Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs

[Desdichado]

GNS works best as a theory to describe what certain players enjoy most from the game. As a model on which to build games, it fails pretty spectacularly, since as Maddman said, it would predict that D&D and Vampire would be terrible games rather than #1 and #2 in the market year over year over year.

 

[Raven Crowking]

No, I think the recent explosion of derogatory buzzwords in the online RPG communities is certainly problematic. You can't go around saying, "that's not even a game" or "that's what I call 'shooting the breeze'" or "I'm creating a new label called 'storygames' for your playstyle, which is in opposition to 'true roleplaying games'" and all the other nonsense that I've seen in recent months and then turn around and say that you think all of these are equally valid.

For some reason One True Wayism™ and RPG evangelism is really faddish right now. I've seen a lot more of it in the last year or two than I ever did in the previous ten or fifteen years that I've been talking about RPGs online. This thread is rampant with it, sadly.

Sorry, Hobo, but what Hussar described and the game rules he used to back up that description are at odds. What Hussar described was not a game; it was discussion about a theme and/or making up a story about a theme.

The word "game" has meaning, which I didn't invent, and "games theory" goes quite a bit farther than the latest fad in rpgs.

Also, "shooting the breeze" is a valid activity, even if not a game, that we all engage in AFAICT. Saying "X is not Y" doesn't make X intrinsically better than Y or vice versa; it only means that they are different things.

In any event, examination of Hussar's claims demonstrated that it was his description that was at odds with being a game, not the game itself or (presumably) the playstyle.



RC

 

[CharlesRyan]

Plots are not the actual problem in these situations most of the time. Plots are often forced to stand in front of the firing squad while the real culprit; scene scripting, looks on and laughs.

Very nicely put.

IMHO, if the GM seeds opportunities, without worrying about whether they will manifest, and allows the players to recognize opportunities the GM neither intended nor expected, then all is right with the (game) world.

Couldn't agree more. My point (and I think we're in agreement on this) is that the above is not antithetical to plot. The GM simply needs to understand that his plot, just like his encounters and scenes, starts according to his vision, then is in the hands of entire group. Over the course of the adventure or campaign, he can steer events toward it, or adjust it to match events, but he can't expect it to unfold according to some preconceived plan.

I like to think of a plot as a road map, and the campaign as a leisurely road trip. You look at the map and see your starting point and destination. You probably even see an obvious or likely route. But once you're on the road, you see the sights, you take a few unplanned turns, your passengers ask for a detour--you might even find a few roadblocks. No problem. There are other routes that keep you headed in the desired direction. You'll get there in time, but the journey will be the most fun if everyone is willing to let the route sort itself as you go. Explore. Enjoy the scenery. Get lost for a while. It's all good, and if you keep the map by your side and peek back at it once and a while, you will reach your destination.

 

[Desdichado]

No, you're still artificially trying to limit what is and isn't a game. Roleplaying games (as traditionally defined, before the One True Wayers tried to modify the definitions to suit their own tastes) have always had elements unusual to games.

Also; plenty of other games as traditionally defined lack winners, losers, or much in the way of rules. How is Hussar's game any less of a game than Spin the Bottle, Telephone, or Smear the Queer?

Lots of games that we played as children stressed participation and enjoying the experience, not winning, not "gaming" the rules, not even the presence of rules at all, for that matter. Yet hopefully nobody would be assinine enough to claim that they weren't actually games in an attempt to create false exclusionism.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I completely agree: scene scripting is the root of the railroad.

However, the problem is, because of limited prep time, if we create a plot we have a tendancy to make scene 1 follow scene 2 follow scene 3. This can actually be a form of plot scripting because outcomes that break this chain of causality will not be favored by a DM who has just done a ton of statting/mapping/ etc.

Joining plots and scenes at the hip is the beginning of the trouble. When you detail the plot of an entity in the campaign try not to morph that plot into scenes involving the PC's. Make a note of the plot, who or what is behind it, and the likely means in which it will be carried out. Setting a scene is different than scripting one.

A set scene is pre-PC interaction. A murder investigation scenario begins with a dead NPC. The scene is set and any choices the PC's make will be in relation to this established scene.

