Confession: I like Plot

[pawsplay]

OK, accepting that there is a difference between a fact/prophecy and a mandate, do you really think that the existence of a mandate eliminates the existence of the game?

I would be hyperbolizing if I did. I'll say it compromises the game. If the player choices don't error the game, then in practice, it's not a problem. Taken to the extreme, this can certainly "eliminate the existence of the game," if it results in a player revolt.

Do you think it's impossible to have a meaningful choice on the way? Even if Frodo lives under the mandate that he must go to Mt. Doom (and has some sort of plot protection to ensure that he does), do you think it's possible for Frodo to have meaningful decisions concerning, say, whether the Nazgul slaughter Merry, Pippin and Sam in the process?

-KS

Of course. In principle, a mandate is a problem. If I'm a player, hopefully I'm on board with the premise. But if I'm on board with the premise and I play the game reasonably, I should not have to deal with a mandate.

Nonetheless, Frodo has far less consequential options to consider as to his own safety. Since he is never really at risk, the game lacks essential spice. I think the situation would be immediately improved by giving him, say, 9 lives, so that it is remotely possible he will die if he squanders a finite resource.

 

[Ariosto]

Is it still a railroad if the track is arbitrarily short?

Yes!

That doesn't mean it can't be part of a fun game. You're sucked through a portal to the opposite side of Oerth, or Barsoom, or the Land Beyond the Magic Mirror! No save! You wake up in the Dungeons of the Slave Lords -- No matter what! (Well, so long as you qualify for the final tournament round.)

There's a BIG difference between enjoying something in moderation and getting addicted to it. In D&D and other traditional RPGs, a warning sign that intervention may be meet is the GM's referring to the other participants as the Mercury Theatre Players.

 

[Ariosto]

Classic case in point: Hey, gang! How about I make you jump through hoops just so I can enact a guaranteed TPK on you? Won't that be a great way to spend a big chunk of supposed "game" time?

"Game"? Why, the effrontery! The author of Vecna Lives! was a dramatist, a story teller. The massacre was a necessary element of plot, so of course the players would perform their roles in accordance with the script. That's show business!

Well, then I expect union pay. Otherwise, it's no business of mine when I show up to play D&D.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

That's not an honest substitution. "You will go to Hades" is a fact. "You will go to Mt. Doom" is a mandate. If you go to Mt. Doom, you ain't going to Troy.

I don't have a particular problem nor think there is any less a game if I know I am going to Mt. Doom because that is the "plot" of the game, but I get to determine who dies along the way, how I interact with the characters we meet on the journey, the details of the battles that occur, and which routes we take to get there.

 

[CharlesRyan]

CharlesRyan, it's a stretch, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume that you honestly don't understand this:

Giving the players no meaningful choice is "railroading".

Full stop.

I think we all understand that, and implying that anyone in this conversation doesn't is a straw man argument. I have not read a single post in these two long threads (and I certainly haven't written one) that states or implies that the poster likes to take meaningful choice out of the game. Where the issue has been discussed, it seems everyone is unanimous about its importance.

The question revolves around the relationship of "meaningful" to the concept of "uncertainty."

Fooling the players into thinking they have a choice does not change the fact of the matter.

I think you are being simplistic.

There will always be a gulf between the perception of the players and the perception of the GM about what is happening in the game world. Use minis, use maps, use illustrations, use vivid descriptions--no matter what you do, the situation imagined in a player's head is not exactly the same as that imagined by other players or the GM.

In that context, it is inevitable that the degree of uncertainty about a decision point is unknown to the players. (Add in the fact that their information is imperfect, and that simply multiplies.)

Sometimes the players will accurately understand the consequences of their decision point. But sometimes they will think a decision one way or the other will have vast consequences--and be wrong. Sometimes they will think a decision is trivial--and be wrong.

Are they "not playing a game" because their perception of the importance of the decision point is inaccurate? Are they really only "playing" if they've nailed down a perfect understanding of the consequences of their decision and the magnitude of uncertainty? If so, I think most gamers are "not playing a game" 90% of the time.

I restate: It is the perception of uncertainty, not some platonic ideal objective uncertainty, that makes decisions meaningful and the game a game.

I absolutely agree with you that real uncertainty is necessary in the game; it is the principal factor that supports the perception of uncertainty. But the objective uncertainty need not always map directly to the perceived uncertainty (in fact, it rarely does). And in that context, there will be times when perceived uncertainty exists in the absence of any objective uncertainty.

A clever GM understands and accepts that. He even adds it to his list of tools to improve (note: not "diminish") the players' experience and guide the course of events within the game.

This is not railroading, at least not according to any definition that seems relevant or logical to me. It has nothing to do with demanding that a scene or encounter plays out according to "script."

 

[CharlesRyan]

What you seem to be resisting is the notion that for many people, if you are required to go to Mt. Doom, against all wishes, logic, and circumstances, you are not playing a roleplaying game as conventionally understood.

Maybe this is part of why we aren't in agreement.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that what you've written makes for a good game. If the players have to go to the volcano "against all wishes, logic, and circumstances," then heck, yeah, you've got a railroad.

But if you've thrown the ring into a fire, hit it with a hammer, and had the wisest sage on earth tell you only the volcano will do the job, it's no longer against logic or circumstances. If it's still against the players' wishes, great. This campaign isn't working out; let's play something else.

I'll also point back to my earlier post about the broader meaning of "outcome." We may now all agree that the campaign will probably reach its climax at or near the volcano. But that doesn't tell us anything about the outcome.

 

[Ariosto]

I restate: It is the perception of uncertainty, not some platonic ideal objective uncertainty, that makes decisions meaningful and the game a game.

You're welcome to play Three Card Monte as long as you've got a simoleon left to lose!

 

[Ariosto]

We may now all agree that the campaign will probably reach its climax at or near the volcano.

And there's a 55% chance of sleet, or maybe rain, in the general region of the foothills.

That is NOT a plot!

 

[CharlesRyan]

You're welcome to play Three Card Monte as long as you've got a simoleon left to lose!

Soo . . . You're saying there is an objective level of uncertainty at every decision point, which is equally understood by the players and the GM?

And there's a 55% chance of sleet, or maybe rain, in the general region of the foothills.

That is NOT a plot!

OK, but how is that relevant? I was talking about whether knowing about the end-game constitutes railroading.

 

[Merkuri]

When I think of plot in relation to RPGs, I think of "story". I think of things in the first few adventures affecting or foreshadowing what happens in the last few adventures. I think of the adventures of the PCs being connected somehow. They share NPCs, and they tell a story as they go.

This does not necessarily equate to a railroad, or to any lack of decision on the player's parts. You can have a plot and still leave the PCs with absolute free will, but it requires a clever DM who, in all likelihood, does not know where the plot is going in the beginning of the game. In fact, unless the DM knows his players very very well and can predict their every choice I have to say that the DM is required not to know where the plot is going at the beginning of the game if free will is to be preserved.

There have been some DMs in this thread already who have mentioned they craft the plot as they go, so this is not impossible.

Plot in a written module pretty much has to assume that the characters will make certain choices (because including the results of every single possible choice in a written document is impossible). This is where you start to risk taking away the free will of the characters. But the DM still has the ability to adapt the module as he sees fit in order to adjust it to fit the character's choices. And, of course, if the players just do not seem willing to keep their character's actions in line with the plot of the module, maybe it's time to choose a different module or have the DM create his own adventures.

But, bottom line, you can have plot and freedom of choice at the same time. They don't necessarily cancel each other out.