Why is it a bad thing to optimise?

[S'mon]

And, still, no one has answered why a randomly generated landslide is not plot.

Playing a game is not plot. D&D is a game. You can deliberately choose to add plot to a game - a murder-mystery game likely has plot, unless it's random like 'Clue(do)' - but by default games have no plot.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Only if you insist on a specific, non-literary definition of plot - as in some sort of plan.

OTOH, if you accept that the definition of plot, in this sense, is simply events that occur in a narrative, then no mastermind is required.

I understand the meaning of plot in both instances. The definition associated with narrative has no place in any campaign in which there is an actual game taking place and the decisions of the players have meaning.

Therefore when speaking of plot as it applies to gaming, a plan or scheme is the only definition I bother thinking about. If you want to discuss story or novel crafting, the other sort of plot is certainly desired.

 

[jasper]

...
And, still, no one has answered why a randomly generated landslide is not plot.

because most of us have taken off our left shoe and sock and using our left foot to scratch behind right ear to TRY to figure out how :
Roll D6 on random table equals plot.
As the Spainard said, " I don't think that word means what you think it means."
Setting Greyhawk ortown of slapout in the state of alabama, in the country of US on the World called DIRT.
Plot. Piratecat will murder Morrus at midnight at Gaming table 13 at Genecon. Can the pcs stop him.
Atmosphere. It raining outside and the ac is broke.
Random Flavor/Scene. Roll a D6 every turn. On 1 the Ghost of Gary appears in the corner of one of the pc eyes.

 

[Umbran]

The definition associated with narrative has no place in any campaign in which there is an actual game taking place and the decisions of the players have meaning.

Maybe you don't want it in your games. That's fine.

But as a generalization? Sorry, no. You don't get to determine what does or does not have a place in someone else's game.

 

[catsclaw227]

Hey guys? Personally, I don't care if you call it plot or story or events or sandbox or railroad.

I think the topic is about optimized PCs in the same party as non-optimized PCs and how the players react to each other because of it.

Can we get back on topic?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Maybe you don't want it in your games. That's fine.

But as a generalization? Sorry, no. You don't get to determine what does or does not have a place in someone else's game.

True. There may be many campaigns taking place that do not fit that description and the participants have every right to enjoy them.

 

[Umbran]

True. There may be many campaigns taking place that do not fit that description and the participants have every right to enjoy them.

Not only that, though. Among some folks, there seems such an adverse reaction to the term "plot" that it appears to get in the way of listening to what's going on in the game.

I see this primarily in the idea that having plot somehow means that the decisions of the PCs don't matter. It apparently doesn't matter how many folks say they feel they have stuff that reasonably can be called plot, but that the PC's decisions do matter in their games - the idea persists.

I'm all about food analogies today. I have a friend who says he doesn't like cheese in any form. It isn't a health issue, he just finds it esthetically unpleasing, and he won't eat it. One time, at my home, we were serving a semi-potluck dinner. We'd taken his personal tastes into account, and there was plenty for him to eat that didn't have cheese in it.

He was on his third helping of one dish that he said he really enjoyed when he asked for the recipe - there was a lot of cheese in it. Upon hearing that, his opinion of the dish abruptly changed. How it tasted a few minutes before didn't matter, now he hated it.

These conversations look like that, from where I sit. If I describe my game, folks have no problem with it. Same game, but if I use the word "plot", people stick their tongues out and blow raspberries at it as badwrongfun.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Vyvyan, thanks for the civil response.

Your welcome.

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.

I disagree. A purely site-based sandbox may just have a setting that the players explore. But I would guess most D&D games (sorry to all who bring up BW, etc; I was only speaking towards D&D and make no assumptions of other games) have NPCs and organizations with goals and personalities to create events that occur with or without player input. "Events in a fictional work" are plot, not setting, IMO.

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.

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.

Like I said, when I say plot I'm referring to the noun form (thus have never referred to what I do as DM as 'plotted' or 'plotting') and don't attach the meanings of any of the verb definitions because, to me, they are out of context when referring to RPGs. The connotations you and others draw is the most likely reason 'plot' is the 4-letter word it has become in regards to RPGs.

To be honest, I don't know if our games would run similarly or not.

I didn't mean to imply that I think our games are similar. I just think they run more similar than it seems. This thread makes it seem like each of our games is alien to the next.

You say that your game is based around an adventure path,

Clarification: Some of my campaigns have been APs, others have not.

which the players choose to follow rather than "going to raise sheep" instead.

I see how my glibness makes it seem like the choices are follow the AP hooks or retire to sheep herding. What I meant was that the players still have full range of choice to do whatever they want in the campaign world. If their decisions divert from the AP, then they divert from the AP. In our case, since it is the players that expressed interest in the AP before the campaign started, it is unlikely for them to stray far from their goal.

As I understand it, an adventure path has a more-or-less predetermined villain,

Yes.

and a more-or-less predetermined series of scenes that the PCs will proceed through before confronting that villain.

A DM could look at it that way but, IMO, he would be doing a disservice to his players if he didn't remain flexible when the players find a different way to tackle their goals. A well-written AP lays down the setting and gives the DM the villain's goals and motivations. It can anticipate how the PCs achieve their goals, but should also advise the DM on how to handle unexpected turns.

