Confession: I like Plot

[Ariosto]

The key distinction here, I think, is in how much weight I as GM place on what "I expect to happen". It's the difference between

(A) Based on polling data, I expect that My Candidate will win the election.
and
(B) Based on having rigged the ballot count, I know the outcome.

Anticipation becomes a problem when one becomes unwilling to accept deviation from a plan, when "an adventure" becomes THE adventure.

The players didn't "bite the hook" at A, so what? Do you simply run with what they in the event DID choose to do, or do you try to get them back "on track"? What if they've done A, B and C as you expected, but then instead of choosing D or E they chose 23? What if F would have followed 98% of the time, but either the dice or a decision by the players indicates some other result?

In a sense, the attitude of being committed to a plot line puts the GM in opposition to the players. It introduces an opportunity to consider oneself to have "lost the game" if things don't go one's way. That dynamic is lurking even when the players cooperate, for what if they don't?

What I find most telling of the insidious influence is that when most such GMs "fudge" outcomes to get their way, they attempt to hide the deed. "It's okay to cheat, as long as the other participants don't know!" Why is that? What sort of response do you expect if they do discover your chicanery?

There has been a very striking shift in how the word "adventure" is commonly used in D&D materials.

In the 1st edition AD&D books, it pretty consistently has the conventional meanings of "an undertaking of uncertain outcome; a hazardous enterprise" -- and more particularly of "a commercial or financial speculation of any kind; venture". In other words, it is an expedition conceived and formed by players. The Players Handbook advice for "Successful Adventures" (on pages 107 and 109) is firmly predicated on that understanding.

That basic concept seems in recent years largely to have been displaced by "an exciting or unusual experience", in a sense that reduces the player's role to a reactive -- rather than instigating -- one. Such an understanding is pretty natural in some genres. Comicbook superheroes come immediately to my mind. To the degree that a "horror" game really elicits such a response it is likely to be bound up with helplessness (characters at least as much victims as victors).

There is certainly nothing intrinsic to a generic game of swordsmen and sorcerers that is incompatible with such an assumption. However, when we turn more specifically to D&D this is rather a "new" view at odds with a tradition several decades old. So, there is predictably some tension between those who see the game as fundamentally "about" one theme or the other.

One issue often raised is that if players don't shuffle along the plot line then the GM's preparations -- or the content of a costly module -- will be wasted. That's really a circular argument, based on the assumption that the preparation was for a linear scenario in the first place.

There is a spectrum from the "pick a path" book to the "interactive fiction" computer program, and on up to the full range of possibilities afforded by face-to-face human moderation.

 

[pawsplay]

It is precisely for these reasons that I prefer the terms premise, conditions, trajectory, and planned events instead of "plot." If you have to define a word in a new way before you use it, discussion is going to be difficult with people who don't understand your perspective, much less buy into your understanding.

 

[Ariosto]

plot --n
1. a secret plan or scheme to accomplish some purpose, esp. a hostile, unlawful, or evil purpose
2. the plan, scheme, or main story of a play, novel, poem or short story
3. Artillery a point or points located on a map or chart
4. a list, timetable, or scheme dealing with any of the various arrangements for the production of a play, motion picture, etc.

-- Syn. 1. intrigue, conspiracy, cabal

 

[pawsplay]

plot --n
1. a secret plan or scheme to accomplish some purpose, esp. a hostile, unlawful, or evil purpose

Well, that certainly covers the Dragonlance modules.

 

[Ariosto]

One can discover and chart a trajectory after the fact -- the "emergent story" of an old-style D&D campaign. One can force a sequence of planned events to occur, or one can accept that things don't go according to plan.

Then again, there is the question: Whose plan?

 

[Ariosto]

Well, that certainly covers the Dragonlance modules.

The evil dragons have a "plot" (or several) in that sense. The players can have a plan of their own. Leaving those to interact in accordance with impartially applied rules can produce an interesting game.

To the degree, however, that it's all just stage dressing for a scripted production, we leave the realm of game and enter the domain of "etc." as in definition #4.

 

[Hussar]

LOL @ Ariosto. Wow, talk about pulling things WAY out of context. So DM's who like plot are engaging in scheming for hostile purposes? Snort.

Going back to the Batman example with RC for a moment. Umm, just because the player knows that he will catch the Joker doesn't mean that the player is incapable of supressing that knowledge during play. I play with people who are mature enough to separate in character knowledge from OOC knowledge. Thus, they are perfectly capable of knowing as a player that they are going to capture the Joker and still not be a complete douche by sitting in the corner ordering the GM to give them the automatic win.

