G
Guest 6801328
Guest
Probably something quite different than we would do with a fictional character in a RPG. In a movie or novel there's only one creative agency (the writer(s)) where in a typical RPG there's a bunch of not-always-in-agreement creative agencies: the DM creates the world and backstory, the players create some key personalities that inhabit said world, and the story of the actions of said personalities (i.e. what gets played out in the game) is created by all involved. Sometimes these creative agencies might conflict - a player claims his character is the son of the King while the DM has already determined the King has no heirs - and in cases like this the DM takes precedence.
Or, coincidence. A movie or novel might be well served by having the protagonator just happen to know exactly what to do when (though even here if it's blatant enough to be noticeable it bugs me), just to keep the story going toward its predetermined end point. But a RPG is not well served by this at all - for one thing, it doesn't (or certainly shouldn't) have a predetermined end point - and a character not knowing about the trap even though its player does can be just as contributory to keeping the story going.
On re-reading, the above may not be all that clear...if needed I can expand on it later.
Please do. I agree that some of the mechanics of how an RPG story gets woven is different from how a book or movie script gets written, but good storytelling is good storytelling, no?
We constrain ourselves to what our characters would most likely do with the knowledge they have.
Why does it have to be "most likely"? (And what does that even mean?) Shouldn't it be "most interesting thing they could plausibly do"?
What's to say the story isn't just as compelling, or even more so, without the artificially-induced coincidences? Maybe the old lady catches everyone in her trap; the story then becomes how to escape (see AD&D module A4 for a published example of one of these) - still a good story, only different and (and this is the key element) perhaps not as advantageous or friendly or easy for the characters...and by extension, their players.
Oh, sure, the player's decision might screw up a plan that the DM had and therefore might not lead to the best story. But we have to at least trust that everybody...players and DM...are trying to weave the best story they can.
Unfortunately, my rather lengthy experience tells me that he's mostly got it right.
In an ideal world I'd get right behind this. But it's not an ideal world, and there's just too many people out there who subscribe to the maxim "If you ain't cheatin' you ain't tryin'".
And maybe that's the key difference between the two viewpoints here: our assumptions about the other people at the table.