of the action resolution mechanics, or who introduces new elements into the fiction in order to render those upshots irrelevant (eg the PCs lose their mule on the mountainside, but the GM's predetermined plot calls fro the PCs to have a mule, and so a fresh mule is discovered wandering aimlessly on the very next ledge), is in my view tending to render the players' choices irrelevant. Those choices are contributing colour ("Yep, Muley the trusty mule was swept away by a rockfall - but here's Muley the Second!") but not much else.

I am happy to accept that this can be a matter of degree - for example, if the GM is adopting a Roads-to-Rome approach, but the manner in which the players' choices bring their PCs to Rome has a significant impact on how the climax in Rome plays out - not just epiphenomenal colour, for example, but colour that goes to the thematic heart of play; or, perhaps, prior decisions about resource consumption that affect the mechanical parameters for the climactic encounter - then player protagonism might be maintained. But something still has to be left up to the players, in my view, to get satisfactory RPGing. If it's all predetermined - sequence of events, thematic signicance, resources available for meeting the situation, outcome (except perhaps for the final, climactic challenge) - then what is the role of the players? To "experience the story" and make some local tactical decisions (which ultimately won't matter in any event)?

In the end, I don't think I disagree with you (VB) or Hussar that their are events in, or elements of, the fiction over which the GM exercises significant control. But I think by calling it all "plot" you are eliding some issues that are at the heart of satisfactory RPGing, and which different approaches to play - sandboxing, situation-driven play, adventure-path play - handle in very different ways.

 

[SlyDoubt]

Accidentally hit back and got rid of the whole post. Argh.

I think optimization is associated with people more concerned with rules than playing and the experience around the table with friends or like-minded people. In most groups I think the optimizer is one of those outlying personalities. Like the guy who just wants to roleplay and doesn't have much interest in combat. They both throw the balance off and give the DM and most likely the players more work to deal with.

It's not the optimization itself. It's everything that comes along with that kind of player (9/10 times).

How do you get around these problems? Build characters as a group with the DM. My group of 10+ years has always done this for a number of reasons.

DM (me) can make sure everyone is making what they want and can find useful information easily.

Players can discuss what they want with each other and make sure their bases are reasonably covered.

So really it's just communication. The more character creation is a group effort, the better for everyone imho. Then the optimizer can make suggestions and explain rules and the more roleplaying type can tell the optimizer the cool ideas he imagined for the optimizer's character. As long as your players are comfortable with each other, play usually figures itself out no matter how unbalanced things may seem.

 

[JamesonCourage]

"Plot" is not a good word for me because of the connotations:

plot
1.
a. A small piece of ground, generally used for a specific purpose: a garden plot.
b. A measured area of land; a lot.
2. A ground plan, as for a building; a diagram.
3. See graph1.
4. The pattern of events or main story in a narrative or drama.
5. A secret plan to accomplish a hostile or illegal purpose; a scheme.
v. plot·ted, plot·ting, plots
v.tr.
1. To represent graphically, as on a chart: plot a ship's course.
2. Mathematics
a. To locate (points or other figures) on a graph by means of coordinates.
b. To draw (a curve) connecting points on a graph.
3. To conceive and arrange the action and incidents of: "I began plotting novels at about the time I learned to read" (James Baldwin).
4. To form a plot for; prearrange secretly or deviously: plot an assassination.
v.intr.
1. To be located by means of coordinates, as on a chart or with data.
2. To form or take part in a plot; scheme.

All of the above are relevant to this discussion, and all of them imply a certain amount of secret guidance to the narrative, or that there is a featured narrative or "main story" (beyond "what do you do now?"). There's one definition that talks about "arrange the action and incidents" which could be useful, but it's not framing the incidents, it's actually the arranging the actions and incidents.

