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

[Reynard]

True. But that also means no one or no thing is going to be correct or incorrect, nor right or wrong. Because most likely when someone reads something and thinks "That's not right"... it will be because their definition of the thing under discussion will be different that the person who made the statement.

I agree that defining terms has value. But I don't think "correctness" has anything to do with it.

Because of a long ingrained Literature education, when I use terms like "story" and "plot" I am coming from that perspective. I should have said that in the OP. It would at least have saved some niggling over terms. But I don't think the lack of it obviates the discussion. We just have to ask for clarification when it becomes apparent that we are coming at the same term from different directions.

That's what this place is for, beyond hating on gnomes.

 

[Committed Hero]

No different than sports where the "story" emerges during the game. The QB who throws 3 picks might redemption himself in the 4th quarter, a rookie might suddenly have the best game of thier life, or a coach might make a desperate decision that secures victory or ensures defeat.

This is what I tell people is what makes sports and games interesting. You have a framework of rules in place, but when you sit down to watch it unfold you have no idea if you might witness something epic.

 

[Umbran]

True. But that also means no one or no thing is going to be correct or incorrect, nor right or wrong.

Yep.

But, entering a discussion to determine right from wrong probably isn't going to gain folks much anyway.

Because most likely when someone reads something and thinks "That's not right"... it will be because their definition of the thing under discussion will be different that the person who made the statement.

Sure. Or, they are mistaking "right/wrong" with personal preferences. They'll probably get more from figuring out what each person means than knowing they were "right", hey what?

 

[Blue]

If I and my friends were shipwrecked on a deserted isle, worked out how to survive, and eventually were able to signal for a rescue, we aren't writing a story -- but what we are doing could be told as one. Hopefully more Gilligan's Isle than Lord of the Flies, but either could be told as a story.

In an RPG, there's a few differences from that deserted isle. First, it's a game, it's played for enjoyment, which has an impact on what we do vs. if it was for survival. Second, there's a remove between the characters who are in the situations and the players who are outside it even if they are guiding it. No player will starve or get hit by a sword by a roll of a die.

No one person is writing a story. But the actions of the characters within the context of the GM can create stories. Do the players gain enjoyment from this? Stories resonate with us, that's why they are so prevalent as entertainment (and lessons). If you break that down to the DNA, to the parts that we enjoy or make us feel, does a session of an RPG share some of that DNA? Yes. Does an adventure, a campaign? Even more and even more.

We can debate if the word "story" applies, but it's the many of the same underlying aspects of stories that RPGs evoke, enough so that since we don't have a separate word for them that "story" is the one that fits best.

 

[Kannik]

Essentially, at any given moment, the player may choose to do anything (within the context of the fiction and rules)

I like make the distinction between player agency and character agency. It can be totally fine to restrict character agency if the player agreed to it. That might be what you mean by context of the fiction, but I like to use this distinction to be more clear.

Playing an adventure path? Social contract by joining (the player agency) to follow along the adventure path and not choosing to bail and set up a flower shop. Playing Mouse Guard? You abide by the rules where you roll to resolve the scene at the start and narrate to the end of the scene with the result dictated by that one roll. No matter the foundation, characters can do anything (and will likely anything, and take meandering paths, and etc) within any of those agreed upon social contract / fiction / contexts, which means that it may may well limit their implied "total agency" in order to stay within those agreed upon contexts. But the players' agency wasn't nixed. (Assuming they had an informed and free choice when joining the game/campaign.)

So if you decide ahead of time that Thing A Must Happen, you will almost surely run into situations where in order to make that to continue to be true, you are barred from certain choices. Note that this is different than making choices in character hoping for some outcome.

While it's not my preferred playstyle, if during the campaign setup it was known that This Thing Must Happen was going to happen, if the players agreed to it, then that's not necessarily kaiboshing their agency. Like with the scene-based Mouseguard, there can be fun to create and play to find out how to get to that Must Happen point and how it relates to the characters and their relationships, values, foibles, transformations, falls from grace, and etc.

