Let's talk about "plot", "story", and "play to find out."

[Blue]

Again, talking past each other. You seem to want me to be saying something I am not saying so you can argue with me.

I don't know what else to tell you.

You said we didn't have the same definition of story. I asked to swap definition. You don't have a valid definition of story, so it's throwing everything else off. Explicitly a story doesn't need to be complete to be a story.

Yes, with you misunderstanding what a story is, we will definitely be talking past each other when talking about stories.

I strongly recommend that you look up, at some places you trust, what "story" means.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I see the distinction, but I would say part of what draws me to TTRPGs is the story aspect - the fact that my play at the table is creating a story, even if it’s a bad one, or one which could only charitably be viewed later as a cautionary tale of overconfident adventurers getting killed because of their own stupidity! I’m coming to the table with a different expectation that I would if I were playing a run of the mill board game or card game.

To put more of a contrast on it, I can be invited to a poker game, and I’m not thinking of it in terms of an emerging story. If I’m invited to a D&D game, I’m already starting to think in story related ways. Whether the result ends up satisfactory is kind of beside the point for me, though it’d have to be really bad for me not to come away with some sort of synopsis for what happened in that game.

So we are back to personal, subjective preferences. Makes sense, given that the entire thread is about personal opinion.

 

[Artamo]

So we are back to personal, subjective preferences. Makes sense, given that the entire thread is about personal opinion.

Well yeah? It’s just a discussion.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well yeah? It’s just a discussion.

Sure. My point is that, people go back and forth over definitions, but once we're all on the same page in that regard, all that's left is, "I like it like this" and "I don't like it like this".

 

[Umbran]

Different smaller stories can make up a larger one.

Sure. But then we are picking and choosing how small is still valid, and we are all going to pick differently.

Which is fine, in one sense - each of us is free to do what they want.

But, in another sense, in terms of this discussion, it leaves "when it is done" not really indicative of anything in particular, and does not enhance understanding. It really becomes, "It is a story when I say it is a story," which elucidates nothing clear about the relationship between games and stories in general. It only informs us of the speaker's preferences.

"When I say so," is also at risk of being a post hoc justification, which would make the logic circular if you use it as support for the point you want to be seen as true or correct.

All in all, it only kicks the can down the line as we ask, "Okay, so why do you say it is a story at Point B, and not Point A?"

 

[hawkeyefan]

This is always interesting to me, although lurking on the BITD subreddit and discord I see a lot of similar things.

The core flow of BITD, once you’ve made an engagement roll generally is:

• PC says they want to do a thing towards the score objective.
• GM checks fictional situation and says if there’s risk (if not, do it and frame the next Scene).
• if risk, player says how they do it and picks and action, avoiding being a weasel.
• P&E stuff happens (what you’ll get) here if needed (almost all the time, we move with Risky/Standard or deploy an item/ability to boost effect).
• roll the dice to see what you get and how bad the risk manifests. Resist as desired.
• GM frames a new scene showing how the fiction evolves.

As far as i remember, the only space in which the game actively suggests soliciting player input on consequences is Bargains - which is a complication that’ll happen regardless. And that’s up to the table and GM to do, I only reached out if I didn’t have a good idea in the moment because 5 minds are more creative then 1.

I think there’s advice in the book for the GM to turn to the players if they’re struggling with ideas. I don’t think it’s meant as standard practice, but its presence certainly implies at least a more permissive attitude toward this type of thing. Combine that with other elements… Devil’s Bargains, Flashbacks, players choosing Actions… and I can understand why some folks take a more loose approach to that kind of thing.

Personally, I don’t like the “writers’ room” label because I think there are a lot of things being overlooked.

I’ve recently started playing a game of Ironsworn. It’s me and two other players and we’re playing GMless. We figured it’d be an interesting thing to try. It’s turned out to be a lot more fun and engaging than each of us was expecting.

It involves collaboration between the three of us and some input from the different Oracles the book provides, which are random tables to help shape the fiction. Even this game, which necessarily involves collaboration, doesn’t feel like a writers’ room to me. Yes, we shape situations and we determine what NPCs may do and the consequences of actions and all that… but the system has so much say that it does not feel like things are in our control.

We’re also collectively much tougher on the PCs than any of us would be as a GM… which is kind of surprising.

 

[Fenris-77]

Perhaps we should take a closer look at what actually happens at the table when we play RPGs. Humans are, by nature and context, story tellers and forgers of narrative, and that I think, perhaps more than something more crafted, constructed, and specific like plot is what's at work. Imagine if you will a dimly lit basement, smelling faintly of cheetos and mountain dew..