Another example: The PC's have a captive and leave him/her unguarded someplace. The DM could have the captive rescued or escape if desired. The PC's chose not to keep tabs on the captive and this choice could mean escape or rescue. If the PC's were on guard or set a trap for such attempts the DM should not automatically just decide that the captive escapes. This would render the choice to be vigilant meaningless.

What strategies have you used to avoid scene scripting and which ones would be of use to people WRITING adventures down? I know there are many techniques for doing it on the fly, but what if you are trying to preserve choice in a set of scenes whilst still stringing them together logically in a published module? I ask, as that is where I think the problem starts, because many people run published modules when they start to DM and get into bad habits as a result.

A published module does not have to be scripted nor does it have to be devoid of plots or backstory.

What I like to do to avoid scripting is not stringing scenes together. What I like to string together is a series of events that take place based on a basic setup, PC decisions, resolutions of those decisions, application of consequences. Repeat.

Basic setup:
This is where the backstory and plots of the major players are detailed. Who is planning what and when, information known (and unknown!) and resources available to get the job done. The initial scene is described to the PC's based on info available to them at which point we go to.......

PC Decisions:
Do they take the hook and decide to act? If yes we resolve any actions they wish to take. If no we skip to application of consequences.

What if the PC's say "no"? In the event that the PC's do not take a hook we have our handy notes from the basic setup describing the plot so we can use that information to determine the consequences of the PC's failure to act. If the PC's really are needed to make a difference in the world then the DM should allow the foul plans outlined to be successful unless the PC's decide to act.

Resolutions:
Ok the PC's have decided to do something. This is where the meat of prep work goes. Locations, treasures, statistics & tactics for any opposition. Resolve the effects of player decisions & actions.

Consequences:
The PC's have decided to work against the foul plot being hatched by the bad guys. They have stuck thier collective nose in things and screwed up the villain's beautiful plan. Determine what response would be appropriate from the villain and effects thier actions have on the environment.

Thus the flow of campaign follows a logical action/reaction format. The scenes happen wherever the PC's make them rather than being pre-set up on a soundstage. The adventure has details on locations where interesting scenes can take place and a logical structure for how they might play out. The actual sequence of events will be shaped by the players.

As far as a published adventure goes, these will have to be written based on the PC's taking the hook. Even good old B2 starts with the premise that the PC's will choose to adventure in the vicinity of the Keep.

A good example of structure would be L2 The Assassins Knot. There is a plot, an outline of what the villain does and when, details on the area for the adventure, and most importantly does not assume the PC's take specific actions. It is one my favorite 1E modules.

 

[ExploderWizard]

No, I think the recent explosion of derogatory buzzwords in the online RPG communities is certainly problematic. You can't go around saying, "that's not even a game" or "that's what I call 'shooting the breeze'" or "I'm creating a new label called 'storygames' for your playstyle, which is in opposition to 'true roleplaying games'" and all the other nonsense that I've seen in recent months and then turn around and say that you think all of these are equally valid.

If an activity is fun for someone how is it not valid to call it entertainment? Not being a game is a different argument from what constitutes valid entertainment.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Also; plenty of other games as traditionally defined lack winners, losers, or much in the way of rules. How is Hussar's game any less of a game than Spin the Bottle?

There are winners and losers in Spin the Bottle, my friend. The victory conditions are just subjective, rather than objective, and occur as a result of each spin (i.e., each spin is its own game).

Game - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Raven Crowking]

If an activity is fun for someone how is it not valid to call it entertainment? Not being a game is a different argument from what constitutes valid entertainment.

Can someone XP ExploderWizard for me?

 

[Desdichado]

There are winners and losers in Spin the Bottle, my friend. The victory conditions are just subjective, rather than objective, and occur as a result of each spin (i.e., each spin is its own game).

Heh. Yeah, kinda. Not technically, but yeah I see your point.

How about Truth or Dare, then?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Heh. Yeah, kinda. Not technically, but yeah I see your point.

How about Truth or Dare, then?

Hobo, have you never played Truth or Dare?!?

What I said about Spin the Bottle can apply a hell of a lot more to Truth or Dare than it does to Spin the Bottle! Especially if you end up locked outside the hotel room in all your bare-bottomed glory!


RC