Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs

If whatever tangent you're on can't be spun back to "why somebody likes plot" or "our job as DMs" than you're just thread crapping.


Your admonishment is accepted.

Recognizing that there is a goal in a game allows one to consider what sorts of victory conditions various sessions and campaign arcs can have. This is not to say that you must consider what the PCs are expected to accomplish; within a sandbox campaign, though, it is important to give some thought to what the PCs can accomplish. This means looking at the campaign world in terms of various plot arcs, even if the "plot" is as simple as "Explore the five-chamber Crypt of Kings" or "Find a Shrubbery for the Knights Who Say Ne".

When sandboxing, "plot" is often "what the NPCs are up to", but this information is useless in actual game terms unless the GM also considers how the NPCs' goals and actions intersect with the PCs, how the PCs can get involved with those intersectiongs, and what can happen as a result. This doesn't mean that the GM should fix things in stone, and be unwilling to accept a PC-driven intersection he or she has not foreseen. What it does mean is that, by considering the ways these interactions can occur, the GM has hopefully prepared some material (even if only in his or her head) to help when "winging it" due to unforeseen PC actions.

4e's quest rules, and the special XP cases of 2e, seem to me to be explicitly embracing the idea of examining pieces of the game in terms of their plot potential. Certainly, they allow for the adoption of specific game goals, with specific rewards for achieving them.

Personally, I prefer plot to be handled in a sort of loose manner. The GM knows what the NPCs are planning, and what they will do to achieve their goals if no one (PC or NPC) intervenes, but stops between sessions to consider how the milieu has progressed due to PC actions -- which might include NPCs discovering things/getting more involved that the GM initially imagined they might.


RC
 

log in or register to remove this ad


As a DM, for RPG campaigns, I do not care to impose a plot upon the players in a game. I prefer to set up a number of events that might later, but only retrospectively, become plot points in a story that has genesis in the actions of the player characters. It's probably why I also do not find games based on novels enticing to run or to play. I do not mind the elements being familiar, nor do I mind if the PCs' actions emulate in some small way those the players have come to know as tropes of any particular genre, but I prefer to give players a lot more free rein in their choices of how (what later amounts to) a story unfolds.


(One-shot adventures and tournament games are a different matter.)
 

More on using the definition of game to help plan games:

1. Some goal or goals to be met (i.e., victory conditions)

It behooves the GM to consider what goals the PCs might meet, because meaningful PC activity is always related to some form of goal. Goals allow the PCs to engage with the world. In its simplest form, a goal is something that the PCs (and players) care about, from "acquire loot" to "protect the town" to "get even with the rat who set us up".

When an actor says, "What is my motivation?" he is asking what the goal of his character is in a given scene. Similarly, failure to provide clear goals prevents players from acting in an appropriate way within the game. If your players don't know what to do, reconsider how you set goals.

When creating a plot, it is sometimes easiest to start with the NPC goal, and then determine why the PCs would care. Why would they want to foil the NPC? What is their goal? How would they define victory?

And "victory conditions" are important for satisfactory resolution. The players should be able to tell when they've scored against their foes, when they have been victorious, and when they have only partially met their goals. By thinking ahead of time about what is required to change the course of mighty rivers (so to speak), the GM can not only supply the information required to help the players set appropriate sub-goals (i.e., the steps needed to meet the bigger goal) but can also ensure that when the mighty rivers' courses move, there is a real impact on the campaign milieu.

When this happens, victory seems real. When it does not happen, victory seems hollow.

2. Player actions/choices related to said goal or goals

Once you know what is likely to motivate your players (and their characters), it is possible to consider the actions/choices they are likely to make which relate to those motivations.

If the GM expects the PCs to examine six adventuring locations on the way to achieving the great goal, the GM better make sure that each of those locations relate to the overall goal in some way. They can provide equipment, information, or passage to another location, but they must provide something that motivates the players, and allows the players to view progressing through them to be part of the overarching goal. The players must have a sense of their own progress. They must believe that they can affect the outcome, or they will not be motivated to try.

3. The resolution of said goal or goals is unknown when the game begins

Similarly, the players must believe that there is something at stake. If they are playing an "avert the end of the world scenario" knowing ahead of time that the world will not end, this knowledge not only robs their efforts of any sense of urgency, but it also robs their choices of any meaning.

In a role-playing game, the resolution of the goal(s) is unknown due to the opposition (both direct opposition and incidental opponents, such as wandering monsters) the PCs experience. The PCs must work to overcome enemies, avoid pitfalls, garner allies, and gain the information/gear they need to meet their goal. While any single failure or success doesn't mean the success or failure of the whole enterprise, each makes overall success more or less likely. It is the tension of unknown resolution which makes players sit at the edges of their seats.

If the outcome of some aspect of the session is known, consider it part of the framework, and move past the framework into the unknown as fast as you can. If the outcome of some aspect of the session is unknown, and is important to the PCs' goals, consider it part of the game, and allow the players to engage with it as much as they desire. At no time should the players be suckered into spending large chunks of time on anything that will not change no matter what their PCs do.

