Confession: I like Plot

Status
Not open for further replies.
If they do not specify that something must happen to the PCs, then I would say that they lack plot.

I do not think I am the only one who has stated this very simple matter repeatedly in this thread and its fellow. Even recourse to a dictionary seems to make no dent in determined obscurantism.

Then I would like to suggest that your definition of "plot" is evidentially more restrictive than the definition used by some other people on the board.

Obviously, we can disagree on the "correct" definition of the term. But when I say, "I like plot too", I'm not using the term the way you do. In the interest of mutual comprehension, I think it's useful to make that explicit.

Lastly, I'm not sure what is obscurantist about trying to lay clear a mismatch in definitions. Nor do I think my usage of the term is particularly inconsistent with "the plan or main story (as of a movie or literary work)" (Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online) in that I think the plan or main story of an RPG need not necessarily specify something that /must/ happen to the PCs.

That said, I don't consider dictionaries to be dispositive authorities when it comes to the definitions of words in specific contexts of which the dictionary writers were probably unaware. (See 21-27 of caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/Fed/031269pv2.pdf , if you'd like a more authoritative discussion of the limits of dictionaries.)

-KS
 

log in or register to remove this ad

RC - my point remains and always has been, that not EVERY choice has to be in question in order to have a game.


Really, Hussar? Do I have to go back and quote you? Because I can, over and over, and over again.

I claimed that the outcome must be in doubt for it to be a game, and the resolution of the victory conditions must be tied to the choices of the players.

* You repeatedly denied the same. I can quote you.

* You claimed that you were playing a game in which the above was not true. I can quote you.

* You exampled SA as that game. I can quote you.

* In SA, the outcome is in doubt, and the resolution of the victory conditions are tied to the choices of the players. I can quote the game.

If you stopped with the "I gotta defend myself no matter what" and went over the conversation again, I think that what you will find is that it is not the basic mechanics of SA that make it different from D&D, but (1) what the mechanics represent in-game, and (2) the malleable framework and type of control over victory conditions.

SA offers a game that can (from my reading) play very differently from D&D, but your description of why this is so (and, presumably, your analysis of the same) leaves much to be desired.


RC
 

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.


Please note, too, Hussar, that I am not making this claim. Indeed, I reject it utterly.

"Taking the Ring to Mt. Doom" can be a valid framework. It is at least as valid a framework as that of DragonLance, Savage Tide, etc.

What pawsplay's argument suggests is that, somehow, the players have agreed to play a game with a given framework, and that they then resist that framework. Not a lot of fun, but definitely the fault of the players at buy-in time, not the fault of the framework.

I think this is the result of confusing the events of the game with the framework within which those events occur.


RC
 
Last edited:

You know, when I first started gaming, all we had was a Basic Set, no Expert Set or AD&D books yet. So we didn't know all the rules, and we didn't know all the terms. And we we referred to our D&D games as "plots". Not "campaigns"; plots. Not being ye olde wargammers, the notion of "campaign" was foreign to us, wheres "plot" was entirely natural. For us, playing D&D equated with playing through somebody's story. Today we're playing Curt's Plot, and tomorrow, we'll pull out different characters to play John's Plot.

Plot-with-a-capital-P might not be very easy to define intuitively, because it's more than just the overarching campaign goal. It's not "throw the ring into Mount Doom". It's more like... the careful pre-creation of a game-world interspersed with barriers which can only be overcome by meeting the necessary conditions.

You can't leave the highlands through the only mountain pass until you appease the dwarves; that means getting the stolen dwarf-treasure from the bottom floor of Dungeon #1. Once you're out of the highlands, you can adventure on the rest of the continent, but until you figure out how to thwart the Imperial blockade, there are no ships leaving to take you across the sea. You know what would be helpful? That set of magical sails that somebody stashed somewhere in Dungeon #2. On the continent across the sea, there's a sage who can tell you where Mount Doom is, but he sleeps eternally. Oh... wait, there's a cure for that, in a wellspring somewhere in Dungeon #3. However long it takes the players to solve that problem, a soon as they cure the sage and get the information, the Big Bad Villain will show up and kill the sage. The PCs can't possibly hurt the villain yet, and he doesn't perceive them as a threat, so at this point he won't kill them and they can't kill him. Onto Dungeon #4. Et cetera.

That's a Plot.

You certainly can't deny that it's a game, because we're playing it. We're going through each of these steps in real time, plumbing each dungeon, overcoming each barrier. At any time along the way, we could fail. We could get killed by the next monster or trap. At the very least, we might miss some of the treasure or magic and have to face the next set of challenges without it. All along the way, our decisions, our actions, the route we take, will affect the next step of the journey in ways that can only be called "meaningful." Didn't want to explore that left corridor back in Dungeon #2? You missed that extra potion of healing that just might make the difference between life and death next time.

Then again, we could just give it up, have our characters open a tavern, and end the campaign right there. After all, nobody's making us go on the Big Epic Quest. That would certainly fly in the face of tyrannical DM railroading; the problem is, it just wouldn't be any fun. We play D&D to take on the role of Big Epic Questers, not tavern-keepers.
 
Last edited:

Ariosto, if you'd like to continue the conversation then I'd suggest you lay off the snarky pot-shots and just make your points as best you can.
 


RC - my point remains and always has been, that not EVERY choice has to be in question in order to have a game. If there is only one choice, that's one thing, but, you can have all sorts of elements in question without having every element be up to random chance.

I can agree with this. Random determination does not have to be used for every action. A well formed plan can succeed on its own merits.

I think you are making very simplistic examples here. You're ignoring the much broader picture. Having a plot "Take the ring to Mt Doom" can give you a start point and an end point. ((Not that it has to mind you. There are most definitely several ways to play this out)) How you reach Mt. Doom becomes the question of the game.

The plot doesn't give an end point. The plot gives you a goal. Without a chance to fail at reaching said goal, there is no game, only a story with an undetermined middle.
 

Well why don't you, instead of misrepresenting him?

Where, exactly, did I misrepresent him?

To answer your question, because of the twin swords of laziness and of giving him a chance to rethink & better respond. My goal isn't to beat Hussar into the ground with his own words, but to expand both our horizons by an honest dialogue. Don't think that laziness will stop me if I think it important to pull quotes in order to have that dialogue be honest.

And don't think that lurking around to make snarky jabs will win any points for you (or, at least, not from me).


RC


EDIT: Also, having just come to an agreement with Umbran, having just included "Hobo is right" in a post, and largely agreeing with Storm Raven on another thread, I have to wonder if the Apocalyse would occur if Hussar and I also came to an agreement?!?!?!
 
Last edited:

The plot doesn't give an end point. The plot gives you a goal. Without a chance to fail at reaching said goal, there is no game, only a story with an undetermined middle.

Framework: The Nine Walkers take the Ring to Mount Doom.

Goal: Someone will attempt to wrest the Ring from Frodo. Before reaching Mount Doom, you must discover who that person is.

Victory Conditions: If you discover who the person is before he strikes, you have a complete victory and the Company otherwise stays together. If you do not, the Company is split, making the next series of games that much harder.


RC
 


Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top