Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs

[Ariosto]

Basically you need to know how your NPCs are going to react to things, i.e. personality

Yep! The actual tenor of response -- just how positive or negative -- may vary in accordance with a reaction roll or suchlike, but a good basic idea of what would be in character is a very powerful resource. I gather that I'm not eccentric in forming such a character sketch prior to writing a scene in fiction, either.

Somehow, a lot of RPG scenario designers get it into their heads to put the cart before the horse in that regard!

Having random encounters is like original D&D in dungeons, it gets boring like that I think. That's why Greyhawk made such a huge splash when it came out.

I can't make head or tail of what you're trying to say here, but the phrasing vaguely suggests certain slanders often hurled (in disregard for actual history) at a game I have enjoyed for more than 30 years.

 

[IvanDragonov]

I didn't mean it like that. What I meant was random hack and slash gets old after a while. Heck I played old school d&d for years! And Greyhawk made a huge impact, because it was the first setting that was out of dungeons and instead took place in a city. Everything needs at least an inkling of plot (returning to what I was saying before because I have the attention span of a goldfish)

 

[LostSoul]

I can't make head or tail of what you're trying to say here, but the phrasing vaguely suggests certain slanders often hurled (in disregard for actual history) at a game I have enjoyed for more than 30 years.

At least he didn't say it was just "a visit to a casino" for him, eh?

 

[Hussar]

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.
/snip
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

Except for one very salient point which you glossed over.

The players, through the use of twists, can resolve any conflict at any point in time to their own benefit. Twists uber ales is a quote you missed (look under the conflicts chapter).

For example, an Old Worlder, with no technological advances or gadgets is faced by a battle mech armed with weapons capable of blowing a ship out of orbit from the ground. The old worlder is a PC and the battle mech is an NPC.

The Old Worlder wins EVERY SINGLE TIME. He simply uses his twists and the mech pilot loses. NO MATTER WHAT. Now, the twists might cost him something down the road, but, for this particular scenario, the Old Worlder wins every time. There is no unknown. He's a PC, he wins. End of story.

The idea that you must have a win condition to have a game is just wrong. Take a video game where, the longer you play, the more difficult it becomes until it becomes so difficult you cannot win. You know the end result of starting this game every single time.

I suppose the arguement could be made that survival time is the win condition, but, that's outside of the game. The game itself doesn't measure that. There's no survival clock in Pacman or in a pinball game. "Beat my last score" might be a goal that the player comes up with for himself, but, that's the player deciding a win condition, not the game.

"Keep this going as long as possible" is certainly a style of play for lots and lots of games. For Sufficiently Advanced, you have the same thing. How long can the players keep the scenario going before someone hits the eject button and takes the story in a totally different direction?

If that qualifies as your win condition, I suppose then that's fair enough.

But, pulling quotes out of context of a text you've barely read is not proving your point RC.

 

[pawsplay]

But it is a game, so why would you try to say that it's not? What possible agenda could someone have to try and exclude games that aren't exactly like the kinds of game that they already like to play?

Hobo, I don't think anyone is trying to oppress you or others by defining "game." However, I cannot be in a discussion and permit game to mean absolutely anything. Therefore, it behooves you to admit there might be limitations on what can rightly be called a game, because a word only has meaning if that meaning is shared between the people communicating. As has already been pointed out, game already has a lot of history within the RPG community as taking a certain form, and in the wider world, games have various definitions and connotations that bear on what we would consider a roleplaying game. Unless you use the definition of game as being "something frivalous," virtually every definition involves amusement, purposeful activity, challenge, and surprise.

Further, although there are various definitions of tabletop RPGs, they all come to general agreement on the vast majority of games. The further you depart from those shared premises, the more likely you are to not meet someone's definition. At the point at which an RPG is played in a fashion that the most logical result is not permitted, you have errored for virtually any RPG.

Playing a scene, with a beginning and a foregone conclusion, could be a game, but it's not a roleplaying game, because in a roleplaying game, a character has full freedom of action. If you wanted to be really picky, you might call it a role-taking game, but honestly there is little reason to call it something other than a storytelling game, or improvisation. If, for instance, the Joker's defeat is a known destination, then you are playing an improvisational storytelling game in which you determine how that occurs, using dice or whatever as aids in play. However, Batman's player is not really roleplaying, except in the most literal sense of playing a role, like an actor. The player is not inhabiting Batman, but rather, inhabiting a playing space. At the point at which you have two co-authors writing a story, you are not playing a roleplaying game.

The moment logic is allowed to triumph over the framework, you have restored meaningful choice to the equation. Being literally unable to change the course of Normandy because they are not capable still leaves the players in full command of their characters.

 

[Hussar]

Heh.

Originally Posted by Hussar
I reject the notion that you must have a "win" condition in order to have a game. Or rather, [that?] the win condition must be directly tied to the events of the game.

