Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs

[Ariosto]

I am not sure that anyone on this thread is actually taking that for granted. My reading is that some folks are talking about using story elements while in play. You can use story elements without actually telling someone a story.

Oh?

OK. Maybe that would work, but I think you need to be really explicit about that with your players, so they can overcome their natural tendency to react to a fictional environment as, well, fiction.

So, if I have the temerity actually to expect players in a role-playing game to play their roles, instead of "meta-gaming", then I need to take pains to point out this unnatural state of affairs.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You can call having spoor of Gorgon near its lair "story telling technique", but why the compulsion to do so when in the event it is game design technique?

Because people think about their games in different ways, and as a result use different terminology in an attempt to capture and share their thoughts?

Moreover, it may be an artifact of post-1e games that changed their terminology in direct opposition of earlier D&D. Certainly, 2e has a more "storyline" approach (from the success of DragonLance, I have little doubt.....and list five great non-Ravenloft 2e modules if you can! For some settings [Ravenloft] the 2e approach of "Keep 'em alive -- the PCs must win" wasn't followed. The settings where it was followed provided dismal adventures indeed. IMHO. YMMV.).

I might be wrong about whether or not anyone in this thread is taking for granted "getting told a story" when they sit down to play a game, but I think you are mistaking "hyperbole to counter hyperbole" for a clear statement of opinion.

I have little doubt, from reading his posts, that CharlesRyan is interested in the intersection of story and game. Certainly, over the course of this discussion he has mused on the same. But "musing aloud" doesn't make a position concrete, and I have the sense that the bit The Shaman linked to, above, is more exploratory than a statement of a firm philosophy.

Moreover, in the bit you quote, CharlesRyan is right. At this stage of the game (pun intended), there are so many AP-type campaigns out there, and the AP-type game is promoted so heavily, that it would be wise to let any new players know what your game expects/demands of them. I would also say, that despite the current AP-heavy offerings out there, were I to run an AP, it would be wise of me to tell the players that upfront.

But even running through an AP is not expecting to be told a story; it is expecting to participate in an unfolding story. Just as playing in a sandbox is not expecting to be read a world encyclopedia; it is expecting to particpate in the ongoing development/history of a fictional world.

IMHO, anyway. YMMV.


RC

 

[Ariosto]

Well, forewarned is forearmed if ever I'm somehow dealing with new players who even know what an AP is besides a wire service. (I note that at rpg.net, it means "Actual Play" -- as opposed, I suppose, to just talking about philosophy.) I could hunt some down doing the RPGA D&D thing, but they're not likely to play anything else anyhow. They're rather more scarce than preponderant outside their native habitat. Maybe the population is really that much different in Toronto, I guess.

Expecting to get led by the nose DL-style is not expecting to get told a story? Slice it fine as Mr. Literal, but that was just a reference right back to Charles Ryan's post. Take his words straight, please. What's that "fiction" spiel about, then?

 

[Raven Crowking]

AP = Adventure Path.

Ariosto, perhaps I am just naive, but I prefer to think the best of people until proven otherwise. If everyone on EN World were somehow able to sit in a bar together (or other social setting of your choice) where body language and facial expressions were available, most of these problems would go away.

IMHO. IM (limited) E, even. YMMV.

 

[Mark]

This is the only part of your post I disagree with, although if you specify/agree that there are certain pre-written adventures that are written as mini-sandboxes themselves (KotB, Lost City of Barakus), I would agree with you fully.


RC

I agree that there are definitely products written more as mini-settings than adventures. I suppose that is often more like a cluster of elements in a sandbox in the established terminology.

 

[CharlesRyan]

Expecting to get led by the nose DL-style is not expecting to get told a story?

You've traced a logical circle right back to my original point, in my first comment in this thread, lo those many posts ago.

That point: Using story structure is not the same thing as railroading.

Yes, some adventure writers have written railroady adventures. And I agree with you that that's bad (in the sense that most players don't find them satisfying).

Yes, some GMs, through lack of experience or skill, run railroady games. And I agree with you that that's bad (in the sense that most players don't find them satisfying).

