Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs

[Doug McCrae]

Batman is trying to win. I am acting "as-if" Batman.

if Batman is trying to win, and I am animating Batman, I do not shun metagaming perspectives, only incongruence.

Could you explain this a bit further? What sort of metagaming are you talking about?

 

[pawsplay]

Could you explain this a bit further? What sort of metagaming are you talking about?

For instance, I might choose the most efficacious hand-to-hand attack I have access to for a given round of combat. If I am playing a supposedly incompetent character, that is metagaming and poor character portrayal. If I am playing Batman, that is metagaming and likely good character portrayal. If all attack options are equivalent, then the only choices are those of portrayal ("I backhand the Joker").

 

[Doug McCrae]

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

Fair enough. From your last few posts I think I've got a better perspective on where you are coming from now and I accept that GNS isn't very useful for analysing the way you play roleplaying games.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

If the events in the "game" don't matter, we call that a "discussion" or "shooting the breeze".

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.

This is a "framework" into which game events must fit.

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.

This could be a game, or it could be shooting the breeze, depending upon what is actually done.

For example, if the game is about preserving your humanity in the face of this horror, there must be some means of quantifying humanity, losing humanity, and (possibly) regaining humanity through the choices you make.

Moreover, one of the following must also be true:

(1) The players do not know aforehand the conditions that can cause one to lose or gain humanity (very, very hard to set up, as this would seem obvious), or

(2) There is a second victory condition at odds with the first, so that the interplay becomes one of coming to a satisfying resolution of seemingly mutually contradictory objectives. I.e., preserve your humanity while also taking out a particular machine gun outpost.

Both scenarios demand that some victory condition may fail in order for a game to exist. You might lose your humanity; you might fail to take out the machine gun outpost. You might fail in both. It should be difficult to succeed at both in order to make the exploration meaningful.

Within this game, the outcome of the framework story is not in doubt. It does not have to be. However, the outcome of the story of the game is in doubt. It must be, or there is no game.

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?.

Again, there is a difference between the story of the game and the framework story in which that game takes place. Certainly, they may be permeable (the framework intrudes on the game, obviously, and the game may well intrude upon the framework, depending upon the abilities of the PCs and NPCs to affect wide events).

As an example of the game story intruding on the framework, imagine a game where the exploration is "What will Batman sacrifice to stop the Joker from detonating a nuclear bomb in downtown Gotham City?" The game is set up so that Batman has opposing victory conditions of (1) preserve your humanity and (2) stop the Joker. In order for there to be a game, it must be possible (however unlikely) for Batman to fail in either, or both, victory conditions.

Imagine then that Batman fails. The GM has two options:

A. Allow the framework to intrude on the story: The bomb turns out to be a dud, Superman swoops in and saves the day at the last minute.

B. Allow the story to intrude on the framework: The bomb goes off and Gotham City is no more.

"A" risks nullifying the player's input into the game (and therefore the player's investment in the game). "B" risks changing the framework so much that the players again lose investment.

Whether you favour "A" or "B" is, of course, a matter of taste. Whether or not you can fail within the story of the game, however, is not. It is the thing that differentiates a game from a discussion (or collaborative story telling).


RC

 

[Hussar]

Or, C: Take the Batman catching the Joker as written and then work within the framework of the game to determine exactly how that was achieved.

I reject the notion that you must have a "win" condition in order to have a game. Or rather, the win condition must be directly tied to the events of the game.

Again, you might call it "shooting the breeze" and that's fine. It's not for you. Fair enough. But, just because you don't like it doesn't make it not a game. It all depends on what the focus of a particular game is. For you, it's about the events of the game. You state:

quantifying humanity, losing humanity, and (possibly) regaining humanity through the choices you make.

thus, anything not specifically quantified by the game is irrelavent to your play. And that's fine. It's just not the only way to play.

This statement:

Within this game, the outcome of the framework story is not in doubt. It does not have to be. However, the outcome of the story of the game is in doubt. It must be, or there is no game.

is a bit vague though. What exactly do you mean by the "story of the game"? Are you specifically referring to the actions? The encounters of the game, to use D&D parlance? Is that the only thing you mean?

