Confession: I like Plot

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Hi Mustrum!

Ordo Draconis can be got, for free, from either DrivethruRPG or the Mongoose website. Issue 1 is out and issue 2 is in production: the mag is quarterly and is produced by NaturalTwenty Games.

It sounds like you are playing "Sleeping Gods" and if so, then your GM might be interested to know that a new adventure has just been published: "The power of Darkness" as well as some offerings from people like myself in Ordo Draconis.

I'll relate this to him, in case he didn't know about it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Meh. I would argue that there really isn't that much thrill when I'm 99% sure as well. Actually, I'd probably think that there really isn't enough difference to change my decisions. My point is, it's not a simple binary, yes/no situation. Either random or not. There are certainly degrees of randomness and, beyond a certain point, slight deviation or 100% certainty doesn't make a whole lot of difference.

It seems odd to me that, on one hand, you seem to be well aware that degree of uncertainty is directly related to the meaningfulness of decisions, and that you have agreed that meaningful decisions are necessary for there to be a game, yet on the other hand you have failed to add 2 + 2 together and realize that degree of uncertainty is directly related to whether or not something is a game.


RC

 

[Ydars]

I think I agree with both Mustrum and RavenCrowKing in that for me, a good game has choices, that have risks associated with them (i.e. an element of chance as well as factors I can control) and meaningful outcomes that change the scene/adventure or story.

But to be a meaningful choice, I , as a player, have to be able to gauge (quantify) the risk involved in deciding A or B and need to be able to gain some information to inform the decision.This can make even a choice like "Do I turn left or right" into something that I actually have some chance of using to my advantage.

So for me, choice in roleplaying has to have risk + reward, and to be meaningful the choice has to affect the game significantly and also be an informed choice.

 

[CharlesRyan]

It seems odd to me that, on one hand, you seem to be well aware that degree of uncertainty is directly related to the meaningfulness of decisions, and that you have agreed that meaningful decisions are necessary for there to be a game, yet on the other hand you have failed to add 2 + 2 together and realize that degree of uncertainty is directly related to whether or not something is a game.

I'm not sure about your point here; whether it's about uncertainty as a necessary part of the RPG experience, or simply belabouring a technical definition of the word "game" that might not be relevant to many of us.

Assuming the former, I think you're a hair off. The decision-making process, and its importance to the RPG experience, arises from the perception of uncertainty--not its actuality.

Intuitively, I think every good GM knows this. How many times has a GM rolled the dice (or called on a player to make a check) assuming he's going to give the same answer no matter what the result? (Or, in a more nuanced version of the example, is really only interested in deviating from the anticipated answer if the result is a 1 or 20?) How many GMs have clattered the dice behind the screen and muttered to themselves, just to make the players squirm a bit? How many times have you said "Are you suuure you want to go through the door first?"

Goofy and simplistic examples I admit, but these are all techniques GMs use to increase the players' sense of uncertainty--even when no actual uncertainty exists.

Obviously, actual uncertainty is, to a large degree, necessary to support the perception. If the players come to believe that their actions make no difference, they will cease to care about their decisions (and hence the game). But the perception can exist, and be just as effective, without any actual uncertainty.

 

[Paka]

Intuitively, I think every good GM knows this. How many times has a GM rolled the dice (or called on a player to make a check) assuming he's going to give the same answer no matter what the result? (Or, in a more nuanced version of the example, is really only interested in deviating from the anticipated answer if the result is a 1 or 20?) How many GMs have clattered the dice behind the screen and muttered to themselves, just to make the players squirm a bit? How many times have you said "Are you suuure you want to go through the door first?"

Never.

When the dice hit the table, something tangible is going to happen.

There are going to be consequences. The world might change, the character might change but something is going to happen.

I don't like using those techniques. You do and more power to ya but it isn't the way everyone games.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Assuming the former, I think you're a hair off. The decision-making process, and its importance to the RPG experience, arises from the perception of uncertainty--not its actuality.

