Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs

[Doug McCrae]

Roleplaying games have characters and settings. They have descriptive passages, though often not written down. There is an attempt to convey mood and atmosphere. There is dialogue, though each line often has a different writer. They have a beginning, a middle and an end. Even a wide open sandbox has character deaths, which is 'The End' for that particular PC.

Looks like a story to me.

Personally I see rpgs as being both story and game (as well as a bunch of other stuff). Old schoolers got chary of the word 'story' after the excesses of Dragonlance and the 2e era. The problem with those stories is they had one author - the module writer - so freedom was restricted. Story is fine, so long as the players get to write it too.

 

[Ariosto]

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.

All of a sudden these are somehow incompatibly opposed? And where the hell does "true simulation" enter in? You quite simply do not know thing one about what you are talking about!

A Dungeon Master is impartial and has a set of rules he is executing. A Dungeon Master decides countless things that influence the world and the game. Both statements are true, and utterly fundamental to the original fantasy role-playing game of DUNGEONS & DRAGONS.

Have you read the 1st ed. Dungeon Masters Guide even once?

From there, the DM determines the nature of all the opposition the PC will encounter while pursuing a chosen plot hook.

No, I guess you have not. It is not the DM's job to determine how the players pursue whatever object they may conceive.

You seem stuck in the conception of D&D as a mere succession of pre-designed war-game scenarios, or the "skill challenge" equivalent. In other words, the environment approach is "just illusion" because you arbitrarily assume that the DM pulls some sort of sleight of hand to turn it in fact into your very limited scenario approach instead.

If I were DMing WotC-D&D, the load of labor would surely tempt that way! That's one reason I prefer TSR-D&D.

 

[Ariosto]

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.

If you can get away from the idea of forcing a predetermined outcome, then maybe you can drop the literary jargon. Do you think? Because either you really, substantially disagree with the objection to predetermined outcome or you're just being contentious for the sake of being contentious.

The issue at hand is not what things might be like for some authors; the issue at hand is that RPG players are not authors. "Oh, but I can play a semantic game with that, too -- Humpty Dumpty has nothing on me as an egg-head!" Can we just take that as granted, and get back to the realm of common sense and earnest communication?

 

[Ariosto]

Planet Earth has characters and settings. We think of descriptive passages, though often not written down. We perceive mood and atmosphere. There is dialogue, though each line has a different composer. Lives have a beginning, a middle and an end. Even a wide open world has death, which is 'The End' for that particular person.

So, Doug, is there anything that does not "look like a story" to you? Because otherwise the usefulness of the term is far from apparent.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Talk about changing contexts.

At what point did I say that the group was engaging in this on an individual basis? I believe I pretty specifically stated that the entire group was engaged in Hussar's Drunk Chess. I've always, always referred this to the group, not the single player. You're totally right. If one player is playing a game that no one else at the table is playing, then he's pretty out of place. However, that's never really been my point.

So, do you agree that players, as a group, can formulate goals and, after bolting those goals onto a pre-existing ruleset, can create a game? Yes or no.

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.

But, that's the problem. All of the things the players will interact with are separate and distinct from their characters or backgrounds for the most part. Even if they players read the entire campaign setting back to front, the odds that their particular backgrounds will tie to any specific element are pretty tenous. That spooky castle on the hill exists in the campaign world irrespective of whatever players or characters are brought to play.

To me, I'd much rather change the campaign world to reflect the characters. If they are playing a bunch of church knights out to slay undead Van Helsing style, then, fine, spooky castle it is. If, OTOH, they are all playing ninja assassins (shudder), then spooky castle isn't going to cut the mustard. Instead, it will be a living castle of someone they need to spy on.

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.

People talk about this, but, IME, what actually happens is the campaign never gets a chance to gain any depth. The players are constantly trying to see what's over the next hill, so never stay in one place long enough to make any connections or whatnot to the campaign world.

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.