The basic unit of RPG play is what I'm going call the situation (as opposed to scene, which has more baggage than I'd like, descriptive as it is). So the situation begins with the GM who provides the players with the necessary information to explain the current state of affairs, mostly in the form of evocative description. This might be bolstered by the players asking question to clarify or expand on the information. Then the players have to decide what to do - they must act. But how do they decide?

Obviously, a big part of that decision is framed by the GMs description and clarification, but that's only a part. Another part of player decision making is informed by their understanding of the setting and genre of the game, and this part is based on experience. In addition to setting and genre, the players might also act based on context clues within the GMs description - for example what the GMs spends time detailing vs the other, fuzzier and less well realized elements. In addition to all this up front stuff is that very human story telling drive - they fill in bits here or there, make unstated connections and inferences, and generally weld the bits together. These merged elements form the basis of their understanding of the situation and their decision is based on this new understanding. But they don't actually act, they state their intention to act, a desire to change the situation in one or more ways.

The situation now passes back to the GM who takes both his initial description, and the actions description of the player, and feeds it through the heuristic of the rules (to decide about die rolls etc). The GM then describes a new state of affairs that include the player actions and the consequences of those actions. Newly reframed, the situation is handed to a new player and we begin again.

Some of these bits sound like storytelling, but other really don't, which is why the storytelling descriptor only gets us so far. There is, I think, a lot interpretation happening at each step which makes me think me that it really deserves its own words and description. I also think this ongoing exchange of interpretation is a big part of what makes RPGs such compelling fun.

 

[Reynard]

Perhaps we should take a closer look at what actual happens at the table when we play RPGs. Humans are, by nature and context, story tellers and forgers of narrative, and that I think, perhaps more than something more crafted, constructed, and specific like plot is what's at work. Imagine if you will a dimly lit basement, smelling faintly of cheetos and mountain dew..

The basic unit of RPG play is what I'm going call the situation (as opposed to scene, which has more baggage than I'd like, descriptive as it is). So the situation begins with the GM who provides the players with the necessary information to explain the current state of affairs, mostly in the form of evocative description. This might be bolstered by the players asking question to clarify or expand on the information. Then the players have to decide what to do - they must act. But how do they decide?

Obviously, a big part of that decision is framed by the GMs description and clarification, but that's only a part. Another part of player decision making is informed by their understanding of the setting and genre of the game, and this part is based on experience. In addition to setting and genre, the players might also act based on context clues within the GMs description - for example what the GMs spends time detailing vs the other, fuzzier and less well realized elements. In addition to all this up front stuff is that very human story telling drive - they fill in bits here or there, make unstated connections and inferences, and generally weld the bits together. These merged elements form the basis of their understanding of the situation and their decision is based on this new understanding. But they don't actually act, they state their intention to act, a desire to change the situation in one or more ways.

The situation now passes back to the GM who takes both his initial description, and the actions description of the player, and feeds it through the heuristic of the rules (to decide about die rolls etc). The GM then describes a new state of affairs that include the player actions and the consequences of those actions. Newly reframed, the situation is handed to a new player and we begin again.

Some of these bits sound like storytelling, but other really don't, which is why the storytelling descriptor only gets us so far. There is, I think, a lot interpretation happening at each step which makes me think me that it really deserves its own words and description. I also think this ongoing exchange of interpretation is a big part of what makes RPGs such compelling fun.

Notably missing from the above is a discussion of "the fiction" and "in character" -- which I appreciate. While it is common to play RPGs that way, it isn't actually necessary. A player is not required to inhabit their character in order to play an RPG. Nor is the GM required to put on funny hats and voices. Play will still result in these stories, even without things we tend to think of as integral to stories.

 

[Willie the Duck]

I'll try and be concise: you cannot have a story until you have a plot, and a plot is the series of events that make up the story. Therefore, there is no story until the thing is done. After the last die is rolled, the aggregate of what happened at the table, tempered by the recollections and perceptions of the participants defines the story.

I'm genuinely still not clear why you think this, nor why you think it is an particularly notable or important point. 'A story isn't a story until it is done' vs. 'a story isn't complete until it is done' -- why do you think one vs. the other, and why is it important?

 

[Reynard]

I'm genuinely still not clear why you think this, nor why you think it is an particularly notable or important point. 'A story isn't a story until it is done' vs. 'a story isn't complete until it is done' -- why do you think one vs. the other, and why is it important?

Because what I am saying is that when you play an RPG, you are generating a story. That's different than trying to "play through" a story in the same way you might in a linear video game.