Plot in RPGs

[Niccodaemus]

With all the discussion of railroading lately, I thought I'd start a thread specifically on "plot" in RPGs. It is something I have thinking a lot about lately, and I am a strong advocate of plot, even to the point of DM fiat over certain elements of the game. To that end, I've created my first post on my "behind the scenes" blog, which links to my campaign setting Shatterworld, and my thoughts behind the design of that setting.

Here's a link to my post itself:

Shatterworld: Behind the Scenes: Plot in RPGs

as well as a link to the Shatterworld setting:

Shatterworld


For this discussion, I'd like it to stay away from the definition of railroading as much as possible, and instead try to talk about plot from both a GM and player point of view.

Here's an excerpt from my post that warrants some consideration:

Freytag breaks plot down into 5 parts which might be more helpful.

1) Exposition

"The exposition introduces all of the main characters in the story. It shows how they relate to one another, what their goals and motivations are, and the kind of person they are. The audience may have questions about any of these things, which get settled, but if they do have them they are specific and well-focused questions. Most importantly, in the exposition the audience gets to know the main character, and the main character gets to know his goal and what is at stake if he fails to attain his goal."



In game terms this is interesting, because the villains are arguably some of the "main characters" of the story.
One question and area of discordance in role playing games is the role of exposition. In a true sandbox style game, where player choice can affect the story in any number of unseen ways, it is possible that the introduction of the villain into the story immediately results in the death of the villain or all of the player characters. As a GM, I tend to take an approach that to many is considered to be a "railroad" at this point. "Chance"(or dice rolls) may take a back seat to "Fate" (or GM fiat), and a villain may have the advantage of "plot immunity" for a short while.
Also, the player does not "get to know" his goal, so much as choose it. I like for the players to "get to know" their options and what is at stake if they fail to engage a storyline. I sometimes do this by introduction of the "villain". I do not want to be a slave to the dice, and be hesitant to introduce the villain for fear that he may be outright killed. Nor do I want to escalate a game world arms race, in which the villain has so much firepower that he is effectively, un-killable. As a GM, I have no issue taking narrative control of the game, and dictating the nature of the villain's escape.

Much more troubling to me is forcing Freytag's concept of climax into the game setting:

"This struggle results with neither character completely winning, nor losing, against the other. Usually, each character's plan is partially successful, and partially foiled by their adversary."

Hold the presses! Talk about pissing players off. I'm all for exposition and allowing for story development. But once a GM allows combat to take place, all bets are off. Trying to force a game into this type of story structure is almost certainly sure to result in a bad experience. Might the villain get away? Sure. Might he be in a position to "off" the players, and choose not to? Sure. But the players should have a very real opportunity to vanquish the villain here, once and for all (assuming they have done their homework, know how to vanquish him, and have the means to do it).

"Falling action" is particularly egregious in terms of gaming:


"Freytag called this phase "falling action" in the sense that the loose ends are being tied up. However, it is often the time of greatest overall tension in the play, because it is the phase in which everything goes most wrong.
In this phase, the villain has the upper hand. It seems that evil will triumph."

Ok... now we're just getting campy. "Might" everything go most wrong? Sure. But that is dependent on player choice and the roll of the dice. Even the most die hard "railroading" GM should think three times about employing this type of story element. There is enough drama in the rolling of dice and doing actual battle without having to milk the situation by forcing the game into some pre-conceived structure of a well crafted plot.

Finally comes "Resolution"


"5th -In the final phase of Freytag's five phase structure, there is a final confrontation between the protagonist and antagonist, where one or the other decisively wins. This phase is the story of that confrontation, of what leads up to it, of why it happens the way it happens, what it means, and what its long-term consequences are."

This last phase seems perfectly reasonable. The only exception it that it may be synonymous with #3, or in a true sandbox game, may occur at #1. However, most of the "meat" of adventuring comes in #2. In my mind, if phase #1 isn't well crafted, and joined into willingly by both GMs and players, the game just becomes rolling so many dice, or spending a few hours at the improv. If GMs force a progression of #1 through #5, then it isn't so much a game, as a narrative experiment.

So... my question is not about "is it railroading?"? My question is, as a gamer (either DM or player character), particularly one who likes story driven games, where do you fall in terms of acceptability of a DM driving plot?

 

[JamesonCourage]

[SNIP]

"5th -In the final phase of Freytag's five phase structure, there is a final confrontation between the protagonist and antagonist, where one or the other decisively wins. This phase is the story of that confrontation, of what leads up to it, of why it happens the way it happens, what it means, and what its long-term consequences are."

[SNIP]

So... my question is not about "is it railroading?"? My question is, as a gamer (either DM or player character), particularly one who likes story driven games, where do you fall in terms of acceptability of a DM driving plot?

With player buy-in, I'm okay. As long as it's presented upfront, I'll probably play with absolutely zero issues. If it's not discussed*, I'm not okay with it. I will feel unnecessarily restricted, and that'll just kill the fun for me. Just me, of course. As always, play what you like

*It does not need to be discussed if the standard assumption is that this is the case. For example, it is assumed that my fantasy RPG game is a wide open sandbox, and a plot-driven GM style would not be welcome without clarification. However, my trimonthly (ish) Mutants and Masterminds game is assumed to be plot-driven, and player buy-in is assumed. As this is the case, changing it to a sandbox style session without informing players would make for some pretty unhappy players.