Ahh, now see here is something intertesting. "Once a month" group is something I've never experienced. We've always played weekly. I quite simply don't have a full month between sessions to work out five different plotlines or scenarios. OTOH, if we take a session or two (it's never actually taken two, although, it has taken more than one on occassion) to create a party, we're only taking two weeks.

Scheduling was an issue I never really thought of. I can see how having so much time between sessions would allow you to do this.

(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.

Actually, this bit speaks a lot to my question of depth. If you are recycling adventures from one campaign to the next, then those adventures, by their very nature, have to be generic. You cannot have an adventure that requires a cleric, for example, if you want to use this adventure in another campaign.

That's a simple example, but I think you get my meaning.

Generic adventures, probably best epitomized by modules, are pretty shallow. They aren't tied to the players, or the characters in anything more than the most tenuous way. They have to lack strong theme or plot requiring specific elements since either one of those things preclude their recycling.

So, to repeat what I said earlier, I find that sandbox games do lack depth because they aren't tied to the characters or the players. It's Father Generic giving Quest #14 to investigate Spooky Castle #3.

How can you avoid being generic and bland while still maintaining a campaign so open ended that it doesn't matter who plays what in it?

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"

Totally agree on most of the points. Although, I don't think you need specific rules like you do. Playing with reasonable and mature players can remove the need for codified rules, but, otherwise, I agree. If Hussar doesn't tell anyone he's playing this game, then it's not a game at all.

But, again, that was never my point. If both players at the table agree to play Drunk Chess, is it a game or not?

 

[SkidAce]

I think it's two sides of the same coin....you can't have one without the other.

Both story and game. In some styles of play the story comes first and players follow along, quite possibly enjoying the ride. In other styles game comes first and the DM gathers all the infor from players actions and ties it together. IMHO, not many people play at either end.

If story was -5, 0 was center, and game was +5 (no bias to either side intended), I think most games would run from -3 to +3. My games tend to sit around +1 or +2. I have some overarching plot and hooks floating around, but the players drive the train. (pun intended).

Just some thoughts on an interesting thread.

 

[Umbran]

You quite simply do not know thing one about what you are talking about!

Disagreeing with you does not constitute evidence of ignorance. Assertion to that effect it does is kind of insulting, and apt to make things get ugly, whether your are correct or not. It is roughly 100% guaranteed to not convince them you are correct. So, overall, really not constructive.

I strongly suggest you continue as if others can and do have well-founded opinions that do not agree with yours.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Talk about changing contexts.

I will take the time and the effort to outline the argument for you. Hopefully, I will have the time to do it by Wednesday afternoon.

However, I will answer the following now. You could easily know what my answers would be if you just went upthread and read what was already written.

At what point did I say that the group was engaging in this on an individual basis?

How is this relevant to what you quoted, or the post it came from?

In rational discussion, a person can say,

In the general case X,

but in the case Y, then not-X​

to make a distinction about when X applies. This is, quite frankly, normal.

So, do you agree that players, as a group, can formulate goals and, after bolting those goals onto a pre-existing ruleset, can create a game? Yes or no.

Yes.

I agree that players, as a group, can formulate goals and, after bolting those goals onto a pre-existing ruleset, can create a game.

However, the act of formulating goals and bolting them onto a pre-existing ruleset does not necessarily create a game. The ruleset must be altered so that the outcome of newly-bolted goals is unknown, and so that player choices and/or actions affect that outcome. It is not enough to simply bolt on new goals.

As Janx said,

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"

I truly hope that you can understand this distinction.

But, that's the problem. All of the things the players will interact with are separate and distinct from their characters or backgrounds for the most part. Even if they players read the entire campaign setting back to front, the odds that their particular backgrounds will tie to any specific element are pretty tenous.

Are you honestly saying that, no matter how much you know about a campaign world, you are incapable of making a character with a background that ties into that world in anything more than the most tenuous way?

People talk about this, but, IME, what actually happens is the campaign never gets a chance to gain any depth.

I think this ties directly to what your idea of sandbox games is:

It's Father Generic giving Quest #14 to investigate Spooky Castle #3.

