Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs

[Hussar]

Cross posting my own post from the other thread which seems to be almost a carbon copy of this one, right down to the Batman analogies.

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?

Right here, we have "Batman catches the Joker" as a sort of win condition. After all, that's Batman's goal. However, the win condition comes with the price - Robin murders the Joker.

You can certainly have known up front win conditions and still have a game.

If you expand RPG's to include other genre, like say, Tragedy, then you have all sorts of different methods open up and other methods close down in order to explore that genre.

 

[Ariosto]

Anyway, what if I make awesome decisions and try lots of cool things, but roll 1's and 2's all the time, and I lose.

Learn not to count on luck.

 

[Korgoth]

Anyway, what if I make awesome decisions and try lots of cool things, but roll 1's and 2's all the time, and I lose. Does that mean I suck at D&D, and I need to learn to play better? I'm not trying to trivialize anyone's argument here, but the whole "Approach 1 is about player Excellence" doesn't seem to account for an epic failure due to bad luck.

If D&D were chess, I could see this approach concept more clearly, but since we've involved chance, there is ALWAYS a chance for 'failure'. Unless the DM fudges things, but I don't understand how a player who is tactically unsound could not roll a string of crits and mow down the baddies in very epic fashion, and 'Win' despite 'sucking'.

War is Hell. The first guy off the Higgins boat on Normandy might have been the most gifted, sensitive artist of the Impressionist school since Monet, and also been a crack shot and a supreme athlete. Too bad his cranium got turned into a red mist by a burst from an MG42 before he even set both feet on the beach.

There's a reason that the cherry blossom is a symbol of the warrior in the bushido: it falls to the ground in its prime.

You're right that the 'world' of Chess is a rarified one where the Black Queen never slips on a banana peel and takes a header, ruining what would have been a perfect fork. If there were such a hero as Batman, he would be theoretically susceptible to misadventure as well... but not in the same measure. If Batman falls down during combat (he rarely does because he's so skillful, but it could happen), he actually has a hope of getting up again before getting waxed. That alone makes him a cut above the rest.

In any game with luck, it is theoretically possible that a guy who makes all the right decisions could lose, and a guy who makes all the wrong decisions could win. From a game theory standpoint, in any given instance it's better to be lucky than to be smart.

But the smart guy gets to be smart every day. The lucky guy has no idea when his streak will be over (or start). A theoretical ultra-lucky sod could breeze through everything while always doing exactly the wrong thing... but if you're making a plan, don't plan on getting lucky. Plan on minimizing risk and maximizing benefit.

But yeah, gang aft agley. Get a helmet!

 

[Ariosto]

Since we've involved chance, there is ALWAYS a chance for 'failure'.

One might think that obvious, but a lot of folks in the RPG field seem not to grasp it.

Yeah, there's a reason that reading or watching the adventures of Superman does not involve making saving throws. There's a reason story tellers from Homer to J.K. Rowling do it without dice.

It's the same freaking reason that dice by design do indeed figure prominently in D&D!

 

[Hussar]

War is Hell. The first guy off the Higgins boat on Normandy might have been the most gifted, sensitive artist of the Impressionist school since Monet, and also been a crack shot and a supreme athlete. Too bad his cranium got turned into a red mist by a burst from an MG42 before he even set both feet on the beach.

There's a reason that the cherry blossom is a symbol of the warrior in the bushido: it falls to the ground in its prime.

You're right that the 'world' of Chess is a rarified one where the Black Queen never slips on a banana peel and takes a header, ruining what would have been a perfect fork. If there were such a hero as Batman, he would be theoretically susceptible to misadventure as well... but not in the same measure. If Batman falls down during combat (he rarely does because he's so skillful, but it could happen), he actually has a hope of getting up again before getting waxed. That alone makes him a cut above the rest.

In any game with luck, it is theoretically possible that a guy who makes all the right decisions could lose, and a guy who makes all the wrong decisions could win. From a game theory standpoint, in any given instance it's better to be lucky than to be smart.

But the smart guy gets to be smart every day. The lucky guy has no idea when his streak will be over (or start). A theoretical ultra-lucky sod could breeze through everything while always doing exactly the wrong thing... but if you're making a plan, don't plan on getting lucky. Plan on minimizing risk and maximizing benefit.

But yeah, gang aft agley. Get a helmet!

The trick here is though Korgoth, this is not the only way to play. It is most certainly one way to play and it's loads of fun. But, it's not the only way.

For some people, the events of the game are secondary. The events are simply a vehicle for allowing an exploration of a theme and the game is about that exploration, not the framing. I believe that's what's meant by narrativist gaming, but, I'm not a GNS guy, so, I'm kinda shooting in the dark here.

Taking your D-Day example, we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the outcome of the invasion. Instead of playing a recreation of the invasion with an open ended result (a great deal of fun, mind you), we instead stipulate the events beforehand as following history. We know that it's going to be a meat grinder and the Allies will carry the day.

However, the game could about preserving your humanity in the face of this horror. The game could be about the relationships between soldiers a la Band of Brothers. The game could be about being a German soldier knowing that this is your last stand and how do you deal with that. These are all valid (and IMO interesting) games. They are not what you're talking about, true. but they are interesting nonetheless.

 

[CharlesRyan]

Hussar and I seem to be on the same side of the argument, but my point is not really the same as his (though I think his is true and valid).

My point is that even though we know the outcome of the battle, the first 24 minutes of Saving Private Ryan are still engrossing, thrilling, and intense. In fiction, a preordained outcome is not antithetical to enjoyment--in fact, it really doesn't have much to do with it one way or another.

And I think the same thing is true with RPGs. When you get down to it, what really matters when you're gathered around the table isn't how will this all end?, it's what's going to happen next?.

And maybe that's the difference between a GM who likes plot and a railroader. The plotter may have a structure in mind, but he doesn't know what will happen next any more than the players do. He simply keeps his eye on the destination and adjusts over the course of the campaign or adventure to get there.

The railroader decides what will happen next and enforces that.

 

[pawsplay]

GNS says that's Simulationism.

Simulationism says that Batman is invested in beating the Joker, not that I am.

 

[pawsplay]

Not if you're a wizard.

There is a "you must be this smart to play" bar. It's enforced by the group. The other players in the group are going to judge your contributions to the game; what criteria they use is going to form the creative agenda, one of G-N-S.

Sure, but that's a social rule. Has nothing to do with playstyle, certainly nothing to do with pre-ordained outcomes versus uncertainy.

That operates at a different level than "I came here to play Batman." (Which would be Exploration of Character in Big Model terms.)

It might be in some situations, but in the case of, "I want to be Batman," it most certainly is not. It's not about exploring his motivations or nuances, it's about punching evil in the face. It's saying, "I'm Batman." GNS is a low calorie version of literary modernism. It doesn't even have words for the dramaturgical elements of role-playing, much less the creative expression of acting as if a character. In GNS, the PC is a puppet of the player; in my view, the PC is animated. GNS also claims that simulation shuns metagaming perspectives, but if Batman is trying to win, and I am animating Batman, I do not shun metagaming perspectives, only incongruence.

 

[Hussar]

Charlesryan is saying what I want to say so much better. He is a smartypants.

Someone rep that man!

 

[Raven Crowking]

Cross posting my own post from the other thread which seems to be almost a carbon copy of this one, right down to the Batman analogies.

Assume my brilliant response there was cut & pasted here.


RC