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

[FrogReaver]

No, they are two very different things. I'm not really concerned with how yoiks deploy the term GM fiat all willy-nilly in threads about D&D.

Sorry, was saying that about 70% in jest. So that’s fair.

 

[Fenris-77]

Not in detail, no. But, aren't the specific design goals done in alignment with that general premise?

We might change, "results in fun gameplay," with "results in the player's desired play experience".

Sure. I was more talking about the nuances of RPG design that have rather a lot to say about how we get from A to B.

 

[Fenris-77]

Sorry, was saying that about 70% in jest. So that’s fair.

We've both been in those threads, ducking the flung poo.

 

[Umbran]

It’s where author decision meta-mechanics can get tricky. Does the game assume that you the player wants their character to succeed?

Certainly not all games do. But the process of play of them trying is still supposed to yield what the players are looking for.

 

[Fenris-77]

Hmm. I think the idea of 'want your character to succeed' is an idea that contains an awful lot of individual differences from game to game. Especially when RPGs usually lack a specific win condition overall, at which point the notion of success gets a lot fuzzier.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Hmm. I think the idea of 'want your character to succeed' is an idea that contains an awful lot of individual differences from game to game. Especially when RPGs usually lack a specific win condition overall, at which point the notion of success gets a lot fuzzier.

I think it is pretty easy to grasp from immersionist perspective. Succeed at the goals of the character. Those goals might be stupid or counterproductive. That is fine. I can still just inhabit the character and make decision from their POV, the player and character decision spaces remain integrated.

But yeah, like it has been pointed out, meta decisions kinda are weird in this regard, and consequently I am not a huge fan of RPGs that contain a lot of such. Because then by necessity it is not the character making the decisions, so it is rather weird if those decisions are still motivated by the character's motivations. But most games with such do not even seem to recognise this contradiction and do not explain on what basis such decisions should be made.

 

[Lanefan]

I think part of the issue there is that it's coming from an old-school approach where consequences are something to be avoided, rather than leaned into because they help generate more interesting fiction.

If trying to avoid consequences is what the character would reasonably do in the fiction then that's what I'll usually have it do, unless I"m playing a low-wisdom type who thinks consequences are either fun or nonexistent.

The "old-school" aspect comes from where intentionally leaning into consequences makes for much less interesting fiction because those consequences have left the character(s) dead on the floor. But even new-school, where consequences don't necessarily kill the character, is bad in that in detached moments I-as-player can (and would) look at it, smack my head, and think "this was all so avoidable!".

Many rom-coms suffer from the same problem: in order to further the plot (such as it ever is) the script-writers have the characters do stupid and very avoidable things, leading to that same face-palm response from me.

Avoiding consequences and conflict to make events easier for the characters generates a fiction, but I would argue not a particularly interesting one.

Depends what one finds of interest, I suppose.

 

[Fenris-77]

I think it is pretty easy to grasp from immersionist perspective. Succeed at the goals of the character. Those goals might be stupid or counterproductive. That is fine. I can still just inhabit the character and make decision from their POV, the player and character decision spaces remain integrated.

But yeah, like it has been pointed out, meta decisions kinda are weird in this regard, and consequently I am not a huge fan of RPGs that contain a lot of such. Because then by necessity it is not the character making the decisions, so it is rather weird if those decisions are still motivated by the character's motivations. But most games with such do not even seem to recognise this contradiction and do not explain on what basis such decisions should be made.

Hmm. Well I think your immersionst take is clear, but in this case it doesn't carry any water. There's nothing meta about clocks - they track ongoing change in the setting, it's entirely in-setting. The characters are perfectly aware, for example, of the longer-term project of a successful heist and can make in-character decisions that may or may not support that goal. Let's not deploy immersion and meta as distractors here. The clock is an abstraction of that longer-term goal, but that doesn't make it meta.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Hmm. Well I think your immersionst take is clear, but in this case it doesn't carry any water. There's nothing meta about clocks - they track ongoing change in the setting, it's entirely in-setting. The characters are perfectly aware, for example, of the longer-term project of a successful heist and can make in-character decisions that may or may not support that goal. Let's not deploy immersion and meta as distractors here. The clock is an abstraction of that longer-term goal, but that doesn't make it meta.

Yes, sure. I did not mean clocks.

 

[Fenris-77]

Yes, sure. I did not mean clocks.

Ahh. well my bad. What were you talking about then?