Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs

[Primitive Screwhead]

This is an interesting thread, altho as de-lurking commentator... I think I see some of the underlaying issues behind this ongoing discussion. As usual, it comes down to the definitions being used by either side and the assumptions applied to the conversation....

My point was that in a sandbox, such as been outlined here, the existence of in game elements are not in any way dependent on the players or the characters they create.
...
So, again, how do you gain any depth when nothing in the world is actually tied to the characters?

For my defination, a 'sandbox' game is a setting that runs along as a 'world' with, or without the interaction of the players. The players then have the choice of which plot-line they wish to interact with and may freely ignore the dragon slumbering under the mountains to go chasing after the vampire in town... and when the dragon awakes and unleashes death and destruction on the land... so be it.
In this game setting, the players goals, desires, and characters can alter what the plot elements are I come up with, but very directly address which plot elements that get fleshed out and used.

So, back to my original question, when the game setting is carved in stone and does not change in any way for the players or their characters, how do you gain any depth to play?

With my definition above in mind, a 'sandbox' game has significant depth in that the world goes on apace, and changes based on significant events. Sometimes those events include the heroes and sometimes they don't. They goal is to allow the players the freedom of choice over the over-all plot and raise up those plotlines that are interesting to them.

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."

Just had to comment on this one..
Why does the suggested use of foreshadowing = "EXACTLY THE SAME WAY EVERY FRIGGIN' TIME." ?

I beleive its generally a good idea to let the players know, in metagame if required, the sort of challenge they may be facing... that way they can plan and prepare for the encounter instead of just reacting.
Its also a good idea to occasionally challenge their assumptions and have the same kind of foreshadowing come before a completely different kind of monster.. but only rarely.

IMHO, the hardest job of DMing is managing player expectations and assumptions. If these expecations are not met, the players do not enjoy the game. If the assumptions are not addressed/corrected... the players do not enjoy the game.
Last nights session ran the gamut from unhappy players, who made the assumption that the final battle was going to be a TPK, to a happy ending as the DM broke that assumption through some metagaming to get the players to see thier assumption was wrong.. and that they could defeat the BBEG.
{which they did, altho all the PC's were bloodied and bordering on dropping by the time it was all over}

Its not so much the game elements, story elements, AP, sandbox, etc... that make a good game. Its the DM using those tools to create a game that fits into the players expectations.
However, it is good as DM's to understand the tools so that the right tool can be used at the right time and in the right way.

Anyway, enough rambling from me... [/delurk]

 

[Hussar]

With my definition above in mind, a 'sandbox' game has significant depth in that the world goes on apace, and changes based on significant events. Sometimes those events include the heroes and sometimes they don't. They goal is to allow the players the freedom of choice over the over-all plot and raise up those plotlines that are interesting to them.

The problem I'm having though is while the world may have depth, since that depth is independent of the players or the characters, how do they ... swim in those depths so to speak?

I guess it just seems like a huge amount of work to create a world which has enough separate lines ongoing that would allow the players to find plots (arrgggh that word again) that they can sink their teeth into. Doesn't it resemble a sort of shotgun approach? You keep tossing out stuff until it sticks?

Why not just ask? Why not start from the position that the campaign is going to focus on these characters and the events and elements that you are going to explore arise from the conversation you have with the players before designing the campaign?

After all, in your method, the players become the focal point anyway. Why not just cut out all the extra work and then really flesh out what is going to be used at the table in the first place?

I will freely admit though, that my campaigns are disposable. I use them once and then never use them again. For me, a campaign should be custom made for a particular group of players and their characters, tailored to suit their playstyles and goals.

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't see the benefit in what you're doing.

 

[The Shaman]

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

And holding up an example of good and declaring, "This proves that the underlying philosophy is a success," is just as bogus.

You might be confusing my use of the word "fiction" with "story."

I don't believe there's confusion, as you used "fiction" as "story" in the post I quoted upthread, e.g., "fiction and movies."

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.

The same can be said of any series of events. For example, I wrote a fictional narrative of World War II in middle school following an epic weekend of playing Third Reich. I made a story from the game, but at no point in play were we thinking in terms of story elements; the story that emerged could only be seen in retrospect. A plot developed from decisions made by the respective commanders and how they later affected the progress of the game, but at no time were we thinking, "Ooh, staging my air units close to the coast will foreshadow the invasion in the next phase."

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.

If you've conditioned the players to look for clues to the plot, then perhaps. If you condition the players to focus on what their characters know, instead of metagaming to discern the referee's motives, then in my experience it's less likely to be a distraction.

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.

It is not necessarily the natural reaction of someone playing a game, however.

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.

A roleplaying game played without emphasizing story-structure doesn't make it a board game.

 

[Imaro]

I know this isn't addressed to me, but I'd like to take a second and comment on it...

The problem I'm having though is while the world may have depth, since that depth is independent of the players or the characters, how do they ... swim in those depths so to speak?