Is the illusion of a game actually a game? That is an interesting question, and one I was going to have to think about before replying to, but you did it for me:

Obviously, actual uncertainty is, to a large degree, necessary to support the perception.

So, illusion of uncertainty is certainly a tool to make a session more fun, but is probably not actually part of the game, excepting where said illusion is actually transmission of information (i.e., alters how the players make decisions within the game).

Poker, I could argue, is to a large degree dependent upon exchange of illusory information, and this exchange is certainly part of the game, as its intent is to influence decision-making. So too with a role-playing game. So long as the decision making is part of the game, then the attempt to influence it is part of the game. If the decision making is not part of the game, it might be fun, and it might be role-playing, but I would argue that it is part of the framework rather than part of the game per se.


RC

 

[Ariosto]

Competent GMs don't need to do it [railroad], and I'm tired of people confusing the actions of inexperienced, incompetent GMs with actual game technique.

I don't think that's a realistic characterization of Tracy Hickman, or of David Cook, or of every DM who ran their railroad modules. The "railroad" technique does not appear to me to be irrelevant to what Hussar (who started the thread) has in mind.

There is a real, live issue. Quite a few people seem to prefer enforced plot lines, and it's not a matter of incompetence exactly. It's needlessly contrary to the design of D&D, but (e.g.) Vampire is almost that awkward by apparent intent.

 

[CharlesRyan]

So, illusion of uncertainty is certainly a tool to make a session more fun, but is probably not actually part of the game, excepting where said illusion is actually transmission of information (i.e., alters how the players make decisions within the game).

Poker, I could argue, is to a large degree dependent upon exchange of illusory information, and this exchange is certainly part of the game, as its intent is to influence decision-making. So too with a role-playing game. So long as the decision making is part of the game, then the attempt to influence it is part of the game.

Hmm. I don't think bluffing in poker is quite the same as what I'm trying to convey.

As you point out, bluffing in poker is an attempt to influence the decisions of other players. But in my examples, the GM isn't attempting to influence the players one way or the other. He's simply trying to convey an elevated sense of uncertainty in a case where the actual uncertainty may be less or nonexistent.

Let me put it another way: Have you ever seen players agonize over a decision the GM knows is completely unimportant? Heck, I think we've all been in situations where the GM actually rushed the players along because they were spending too much time on something that didn't really matter.

The point is that the players' perception of how meaningful the decision was differed from the actuality. As with every other element of the subjective RPG experience, there will always be differences in perception between players and the GM. And so long as that difference exists or potentially exists, it's something GMs can and will add to their toolbox.

Not every decision has to actually matter. It's often good enough for it to seem like it matters.

If the decision making is not part of the game, it might be fun, and it might be role-playing, but I would argue that it is part of the framework rather than part of the game per se.

Fair enough. But again I'm not talking about players knowingly heaping extra significance on a decision based on character viewpoint or roleplaying purposes--I agree, that can be fun, but it's not relevant here.

I'm talking about what the players (not characters) perceive as the level of uncertainty at a decision point. If they are making a decision based on a perception of uncertainty, I think they're playing the game even if the perception isn't accurate. Just like a chess player who moves his piece to head off a gambit he thinks the other player is considering, even if that strategy had never occurred to his opponent.

 

[Ariosto]

CharlesRyan, it's a stretch, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume that you honestly don't understand this:

Giving the players no meaningful choice is "railroading".

Full stop.

 

[Ariosto]

Fooling the players into thinking they have a choice does not change the fact of the matter.

Rolling dice and pretending to play a game does not make what's going on a real game.

Whether one enjoys the experience of watching Casino Royale has not a thing to do with whether the experience is one of playing a game.

If what happens to the player-characters is predetermined, then that is a plot in the "story" sense that is the relevant one in this context. Mere speculation as to what might happen, with no commitment to making it so, is not a plot.