When the players choose to engage the adventure path, as best I understand it, they are choosing to pick up on hooks that the module authors have built into the path. They follow the module author's leads as far as importance and theme are concerned.

I can answer best by asking a question first. In a sandbox campaign, are there hooks for the characters to follow? IME, yes. The hook could be the spooky abandoned castle on the hill, an evil organization with tyrannical dominance, etc. There could be three hooks or 100 hooks. An AP focuses on a limited number of hooks. But players could ignore those few hooks, just like they could ignore all 100 hooks you've laid out for a sandbox campaign. Maybe it's just a matter of number of options for the group?

If my understanding of adventure path play is correct, this is quite different from how I run my game. My game is based on framing situations that engage the players in virtue of the details (backstory, previous actions, thematic concerns that they express, etc) of the players' PCs. The key thematic ideas of the campaign are emergent from play, not settled in advance.

Whether a DM plans hooks in advance or on the spot during the game, the process seems much the same to me. Where the DM mines the hooks from is certainly important to the feel of the game, but I don't feel this makes it any less a plot element than the hooks in an AP.

And I'm pretty confident that [MENTION=26473]The Shaman[/MENTION]'s game plays diffferently again. He uses a combination of detailed setting notes and random tables that "encode" the setting and genre to support his players engaging in genre-reflective exploration of and engagement with early modern France.

Different method, similar results. I would think that the random aspects hide in the background, otherwise it would pull players out of the game world and into dice rolls.

I agree that some sandboxers talk in elitist terms, as if the only alternative to a sandbox is a railroad. I don't agree with that at all. But I'm hesitant to therefore conclue that our games are all very similar. The distribution of situational and plot authority across players and GM, and the mechanical and other tools used to achieve this and build on it, make a difference. That is why (for example) playing classic AD&D is a different experience to playing Dragonlance, or playing Burning Wheel!

I'm sure all of our games do feel different. Heck, each of my campaigns should feel different from one to the next as I usually change things up here or there. The similarity I see between all of our games is at the core. We've each chosen or created a game world to provide a setting. We've each chosen a method to present 'events in the fictional world' (plot). I agree that the specifics beyond that core similarity make our games unique. I'm not trying to dismiss anyone's game by equating it to everyone else's. What I'm trying to say is that, despite the differences, we can all run a game that brings core elements together in a way that our players enjoy. And, barring any poor DMing skills (hopefully not my own ), I think each of us would enjoy sitting down to play at the others' tables even though each of us would be unhappy running a game the way another does.

It makes a huge difference to play, though, what sort of control the GM has.

Agreed.

For example, is the GM obliged to respect the players' decisions about resource use? About PC backstory? About thematic significance? Contrast the rules text on these issues found in (say) The Burning Wheel with the text on these issues found in (say) 2nd ed AD&D. Or whether or not a game even supports the notion of "sidequest" (AD&D 2nd ed does; BW doesn't). To just lump this all under "GM control" is to elide all the differences that are in play in the range of mainstream approaches to playing and GMing an RPG.

Like I said above, I can only speak for D&D in this regard. I've played other games, but they have similar philosophies on general game play. I've yet to experience newer systems that change these assumptions.

Yes, that's right - I'll typically have a bunch of stuff happening and see how the PCs react. I like to have more than one idea of how a campaign could go, as well as relatively unforeseen events such as PCs TPK'd, PCs murder employer, PCs join with bad guys etc. My current Loudwater game feels like a kind of branching path setup, it's interesting looking at some of the paths the PCs have not taken.

Sounds similar to campaigns I've run, even when we've decided to play an AP.

Why do I need to be mentally prepared for failure? Failure has the same result as no-attempt. The only thing I might want to prepare here is the content of the script, should they succeed in deciphering it.

You don't have to be prepared, but it can't hurt.

I do tend to be pretty good at winging stuff - better than I am at running published adventures, maybe - so maybe preparation is less necessary for me to worry about; I don't know.

I believe that people like you who are great at winging it are actually mentally prepared for a wide range of possibilities. This is a good quality to possess. What I was trying to get at about being mentally prepared for failure is that no DM should assume that the characters will succeed.

Presumably you'd agree that events in the real world are not plot?

No. Because plot in the sense I'm using it is only relative to fiction. Presumably you'd agree that events in the campaign world are not real?

Presumably though you'd say that whatever happens in a computer game of Neverwinter Nights is plot. Then, what happens in a game of Nethack is plot, because somebody inputted the algorithmns to randomly generate the dungeons?

Yes. Engaging, interesting plot? Depends on what floats one's boat.

Then, is what happens in a game of Space Invaders plot?

Of course! Fictional aliens are invading. Not a very deep plot, but plot nonetheless.

In that case, a game of (real life) tennis must be plot?

Nope, because again, not fictional. Replace tennis with por-wrestling? Yes. [Before someone threathens to layeth the smackdown, I'm a fan.]

I think your definition of 'plot' as 'stuff happening in the game' is worthless.