For example, if you are playing A1-A4 in order, don't bother with the fight at the end of A3. It's part of the framework. It isn't part of the game. Narrate what happens, and get on with A4. In your own creations, try to make the framework as light and as permeable as possible. Most players are at the table to make meaningful choices, not to listen to long narratives.

If your players are bored, consider the following:

1. Have I mistaken framework for game? IOW, am I wasting too much precious game time on things that either do not affect PC goals, or that the PCs cannot affect?

2. Do the PCs know the victory conditions? IOW, do the PCs know enough to have clear goals, or are they wandering aimlessly? Even in a sandbox, it is possible to set clear goals for each session, as well as clear goals for overarching action. If you read the advice Gary Gygax gave to players in the 1e PHB, you may note that he recommends setting clear goals for each session, even if it's only "find the entrance to the next level".

It's okay to have the victory conditions change in mid-session. It is not okay to go long stretches of game time without any possibility of setting a goal.

3. Have I given the PCs some clear idea of actions that can affect goals? IOW, re-examine the hooks you are using, and make sure that they include not only the goal to be met, but some idea of ways to take action to meet them.

On a related note, try to avoid time wasters that don't have anything to do with player goals. If you play a game with serious combat grind, consider how much time is wasted to slay a few kobolds that have little to do with the PC's goals.

It is not only true that the players should be able to take meaningful action toward their goals, it is true that the resolution of events should take game time which is at least vaguely proportional to the amount said events are important to those goals. Half an hour to an hour spent on a combat with wandering monsters is just too bloody long if you are going to have a lot of wandering monsters.

4. Do the players already know how this will end? Do they believe they do? If there is no doubt how the goals will resolve, then there is no tension. Throw something else into the mix.

Or accept that the remainder of the "adventure" has already become framework. The outcome is known. Narrate it briefly, and move on to the next thing.



RC
 

RC, I agree with you completely, at least in the broad strokes. It's hard to imagine any reasonable person disagreeing, frankly.

I suspect that a big stumbling block in this conversation centres around the concept of "outcome"; I think people are often imagining different things when they use that term--even when very specific examples are in use.

That said, I'm surprised that you seem to associate these points with sandbox-style play (or perhaps I've misunderstood you?). In most of the discussions I've been involved with, the pro-sandboxers seemed to have taken the stance that yes, you must play through that encounter with the kobolds, no matter how meaningless it might be. The kobolds are there (according to the GM's notes, or imaginings, or a published adventure, or whatever); to not play through the encounter would be unacceptably manipulative on the part of the GM, who's supposed to be impartial, dispassionate, and utterly unconcerned with the fates of the characters or "meaning" of the encounters.
 

RC, I agree with you completely, at least in the broad strokes. It's hard to imagine any reasonable person disagreeing, frankly.

And yet.......Frankly, there are those who are disagreeing that I would say are generally reasonable people.

I suspect that a big stumbling block in this conversation centres around the concept of "outcome"; I think people are often imagining different things when they use that term--even when very specific examples are in use.

I agree. That's why I tried to seperate the game and the framework.

That said, I'm surprised that you seem to associate these points with sandbox-style play (or perhaps I've misunderstood you?). In most of the discussions I've been involved with, the pro-sandboxers seemed to have taken the stance that yes, you must play through that encounter with the kobolds, no matter how meaningless it might be. The kobolds are there (according to the GM's notes, or imaginings, or a published adventure, or whatever); to not play through the encounter would be unacceptably manipulative on the part of the GM, who's supposed to be impartial, dispassionate, and utterly unconcerned with the fates of the characters or "meaning" of the encounters.

IMHO, and certainly when I use the term, a "sandbox" is a game in which there are plot threads occurring in the world, whether or not the PCs follow them, and where the PCs direct the "action" of the game toward the plot threads that they are interested in. It is (partially, anyway) still the job of the GM to make this setting "work" in terms of game play.

If you are playing a system where the kobold encounter can be played relatively quickly (1e, OD&D, Basic Fantasy, RCFG), then that encounter doesn't detract from the game. If you are playing a system where the kobold encounter is going to grind (3e, 4e), then you might want to reconsider placing it in the first place. Or you could consider having the kobolds scatter, or throw themselves on the PCs' questionable mercy, preferably before the grind/glazed-over look begins.

Being impartial in terms of the game itself doesn't mean that you have to have a sucky framework in which that game takes place. Originally, wandering monsters were there to make "Greyhawking" a less than viable option, as well as to add to the faux realism of the experience. When used in this way, these encounters are part of the game. When exploring, finding out what is there is part of the game. When they occur "just because" they are part of the framework, and even Gary Gygax gave the advice to ignore them if they were damaging the game (in the 1e DMG).

Parsing out what you are doing when you engage in an activity like a role-playing game might seem like mere pedantry, but it allows you to gain deeper insight into how the parts relate to the whole. This in turn allows you to make the entire thing better.