If you're going to try to correct my English, please, learn the language first. That phrase does not need a "that" and in fact, "that" can be removed from nearly every sentence where it appears without problem.

"We played Hungry Hungry Hippos for three hours. Then I was slain by an elf."

Well, I played Jenga for three hours then got eaten by a zombie. Most people seem to think that's a pretty decent game.

The approach tends to feel to me like nothing so much as a visit to a casino. It does not, for me, enhance role-playing or narrative. I would rather go quite free-form (the Dark Cults card game having succeeded in my experience) -- or use actual rules of drama in the game.

However it's done, we need some element of uncertainty and significant choice in order to play a game. Just going along for a ride on the GM's roller coaster is something else: an entertainment.

Who is this "we" you refer to? I certainly don't need that. I am perfectly happy using an RPG in order to explore themes and concepts in a manner which does not require me to adhere to random polyhedrals for conflict resolution. You might need that. And that's fine. I got zero problem with that.

However, please, it's not the only way of gaming.

 

[Ariosto]

At least he didn't say it was just "a visit to a casino" for him, eh?

I resemble that remark! Dissociated bets and probability-crunching exercises were what my "dramatic" design became, too much for my taste.

What the heck else is the game component to be about when by design it's divorced from simulation? This is also the problem with "Eurostyle" board games. They might in some vague sense suggest railway journeys or tropical farming or whatever -- but it's a very thin veneer, underneath which "there's no there there".

Minimizing the mechanics so that they don't draw attention to themselves so much as provide inspiration for the story -- as in Dark Cults -- is one way to go. Bringing specific fictional content to the fore, as in Tales of the Arabian Nights, is another.

What I initially hoped to do was have Rules of Drama themselves govern the game: foreshadowing, poetic justice, that sort of thing. I have yet to see that fully implemented!

 

[Hussar]

Playing a scene, with a beginning and a foregone conclusion, could be a game, but it's not a roleplaying game, because in a roleplaying game, a character has full freedom of action.

No, they don't. They never, ever do. Their freedom of action is limited by a thousand different factors.

However, "freedom of action" is not a prerequisite for a role playing game. It might be a pre-requisite for a role playing game you want to play, and that's fine. But, in a game where the outcome is a given, you can still play a role, you can still make meaningful choices, just not ones that affect the eventual outcome.

Having less choices does not make something not a roleplaying game.

For some, role playing game is about role assumption (not that this is universal) and exploring the feelings and whatnot that come with that role. It's not about solving the riddle or completing the quest. That's secondary to why they come to the table.

And, yes, they are playing a role playing game. Not in the way you typically play and that's fine. But, not playing the way you do does not make something not a role playing game either.

Am I playing a game? Yup.
Am I assuming a role within the fictional universe of that game? Yup

I'm playing a role playing game.

 

[Ariosto]

If you're going to try to correct my English, please, learn the language first. That phrase does not need a "that" and in fact, "that" can be removed from nearly every sentence where it appears without problem.

Easy, killer!

Do you reject the the notion that the win condition must be directly tied to the events of the game?

Or is your view, "Rather, the win condition must be directly tied to the events of the game."?

 

[pawsplay]

No, they don't. They never, ever do. Their freedom of action is limited by a thousand different factors.

However, "freedom of action" is not a prerequisite for a role playing game. It might be a pre-requisite for a role playing game you want to play, and that's fine. But, in a game where the outcome is a given, you can still play a role, you can still make meaningful choices, just not ones that affect the eventual outcome.

Freedom of action is a prerequisite for a role playing game. Being able to affect any given outcome is not a prerequisite for freedom of action. A meanginful choice means you get to choose, not that you get to define the terms of the choice.

Having less choices does not make something not a roleplaying game.

Correct. Having less kinds of choices, however, does. To be an RPG, any action that is conceivable within the setting requires a resolution. That is part of what an RPG is. In an RPG, saying, "You are not allowed to jump off the building," is not allowed. You can jump off the building, you can try and fail to jump off the building, you could discover that you cannot jump... but you can still make the decision to jump and demand the GM tell you the outcome.

For some, role playing game is about role assumption (not that this is universal) and exploring the feelings and whatnot that come with that role. It's not about solving the riddle or completing the quest. That's secondary to why they come to the table.

Sure, and I'm one of them.

And, yes, they are playing a role playing game. Not in the way you typically play and that's fine. But, not playing the way you do does not make something not a role playing game either.

Am I playing a game? Yup.
Am I assuming a role within the fictional universe of that game? Yup

I'm playing a role playing game.

You're equivocating. Ever played Monopoly?

Are you playing a game? Yup.
Am I assuming a role witin the fictional universe of that game? Yup. I'm an aspiring hotel monopolist.

I'm playing a role playing game!

Once again, there is a problem presented by your assertion you are allowed to define terms however you want.