Feel as you like, but presumably because you continue to respond you wish to communicate. And Hussar and I explaining what we mean by terms we use is not 'wothless.'

Different systems, and different groups, distribute authority for establishing these starting points, and these connections, in different ways. If these differences are ignored, confusion in discussion and comparison will be the result. If attention is paid to these differences, some insight into different playstyles, and the tools that can help them or hinder them, may emerge.

I feel like a bit of a killjoy in saying so, but VB's suggestion that "we're all playing more-or-less the same" I think tends to towards the same sort of obscurity rather than clarity.

I'd rather start from the common ground of "we're all playing more-or-less the same" and then discuss how we achieve a good game in discussing the differences in the ways we play. My intent is not meant as a challenge to any kind of "DM cred."

If you are using plot as a noun, as you insist, then only definition number 2 suits the discussion.

Is the theme of the campaign surviving landslides? If not, then the landslide is not plot.

The common usage of the term 'plot' does not require it to tie to the main theme.

Otherwise? Plot requires deliberation, as all of the active uses will show you.

Active uses would be the verb forms, which I've already agreed do not apply.

A story without a plot is mere noise.

Disagree. A story with a (subjectively) bad plot is mere noise. You cannot have a story at all without plot.

In a sandbox game, the GM does not provide the story, he provides the setting in which the players tell their own story about their characters.

Setting, plot. Potato, potahto. I'm not saying you should start using the term 'plot' and I'm not going to use 'setting' in the way you do, but we mean the same thing.

In a normal campaign, the GM provides the story: For example 'The defense of the town of blargh against the invading giants of Zim.' The players take on the role of the main characters in that story, but if they decide to go farm sheep instead the game is de-railed and the campaign ends.

Not necessarily. Yes, I'll go out on a limb, sheep farming would make for a terribly boring game. But if the players decide to explore the abandoned dwarven mines instead of defending the town, the campaign need not end. The town will suffer whatever fate the DM decides is appropriate while the characters are away exploring the mine.

It depends on how you're using "event."

If opening a tomb and encountering animated skeletons qualifies as an "event that the players react to," then perhaps. If not, then no, we don't agree.

How about "the Bloodfang Orcs are making raids on the Grimspire Mountain border towns?"

If the DM is reactive we seem to agree that it's a sandbox game.
If the DM is proactive we seem to agree that it's not a sandbox game.

To me, reactive and proactive are means to a similar end.

Playing a game is not plot. D&D is a game. You can deliberately choose to add plot to a game - a murder-mystery game likely has plot, unless it's random like 'Clue(do)' - but by default games have no plot.

Every game I've played, whether an AP or a sandbox, has had something deliberately added to it. Whether you place locations or events. Games may have no plot, arguably. But every RPG I've played does. It may be a matter of degree of depth, but it is there, IMO.

I understand the meaning of plot in both instances. The definition associated with narrative has no place in any campaign in which there is an actual game taking place and the decisions of the players have meaning.

Maybe you don't want it in your games. That's fine.

But as a generalization? Sorry, no. You don't get to determine what does or does not have a place in someone else's game.

QFT. Narrative associations are most certainly apt. You may limit your definition of narrative to an author sitting down to write alone, but I believe RPGs and the stories that develop in play are a developing narrative of their own accord and terms such as plot can be used to describe the events within that narrative.

 

[Umbran]

QFT. Narrative associations are most certainly apt. You may limit your definition of narrative to an author sitting down to write alone, but I believe RPGs and the stories that develop in play are a developing narrative of their own accord and terms such as plot can be used to describe the events within that narrative.

That's a pretty apt way of putting it.

And, while stories do develop in play, everyone at the table, GM and player alike, may have some plans, ideas of what they will include as their part of the narrative - and the GM's set of things may well include stuff that could also reasonably be called "plots".

This does not say these things are writ in stone, inflexible, or otherwise not responsive to what happens in play. The valuable part of a plan isn't that it determines where you will be, no matter what happens. The value of the plan is in the thought process that created it, and the organized information that allows you to adapt to changing events and conditions.

 

[Elf Witch]

Playing a game is not plot. D&D is a game. You can deliberately choose to add plot to a game - a murder-mystery game likely has plot, unless it's random like 'Clue(do)' - but by default games have no plot.

I disagree with this. RPGs are more than just a game. It is a hybrid of a game and interactive theater. I heard the argument that you can role play playing monopoly. But monopoly rules are not set up to encourage role playing. RPGs are.

I have been following this discussion on plot and I have to agree with Umbran that people have a knee jerk reaction to the word. To so many the word plot means railroading.

In my homebrew there is metaplot. The metaplot is the battle between Bahmut and Tiamat. Things happen in the world because of this. I started the game by having the PCs called by Bahmut to aid on the side of good.

But how they do this is up to them. They can do what they want. They can help Bahmut ,change sides help Tiamat, become neutral like Switzerland , run and hide or what ever their fertile minds come up with.

The plot is the war between the dragons and the forces of good VS evil.

The setting is my world of Vanderhelm.

The story is how the PCs choose to live in the world and what they do.

The game is the rolling of dice , making builds, cracking Monty Python jokes and eating junk food.