Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs

[The Shaman]

I suspect that I seldom introduce the spooky ruined castle on the hill. Unless it is a deliberate foreshadowing. I can see good reasons for both styles. By not doing it, I avoid distracting the PCs with data that isn't pertaining to their current goal.

And in my games the spooky ruined castle is on the hill regardless of what the adventurers are doing, because that hill has a spooky ruined castle on it.

The players in my games are responsible for pursuing their characters' goals. It's up to them to sift through the information they glean and determine what's relevant and what isn't. If they let themselves be distracted by a spooky ruined castle, then the consequences are on them.

 

[The Shaman]

If I put in the unrelated spooky castle, the players will think it matters and go investigate it, wasting time and advancing the enemy plot. This is undesirable because the behavior happens for metagame reasons, if the GM mentions it, it must be important (presumably towards the goal).

That's why I'm very clear to my players at the outset to rely on what their characters learn in the game and not try to guess what I might be doing behind the screen.

Unfortunately a distressing number of players are conditioned by referees who run plot-heavy games to look for clues to the plot instead of reacting as their characters would in light of what they know and what they want.

 

[Raven Crowking]

And in my games the spooky ruined castle is on the hill regardless of what the adventurers are doing, because that hill has a spooky ruined castle on it.

The players in my games are responsible for pursuing their characters' goals. It's up to them to sift through the information they glean and determine what's relevant and what isn't. If they let themselves be distracted by a spooky ruined castle, then the consequences are on them.

Indeed. And, if the players are expected to "sift through the information they glean", then it is a requirement not only for information to be gleanable, but for the milieu to have interelationships that allow the players to "determine what's relevant and what isn't" to their goals.

IOW, that spooky ruined castle on the hill isn't random. When the DM placed it there, he made certain that it related to some degree to other elements in the milieu. This is similar to how the evil cleric in the Keep (in KotB) can be related to the evil clerics in the Caves of Chaos. It is also the reason why we are told what so many folks in Hommlet are doing there. It is the relationships of the elements that give the whole meaning, whether in a plot-driven game, or in a sandbox.

EDIT: Another way of looking at it is, in one game, the players ask "What does the DM expect us to do with element X?" and in another game, the players ask "Should we do anything with element X, and if so, what?"



RC

 

[The Shaman]

Why not just ask the players what type of story they are interested in buying into and plot that for them?

Because the goal is to keep an element of surprise on both sides of the screen. The referee doesn't know what the adventurers will do until they do it, and the adventurers don't know what the world has to offer until they explore it.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I suppose that there is a difference in that I view "jumping the border" to be a valid choice, with consequences all of its own.

Oh, definitely. I would never say it isn't a valid choice.

Because the goal is to keep an element of surprise on both sides of the screen. The referee doesn't know what the adventurers will do until they do it, and the adventurers don't know what the world has to offer until they explore it.

Fair enough.

I am seeing this now more as a toolbox. And as more of a sliding scale than an absolute. It really depends on the DM and the group where in that scale you should fall. A good DM will adjust based on where his strengths lie and where his players' strengths lie and where each others desires for gameplay are at any given time. Some DMs are better at crafting the story with preparation, others make better stories on the fly, and surely some are gifted at both to varying degrees. Some players get into character better when they have clearly defined goals laid out for them, others develop better under open story lines, and surely some players enjoy a variety of the styles blended over time.

 

[The Shaman]

A good DM will adjust based on where his strengths lie and where his players' strengths lie and where each others desires for gameplay are at any given time.

Playing only to one's strengths makes one predictable.

Take risks.

Some DMs are better at crafting the story with preparation, others make better stories on the fly, and surely some are gifted at both to varying degrees.

This assumes that creating a story is the goal of actual play, which in turn may influence how players and referees apprroach the game.

Can you see how a game might play out differently if you remove the expectations of crafting a story?

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Playing only to one's strengths makes one predictable.

I don't mean that you should exclude other elements and only play to your strengths. But you should be aware of your strengths as that will help you present a fun game. Those other elements, if still included, will potentially become strengths over time.

Take risks.

My strong suit is accounting, but I also like to sing. I'm not going to put my family's financial future at risk by quitting my job and starting a rock band.

