I would whole-heartedly disagree. I said, "I feel." Then conceded that you are correct. There is no escape hatch. I asked myself, after re-reading the thread, if this was a feeling I had or I could prove it. Turns out it was a feeling. I cannot prove feelings, especially when you and many others offered proof of the contrary. That is why I ended with "I concede".
You put "I concede" in the third or forth paragraph. In your first, which this was a response to, you said that you "feel like [you are] not wrong in this case" and then tread into discussing how you "do not believe for a second" that writers can be surprised by their own writing. This was a response to me discussing how games work, so it's hard to see how your "concession," which was caveated, in a later paragraph responding to another poster was the strong statement you see to think it was.
That said, I'll let it rest.
These are the statements that make me wonder if you or others have read and understood what I wrote. I never argued other games couldn't accomplish what you say they do. In fact, I stated the opposite five times now. I say other games could create story without pre-forming A to B to C. I said it so much, that I felt like I was being patronizing. Yet the same games keep being brought up as evidence. I said this exact sentence five times: "I am talking about D&D, specifically 5e."
And I responded, almost every time, but saying I do these things in 5e. I pointed to other games because they do a better job of showcasing the approach, something I also explained as I said it and explained again in the part your responding to here. The point I've made, repeatedly, is that looking to other games can inform you of how to use the techniques in 5e. You're demanding immediate, video evidence of such, ignoring the nature of what successful streams look like and choosing to ignore that the approach can be used across systems. You seem to have locked into an argument that 5e is somehow unique or special in the way it must be run -- that no other approaches can work, even in pieces. It's an odd argument.
No movement of goalposts. Still talking about D&D, specifically 5e. Still talking about pre-scripted encounters. And rightfully said that it could be done based on the evidence others have offered.
There was a lot more said here that expanded on the initial sentence. You do seem to slide here as you move from the strong statement of your position, that 5e only supports pre-scripted components, to a much weaker statement that use of any previously established fiction is the same as prescripting plot points. This what I addressed here. Your response that you were talking about 5e doesn't address that, and adds the special pleading that 5e has qualities that require prescripting. It doesn't. I supports prescripting more that play-to-find-out, but that's a different horse altogether.
Your "concession" here is caveated entirely on the premise that you could do it, yes, but only if you don't use pre-established fiction of any kind. That an NPC having an established motivation would fall into prescripting the encounter by default. This is the goalpost slide I was talking about -- moving from prescripting meaning following plots points from A to B to C to prescripting meaning using any established fiction in adjudication of play. The latter is trivially broad such that doing anything other than unconnected play would meet this definition. This was what I was pointing out, and your concession isn't much of one as you're still insisting that 5e is somehow special in the way it works such that it either requires prescripting plot or you're just doing random stuff. Not a very encouraging concession.
I think your correct. Authoring a story and playing an RPG are two fundamentally different things. Bad analogy, it's just what came into my mind. My bad.
No problem.
I have, at the fifty or so conventions I have attended, played many "story games." They seemed extremely reliant on the group being able to elevate the story, as opposed to D&D, where two or three players can elevate the story (because many players enjoy the ride, but do not want to drive; they like the destination, but don't want to pack). They were fun and enjoyable experiences. And I apologize as I do not remember the names. If it had struck a chord with me, I would have jotted it down and bought the game. But it didn't.
Some of the systems I am familiar with are more traditional RPG's: D&D, PF, Conan, Dragon Age, The Witcher, Numenera, RoleMaster, Middle Earth, etc. None of these offers the mechanics everyone here is speaking about. Well, maybe Conan, a tiny bit.
But again, as stated earlier, I was discussing D&D.
So, okay, "story games" is a rather specific type of game and not at all what I'm talking about. Fiasco is a story game -- the players take turns telling the story with each other with very limited mechanical interactions. PbtA games, on the other hand, have clear mechanics that are to be used to resolve actions in play. The "story" part of these games is just like 5e -- it's an emergent property of play.
Now, the style of play I'm discussing does put a lot more burden on the players, but that's not because they're required to "elevate" the story but because the nature of play puts more responsibility on the players to drive play. The GM frames a situation that has some conflict, usually with something the PCs care about, and the players have to engage that. They do this by pushing for their PC's desires -- they advocate for their PC strongly -- and the mechanics then determine if they get what they want for their PCs or if the GM gets to make life more complicated. The thing here is that the GM cannot, but dint of the mechanics and that the play is driven by the PCs, anticipate or prescript outcomes. The mechanics of the game let the players direct outcomes on a success, so the GM can't plan for everything.
Contrasting this to traditional approaches, the GM is presenting a plot to the players, and their duty is to explore that plot. Here, the GM sets requirements for moving to the next scene, and the players seek it out. This can be a lot of fun, especially if the GM's plot is interesting and exciting, but it doesn't require as much of the players. The GM shoulders much more of the load of pacing and play.
My suggesting is that you don't have to play 5e in the traditional approach. You also don't have to pick one or the other -- you can blend in parts. 5e's mechanics don't do resolution in the same way as games like Blades in the Dark and that limits you in how well or how often or where you can do this (combat is a bad fit, for example), but it's not impossible or even hard. It does involve the GM letting go of the reigns and letting players drive. The simple way to do this is that you let them declare actions (make sure you require both the approach and the goal of the action), ask for ability checks for resolution, and then adhere to that resolution. By that last, I mean if they succeed then you narrate a new fictional position in which the PCs have succeeded at their goal, or moved towards it for more complex tasks. If they fail, use success at a cost to move forward with a complication, or use fail forward, where that specific approach or goal is no longer valid but the new fiction presents a new challenge or path. My rules for fail forward is that if you close the door, open a balcony window. The new path shouldn't be as easy as the old, or should lead somewhere else, making it painful to get back to the initial goal (if at all possible), but don't just say you failed and stop.
Thanks again everyone for expanding my horizons. It is appreciated.
I hope it helps and you don't just reconcile it with your previous opinions as "they play story games with random elements, and I suppose that's okay."