Uhm, well going with your analogy, I would say they just dive in. They form connections through play, as opposed to those connections being pre-determined. I don't see either as inherently "better" but I can definitely see the differences suiting different playstyles or even different types of players.

I guess it just seems like a huge amount of work to create a world which has enough separate lines ongoing that would allow the players to find plots (arrgggh that word again) that they can sink their teeth into. Doesn't it resemble a sort of shotgun approach? You keep tossing out stuff until it sticks??

I don't think it's that much work to create enough seperate hooks that at least one will interest the PC's... especially if you are familiar with your players, or have played before with these people. I could see how someone brand new to the game might be slightly more difficult to judge, but they aren't likely to know what they necessarily want out the game anyway.

Why not just ask? Why not start from the position that the campaign is going to focus on these characters and the events and elements that you are going to explore arise from the conversation you have with the players before designing the campaign?

Well one good reason I could entertain for not asking the players is that some people play the game to be entertained, and that entertainment is better for them when they are surprised instead of already knowing what the world holds for their character... Honestly, this is what I always liked about the feel of good S&S fiction, the protagonists always seems to be subject more to the fickle hand of chaos than any type of pre-determined destiny or path... some people like that feel when playing the game.

After all, in your method, the players become the focal point anyway. Why not just cut out all the extra work and then really flesh out what is going to be used at the table in the first place?

Yes the players become the focal point, but "what is going to be used at the table in the first place" isn't pre-determined, but grows organically through the choices the player(s) make. IMO, this allows for the very real chance that the PC's can discover interesting and exciting things that may not have occured to them during pre-campaign plotting.

I will freely admit though, that my campaigns are disposable. I use them once and then never use them again. For me, a campaign should be custom made for a particular group of players and their characters, tailored to suit their playstyles and goals.

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't see the benefit in what you're doing.

I don't know what to say to this, except perhaps... you aren't trying to see the benefits in it, because it doesn't suit the style of game you play. Me personally I see the benefits of both styles and have used both in different campaigns.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The problem I'm having though is while the world may have depth, since that depth is independent of the players or the characters, how do they ... swim in those depths so to speak?

Please.

You can imagine a player (GM) so talented as to arrange a whole world to match a group of PCs, but you cannot imagine a player (player) so talented as to arrange a PC so as to take advantage of the world presented?

Frankly, I have a hard time believing that the people you game with are so inept at creativity, or so unable to use background information to link their characters to the (known) world in a meaningful way. I have certainly never met anyone who, while playing, was unable to do the same.

And, while "How much beer can Hussar drink while playing chess" may be a game, if you and I sit down to play chess, and we didn't agree to play "How much beer can Hussar drink while playing chess", then you are playing a form of solitaire.

Thus, a player can have any goal he likes when he sits down to play chess. His goal can be to drink as much beer as humanly possible. However, that goal is not the goal of chess, and it matters not one whit whether his beer capacity is known or unknown when he sits down when determining whether or not he is playing chess while drinking beer.

It has no bearing on whether or not chess is a game (the context bit you....accidently?....cut). Because, despite your claim that

"how much beer can I drink during Chess" is a game?

Earlier, you stated that it wasn't a game

is simply wrong. Once more you fail to understand what you are reading. There is nothing in what you quoted that says drunk chess cannot be a game, or is not a game.

It states that whether or not you have a goal of getting drunk has nothing to do with whether or not chess is a game. And, therefore, even if you know how much you can drink, or how drunk you will get, whether or not the outcome of that goal is known doesn't matter when determining that chess is a game.

Can a game change to meet the goals of the players? Sure. There are many varieties of chess, poker, etc. RCFG is a changed game to meet the goals of the players. "Drunk chess" can be the same. And, if I have a goal to stay sober while playing drunk chess, then that is a goal secondary to the game of drunk chess, and has no bearing on whether or not drunk chess is a game.

In conclusion, yes, this is more of your InterWeb Shuffle.

It might be of some benefit, when someone points out that you failed to understand the argument you are replying to, if, rather than simply declaring that you understand it, you took a moment to make sure that you actually did.




RC

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

After all, in your method, the players become the focal point anyway. Why not just cut out all the extra work and then really flesh out what is going to be used at the table in the first place?
...
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't see the benefit in what you're doing.

Imaro pretty much it the nail on the head with the statement "...this allows for the very real chance that the PC's can discover interesting and exciting things that may not have occured to them during pre-campaign plotting. "

The other benefit, for me, is that it is my game world conceived at odd hours of the day with an eye to what sort of world I want to run. I can start a campaign with a group of complete strangers using this method, or.. as is more often the case, get my once a month game up and running without spending two or three months getting characters made and backgrounds built.

There isn't really that much extra work. I have a map of the campaign area and basic concepts as to what events/encounters are happening around the place. If the players show interest, I flesh out that particular area. If they don't, I guess at an outcome in general terms and how it would impact the players and/or change events/encounters in that area.

