Confession: I like Plot

[Ariosto]

I hate the assumed connection between plot and railroading.

It's a plain and practical matter.

If by "plots" one means no more than the best laid plans of mice and men, with no more predestination than evident in real life, then -- as in real life -- "story" is simply an account of whatever happens. There is no "line" from which to deviate, and thus no "getting off track" to correct.

Not too surprisingly, that often does not produce a sequence of events in conformity with the demands of dramatic structure. Stuff happens, and in a well-played game it's pretty interesting stuff to the players at the time -- but most of it is likely to be more "you had to be there" than high theatrical art.

As soon as one introduces such a thing as "THE plot", in the sense of the structure of a novel or play, then there is such a thing as the "wrong" things happening. When a Game Master arbitrarily (a theoretically avoidable condition, perhaps) intervenes to steer events away from those and back onto the "right" course, then that is what D&Ders have called "railroading".

 

[Hussar]

I hate the assumed connection between plot and railroading. Bad GMing is bad GMing; any campaign model can be screwed up by an incompetent GM.

We can talk about giving the players treasure without an assumed connection to Monty Haul style gaming. Everyone accepts that if a GM gives out ridiculously extravagant amounts of treasure, that's a problem with the GM, not the fundamental concept of treasure.

I move that we adopt the same stance toward plot.

I think there is a couple of issues here though. In the past, there have been some very heavy handed modules that have gained a great deal of notoriety due to their adherence to a single plot. Plus, the timing of those modules, such as the Dragonlance ones, tends to get wrapped up into the idea of old school vs new school adventures.

I was listening to an interesting interview with Robin Laws over at the Open Design Podcast and he had an interesting take on the development of RPG's as it refers to plot. Plot entered into gaming through the back door. It was almost an afterthought as Gygax and Co. took their wargaming, boiled it down to single guy instead of unit and then added the idea of persistence between scenarios.

There has been surprisingly little examination until fairly recently as to how RPG's actually work as a storytelling form. What works and what doesn't work isn't something that gets a lot of air time by and large. Most RPG books are X number of pages on how to kill stuff with a tiny sliver reserved to how to actually tell a story in the game.

 

[Crothian]

I think there is a couple of issues here though. In the past, there have been some very heavy handed modules that have gained a great deal of notoriety due to their adherence to a single plot.

I think those same modules and plots though could be written without the railroad. It's not the plots that are the rail road it's the modules.

 

[Merkuri]

Plot is great. I love a good story, and as a player I love when it feels like I'm participating in a good story.

But IMO the best DMs are the ones who have a plot in mind but are willing to throw it out the window at a moment's notice. When the DM has fallen so in love with his plot that he doesn't realize the players aren't into it is when you get into trouble and start entering the territory of railroading.

I recall being told in my creative writing classes in college that a good writer has to know when to give up. Sometimes you can have the best ideas in the world, but you just can't quite get them to work and you have to know when to throw in the towel. If you cling to that idea because it's too good to let go you can ruin the rest of your story.

DMs are the same way. If they cling and hold to their plot when the players start pulling the reigns in a different direction then you'll just end up tearing the campaign apart.

A good DM knows when to let go of his plot. A great DM knows how to turn what the players are doing right now into a plot in such a way that the players felt like this was the idea all along.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

As soon as one introduces such a thing as "THE plot", in the sense of the structure of a novel or play, then there is such a thing as the "wrong" things happening. When a Game Master arbitrarily (a theoretically avoidable condition, perhaps) intervenes to steer events away from those and back onto the "right" course, then that is what D&Ders have called "railroading".

It's what SOME D&Ders have called "railroading". I can tell you that almost no one in our group would consider us "railroaded" in our games. Although most of our DMs run purchased adventures with no changes. We know that we are playing "Revenge of the Giants" and we will be playing through a series of events that involve giants, a BBEG, his plot, and how we save the world. We all know that it's going to end in a epic confrontation with the BBEG.

However, we don't feel railroaded in the slightest. Part of the fun is "coming up" with the solution to the problem, even though our actions have been predicted by the author of the adventure way before we decided on them. But I want to know WHAT the enemies plot is, which we'll slowly discover. I want to have the experience of fighting the leader of the Fire elemental forces as we fight over that pit of lava(by the way, these aren't spoilers, we aren't that far in the adventure and I'm guessing randomly as to something that MIGHT happen). I want the experience of a cool story that we slowly discover.

 

[wedgeski]

Ah! I see this thread has been simmering long enough for the "plot = railroading" fallacy to be visible in the sauce. Add water quick!

