Confession: I like Plot

[Desdichado]

I do. I like it both as a player and a GM. I want the campaign to have a clear goal (or goals) from the outset and a definite beginning, middle and end. I feel that it makes the group work together better, and as a GM, it allows me to use many more narrative (in the literary, not GNS meaning) techniques in my game. After all, if there's no obvious plot, then foreshadowing becomes pretty tricky.

I actually disagree. I've made a career out of GMing games that have the appearance of this level of organization, but it's really me just pulling together stuff that the PCs bite on, and giving it relevence after the fact.

You can have the appearance of plot, including all the benefits of narrative techniques (which I agree leads to a much better game (or at least one that I like better (since this particular argument seems to be current in several ongoing threads (and I want to head-off potential misunderstandings (plus I'm trying to set a record for nested parenthetical clauses (in this sentence)))))) **big breath** without actually planning a "plot" up front.

What works for me is instead of plots, hooks. I've got a number of problems built into the architecture of the setting. I've got a number of villains with their own agendas. I plan what their agendas are, to a limited extent, and start them rolling. They don't plan for the PC's actions, so neither do I, or at least I don't plan more than a session or so ahead at best. The "plot" therefore becomes; which villainous agenda offends the PCs the most, and which do they make efforts to stop? The villains obviously need to take steps once the PC's start interfering, but I don't plan any of those steps until the PCs do what they do. I put myself in the villains shoes, and essentially roleplay his actions, rather than a plan per se.

Also; a lot of stuff comes up and the PCs make a big deal of it, when I wouldn't have thought so. This is an opportunity for me to take a cue from what they're interested in and make it important to the campaign, even if I didn't think I was going to. So, the innkeeper at Tavern XYZ was supposed to be just another nameless bit of scenery; his tavern didn't even originally have a name. But the PCs start asking him questions, hanging around, and get the idea that he's up to something. OK, well now he is, then. Taking my direction from the players, I make him something that I never intended to---a spy for the vampire lord, or something. This gives the illusion of a much richer campaign world that has a lot of stuff going on other than what the PCs are doing, even though it actually is just my reaction to the players.

The other thing I do, which is a technique I cribbed from the old Ray Winninger Dungeoncraft articles in the waning years of 2e, is to give secrets to any major campaign element: an NPC, a location, a magic items, etc. There's something secret about it. The PCs may never discover it. I'll drop hints here and there. If they do discover it, especially if it takes them a long time, then again I've created the illusion of a certain kind of depth, and use of narrative techniques, that I didn't actually use.

 

[Desdichado]

I think the ultimate issue when discussing "sandbox" vs "plot-heavy" is that some people always want to take it to the extremes and "prove" that this is the wrong way of playing.

While I think hardly anyone says an extreme railroad is a good condition, many people lately are on board with the idea that an extreme sandbox is.

I think this is a fallacy for the same reason you allude too... both are extreme endpoints on a spectrum. Theoretical endpoints, even, moreso than real ones. They're not ideals to be realized, they're fringe strategies to be avoided.

 

[ExploderWizard]

What works for me is instead of plots, hooks. I've got a number of problems built into the architecture of the setting. I've got a number of villains with their own agendas. I plan what their agendas are, to a limited extent, and start them rolling. They don't plan for the PC's actions, so neither do I, or at least I don't plan more than a session or so ahead at best. The "plot" therefore becomes; which villainous agenda offends the PCs the most, and which do they make efforts to stop? The villains obviously need to take steps once the PC's start interfering, but I don't plan any of those steps until the PCs do what they do. I put myself in the villains shoes, and essentially roleplay his actions, rather than a plan per se.

Um.........that is pretty much spot on plotting. It is the kind of plotting I enjoy very much. What those villains plan to do IS thier plot.

Your described style of campaign design is far too similar to mine for us to be arguing this much.

 

[Desdichado]

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.

Even though it's been specifically spelled out several times, and judging by the lack of responses to my posts from you in several instances I guess you probably have me on ignore by now, I'm going to attempt to restate this again anyway.

No, it's not. A railroad is a very specific type of degenerate game condition in which the players attempt to make choices that the GM thwarts. If the players don't really have any meaningful choices to make, but that's OK because for all practical purposes they'd make the assumed choices anyway, then it's not a railroad. Railroad is an expression of disatisfaction with choices being taken away, not merely a comment on the lack of options generally.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Like many of the terms we use to discuss rpgs, 'railroad' doesn't have a precise definition. Do you remember that guy a couple of months back who ran a very, very extreme sandbox and regarded everything that wasn't that as railroading? His players thought it was railroading any time the GM gave the PCs more reason to choose one option than another. Also the world had to be totally static, otherwise it was putting pressure on the PCs to do something. Hobo had a big argument with him, iirc.

 

[Raven Crowking]

A railroad is a very specific type of degenerate game condition in which the players attempt to make choices that the GM thwarts.

I like this definition, although I would modify it slightly:

A railroad is a very specific type of degenerate game condition in which the players attempt to make choices that they should reasonably expect to be able to make that the GM thwarts.

 

[Desdichado]

Fair enough amendment. I approve.

 

[The Shaman]

Um.........that is pretty much spot on plotting. It is the kind of plotting I enjoy very much. What those villains plan to do IS thier plot.

Your described style of campaign design is far too similar to mine for us to be arguing this much.

The difference is between plotting for the NPCs versus plotting for the PCs: "The baron de Bauchery will kidnap Princess Pinkflower on the new moon and lock her in the donjon of his family castle," versus, "The adventurers will rescue Princess Pinkflower from the donjon of baron de Bacuhery's family castle."

In the former, no assumptions are made as to what the adventurers will do; the players may decide to ignore the plight of Princess Pinkflower, or even to help the baron de Bauchery. In the latter, it's presumed that the adventurers' goal is to rescue the princess from the baron.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Fair enough amendment. I approve.

Thanks. Otherwise "The DM won't let me explode the sun with my thoughts!" is going to turn up, sooner or later, as an example of railroading.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The difference is between plotting for the NPCs versus plotting for the PCs: "The baron de Bauchery will kidnap Princess Pinkflower on the new moon and lock her in the donjon of his family castle," versus, "The adventurers will rescue Princess Pinkflower from the donjon of baron de Bacuhery's family castle."

In the former, no assumptions are made as to what the adventurers will do; the players may decide to ignore the plight of Princess Pinkflower, or even to help the baron de Bauchery. In the latter, it's presumed that the adventurers' goal is to rescue the princess from the baron.

In a game where you are playing the roles of the command crew of the USS Enterprise:

The Gorn have infringed on a Tellerite world. The treaty with the Gorn is at risk if they are forced to leave. The Tellerites are demanding action, or they will cede from the Federation. Within 36 game hours, Admiral Crashingbore will arrive on the USS Lexington to take command of the situation, and Kirk knows that Admiral Crashingbore's solution will benefit no one.

If the PCs don't solve the problem within the time limit, they know that Crashingbore will take over, and that Crashingbore will bluntly solve the problem, to the detriment of all.

They know that the problem will be solved. The question is, can they solve it better, within the time frame allowed?

This scenario is an example where the broad parameters of the outcome are known (the problem will be solved, and it will be solved by a given point in time), but there is still a game, still many meaningful choices to be made, a chance to succeed, and a chance to fail. There is an assumption as to what the players will do (try to solve the problem first), but no assumption as to how they will do it....although to run the scenario the GM must consider aforehand several ways in which the players might succeed.



RC