It's a different style of play, I admit. But, it's no less valid for that.

Take another example of the Batman catching the Joker. What if catching the Joker is the beginning of the scenario? The scenario goes - The Joker kidnaps Robin (insert favorite NPC here) and tortures him - breaking his mind. The Batman follows the Joker's clues and the Joker lets Batman catch him in order to reveal what he's done to Robin. The Batman is pushed to the edge, but decides not to take it too far. Robin, his mind broken, picks up Harley Quin's gun and blows the Joker's brains out.

((Note, this is taken pretty much verbatim from one of the Batman animated movies))

This is where the scenario starts. The Joker had no intention of escaping. But, now, the scenario is how does Batman deal with both the destruction of Robin and Robin's murder of the Joker? Does it push Batman over the edge? Does he get another sidekick? How does he deal with this?

RC, we totally agree that there must be meaningful choices in order for there to be a game. Yet, where we disagree is that you seem to be saying that all choices must be meaningful. The GM should never disallow any choices.

In my example of buying a beer, there are still meaningful choices to be made. The end result - I get my beer - is completely a foregone conclusion. Yet, do I walk or drive to the store? What do I wear? Should I take an umbrella? Should I go by myself or take someone with me? Etc. Etc.

Ok, the example is not exactly a riveting game. But, the idea that just because the resolution is known at the beginning then you cannot have a game, is something I totally disagree with. And, I find it very limiting as well. What if I want a tragedy RPG? Maybe not the most uplifting game, but, I could totally see it. If it's tragedy, then bad things MUST happen. Certain end results are going to be known at the outset.

Heck, by your definition, Call of Cthulu is no longer a real game since we know, at the outset, that our character's are going to either go insane or be killed. There's no escape in Cthulu, either in Call or Trail. Yet, I'd be hard pressed to say that it's not a real game.

 

[Ariosto]

Wow, talk about pulling things WAY out of context.

As in your attributing to me what you seem to have read between the lines of what pawsplay posted?

Or are you ascribing some nefarious RPG-philosophy-war motive to the publishers (dilithium Press, Ltd.) of a 1989 dictionary?

 

[FireLance]

(Note: if anyone can tell me how to make one of those spoiler buttons I see you guys using, I'd be appreciative! I don't want to spoil the STAP, especially for my own player!)

Use ["SBLOCK"] ["/SBLOCK"] (without quote marks, of course).

You can also use "=SOMETHING" after the first "SBLOCK" to add a small note in front of the spoiler.

Quote this post for an example.

[SBLOCK=My players keep out!]SPOILER![/SBLOCK]

 

[KidSnide]

The key distinction here, I think, is in how much weight I as GM place on what "I expect to happen".

The players didn't "bite the hook" at A, so what? Do you simply run with what they in the event DID choose to do, or do you try to get them back "on track"? What if they've done A, B and C as you expected, but then instead of choosing D or E they chose 23? What if F would have followed 98% of the time, but either the dice or a decision by the players indicates some other result?

I really don't get this issue. When the players don't go where the plot goes, you make it up and respond to what they did. That's what makes you a human GM and not just a guy reading a module. You give them the illusion that they are in a more sandboxy world by letting them play out their "off target" game. Then you find a way to guide them back to where they would be (and make sure that you alter the rest of the game to account for their different path).

Or you just them the players out of game and convince them that it would be more fun if they changed their minds. You know what's out there and they don't - they should listen to you.

- - - - -

With that in mind, I'll ask this question:

Let's say a GM writes an adventure in which 8 events are expected to happen in sequence. Let's also say the GM knows his players and is competent at plot writing. Accordingly, the GM's predictions are mostly good and 7 of the 8 events occur -- only a few are radically different or out of order. The last couple events don't go exactly as planned because, although the PCs break into the BBEG's fortress as expected, they use some innovative tactics that forces the GM to alter the final encounters to reflect the unexpected plan of attack. On the whole, the adventure has a discernible beginning, middle and end with raising stakes, increasing tension, and a dramatic resolution.

That sounds like a plotted game to me, but not a railroad.

I really don't understand why the hypothetical possibility that the PCs could have done something else makes the plotted game worse in any way. I don't see it as any different from a sandbox GM that fills a dungeon with monsters at the risk of discovering that the PCs don't want to explore that hole. Either the GM convinces the players (in-game or out-of-game) to explore the prepared material, or the GM runs something else.

-KS