I've experimented over my many years of DMing various groups with different place on the sliding scale. You have to "take risks" and explore other elements to determine where your strengths lie in the first place. Some examples:

One player REALLY wanted a completely open sandbox and was vocal enough to convince me and his fellow players to give that end of the scale a go. We even switched from our old favorite Greyhawk to the Realms at his request. I seeded the group with dozens on sites and rumors to entice them in choosing from anything and everything the Realms had to offer. What did they do? They (meaning the mostly silent group led by the vocal sandbox player) ignoring every interesting aspect of the Realms, every plot seed, and even their own backgrounds to wander through the wilderness looking for random encounters. When everyone made it perfectly clear that they had no clue what they wanted to do and that they were bored with sandbox player's seeming lack of purpose they demanded he figure out what they should do. Next stop? Undermountain. If you just wanted to play Undermountain, why not say so instead of saying you wanted a sandbox?

I asked my current players to write personal "Quest Cards" for a new 4E campaign. The result was less than resounding. They didn't want the burden on developing plot. They don't want a sandbox. Took a risk and it fell flat. Players and DMs need a game they enjoy first and foremost without forcing a risk of something they don't enjoy.

This assumes that creating a story is the goal of actual play, which in turn may influence how players and referees apprroach the game.

Can you see how a game might play out differently if you remove the expectations of crafting a story?

I used the term story and I regret it. I had a feeling it would result in this response from somebody. IMO, a Roleplaying Game always results in a story. I didn't mean you should play out a pre-determined story, but instead that the adventures your characters embark upon become a story in their own right. No matter where you fall on the sliding scale you end up with a story.

 

[Raven Crowking]

VB, play to your strengths, and take smart risks.

You can play to your strengths without becoming predictable (in general) by (1) developing as wide a set of strengths as you can, (2) not playing to your strengths occasionally, and (3) stealing the work of others (i.e., convert others' work to your game).

"Take risks" is good in moderation, and it is good when there is a point to taking that risk. Sometimes, he who hesitates is lost. Otherwise, look before you leap.

 

[The Shaman]

Those other elements, if still included, will potentially become strengths over time.

Which is the point is was driving at.

My strong suit is accounting, but I also like to sing. I'm not going to put my family's financial future at risk by quitting my job and starting a rock band.

I was referring only to gaming, not offering a defining philosophy of life!

One player REALLY wanted a completely open sandbox and was vocal enough to convince me and his fellow players to give that end of the scale a go. We even switched from our old favorite Greyhawk to the Realms at his request. I seeded the group with dozens on sites and rumors to entice them in choosing from anything and everything the Realms had to offer. What did they do? They (meaning the mostly silent group led by the vocal sandbox player) ignoring every interesting aspect of the Realms, every plot seed, and even their own backgrounds to wander through the wilderness looking for random encounters. When everyone made it perfectly clear that they had no clue what they wanted to do and that they were bored with sandbox player's seeming lack of purpose they demanded he figure out what they should do. Next stop? Undermountain. If you just wanted to play Undermountain, why not say so instead of saying you wanted a sandbox?

Because the player requesting sandbox style play clearly didn't understand the responsibility of the players to create their own meaningful objectives for their characters in such a game.

They didn't want the burden on developing plot. They don't want a sandbox. Took a risk and it fell flat. Players and DMs need a game they enjoy first and foremost without forcing a risk of something they don't enjoy.

Yeah, sometimes I feel like there's a whole generation of players out there conditioned to believe they need look for the plotline and follow it at all costs.

But then, that's not really the players' faults; it's the referees and adventure writers who conditioned them to expect it, in my opinion.

I used the term story and I regret it. I had a feeling it would result in this response from somebody. IMO, a Roleplaying Game always results in a story. I didn't mean you should play out a pre-determined story, but instead that the adventures your characters embark upon become a story in their own right. No matter where you fall on the sliding scale you end up with a story.

Agreed.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Yeah, sometimes I feel like there's a whole generation of players out there conditioned to believe they need look for the plotline and follow it at all costs.

But then, that's not really the players' faults; it's the referees and adventure writers who conditioned them to expect it, in my opinion.

I haven't noticed it as a generational tie, just personal taste. Some players just don't want the onus of driving plot. And if you throw them into a sandbox they will feel put upon and will not have fun. You can only encourage such players to try to delve into self-driven plot, you can't push them IME. I really don't think its conditioning, it's just personal taste and finding what your players enjoy is the key to running a good game.