After all, in a tragedy game, the outcome is fixed. I KNOW I'm going to die. The question is how. To me, the how is FAR more interesting than the what. I don't care particularly about the what of the story. At least, most of the what anyway. It's the how and the why that interests me.

To be honest, this is one of the reasons I really dislike most SF rpg's. SF RPG's play out, typically, like D&D in space. They're traditional games, go here, solve this problem, get the reward, move on. And they follow a specific branch of SF which is not the kind that I particularly like. I prefer SF that is focused on concept rather than plot. Stephen Baxter, Cory Doctorow, Isaac Asimov and Robert Reed rather than Heinlein or P. J. Farmer.

So, if I want an RPG that follows the kind of SF that I want, traditional RPG's aren't going to get it done for me. I don't really give a toss about saving the galaxy from the invading aliens. I want to examine, within the context of a role playing scenario, how people and societies are affected by omniscience (a la Frank Herbert).

You brush it off as "shooting the breeze" or "Collective storytelling". My reply to that is, all RPG's are an exercise in collective storytelling whether you like it or not.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

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.

A known destination is a form of railroad. My opinion on rpgs differs because I do not see them as the same type of entertainment form as novels or movies. These entertainment forms are passive in nature, the reader or viewer takes in the experience that the creator wants to present. Those enjoying a book or movie have no opportunity to affect any changes to what is read or watched.

An rpg is an active entertainment form. The game part of rpg implys that the outcome of the experience is not known at the start.

The game part is the big difference for me. Lets take another game instead of an rpg to substitute as an example. Suppose our group is watching a baseball game on TV. The game is exciting and close. Both teams are very good and we don't know who will win. Assuming we enjoy watching televised baseball, a large part of the attraction is not knowing who will win.

Let us change the scenario a bit. Assume we are watching the same game but this time it is from a DVR recording. We know from the announcement on the news that team A won 7-6 but we do not know how the score ended up that way. We can still watch the whole game to see how it played out and satisfy the baseball statistician geek needs of the group but the spark of excitement just isn't there. We know the outcome of the game so team B having two men on with 2 outs in the bottom of the ninth isn't a nailbiting experience. Based on the final score we know that the man currently at bat is not going to get so much as a base hit.

I want rpgs to have the excitement of a live game. Playing towards a known end just doesn't satisfy the gaming need for me.

 

[Hussar]

Oh, hey, EW, I totally 100% agree with you.

Playing in the second way you talk about is not for everyone, and personally, it's not for me all the time either. But, having just recently discovered it, I'm finding it rather a lot of fun. And your baseball analogy works very well.

I have absolutely zero problems with someone saying "Thanks, but no thanks". That's fine. I've certainly played to the unknown end for years and I will do so again. What bugs me, and I think others who have chimed in here, is when people step up and try to claim that the second method isn't valid at all. That just because I'm watching a replay, it is no longer enjoyable, nor can it possibly be enjoyable.

'cos that's certainly the vibe I've gotten from these threads from some people.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I have absolutely zero problems with someone saying "Thanks, but no thanks". That's fine. I've certainly played to the unknown end for years and I will do so again. What bugs me, and I think others who have chimed in here, is when people step up and try to claim that the second method isn't valid at all. That just because I'm watching a replay, it is no longer enjoyable, nor can it possibly be enjoyable.

'cos that's certainly the vibe I've gotten from these threads from some people.

If the known end method of entertainment is interesting and fun for those involved then there isn't a thing wrong with it. You might be confusing the terms "valid" and "game". To me, such experiences do not qualify as a game but DO qualify as a valid and acceptable form of entertainment.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Or, C: Take the Batman catching the Joker as written and then work within the framework of the game to determine exactly how that was achieved.

That would actually be an example of "A".

I reject the notion that you must have a "win" condition in order to have a game. Or rather, the win condition must be directly tied to the events of the game.

