Guide to Adventure Writing

[sinecure]

I am not sure that the only object of the game is to gain XP; surely we play the game to have fun and enjoy ourselves since XP don't really exist?

Character advancement is the point/goal of the game. It isn't the sole reason to play, but it is the one that advances the power level of the PCs according to the rules. Complaining that the game doesn't do a good job rewarding other types of fun is just bizarre. It is just a simulation.

_ for_tat type tactics are very successful in the eventual survival of a species;

What a wonderful phrase. I did mention that this particular ethics viewpoint isn't the only one. I just think it is part of what makes D&D so fun. That includes being able to play both strategically and with emotion. It's a life simulator.

Why did I do it; because I wanted the others to do the same for me? No; I did it because it was noble and that is what I aspire to both in game and out of game.

See? It even allowed you to satisfy your selfish desire to feel noble by taking a noble action in the game: self-sacrifice.

Okay, that may be too far, but as you know the ethicist p.o.v. I am hoping you won't take offense.

In my opinion, D&D satisfies players desire to be in a different world from the standpoint of a person. It doesn't tell you how to play. It just says you are there and can do whatever you want. And that's just cool no matter how you slice it.

 

[eric mcloins]

Might I suggest without knowing what you mean by "plot" (given Xechao's definition of "any action taken" in a game) that you may be railroading your players? Which I fully understand some people like. Don't let my opinions stop you from enjoying whatever play you prefer in a game.

I don't think what I'm doing is railroading. If it is, then any DM I have ever met is railroading, and all players just love that. When I plan an adventure I have a good idea of what's going to happen, in general lines. That is because of a few things:

1. I know the goal, character and abilities of the PCs' adversaries and allies. Furthermore, I know what their plans are, what will happen if the PCs don't get in the way, and how these NPCs react if the PCs do.

2. I know what cool locales exist in my campaign world. I know how these locales may interact with the PCs and the NPCs.

3. I have a good understanding of both my players and their characters. I can usually expect their reactions to certain situations. Not always, granted, but still enough to go with.

Because I have a pretty good understanding of all these things, I have, as I stated, a pretty good idea what's going to happen and how that can unravel into a great story. The actions of the PCs would create a plot. It might be close to something I had in mind. It might be totally different. Still, it will have a sense. It will have a beginning, a middle and an end. I don't force anything on the PCs. At no point do I say: "Your characters do x,y,z" unless they are compelled to do that by some magic. Now, characters are always bound to do something unexpected and ruin all the plans I have been making. This is ok. Actually, this is great, and it challenges me to change my own plans so the game would still unfold into a great story, created by both me and my players.

Is that railroading? hardly.

Is there a plot? I guess it depends on how you define a plot. I believe there is.

Is it fun? you betcha. We are now on a few months hiatus from our Ptolus campaign. The players can't wait until we come back to it. Not because they really want to level up, and not because of the kewl equipment they may get. It's because of the plot. It's because they are attached to their characters, which are not just a placate, but well-rounded characters who have their own goals in the gameworld, which have a logical sense IN the game world. I know that without those things, they wouldn't have care less what campaign we were playing.

 

[eric mcloins]

Just one more thing, so we would maybe have a common base ground for discussion, this is a definition of plot. (I don't have acces to any official English dictionary, so this is from www.thefreedictionary.com)

plot - The pattern of events or main story in a narrative or drama.

 

[Ydars]

No offense taken; I have had similar arguments many times, with friends who study animal behavior, and we always learn something.

D&D really is fascinating on many levels. I thank you for allowing me to see the game through other eyes for a few hours. I think I understand the game, as it was intended, much better now. Your comments about winning are very interesting when we consider how much the "goal" of the game has changed; you gain XP now for fighting but originally it was for plundering gold. I imagine party dynamics were quite different back then when your treasure share determined your experience as well. I never played by the RAW back then so I don't know what effect that would have...................I must try it sometime to see.

I believe D&D is just like life; part of playing the game is defining the purpose of it for yourself, though there can be problems when different people aren't on the same page.

 

[sinecure]

I don't think what I'm doing is railroading. If it is, then any DM I have ever met is railroading, and all players just love that. When I plan an adventure I have a good idea of what's going to happen, in general lines. That is because of a few things:
snip
Is there a plot? I guess it depends on how you define a plot. I believe there is.

