Confession: I like Plot

[Ariosto]

Either the GM convinces the players (in-game or out-of-game) to explore the prepared material, or the GM runs something else.

... or the GM "railroads".

 

[CharlesRyan]

If he is a crap GM.

You have a whole lot of people on this thread speaking intelligently and eloquently about how they can and have (in some cases, thousands of times over decades of gaming) deal with the unexpected in a plotted game and end up with a result that is satisfactory and fun for everyone involved.

Your counterargument seems to boil down to "some GMs suck, therefore that method is invalid."

An incompetent GM can screw up any game, with or without plot. So let's stop talking about them and assume that we're talking about games run by vaguely competent gamers.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

[sblock=Savage Tides Spoiler]
As well, the initial encounter with Vanthus is quite railroady -- the part where he locks them in the tunnels with the pirate zombies. That encounter, at least, can have a different outcome without negating the next issue of Dungeon Magazine.
[/sblock]

[sblock=Savage Tides Plot Derailment]
Hehe, I think our party managed to screw that up. We went there intentionally trying to research possible locations for the pirates or whatever we were looking for. Heck, we were even so paranoid that we concealed our boat and the stone block (or what it was) that could be used or was used to close the access. Didn't really change much, except when we entered Vanthus race and the DM had to improvise the scene where we were to find out that Vanthus would had been trying to trap us.
[/sblock]

 

[Ariosto]

Your counterargument seems to boil down to "some GMs suck, therefore that method is invalid."

Huh??? This has utterly nothing to do with what I have written -- which is, in the first place, not a "counterargument" at all.

You have a whole lot of people on this thread speaking intelligently and eloquently about how they can and have (in some cases, thousands of times over decades of gaming) deal with the unexpected in a plotted game and end up with a result that is satisfactory and fun for everyone involved.

Such as me, at considerable length.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Going back to the Batman example with RC for a moment. Umm, just because the player knows that he will catch the Joker doesn't mean that the player is incapable of supressing that knowledge during play. I play with people who are mature enough to separate in character knowledge from OOC knowledge. Thus, they are perfectly capable of knowing as a player that they are going to capture the Joker and still not be a complete douche by sitting in the corner ordering the GM to give them the automatic win.

It's a different style of play, I admit. But, it's no less valid for that.

Yes, it is a different style of play. It is perhaps roleplaying, but not a game.

But here I call shennanigans. I suggest that you do not, in fact, know that Batman will catch the Joker. For example, if Batman shoots himself in the head, he fails to capture the Joker. Instead, what you know is that the victory conditions are very, very easy to meet. I would also suggest that, the easier the victory conditions are to meet, the less real exploration of sacrifice is being done.

The odds are rigged in your favour, true, but the players know that if the game is about what sacrifices Batman must make to succeed, success will require discovering what sacrifices are necessary. That, in and of itself, requires that the necessary level of sacrifice be hidden from the players at the start of the game.

Or else you are writing collaborative fiction. There is nothing wrong with this sort of a pasttime, of course, but it is not a game in the sense that D&D is a game.

Take another example of the Batman catching the Joker. What if catching the Joker is the beginning of the scenario?

Then, in a game, the victory conditions are not "capture the Joker", but there still are victory conditions, and what is required to meet those conditions is not initially known (but must be discovered/explored through play).

BTW, Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker (along with Batman: Mask of the Phantasm) blows away any prior live action Batman flick. I highly recommend the uncut version of RotJ.

RC, we totally agree that there must be meaningful choices in order for there to be a game. Yet, where we disagree is that you seem to be saying that all choices must be meaningful. The GM should never disallow any choices.

You misunderstand me, then. What I am saying is that, in determining whether or not something is a game, it is the meaningful choices that count. That doesn't mean that the choice to have Sir Robin in a yellow cape or a blue cape must be meaningful. That choice may add to role-playing, but it does not (usually) add to the game aspect of an RPG.

In my example of buying a beer, there are still meaningful choices to be made. The end result - I get my beer - is completely a foregone conclusion. Yet, do I walk or drive to the store? What do I wear? Should I take an umbrella? Should I go by myself or take someone with me? Etc. Etc.

Ok, the example is not exactly a riveting game.

It is not a game at all.

Me having to guess what you would choose might be a game, because there is an unknown element, and hence some form of contest (How well do I know Hussar? Did I take the weather into account?).

You making those decisions isn't a game; it is you making those decisions.