 

[Janx]

As a referee, I aim to present an honest game -- not Three Card Monte. This is pretty basic to my understanding, perhaps in part because I got into D&D back when it came in a box (just like so many other games in which cheating is, well, cheating).

Player buy in is an ab-so-freak-in-lute necessity for the wannabe-novelist kind of "game". A bait and switch? Just don't go there.

If the definition of GM cheating is "moving stuff around behind the scenes" I suspect that a good GM has to reserve the right to do that, in order to run a good game.

With the simplest adventure type being a dungeon crawl, which can require a lot of documentation, it would be infeasible to fully document every choice and outcome possible, in order to "not be cheating".

Furthermore, DM's who wing-it would not be held to the same level of accountability as DMs who write stuff down.

A good DM doesn't change things around just to rail-road the party to the volcano.

A good DM changes things around to keep things moving and to react to the players choices with rational consequences.

If the PCs made good plans to avoid being detected by the town guard, you skip the encounter with the town guard.

If the PCs choose the "White Elephant Inn" instead of the "Potent Pachyderm Inn", it is OK to change the location where the myserious stranger so he's at the same inn.


these are the tools a Gm uses to set a plot in motion, so it has a good chance of succeeding.

He also need to choose a plot that the players will enjoy, and the PCs will rationally pursue. It's easy to get the party to go to the volcano when it is pretty obvious that that's a good idea to the party.


This is also a reason why I tend to restrict my players to "good" alignments. A party of evil PCs is much more unpredictable and more likely to say "screw this" if the going gets rough. Good PCs almost always volunteer to save the kingdom.

On the converse side, if the players don't want to play what I'm running, they can find another GM. I'm not well suited to evil campaigns, and since I'm the rare commodity, I can get players who want to play in my game.

 

[Mallus]

My experience is that quote a few players like plot, too, because the came to fantasy role-playing games through epic fantasy novels. People like that want epic, world-saving quests to be a part of. It's what they signed on for.

Personally, both as DM and player, I like a fair amount of plot(s), with little-to-no preordained resolutions. I want the DM to create exciting events for my PC to get involved with, with the caveat I that I also want them to be open to exciting events that I and the other players initiate.

I like the game that moves as you play...

 

[ExploderWizard]

Plot is great. I love a good story, and as a player I love when it feels like I'm participating in a good story.

But IMO the best DMs are the ones who have a plot in mind but are willing to throw it out the window at a moment's notice. When the DM has fallen so in love with his plot that he doesn't realize the players aren't into it is when you get into trouble and start entering the territory of railroading.

I recall being told in my creative writing classes in college that a good writer has to know when to give up. Sometimes you can have the best ideas in the world, but you just can't quite get them to work and you have to know when to throw in the towel. If you cling to that idea because it's too good to let go you can ruin the rest of your story.

DMs are the same way. If they cling and hold to their plot when the players start pulling the reigns in a different direction then you'll just end up tearing the campaign apart.

A good DM knows when to let go of his plot. A great DM knows how to turn what the players are doing right now into a plot in such a way that the players felt like this was the idea all along.

Creating plots is one of the most rewarding parts of being a DM. The thing a DM needs to do to avoid railroad syndrome is to just make sure that none of the plots are his or hers.

Every plot, plan or scheme should be the created or formed by an entity in the game world. Being fictional, the DM will have to do all the thinking and heavy lifting for these entities of course. Once there is an understanding of who is plotting, the DM can determine what resources and methods will be used to carry out the plot and how the PC's can come into contact with it. The players may come into conflict with these plots and disrupt them, ignore them, or help facilitate them. The plots have as much energy and "screen time" as the players give them.

No matter what the players decide to do, there will be consequences arising from the resolution of various plots. Ignored plots can grow into larger problems later in the campaign. Disrupted plots can mean new enemies and make the PC's targets of new plots.

I can write campaign material and formulate devious plots and never have to worry if any of them will be ruined or go "off course" because none of them are mine. It is kind of like going on a huge shopping spree with someone else's money.

 

[Merkuri]

It's what SOME D&Ders have called "railroading"...
However, we don't feel railroaded in the slightest. Part of the fun is "coming up" with the solution to the problem, even though our actions have been predicted by the author of the adventure way before we decided on them.

One could argue that this is actually the textbook definition of a railroad, but your players have agreed to get on the train and are enjoying the ride.

Nobody says that railroads are automatically unfun. The unfun part is when the players want to get off but the DM keeps forcing them back on.

That's pretty much a basic rule for anything, I think. If the players want to do one thing and the DM wants to do another then you have a bad situation and somebody's probably not going to have fun. The most fun happens when everyone is on board with what's happening.