Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs

[ExploderWizard]

The rest of us losers are stuck with Approach 2, I guess.

Why?
Or are you saying there is no reason to play without a guaranteed complete victory?


Approach 1 means that Batman is as good as the decisions made by the player. In some cases he will be utterly victorious, in others he will fail to some extent.

What do we do when we fall?

 

[Doug McCrae]

What do we do when we fall?

The cleric casts Raise Dead.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The cleric casts Raise Dead.

Quite so Master Bruce.

 

[CharlesRyan]

Are you saying there is no reason to play without a guaranteed complete victory?

No, I'm saying there's probably some sort of middle ground.

Which I think is what Korgoth was saying as well. . . .

I agree with the OP. I think we all come to the table with characters that reflect something we want to experience, whether gritty or glorious. The more the GM delivers that experience, the more fulfilling the game will be.

Nobody finds a hollow, obviously preordained victory fulfilling. We all want challenge. But I don't believe very many people really come to the RPG table looking for a pure test of their tactical skills--that psychographic plays Magic: the Gathering instead.

The middle ground accepts that Batman will likely prevail--yes, largely because he is Batman and he is the protagonist, and we expect the protagonist to prevail in an RPG just like we expect it in a comic, novel, or movie. (As a PC, Batman's dramatic expectation is backed by the game system, which in almost every game (save CoC and maybe Dark Heresy) gives the PCs a statistical advantage over the adversaries they are expected to face.)

The middle ground then expects the game to provide challenges and surprises and dramatic ebb and flow--moments when prevailing is thrown into doubt. Just like in a movie or novel, this doubt can exist even when, objectively, we're pretty certain the heroes will find a way to win.

Going back to Korgoth's post, if I had to choose between the two options, well, I'd quit playing RPGs.

 

[ExploderWizard]

No, I'm saying there's probably some sort of middle ground.

Which I think is what Korgoth was saying as well. . . .

I agree with the OP. I think we all come to the table with characters that reflect something we want to experience, whether gritty or glorious. The more the GM delivers that experience, the more fulfilling the game will be.

Nobody finds a hollow, obviously preordained victory fulfilling. We all want challenge. But I don't believe very many people really come to the RPG table looking for a pure test of their tactical skills--that psychographic plays Magic: the Gathering instead.

Playing an rpg isn't about just testing tactical skills. A pure test of strategy could be simulated with a game of chess. A game usually provides some mechanical way to resolve the plans of the players with dice or another random means. Good tactics can help mitigate some of he effects of bad die rolls and some bad tactics can win through if the dice are kind.

The middle ground accepts that Batman will likely prevail--yes, largely because he is Batman and he is the protagonist, and we expect the protagonist to prevail in an RPG just like we expect it in a comic, novel, or movie.

Success must be in doubt for there to much of game. Otherwise the players have gathered to merely determine how they succeed in a semi-random fashion.

The middle ground then expects the game to provide challenges and surprises and dramatic ebb and flow--moments when prevailing is thrown into doubt. Just like in a movie or novel, this doubt can exist even when, objectively, we're pretty certain the heroes will find a way to win.

Challenges and suprises are great but ultimately meaningless if ultimate victory and utter defeat are not both possibilities.

 

[Korgoth]

I think it is implicit that the kind of success Batman achieves (at least in the comics) is far & beyond what ordinary people consider success. It is a sort of uber-success.

One can succeed in a role-playing game without succeeding like Batman succeeds. It is the expectation to always succeed as Batman succeeds that is being examined.

Quite.

D&D is a game. If you want to do well at a game, you have to be good at it. It is an especially good game for you to choose to play if you can have fun winning or losing at it.

You get to do well at Chess or Flames of War or Settlers of Catan because you learn how to make good decisions when playing it. That's what excellent play means... that you have the ability to make good decisions when playing the game.

If you make poor decisions at the game, your pieces will fare poorly (your knight gets captured, your platoon gets rolled up by an enemy assault, you end the game with 2 towns and 5 Victory Points, etc.). It's the same in a role playing game... hence the "game". Ideally you learn from your mistakes and get better at it. Just like I learned the hard way in Flames of War not to deploy an infantry platoon in such a way that you block your own fire lanes in defensive fire... now I do better at the game than before. Which is quite pleasing.

A role player who says things like:
"I punch the Overking in the face"
"I jump between all four trolls and poke one with my epee"
"I leap off the 2,000 foot cliff and aim for a snow bank"
"I tell the dragons that they're a bunch of sissies"
... is not playing Batman. He may think he's playing Batman, but he's actually playing a schlub who thinks he's Batman.

And there are degrees of success... Batman is just a shorthand for the pinnacle of success. Ideally, your success in the game will be commensurate with the quality of decisions that you make during the game (luck excepted). Super awesome decisions mean that you do super awesomely. Poor decisions mean you do poorly. Good decisions mean that you do well.

 

[the Jester]

So, in Approach 1 only the best of the best ever get to succeed at a roleplaying game, and even then when they're only on their game. Success in roleplaying is only for the true elite, and only on a good day.

Or else people learn from their mistakes and gradually achieve more and more mastery of the game.

 

[CharlesRyan]

Challenges and suprises are great but ultimately meaningless if ultimate victory and utter defeat are not both possibilities.

I don't agree. I have enjoyed many films and novels even though I didn't really think utter defeat was something the writer even considered for the ending. Utter defeat is very rare in fiction, and when it occurs the expectation is usually set up well in advance. (In the RPG arena, this happens as well, CoC and Paranoia being two examples.)

What makes movies and novels and comic books and plays and so on engaging isn't the actual possibility of defeat, but the perception of that possibility. Combine that with challenges and plenty of twists and turns along the way, and doubt about the outcome becomes part of the experience.

In my experience, RPGs really aren't any different. Like fiction and movies, they rely on the suspension of disbelief, and part of that suspension is ignoring the fact that the protagonists almost alway prevail.

And when you get right down to is, the RPG experience usually isn't about whether you're going to win or lose in the end anyway--it's about what you're going to do next to get out of the current sticky situation. The perceived possibility of defeat adds to the tension that makes those decisions interesting. I suppose the real possibility of defeat supports that perception, but I don't think it's necessary for most people.

 

[CharlesRyan]

Or else people learn from their mistakes and gradually achieve more and more mastery of the game.

Really? Mastery of the game is really what it's about for you?

Why do you play RPGs? There are much better game categories for honing your game-playing skills.

 

[Mallus]

Or else people learn from their mistakes and gradually achieve more and more mastery of the game.

Sure, until they switch to new group and another DM, in which case they'll have hope their mastery is portable, or else they'll have to start from scratch, learning how to master this DM's set of challenges.

Is there an objective form of 'D&D mastery'? D&D isn't chess. It is a game where the winning strategies are decided, often on the fly, by the invariable subjective and frequently fickle person sitting behind the cardboard screen wearing a viking hat.

We can talk about what constitutes 'mastery' under different kinds of DM's in groups with differing play goals. But more than that... I'm thinking 'no'.