With setting, it's entirely different:

setting
1. the surroundings in which something is set; scene
2. (Performing Arts / Theatre) (Performing Arts) the scenery, properties, or background, used to create the location for a stage play, film, etc.
3. (Music, other) Music a composition consisting of a certain text and music provided or arranged for it
4. (Clothing, Personal Arts & Crafts / Jewellery) the metal mounting and surround of a gem diamonds in an antique gold setting
5. the tableware, cutlery, etc., for a single place at table
6. (Engineering / Mechanical Engineering) any of a series of points on a scale or dial that can be selected to control the level as of temperature, speed, etc., at which a machine functions
7. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Zoology) a clutch of eggs in a bird's nest, esp a clutch of hen's eggs

The first two quotes of setting are relevant, and instead of carrying the connotation of guidance, carry one of scenery. Setting is the framing of situations, not necessarily with an ending or progression in mind. The second definition even includes all background, such as scenery (landmarks) and properties (social setting, creatures, etc.) of the setting.

While "plot" has connotations of "guidance" or "main story", setting has connotations of "game world" with no such story in mind. I like using the phrase "evolving setting" because of the connotations of each word. Here's evolving:

e·volve
v. e·volved, e·volv·ing, e·volves
1.
a. To develop or achieve gradually: evolve a style of one's own.
b. To work (something) out; devise: "the schemes he evolved to line his purse" (S.J. Perelman).
2. Biology To develop (a characteristic) by evolutionary processes.
3. To give off; emit.
v.intr.
1. To undergo gradual change; develop: an amateur acting group that evolved into a theatrical company.
2. Biology To develop or arise through evolutionary processes.

"Evolving" has a connotation of gradual, natural change to it, though it could be applied to plot, setting, science, or anything. By combining the "natural change" connotation of "evolving" with the "game world background" connotation of "setting, you get a phrase that basically means, "a naturally changing game world, independent of any main story". Thus, I like the phrase "evolving setting".

At any rate, just my thoughts on it. I think the there's a very different implication when someone uses the world "plot" as compared to the word "setting". As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

This is the difference between roleplaying and storytelling.

When roleplaying you are (through the perspective of the character) experiencing a rockslide.

When storytelling you are participating in a story about a rockslide.

Sorry, but I'm not sure this makes sense.

What does it mean to experience something through the perspective of a character? The only sense I can make of that is that I imagine someone else experiencing something - that is, I imagine a story/fiction - and then I identify myself in some fashion with that imaginary person.

It is the identification with the protagonist that (in my view) tends to be characteristic of roleplaying.

Here is Vincent Baker on the issue of fiction in roleplaying:

Roleplaying is negotiated imagination. In order for any thing to be true in game, all the participants in the game (players and GMs, if you've even got such things) have to understand and assent to it. When you're roleplaying, what you're doing is a) suggesting things that might be true in the game and then b) negotiating with the other participants to determine whether they're actually true or not.

So you're sitting at the table and one player says, "[let's imagine that] an orc jumps out of the underbrush!"

What has to happen before the group agrees that, indeed, an orc jumps out of the underbrush?

1. Sometimes, not much at all. The right participant said it, at an appropriate moment, and everybody else just incorporates it smoothly into their imaginary picture of the situation. "An orc! Yikes! Battlestations!" This is how it usually is for participants with high ownership of whatever they're talking about: GMs describing the weather or the noncombat actions of NPCs, players saying what their characters are wearing or thinking.

2. Sometimes, a little bit more. "Really? An orc?" "Yeppers." "Huh, an orc. Well, okay." Sometimes the suggesting participant has to defend the suggestion: "Really, an orc this far into Elfland?" "Yeah, cuz this thing about her tribe..." "Okay, I guess that makes sense."

3. Sometimes, mechanics. "An orc? Only if you make your having-an-orc-show-up roll. Throw down!" "Rawk! 57!" "Dude, orc it is!" The thing to notice here is that the mechanics serve the exact same purpose as the explanation about this thing about her tribe in point 2, which is to establish your credibility wrt the orc in question.

4. And sometimes, lots of mechanics and negotiation. Debate the likelihood of a lone orc in the underbrush way out here, make a having-an-orc-show-up roll, a having-an-orc-hide-in-the-underbrush roll, a having-the-orc-jump-out roll, argue about the modifiers for each of the rolls, get into a philosophical thing about the rules' modeling of orc-jump-out likelihood... all to establish one little thing. Wave a stick in a game store and every game you knock of the shelves will have a combat system that works like this.