If you start a game without telling the players that this Thing Must Happen and try to force that, then yes, that is likely going to trample all over their agency to force that outcome.

 

[Reynard]

We can debate if the word "story" applies, but it's the many of the same underlying aspects of stories that RPGs evoke, enough so that since we don't have a separate word for them that "story" is the one that fits best.

My contention is that during the process of play, something like "experience" fits better than "story."

 

[Reynard]

I like make the distinction between player agency and character agency. It can be totally fine to restrict character agency if the player agreed to it. That might be what you mean by context of the fiction, but I like to use this distinction to be more clear.

Playing an adventure path? Social contract by joining (the player agency) to follow along the adventure path and not choosing to bail and set up a flower shop. Playing Mouse Guard? You abide by the rules where you roll to resolve the scene at the start and narrate to the end of the scene with the result dictated by that one roll. No matter the foundation, characters can do anything (and will likely anything, and take meandering paths, and etc) within any of those agreed upon social contract / fiction / contexts, which means that it may may well limit their implied "total agency" in order to stay within those agreed upon contexts. But the players' agency wasn't nixed. (Assuming they had an informed and free choice when joining the game/campaign.)


While it's not my preferred playstyle, if during the campaign setup it was known that This Thing Must Happen was going to happen, if the players agreed to it, then that's not necessarily kaiboshing their agency. Like with the scene-based Mouseguard, there can be fun to create and play to find out how to get to that Must Happen point and how it relates to the characters and their relationships, values, foibles, transformations, falls from grace, and etc.

If you start a game without telling the players that this Thing Must Happen and try to force that, then yes, that is likely going to trample all over their agency to force that outcome.

The example wasn't about the GM deciding a Thing must Happen. It was about a player deciding A Thing Must Happen, which is an act of agency but it trades later agency not just once, but continuously until The Thing Happens.

By way of example, let's say you want to play The Princess Bride as an adventure. If you are playing Indigo, backstory is saying you will hunt down the 6 Fingered Man to get revenge, and the GM promises to include the 6 Fingered Man for you. Great! But if the player says, "And I have to have a duel with him where I almost lose but eventually my resolve wins out" that is pre-writing a thing that should happen naturally in play.

 

[thefutilist]

I've definitely been chewing on Slugblaster's Beats where you have a pre-planned narrative arc which means between these planned beats, you don't progress it. It feels weird to me that the game takes the reins there. But those that checked out the Quinn's Quest video, he made it his GOTY, and I do agree with him on a lot of other games like Blades in the Dark and Mythic Bastionland.

Slugblaster is a good example of a game that creates story but where the player doesn’t create story. Not in any meaningful way, they just colour in the lines. It’s a bit like one of those 90’s wod games or critical role, I’d put it in the same category.

 

[Umbran]

But if the player says, "And I have to have a duel with him where I almost lose but eventually my resolve wins out" that is pre-writing a thing that should happen naturally in play.

If a player comes to me, and says, "Look, I've got this nemesis, and I think it would be really cool if we have a confrontation and plummet from the top of Reichenbach Falls...," far be it from me to demand that can only happen by the roll of the dice.

Just as an author may occasionally discard the rules of grammar for effect, so can gamers. I'm fine with sticking to the rules most of the time, but those rules are my servants, not my master, and I'm okay with occasionally deviating from them.

And that's before we consider games that explicitly allow for player agency manifesting in similar ways.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If a player comes to me, and says, "Look, I've got this nemesis, and I think it would be really cool if we have a confrontation and plummet from the top of Reichenbach Falls...," far be it from me to demand that can only happen by the roll of the dice.

Just as an author may occasionally discard the rules of grammar for effect, so can gamers. I'm fine with sticking to the rules most of the time, but those rules are my servants, not my master, and I'm okay with occasionally deviating from them.

And that's before we consider games that explicitly allow for player agency manifesting in similar ways.

That's certainly your perogative. Personally I really don't like events set up ahead of time like that. Bugs the heck out of me.