Just one more thing, so we would maybe have a common base ground for discussion, this is a definition of plot. (I don't have acces to any official English dictionary, so this is from www.thefreedictionary.com)

plot - The pattern of events or main story in a narrative or drama.

What you describe sounds really fun. And it is similar to how I plan my own games. I need to have purposes for why things are in the gameworld or the players cannot accurately reason from them. And as long as the players can choose to do anything in our game worlds in the same way we two can in real life, then I don't see the mix up. It must be a semantic problem. I keep thinking of plot like a predetermined series of events like in a story. Not like a plan or stratagem by people in our own world as plot is also defined. The thing that confuses me though is the definition in your post. To make sense poker would have to be a movie or something. It's simply easier to talk about plot in terms of strategy by the players in character. I've met far too many railroaders who would also make this confusion and result in playing bad games (imo).

snip

it was fun talking to you too. I'm not saying selfishness is the only reason to play D&D, but I think D&D supports it in a way that leads to self-sacrifice and cooperation.

 

[Hella_Tellah]

You can't have narrative balance as you define it in an RPG. Sharing the spotlight is basically an aspect of communication, not playing a game. Players need to determine for themselves how they work together. A game designer would need to write a script for players to follow like in a movie to divvy up equal playing time. But following a script is for making movies, not playing roleplaying games. A roleplaying game cannot make a player play the game a certain manner. It only allows for playing a character in a simulation. That the simulation leads to interesting effects like the Prisoner's Dilemma effect is secondary.

Of course I can have narrative balance in a game. I do it every Wednesday. That's my job as a GM, to finesse the game so that everyone has an equal share of the story, so that everyone feels like a main character. I don't force the players to do anything; I give everyone an equal opportunity to shine.

And every character having the ability to kill everything in the room is a party full of Wizards. I don't see how any one or all players having the ability to cast Sleep on a room full of orcs ruins anyone's day. This is the first I've heard of such a complaint on ENWorld. What about Cloudkill or all the other area effect spells that are designed to kill monsters? Are those all game ruining effects?

If there are four people at the table, and one person kills everything in the room, then the other three didn't get to play at all. That's disappointing for 3/4 of the people at the table. That's what I mean when I say "balance"--everyone gets to feel equally important to the story.

Samwise Gamgee was categorically less powerful that Aragorn, Gandalf, and Legolas, but he was equally important to the story. If Aragorn solved all of the fellowship's problems single-handedly, no one else would be important in the story. Narrative balance means giving everyone a chance to contribute.

But RPGs are simulation games. I'm not calling you a liar or anything. I'm saying the game supports playing it as written.

You can keep saying that RPGs are simulation games, but that won't erase the word "roleplaying" from the front of the book. You seem to be going for some kind of proof by repetition here; all I'm saying is that there's more than one way to play D&D. It can be a simulation, or a miniature combat game, or a storytelling exercise, or an improvisational theater exercise, or a hundred other things. Simulation is only one way to play. How does the game not "support" narrative play? I don't change any rules. I am playing it "as written." Nowhere in the books does it say, "It is wrong to play D&D as though everyone at the table is improvising a play."

 

[howandwhy99]

Arguing about what is and isn't roleplaying does not really help the community.


EDIT: Hella, I don't think roleplaying is what you are describing either. It has to do with sociological roles, not acting roles. It's a mix up that has only become more and more prominent as D&D and RPGs grow.

 

[Hella_Tellah]

Arguing about what is and isn't roleplaying does not really help the community.


EDIT: Hella, I don't think roleplaying is what you are describing either. It has to do with sociological roles, not acting roles. It's a mix up that has only become more and more prominent as D&D and RPGs grow.

Firmly agreed on the first point. As to the second, I may have missed my mark here, because I don't want to argue for any one interpretation of the word "roleplaying." It's many things to many people, and defining it narrowly shrinks the community, rather than strengthening it. I described my own style of roleplaying only as an example of how far different approaches to gaming can be, because my narrativist style varies so greatly from simulation-heavy, tactics-based roleplaying. I certainly don't mean to imply that anyone is wrong for playing differently.

 

[BradfordFerguson]

I'm surprised this thread made it to page 5 since the main remaining participants repeated themselves for two additional pages after page 3. Good job guys!