(Plenty of suggestions at the game table don't get picked up by the group, or get revised and modified by the group before being accepted, all with the same range of time and attention spent negotiating.)

So look, you! Mechanics might model the stuff of the game world, that's another topic, but they don't exist to do so. They exist to ease and constrain real-world social negotiation between the players at the table. That's their sole and crucial function.​

What is at stake, in the contrast between playstyles, is not whether we are "roleplaying" or "storytelling", but how we distribute authority in respect of the fiction across various participants in the game, and what variety of tools are used to help achieve this distribution of authority, and make it work.

 

[Kobold Boots]

I wonder, are you saying this based on play experience, or on the basis of theoretical speculation?

My own view and experience is that there is a significant difference between a sandbox, in which the players exercise authority over the situation, and the style of play in which the GM exercises authority over the situation. To put it crudely, in a sandbox, players have to seek out trouble for their PCs (as [MENTION=66434]ExploderWizard[/MENTION] points out with his example of the evil overlord's scheming going on independently of the PCs). In the approach that I described, the GM frames scenes so that trouble comes to the PCs.

And the tools needed by each approach are quite different. A sandbox needs world-buidling, for example - whether in the literal sense, or random tables and charts that "encode" a world (like random landslide charts). [MENTION=26473]The Shaman[/MENTION] has lots of interesting ideas about how this can be done.

Whereas the sort of approach that I am talking about doesn't need world building or random landslide charts. Whether or not a landslide takes place won't be determined by a random chart - it will occur either because the GM deliberately chooses to frame such a scene (for the reason that it will engage the players in some fashion), or as a consequence of action resolution, in which case it won't be determined by a random landslide chart, but rather by something more like failure on a skill check or skill challenge.

I'm stating this based on experience.

My players and I undertake an active world-building and character-building exercise at the beginning of any campaign that allows them to influence what the campaign world is and what their characters are across any number of possible categories. This is more sandboxy.

It's then my responsibility to get them through however many levels of play they want to play through and that's part of the group's social contract. The one I'm currently running is set for 30 levels of 4e and they're at level 9ish right now after about a year and a half of regular play.

My responsibility is to then provide them with the type of experience they want, which in the case of my players is a combination of them creating trouble and me giving them something to do. I run an adventure path agreed upon by the group with the understanding that I'm folding in the results of the world building exercise into the path. This prevents the path from being something a player could read and completely ruin.

Additionally, it's understood that they could tangent off into other plot hooks or threads and depart from the path at any time, to do whatever they wish, but that the path will still be going on in the background and they'll likely have to deal with it at some point. Of course, whether it's the path as written or not by the time they get to it, or they're cleaning up the mess someone else failed on..

So in doing this I keep track of the plot players create, and the plot the game world has going on. It's not railroading, but it's not sandbox either.

The reason why I'm abstracting on the topic is because I think most people's games have elements of story and sandbox and the arguments posted here assuming some campaigns exist with an absolute polarity towards one or the other may be true, but certainly not the majority.

2c.
KB

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Well, generally - in a novel or a movie, say - the plot would be what happens when the protagonist engages with the situation.

I think this is an apt description of plot in an RPG as well. Sometimes, as with the rockslide, engagement may be thrust upon the protagonists.

For me, the need to "cloud the issue" results from a desire to be clear about which participant in the game has authority over what sorts of events.

Because there a distinct group of participants - the non-GM players - who have a special sort of control over the protagonists, I think it is helpful to distinguish those events in the story which create a context for protagonism and those events in the story which are the expression of protagonism.

Drawing this distinction has relevance for practical techniques of play, too, as well as for avoiding railroading. In a sandbox, for example, the events that provide the context for protagonism might be determined by rolling on random tables, or by decisions made in the course of world building ("status quo" encounters). Whereas in my personally preferred approach to play they are determined by deliberate choices on the part of the GM having regard to the particular players at hand, and the particular PCs that they are playing.