Heck, by your definition, Call of Cthulu is no longer a real game since we know, at the outset, that our character's are going to either go insane or be killed. There's no escape in Cthulu, either in Call or Trail. Yet, I'd be hard pressed to say that it's not a real game.

Actually, this is the opposite of the Batman game above. The odds are very heavily against you, but the end is not a foregone conclusion. Moreover, like the cooperate game example, upthread, Bus Depot Diner, the victory conditions do not need to be an on/off switch. The Joker gets away, but Batman saves the tourists. I go stark raving mad, but the world is preserved from Shub-Niggarath.



RC

 

[CharlesRyan]

Huh??? This has utterly nothing to do with what I have written

Sorry if I misunderstood your intent, or was a little sharp in my response.

What I read was:

KidSnide: Faced with players who don't play the game the GM prepared, a GM can A) talk the players into going along, or B) run something else.

You: Or C) railroad.​

My point was simply that we should discard C as an option worth discussing. Competent GMs don't need to do it, and I'm tired of people confusing the actions of inexperienced, incompetent GMs with actual game technique.

 

[pawsplay]

Going back to the Batman example with RC for a moment. Umm, just because the player knows that he will catch the Joker doesn't mean that the player is incapable of supressing that knowledge during play.

Actually, it does.

Cognitive bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[pawsplay]

Sorry if I misunderstood your intent, or was a little sharp in my response.

What I read was:

KidSnide: Faced with players who don't play the game the GM prepared, a GM can A) talk the players into going along, or B) run something else.

You: Or C) railroad.​

My point was simply that we should discard C as an option worth discussing. Competent GMs don't need to do it, and I'm tired of people confusing the actions of inexperienced, incompetent GMs with actual game technique.

Crothian claimed this:

As a DM though you can make sure the PCs goto the Volcano. A good DM can even make it so the PCs decide on their own without DM interference. It doesn't matter what they do with the MacGuffin or what side in the conflict they take. Though in a game with this going on I would try to have the players think about the sides ahead of time so I and they knew in advance.

It's not clear to me that is necessarily railroading, but it's clearly not A or B.

 

[Hussar]

But here I call shennanigans. I suggest that you do not, in fact, know that Batman will catch the Joker. For example, if Batman shoots himself in the head, he fails to capture the Joker. Instead, what you know is that the victory conditions are very, very easy to meet.

That's splitting hairs pretty finely. If the chances of catching the Joker are 99%, it's not really all that different from 100%. And, again, if the player decides to go so far against his own character to commit suicide for no apparent reason, well, he's playing a different game than I am. No amount of GM skill will save a game from a player who simply wants to be a prat.

Actually, this is the opposite of the Batman game above. The odds are very heavily against you, but the end is not a foregone conclusion. Moreover, like the cooperate game example, upthread, Bus Depot Diner, the victory conditions do not need to be an on/off switch. The Joker gets away, but Batman saves the tourists. I go stark raving mad, but the world is preserved from Shub-Niggarath.

I disagree. The end is entirely a foregone conclusion in CoC. The longer you play the more the chances of you either dying or going insane increase until the inevitable happens. Your character will go insane and/or die. There is no escaping that. The only actual escape is to not play. To refuse to investigate the strange noises coming from that old basement or to open that strange tupperware in the back of your fridge.

In any case, if you are playing CoC, or Trail of Cthulu for that matter, your character is doomed. The how and why might not be known, but the what certainly is. And there is no avoiding it. The fun comes in discovering the how and why.

But, I will totally agree that D&D is most certainly not the vehicle I would choose for this type of gaming. However, I do not believe that D&D is the final say in what constitutes an RPG. I'm playing a system now where a player can dictate any number of things in the game. Outright decide that no, I, the GM, am wrong in the events that I have described. The players are empowered with great honking erasers and given the opportunity to use them.

Determining who wins in the fight is completely secondary to the game I'm currently running. Deciding how that event affects you, affects those around you and affects entire societies is the focus of the game. The player can turn to me and, spending a resource, say, "I capture the Joker." And there's nothing as the Gm that I can do about that other than go along with it. Thus, "Capture the Joker" is simply the framework for exploring other things.

 

[pawsplay]

That's splitting hairs pretty finely. If the chances of catching the Joker are 99%, it's not really all that different from 100%.

Would you drink a glass of orange juice if I told you it was 99% likely not to be laced with bleach?