Pretty much sums up a rejection of the notion of a game, then. The argument becomes one of terminology. I am curious, though, as to whether or not you could sample me a commercial RPG (i.e., something I could examine) where you believe that the win conditions are not tied to the events of the game.

I suspect that your analysis of any such ruleset is incomplete, but I would be more than happy to learn that I am wrong.

Again, you might call it "shooting the breeze" and that's fine. It's not for you. Fair enough. But, just because you don't like it doesn't make it not a game.

Oh, I like "shooting the breeze", too. I just don't mistake it for a game.

I suspect that we would agree that your game is a game, that we are effectively "talking past each other". I suspect from your statements that in your game you are not distinguishing between what I called the "framework" and the "story of the game". As a result, you view the outcome as known where only the outcome of the framework is known.

For example, in a game modelled off of the original Star Trek series, the status quo would be the expected outcome of every "episode" (adventure). The status quo is effectively the framework; the events of the adventure are the "story of the game". So, the events when the USS Enterprise encounter the Tholians are unknown (this is what the game is about), but that the USS Enterprise will survive its encounter with the Tholians, with major crew intact, can be known.

In order to achieve this effect, the GM can do any of the following with the victory conditions of the episode:

(1) Not have them involved with the survival of the USS Enterprise or the crew. I.e., the question being resolved in the game is, can Captain Kirk et al prevent the Tholians from destroying Outpost K-11? Or, can the USS Enterprise get the Tholians to negotiate a peace treaty with the Gorn?

(2) Make the Tholian threat to the USS Enterprise & crew so small that the odds of failure are infintesimally small.

(3) Prepare (or wing) a deux ex machina solution to prevent the Tholians from destroying the USS Enterprise & crew should the PCs fail.

Out of these options, (1) is probably the most satisfying, and I believe it is what you mean when you say that the Batman/Joker outcome is known. In this case, though, the "story of the game" (aka, "How are the victory conditions resolved?") have nothing to do with the USS Enterprise being destroyed, and are still completely open to all sorts of possible outcomes.

I believe that you are imagining that I am saying "everything must be in doubt" for a game to exist. I am not. All that must be in doubt is the outcome of the victory conditions. I believe that what you are calling "the focus of a particular game" is the area of the game on which the victory conditions are predicated.

The "events of the game" do not have to be encounters; they are whatever choices are meaningful for the resolution of the victory conditions.

In your tradgedy game example, for instance, the HOW of your death is predicated on the game situations you face. The victory conditions are, presumably, to meet conditions that make your (known aforehand) sacrifice either worthwhile or satisfying in some other way. The game (or game scenario) must have some means (even if subjective) of quantifying that value, of opposing that value, and of making the choices that lead to increasing that value something more than a simple checklist. The unknown aspect of the game -- the thing that makes it a game -- is attempting to increase that value (competing against other players or the game itself, depending upon the nature of the game).

As a result, the outcome of the tragedy game is not that you are going to die. The framework is that you are going to die. The outcome is rather what value you manage to achieve prior to dying, or through the act of dying.

To be honest, this is one of the reasons I really dislike most SF rpg's. SF RPG's play out, typically, like D&D in space.

I would agree. It is, simply put, easier to quantify certain kinds of victory conditions than others, and most games make use of those easily quantifiable data. Heck, this shouldn't be surprising, when a lot of people playing games with less easily quantifiable data are not even aware that they are meeting victory conditions, or that the outcome of the game is not the framework, or that the outcome is even in doubt!


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

To me, such experiences do not qualify as a game but DO qualify as a valid and acceptable form of entertainment.

This.

With the exception that, from the examples given, I do not believe Hussar is correct in his estimation that the outcome is known. I think that the actual thing he is describing is a game, but that his description of it would not qualify it as a game.

I think he is mistaking the framework for the game.

Batman cannot fail to catch the Joker for the same reason that the houses in Monopoly do not catch fire; neither event is part of the game. Saying that I know the shoe won't get eaten by the dog in Monopoly is not the same as saying that I know the outcome of the game (although I might be mistaken in so believing).


RC