(This also shows the significance of the difference between "setting" and "plot". A sandbox game relies upon a setting, whether predetermined or encoded in random tables. A BW-style situation-driven game doesn't need a setting in the same way. I get frustrated when world-building sandboxers misunderstand, or ignore, how a situation-driven game is played. But I think it is equally mistaken to ignore the distinct role that "setting" plays in a sandbox.)

If I'm reading you right I generally agree with you. Except I think the term "sandbox" has muddied the waters with reactions from elitism to derision and varied meanings across that sceptrum. A sandbox at its core should be a setting with events that the players react to. Do we agree? If so, then what would you call a campaign that starts in a Paizo AP setting and the initial events of the AP unfold? My players react to the events and decide how they will deal with them. They are not forced to follow any path and may in fact decide to go raise sheep instead. Yet they choose to follow the cause of adventure and often follow a path quite similar to what the AP's author anticipated. AP are often derided for their "railroadish" nature. So which is it really?

The definition you cited did refer to "the organisation of events in a work of fiction". Very crudely, this is "what happens next". Deciding who, in an RPG, gets to decide what happens next, is not a small thing. It's one of the most fundamental issues of RPG play.

There are no doubts that a GM can adopt different approaches to framing situations. As I've indicated above, these different approaches can suit different broader playstyles.

What is key, in my view, is who gets to decide what happens next. Once the GM has decided that a rockslide is occurring, who gets to decide how the PCs respond? And to what extent must that response be taken seriously in framing future situations?

I agree completely with where the line is drawn between DM and player. I don't think that invalidates anything I've said so far.

Because, as a general rule, the GM cannot know what resources will be deployed and consumed, what checks attempted, and of any checks attempted whether they will succeed or fail, the GM cannot, as a general rule, know what the upshot of any given event in the fiction will be. And therefore cannot know what will come next. This is at the heart of the way in which both classic D&D, and a modern game like BW, avoid railroading (although in other respects they are oviously very different games supporting very different playstyles).

Again, I never said a DM should know or does know. But a DM should be able to anticipate common results and be prepared for them at least mentally. Even those DM who are great ad-libbers are not hurt in their skill by being prepared. 'Common result' is an important distinction to me, because no matter how many results you are prepared for, players often can surprise you. A good DM in this situation will mold his reaction to what the players have achieved and abandon any preparation if it flies in the face of what the players have accomplished.

Conversely, a GM who has already decided what will come next, and who ignores the upshot of the action resolution mechanics, or who introduces new elements into the fiction in order to render those upshots irrelevant (eg the PCs lose their mule on the mountainside, but the GM's predetermined plot calls fro the PCs to have a mule, and so a fresh mule is discovered wandering aimlessly on the very next ledge), is in my view tending to render the players' choices irrelevant. Those choices are contributing colour ("Yep, Muley the trusty mule was swept away by a rockfall - but here's Muley the Second!") but not much else.

If it's all predetermined - sequence of events, thematic signicance, resources available for meeting the situation, outcome (except perhaps for the final, climactic challenge) - then what is the role of the players? To "experience the story" and make some local tactical decisions (which ultimately won't matter in any event)?

Agree 100%.

In the end, I don't think I disagree with you (VB) or Hussar that their are events in, or elements of, the fiction over which the GM exercises significant control. But I think by calling it all "plot" you are eliding some issues that are at the heart of satisfactory RPGing, and which different approaches to play - sandboxing, situation-driven play, adventure-path play - handle in very different ways.

I think our games would all run very similarly and the only differences we are arriving at are disputes of language. It does all boil down to the single word "plot" for me, but I recognize that different people at the table have authority over its direction at different times.

"Plot" is not a good word for me because of the connotations:

All of the above are relevant to this discussion, and all of them imply a certain amount of secret guidance to the narrative, or that there is a featured narrative or "main story" (beyond "what do you do now?").