If you go upthread, there are examples of sandbox games where play is definitely tied into the player's backgrounds. Your experience may relate to an apparent inability to link characters to a pre-existing world in any meaningful fashion, but I can assure you that your experience is not universal.

But, again, that was never my point.

I am going to have so much fun outlining this argument.


RC

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

... That spooky castle on the hill exists in the campaign world irrespective of whatever players or characters are brought to play.

You are quite correct. However, if the PC's choose to investigate, the spooky castle can be populated by either undead or be the focal point of a political schema that needs to be spied on... depending on the players, the PCs, and the general feel of the game.

The key to sandbox is that, once the details are clarified for the players.. it stays that way. Before then, those details can change as required. An example of this is the port city north of the village IMC. Right now its loosely defined as a port city, and thats about it. If the players choose to go that way I will listen to thier comments about what they expect and play to it.

Ahh, now see here is something intertesting. "Once a month" group is something I've never experienced.
...Scheduling was an issue I never really thought of. I can see how having so much time between sessions would allow you to do this.

You sir, are lucky. Scheduling a group of players who are married w/ kids and work in the military is a nightmare. I have 8 to 9 players in the game... last session only 4 could make it.

However, this is how I ran games when I had a weekly game back in 2e and CP2020. It takes me more time to prep a module or AP than it does to run off the cuff. I have enough old Dungeon modules and ideas of side-treks to be able to pull pretty much anything out of the hat. 4e has made it easier as monster design can be, and has been, done actually during combat.

...So, to repeat what I said earlier, I find that sandbox games do lack depth because they aren't tied to the characters or the players. It's Father Generic giving Quest #14 to investigate Spooky Castle #3.

How can you avoid being generic and bland while still maintaining a campaign so open ended that it doesn't matter who plays what in it?

The devil is in the details. The overall campaign setting can be open to allow a variety of characters, play styles, and motivations. I use Eberron as the base of my world.. then place the PCs in the undefined territories that give me room to adapt.
Once the PCs get involved, they can build connections and get to know the territory in a way that makes it thiers. Perhaps take over the Thieves Guild or remove the local despot and take over the territory.

That being said, my campaign does have some limitations for races and classes that fit into the world, so its not completely open.. but still not overly restrictive.

Now, when I run an AP.. then the players have to actively choose to accept the limitations of the module set and be happy to go along with any railroad {real or perceived} due to the GM's investment into the AP {money, time, etc} But even then, its a better game if the DM and players can tie the characters motivations into the storyline. Its just harder to do as the DM needs to internalize the APs world, and both sides need to adapt to the limitations of the stated storyline.

... If both players at the table agree to play Drunk Chess, is it a game or not?

I beleive that 'drunk chess' can indeed be a game.. but I don't see the relevance to the discussion here. Even if Drunk Chess has a set of complex rules, referees, and online board discussion groups... DnD is a game that has strong story elements that are more foreground than most other games. Which, of course, means the debate about whether the story is more important than the game or vice versa.. but the goal of both the story and the game {IMO} is to have an entertaining session... so does the debate really matter as long as the goal is being met?

Funny side note. I once ran a CP2020 session that was completely predetermined. I had set up a black bag operation in which the Agency used the PCs to trigger the third Corperate war. Completely a technical railroad game where the PC's choices were guided to what I needed them to be.
The following day one of my players put it together and realized he had been led around by the nose..and after a couple swear words he congratulated me on one of the best sessions he had ever played in.
Morale of the story... railroading isn't one of the 7 deadly sins. Killing the fun however, thats murder

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I think it's two sides of the same coin....you can't have one without the other.

..Just some thoughts on an interesting thread.

I disagree with your presentation. I think its more like a mix where you can scale story from 1 to 5 and scale game from 1 to 5.. they are not exclusive, altho one can be paid more attention than the other.

Using this, my game could be descibed as S3/G5, whereas it appears Hussar would be more along the lines of S5/G3.

And a pretty good bet that his game is just as fun/good as I hope mine is.