Example, this next weekend my Lhazaar group is getting together and I have five plots running within the area of the village, and broad ideas for neighboring areas. I have no idea if they will go after any of the plot hooks, meditate and scribe scrolls, start farming, or go haring off on some tangent. Regardless, I am prepared to enjoy whatever path they take. This means I have five encounter sets designed, mini APs if you will.. and thats about it. The rest is pretty much off the cuff.

In comparison, I spend alot more time converting/preparing the AP I am running for my other group. This is primarily because I am not the designer of the world and I have to memorize alot of detail.


Raven Crowking...
I may have missed it in the back and forth over drunk chess, but why is it important to validate the definition of a game?
I admit there is alot of terminology being used in various dialects and intents in this thread.. plot, story point, game mechanic, etc... but I don't see why it matters either "a drunk playing chess" vis "playing drunk chess" as far as GM methodology and how to better run a game?

 

[Ariosto]

While Ariosto phrases it in a very negative way, I most certainly create campaigns based entirely on the players playing and the characters they create.

Perhaps tailored or custom fitted would be a more positive way, eh? Anyhow, that's taking the "limit" in "limited scenario" to an extreme!

How do you gain any depth to play?

This is thoroughly mystifying. Just what is this problem you see? Please explain.

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't see the benefit in what you're doing.

Just what the heck you mean by "depth to play" is only more mystifying, as it is precisely depth to which you are objecting here.

Oh, well. One problem with a "scenario" such as you seem to advocate is that it not only can but must be much more carefully calibrated than an "environment". You're sticking players into a situation that provides only a limited range of options, and if those don't fit character capabilities, player proficiency, or immediate interest, then you've got what can be a pretty rotten Hobson's choice.

That's not such a problem (A) for a very experienced DM, and (B) with plenty of opportunity for mid-course correction (i.e., preparing a scenario for each session after seeing the results of the last).

(B) Puts your "Why not just cut out all the extra work?" in quite a different light -- or would, if you were not imposing on yourself the need to keep starting from scratch. In the long run, you are making more work for yourself. So, the savings in time and energy is one benefit to doing it the "old-fashioned" way. With a campaign apparatus at hand, developed over some months of play, it can be trivial to improvise on the spot a more particular, limited scenario for any reasonable company of characters.

 

[Ariosto]

I may have missed it in the back and forth over drunk chess, but why is it important to validate the definition of a game?

If one happens to regard D&D rather as a certain young lady in a Jane Austen novel regarded balls, then, "much more fictional, I dare say, but it would not be near so much like a game" may be irksome.

Noting that what one likes happens not to be considered a game, but (for whatever perverse reason) being bent on calling it that, one might wish to convince others to change the meaning of the word.

That is rather unlikely, but it is possible that if someone gets confused enough he'll say that he agrees -- and then one can chalk up a point on a rhetorical scoreboard (which of course is a kind of game).

What is fundamentally at issue here is that plays, novels, comic books, movies, TV dramas, and similar phenomena are pretty generally considered entertainments, amusements or pastimes -- but not games. "Players" in the Mercury Theater sense is not what we mean in the RPG context, and we certainly do not mean mere "audience".

 

[Janx]

I think that "How much beer can Hussar drink" would be a pretty stupid and made-up game if he didn't tell the other player.

To make a game out of it, you'd need rules on how many drinks/sips he can take between turns. You'd need turn limits, otherwise, his first turn could come up,a nd he could drink until passed out under the guise of "I'm thinking about my next move"

Which makes it a game only in the loosest usage of the word.

Children make up games to be a nuisance to others. they're not games in the sense of having rules and has goal and avictory condition that the opposition is even aware of. But they'll call it a game.

Hussar's game sounds like one of those.

But seriously, the word has been used to describe a number of things that some may not call a game. So be it.

The reason I don't place stock in "sandbox" play is because it is an illusion. On the outside, it may appear that the GM is impartial and has a set of rules he is executing, therefore maintaining a true simulation. But the fact is, the GM decides a zillion things that influence the world and the game.

He decides the name of the pub the party starts out in. He may even decided that the party IS starting out in a pub. He determines the location and facing of the pub, relative to all other objects in the game. He determines what NPCs are in the pub, and determimes the plot hook each of them may bear. Technically, the DM might have a tool to generate all that, but odds are good he doesn't. Furthermore, the plot hooks are most likely made-up by the DM, setting the largest human bias in the system.

From there, the DM determines the nature of all the opposition the PC will encounter while pursuing a chosen plot hook. The DM will determine the outcome and side effects while doing that. Another particularly biased action.

While it may seem like the DM has tables for everything, the DM is constantly making decisions that bias the game. Thus, a sandbox game doesn't really exist.

And there's nothing wrong with that. Nor is there anything wrong with striving for a true sandbox. It's simply a matter that having a human DM involved inherently biases the experience, much like how the act of observing an experiment affects the experiment.

 

[Doug McCrae]

If it helps get away from the idea of story implying a predetermined outcome, don't think of the players as the readers. Think of them as the authors. No author is 100% certain of the way a story is going to unfold until he sets it down. And quite a few have no idea at all.