It's not secretive, though. The DM is and has always been know to have certain controls over what happens in the game world. That's his job. In a good game, the players have controls over the elements involving the choices their characters make. There are no hostile or illegal intents here. There is no scheme to force a course of action in a good game.

The first two quotes of setting are relevant, and instead of carrying the connotation of guidance, carry one of scenery. Setting is the framing of situations, not necessarily with an ending or progression in mind. The second definition even includes all background, such as scenery (landmarks) and properties (social setting, creatures, etc.) of the setting.

Setting is important to the game. But once the characters decide to interact with the setting it becomes plot. Even if you decide on the spot as DM what the characters encounter when they move to interact with the setting, you've just created plot.

While "plot" has connotations of "guidance" or "main story", setting has connotations of "game world" with no such story in mind. I like using the phrase "evolving setting" because of the connotations of each word. Here's evolving:

"Evolving" has a connotation of gradual, natural change to it, though it could be applied to plot, setting, science, or anything. By combining the "natural change" connotation of "evolving" with the "game world background" connotation of "setting, you get a phrase that basically means, "a naturally changing game world, independent of any main story". Thus, I like the phrase "evolving setting".

At any rate, just my thoughts on it. I think the there's a very different implication when someone uses the world "plot" as compared to the word "setting". As always, play what you like

At any rate it all boils down to words. The only reason I share my interpretations of the words I'm using here is so I can communicate my feeling to all of you. I can't let "plot" settle at your definition as it would not allow me to express my view. And it seems that view is much the same between our games despite the fact that I say "plot" and you say "evolving setting."

 

[The Shaman]

My players and I undertake an active world-building and character-building exercise at the beginning of any campaign that allows them to influence what the campaign world is and what their characters are across any number of possible categories. This is more sandboxy.

That doesn't sound "sandboxy" to me.

In a sandbox setting, players explore the world. They don't create it.

In my experience, opinion, mileage, and all that.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Vyvyan, thanks for the civil response. Know that I reply to this with nothing but goodwill in mind.

It's not secretive, though. The DM is and has always been know to have certain controls over what happens in the game world. That's his job. In a good game, the players have controls over the elements involving the choices their characters make. There are no hostile or illegal intents here. There is no scheme to force a course of action in a good game.

Again, plot:

4. The pattern of events or main story in a narrative or drama.

The problem with this is that plot assumes a "main story in a narrative" which setting does not assume. Thus, the different connotation plot carries with it.

5. A secret plan to accomplish a hostile or illegal purpose; a scheme.

This definition has the condition of a secret plan. The big part here is having a plan at all. With setting, there is no base assumption of a plan. Thus, the different connotation plot carries with it.

3. To conceive and arrange the action and incidents of:

This definition mentions arranging the action and incidents ("I began plotting novels at about the time I learned to read"). This carries the connotation not just of framing conditions, but also of resolving them through action. Thus, the different connotation plot carries with it.

4. To form a plot for; prearrange secretly or deviously

This first half of the definition only helps if we used other definitions of plot (which carry the connotations mentioned above). The second is fairly acceptable on its own, but since it is coupled with the first half (which relies on other definitions of plot to define itself), the connotations remain the same. Thus, the different connotation plot carries with it.

Setting is important to the game. But once the characters decide to interact with the setting it becomes plot. Even if you decide on the spot as DM what the characters encounter when they move to interact with the setting, you've just created plot.

Based on the above, I disagree with your definitions, but I think we agree on the sentiment (which is the real meat of the discussion). To me, plot carries the connotation of "main story in a narrative" that setting does not, and that makes it less appropriate in my mind to explain the style of play I'm commenting on.

At any rate it all boils down to words. The only reason I share my interpretations of the words I'm using here is so I can communicate my feeling to all of you. I can't let "plot" settle at your definition as it would not allow me to express my view. And it seems that view is much the same between our games despite the fact that I say "plot" and you say "evolving setting."

Yep, I think we actually agree in sentiment, if not our definitions. And, like most people I find myself disagreeing with, I could probably play at your table without any huge problems. As always play what you like