 

[Gilladian]

When I DM, if I decide some particular plot action HAS to happen because it will improve the story later, I am likely to stop the game, break the 5th wall, TELL my players AS PLAYERS exactly what's going on, and then have them help me play out the scene the way I want it to go, ad-libbing their own character actions and responses.

In this way, they know that the standard rules of play have been suspended for a reason, and they probably will accept it in good humor.

Having said that, I can count the times I've done this on one hand in 30 years of gaming.

 

[pemerton]

"Falling action" is particularly egregious in terms of gaming

<snip>

it is often the time of greatest overall tension in the play, because it is the phase in which everything goes most wrong.
In this phase, the villain has the upper hand. It seems that evil will triumph."[/I]

Ok... now we're just getting campy. "Might" everything go most wrong? Sure. But that is dependent on player choice and the roll of the dice. Even the most die hard "railroading" GM should think three times about employing this type of story element.

I think a system can be designed to produce a degree of falling action.

One way of doing it is HeroQuest's pass/fail mechanics (which are also discussed in 4e's DMG2 - Robin Laws essentially cuts and pastes the text from the revised HeroQuest rulebook - although no real effort is made to explain how this can work within the overall mechanical framework of 4e).

Another way of doing it is the way 4e does it in combat. 4e NPCs and monsters have more hit points than PCs, and generally more severe at will damage, but no or very limited healing. PCs, on the other hand, have access to excellent healing (but it requires effort by the players in working the action economy) and access to bigger-hitting effects (but these often require effort in setting them up). At least in my experience, the effect of that is that as a combat progresses, the PCs are initially at a disadvantage - everything does go wrong as the monsters come out hitting hard and fast. But then, as the players manage to get draw on the greater depth of their PCs compared to their enemies, the tide of battle changes.

Yet another way of doing it is the way 4e does it in skill challenges. A skill challenge requires X successes before 3 failures. That means that the situation cannot be resolved as the players want it to be until they have achieved X successes. Which means, up through the X-1th success, the GM will be narrating additional complications or pressures that require the players to continue to have their PCs tackle the problem - no matter how hard the PCs try, it seems that nothing goes right and that "evil will triumph". Only with the final success does the tide definitively turn.

If an RPG is intended to deliver satisfactory story, but its action resolution mechanics can't achieve somewhat dramatic pacing unless the GM exercises fiat, then in my view the RPG has not been very well designed.

I am a strong advocate of plot, even to the point of DM fiat over certain elements of the game.

I am a big fan of plot also, but prefer to play games in which it emerges in a satisfactory way out of the players and GM both engaging the mechanics in their respective ways (players: build and play your PCs; GM: create situations that will engage the players via their PCs). I am very hostile to the GM exercise of fiat over action resolution, both as a GM and as a player.

 

[chaochou]

I am a big fan of plot also, but prefer to play games in which it emerges in a satisfactory way out of the players and GM both engaging the mechanics in their respective ways (players: build and play your PCs; GM: create situations that will engage the players via their PCs).

Right now, this is the only way I am interested in GMing (although that hasn't always been the case).

However, as a player I can't say I focus that much on analysing the playstyle. As long as I have some breathing space and opportunities to create something idiosyncratic or individual about a character, I tend not to be that concerned about the underlying GMing methodology.

 

[Niccodaemus]

Another way of doing it is the way 4e does it in combat. 4e NPCs and monsters have more hit points than PCs, and generally more severe at will damage, but no or very limited healing. PCs, on the other hand, have access to excellent healing (but it requires effort by the players in working the action economy) and access to bigger-hitting effects (but these often require effort in setting them up). At least in my experience, the effect of that is that as a combat progresses, the PCs are initially at a disadvantage - everything does go wrong as the monsters come out hitting hard and fast. But then, as the players manage to get draw on the greater depth of their PCs compared to their enemies, the tide of battle changes.

I'm not a 4e player, but this does sound interesting. However, it really only addresses a tactical combat situation. I think using "falling action' in relation to the larger story arc is quite problematic at best.

In other words, on a larger plot level, "Falling action" would dictate that the players lose the battle, have to regroup, and re-assault the stronghold. While this might come about naturally in play, to force the plot into this structure is extreme.

 

[pemerton]

I'm not a 4e player, but this does sound interesting. However, it really only addresses a tactical combat situation. I think using "falling action' in relation to the larger story arc is quite problematic at best.

In other words, on a larger plot level, "Falling action" would dictate that the players lose the battle, have to regroup, and re-assault the stronghold. While this might come about naturally in play, to force the plot into this structure is extreme.

Again, though, there are mechanical systems that aim at this. HeroQuest's pass/fail method of assigning DCs would be one example.

 

[S'mon]

I'm not a 4e player, but this does sound interesting. However, it really only addresses a tactical combat situation. I think using "falling action' in relation to the larger story arc is quite problematic at best.

In other words, on a larger plot level, "Falling action" would dictate that the players lose the battle, have to regroup, and re-assault the stronghold. While this might come about naturally in play, to force the plot into this structure is extreme.

I find "run away and come back later" was a lot more common in 1e AD&D. It *should* be easy to do with D&D's level-up system - the PCs naturally get stronger - but 3e had the problem of excessive lethality for non-caster PCs, in any 'overmatched' battle with high-CR foes the Fighters especially regularly ended up like Regdar, sliced/diced/petrified et al.

With 4e it's a different problem - PCs are resilient and it's often not obvious they're overmatched until all resources are gone and you get a TPK or near-TPK.