But those are issues of poor execution. And adventures and GMs can suck for all sorts of reasons, regardless of the underlying philosophy or toolbox they draw from. The world is full of poorly written and run "sandbox" games as well.

To hold up an example of bad and declare "this proves that the underlying philosophy is a failure" is bogus.

That was just a reference right back to Charles Ryan's post. Take his words straight, please. What's that "fiction" spiel about, then?

You might be confusing my use of the word "fiction" with "story." My apologies. What I mean by fiction is "made up."

My point is that a "made up" environment (your campaign setting), combined with a series of "made up" events (encounters played through by the players), is suggestive of a story, if only on a subconscious level. As a result, most people are going to react, if only on a subconscious level, the way they do to a story. For example, they will (if only on a subconscious level) expect something that seems like it might be significant (that spooky castle) to be significant.

This isn't metagaming. It isn't playing out of character. It is the natural reaction people have, based on a lifetime of experience with fiction.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds to me like you prefer a style of game that is very literally a game. To put it in terms that make sense to me, you're using D&D to create a more sophisticated version of the Descent experience. Fair enough; nothing wrong with that. But I don't think it's what most people are frankly looking for in an RPG (which is why most people don't view Descent as an RPG); and it certainly doesn't invalidate an entire toolbox of GMing tools that lead others to very satisfying game experiences.

 

[Hussar]

You fail to understand the claim that I am making.

I am making the claim that, in order for an activity to be a game, the player(s) must have a goal related to the outcome of the game itself, and that the outcome of those goal(s) must be unknown.

The player(s) may have any additional goals they wish. For these additional goals, it doesn't matter whether or not the outcome is unknown.

Saying that a game must have quality X does not preclude any other qualities, so long as quality X is present.


RC

Oh, no. I totally understand what you're saying. I just don't agree with it.

I think that "how much beer can I drink while playing Chess" is most certainly a game. You think that player goals apart from those dictated by the game itself, are mostly irrelevant. I disagree. I think that player goals are certainly relevant and, in some cases, can drastically alter the game you are playing and form new games.

While I certainly would not want to play "how much beer can I drink while playing chess", I do see it as a game with a player defined goal.

On EN World, one often hears how the PCs never have forwarning of the Medusa's lair. As though creatures live in the world and leave no signs of their being there. A little foreshadowing (by which I mean adding the pieces of broken statues in areas before the medusa is met) goes a long ways!


RC

Oh please. Let's not bring up old saws shall we? For one, why should every medusa out there being so mentally impaired that she cannot clean up after herself be a good use of foreshadowing? Oh, right, because it spackles over the abysmal save or die mechanics held over from earlier D&D. Never mind actually going back, reworking the mechanics so that they wouldn't force the DM to use the monster EXACTLY THE SAME WAY EVERY FRIGGIN' TIME. Yeah, that's good GM advice. "Hey, whenever you want to use this monster, make sure you make a really obvious trail of breadcrumbs for the players."

---------------------

Going back to the sandbox for a moment. I have to ask, how do you invest any depth into the sandbox? After all, the sandbox is made without any input from the players - the characters they choose don't matter, heck even the players at the table don't matter. The sandbox never changes.

So, if the campaign doesn't change in the slightest depending on who plays in it and what they happen to play, how do you gain any sort of depth?

Or, to put it another way, why should I care about the spooky castle on the hill beyond grinding for xp?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Oh, no. I totally understand what you're saying. I just don't agree with it.

Then why do your restatements of "what I am saying" exhibit exactly the opposite? Including the bit about the medusa's lair?

If you "totally understand what [I am] saying", why did you write: "You are claiming that the only goals that you as a player can have during a game are the goals outlined by the game itself in order to be playing any game."?

Demonstrate that you have actually read what you are responding to, and I will be happy to go into how a sandbox can have depth. I think that the answer is pretty obvious, but then again, that doesn't make it so for all people.

If you believe "the sandbox never changes", again, it is obvious that you have either not read, or not processed, this thread.



RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

You are claiming that the only goals that you as a player can have during a game are the goals outlined by the game itself in order to be playing any game.

You fail to understand the claim that I am making.