IMHO, of course. YMMV.


RC
 

It is just as important in sandbox style play for the setting to react to the PCs as vice versa. At some point, the grind with kobolds (for example) should not even be an issue as PCs will be able to dispatch them quickly and kobolds will avoid dying by the hand of the PCs. I disagree that there should be predetermined plot "threads" though there might be what reveal themselves retrospectively as plot "points" that have through PC choice and actions become, again, retrospectively revealed as plot threads.




(Once again adding the caveat that this is for sandbox campaigning, not for a one-shot or tournament style play.)
 

It is just as important in sandbox style play for the setting to react to the PCs as vice versa. At some point, the grind with kobolds (for example) should not even be an issue as PCs will be able to dispatch them quickly and kobolds will avoid dying by the hand of the PCs. I disagree that there should be predetermined plot "threads" though there might be what reveal themselves retrospectively as plot "points" that have through PC choice and actions become, again, retrospectively revealed as plot threads.


What I mean by a "plot thread" is something like "Duke Niceguy is secretly a werewolf, ravaging the countryside at night" or "The evil wizard Blastemall is seeking the Ring of Wrong to increase his power; if he gets it he will try to use it to take over Dullsburg".

Knowing that these threads exist ahead of time allows me to seed other adventures with clues to these threads. One adventure might include, for example, the werewolf who infected Duke Niceguy (and clues that it had encountered the Duke). Another adventure might include a reference to the Ring of Wrong, or have a letter from Blastemall to an accomplice, describing his hatred of the rulers of Dullsburg.

Without knowing what is going on in the campaign milieu -- without knowing these overarching threads -- it is difficult to inter-relate various adventure sites. IMHO, when one site points to three other possible adventures, then all is good and the players have plenty of choices.

If I was going to make a campaign world with the Keep on the Borderland, Quasqueton, and Saltmarsh all in the begining area (utilizing the modules they appear in - B2, B1, and U1-3), I would certainly go through the modules and include things that link them together beforehand.

Without doing this sort of (fun!) work, I would have a hard time running a viable sandbox, let alone an interesting one.

(Again, YMMV)


RC
 

What I mean by a "plot thread" is something like "Duke Niceguy is secretly a werewolf, ravaging the countryside at night" or "The evil wizard Blastemall is seeking the Ring of Wrong to increase his power; if he gets it he will try to use it to take over Dullsburg".

Knowing that these threads exist ahead of time allows me to seed other adventures with clues to these threads. One adventure might include, for example, the werewolf who infected Duke Niceguy (and clues that it had encountered the Duke). Another adventure might include a reference to the Ring of Wrong, or have a letter from Blastemall to an accomplice, describing his hatred of the rulers of Dullsburg.

Without knowing what is going on in the campaign milieu -- without knowing these overarching threads -- it is difficult to inter-relate various adventure sites. IMHO, when one site points to three other possible adventures, then all is good and the players have plenty of choices.

If I was going to make a campaign world with the Keep on the Borderland, Quasqueton, and Saltmarsh all in the begining area (utilizing the modules they appear in - B2, B1, and U1-3), I would certainly go through the modules and include things that link them together beforehand.

Without doing this sort of (fun!) work, I would have a hard time running a viable sandbox, let alone an interesting one.

(Again, YMMV)


RC


Well, I think the difference is that having a guy who is a werewolf somewhere would count as a plot "point" in my terminology but plunking down whole modules in designated areas would be like having predetermined plot "threads" lying about. It's more of an amalgam of sandbox-style and linear-style gameplay where the PCs have choices to make between bursts of linear adventures. Although one could contend that PCs could leave any given linear adventure and take up a different one at any time, or even spend time in the grey areas between bursts, eventually they have to return to a linear section to progress. This holds true, too, for if they go back and forth, essentially interweaving the predetermined threads. This doesn't really emulate sandbox-style play, particularly since, as you proffer above, the style of play you describe above has certain expectations in regard to framework and outcomes that pure sandbox-style play would not have. Some campaigns work well as one or the other and some as an amalgam, often depending on the players (GM included) involved.
 

IMHO, and certainly when I use the term, a "sandbox" is a game in which there are plot threads occurring in the world, whether or not the PCs follow them, and where the PCs direct the "action" of the game toward the plot threads that they are interested in.

So in other words, in a sandbox, there are multiple potential plots; one or more of these may play out depending on what the players choose to pursue. (Note my use of the words "potential" and "may".) In a "plotted" game, there's a single major plotline; it plays out on the basis of player buy-in from an early stage.

I think I better understand your definition of sandbox now, and it seems entirely reasonable. (I think there are people out there with different, less reasonable definitions of the term, but I'm willing to ignore them just as I've asked others to ignore the railroaders when thinking about games with plot.)

Parsing out what you are doing when you engage in an activity like a role-playing game might seem like mere pedantry, but it allows you to gain deeper insight into how the parts relate to the whole. This in turn allows you to make the entire thing better.

I couldn't agree more!
 

Remove ads

Top