I am making the claim that, in order for an activity to be a game, the player(s) must have a goal related to the outcome of the game itself, and that the outcome of those goal(s) must be unknown.

The player(s) may have any additional goals they wish. For these additional goals, it doesn't matter whether or not the outcome is unknown.

Saying that a game must have quality X does not preclude any other qualities, so long as quality X is present.

If you look at what you said, and look at what I said, I hope that it is obvious to you that they are not the same thing.

Your response didn't address this at all.

It "how much beer can I drink while playing chess" was a game, then "the player(s) must have a goal related to the outcome of the game itself, and that the outcome of those goal(s) must be unknown".

How does this make "how much beer can I drink while playing chess" not a game? There is a goal related to the outcome of the game (amount of beer consumed) that is unknown (dependent upon the length of the game and the speed with which you can drink).

Note that this is different than "drinking beer while playing chess", in which there is no goal element in drinking beer with an unknown outcome, but chess is still a game.

Note that this is different than "intentionally spilling my beer on the chess board while playing chess" in which their is a goal element, but the outcome is presumably known. As I said before, the player(s) may have any additional goals they wish. For these additional goals, it doesn't matter whether or not the outcome is unknown.

And note, the medusa's lair is given as an example of foreshadowing, demonstrating that the "story element" toolbox is a "game element" toolbox in the sandbox as well as outside of it. Within the context of the post, your response makes no sense whatsoever.

If you demonstrate that you have read and understood what you are responding to, I will be happy to converse with you. I do not, however, feel like performing the InterWeb Shuffle with you. There is no point to a conversation where forward progress isn't possible.

(The InterWeb Shuffle:

Person A: If both X and Y are true, Z must be true.

Person B: But X is not true.

Person A: Answers objections to X.

Person B: But Y is not true.

Person A: Answers objections to Y.

Person B: But there is no logical connection between X, Y, and Z.

Person A: Demonstrates logical connection.

Person B: But X is not true.

Rinse & repeat)​

 

[Ariosto]

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds to me like you prefer a style of game that is very literally a game.

As it was designed and presented, very literally, as a game, that should not dismay. As we tell stories about real life, despite its normally not being any more "plot driven" than a traditional D&D game, that stories also emerge from the latter should not dismay. As the greater part of interest in life is in the living, that so the greater part of a D&D game is in the playing -- that it is not primarily a "spectator sport" or theatrical performance -- should perhaps be no more dismaying.

To put it in terms that make sense to me, you're using D&D to create a more sophisticated version of the Descent experience. Fair enough; nothing wrong with that. But I don't think it's what most people are frankly looking for in an RPG (which is why most people don't view Descent as an RPG)

I am not acquainted with this "Descent", except that it is a board game; and reducing the RPG to the limitations of the board game is actually the kind of consequence I dread (having seen it quite enough). I wonder why you consider that an appropriate comparison, rather than being content to call the game what it is: Dungeons & Dragons, as it has been for 35 years. You could have suggested "a version of the Empire of the Petal Throne experience", or "the Chivalry & Sorcery Experience", or "the Traveller experience", or "the RuneQuest experience", or "the Morrow Project experience", or "the Hârn experience" ... and so on. It's simply "the FRP experience" to me.

The "Descent" comparison comes off as insulting; if meant in no such spirit, then it displays a most pitiable ignorance. At the very least, your knowledge that "most people don't view Descent as an RPG" ought to have informed your reference to the game -- the original DUNGEONS & DRAGONS -- that defined the RPG in the first place! Perhaps you were simply unaware of that bit of history.

This is boggling and irritating, to be sure. However, dealing with such bizarre and belligerent rhetoric as yours and Hussar's has taken up far too much of this thread.

I am (and probably was before ever you first played) very well acquainted with the limited scenario even in extended form. Shadows of Yog-Sothoth (1982), for instance, preceded the Dragonlance series. The form certainly has its uses, and like most anything else can be done better or more poorly.

Those practical uses and techniques strike me as much more fruitful topics for discussion than the historical-revisionist narrative of a pretentious hobby-ideology, unless EN World is become The Forge.