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

[pemerton]

Nearly 16 years ago, Eero Tuovinen wrote this:

Here’s how games like Sorcerer, Dogs in the Vineyard, some varieties of Heroquest, The Shadow of Yesterday, Mountain Witch, Primetime Adventures and more games than I care to name all work:

<snip a very good account of the game procedures/"play loop" common to these games>

These games are tremendously fun, and they form a very discrete family of games wherein many techniques are interchangeable between the games. The most important common trait these games share is the GM authority over backstory and dramatic coordination . . ., which powers the GM uses to put the player characters into pertinent choice situations. . . . The fun in these games from the player’s viewpoint comes from the fact that he can create an amazing story with nothing but choices made in playing his character; this is the holy grail of rpg design, this is exactly the thing that was promised to me in 1992 in the MERP rulebook.​

He makes the key point that I made in my post just upthread: the play of these games creates an amazing story, without anyone having to author a story. The game procedures ensure that by players playing their PCs, and by the GM doing their job of framing scenes and establishing consequences (by use of their authority over backstory and dramatic coordination). Because the procedures are well-designed to bring this about!

 

[Reynard]

Nearly 16 years ago, Eero Tuovinen wrote this:

Here’s how games like Sorcerer, Dogs in the Vineyard, some varieties of Heroquest, The Shadow of Yesterday, Mountain Witch, Primetime Adventures and more games than I care to name all work:​

​

<snip a very good account of the game procedures/"play loop" common to these games>​

​

These games are tremendously fun, and they form a very discrete family of games wherein many techniques are interchangeable between the games. The most important common trait these games share is the GM authority over backstory and dramatic coordination . . ., which powers the GM uses to put the player characters into pertinent choice situations. . . . The fun in these games from the player’s viewpoint comes from the fact that he can create an amazing story with nothing but choices made in playing his character; this is the holy grail of rpg design, this is exactly the thing that was promised to me in 1992 in the MERP rulebook.​

He makes the key point that I made in my post just upthread: the play of these games creates an amazing story, without anyone having to author a story. The game procedures ensure that by players playing their PCs, and by the GM doing their job of framing scenes and establishing consequences (by use of their authority over backstory and dramatic coordination). Because the procedures are well-designed to bring this about!

I don't think that's a game specific thing. No one has to "author" a D&D story either.

 

[MGibster]

RPGs are messy, ephemeral things in play, with terrible pacing and contradictory plot elements.

Terrible pacing and contradictory plot elements describes a lot of books I've read and movies I've watched.

Now, you can force games to be more like stories by demanding certain beats be present and forcing pacing, etc... But every single element that makes play more like a story makes it less like an RPG -- because RPGs are defined by their embrace of player agency.

In Blade Runner, the day is divided into three (I think) shifts and a character can only do such much investigating every shift. While a character doesn't have to rest for one shift, if they don't they become less effective because they haven't slept or had an opportunity to unwind. The shifts are a mechanic designed to control pacing, helping the game feel more like the movie it's based on, and I don't think it hurts player agency at all.

That said, I don't know what you mean by player agency. To me, agency is when a player decisions can make a meaningful impact on the game.

 

[Reynard]

Terrible pacing and contradictory plot elements describes a lot of books I've read and movies I've watched.

In Blade Runner, the day is divided into three (I think) shifts and a character can only do such much investigating every shift. While a character doesn't have to rest for one shift, if they don't they become less effective because they haven't slept or had an opportunity to unwind. The shifts are a mechanic designed to control pacing, helping the game feel more like the movie it's based on, and I don't think it hurts player agency at all.

That said, I don't know what you mean by player agency. To me, agency is when a player decisions can make a meaningful impact on the game.

Right,like making choices bounded by the fiction and not arbitrary metagame rules meant to emulate a totally different medium.

 

[pemerton]

I don't think that's a game specific thing. No one has to "author" a D&D story either.

You won't get a story out of AD&D 2nd ed, played according to the rules - that is, protagonists in a conflict with rising action, and climax/resolution - unless someone authors it. Dragonlance (which I know predates AD&D 2nd ed, but is something like a harbinger for it) and contemporary D&D adventure paths demonstrate this.

The same is also true of 1992 MERP. (Which is part of Tuovinen's point: MERP had not achieved the "holy grail" that it gestures towards.)

Simply setting up a scene and watching it unfold by dint of player action declarations won't, of itself, give rise to a story in RPG play. It depends on (i) how the scenes are set up (in particular, how they relate to the player characters and the PCs' commitments/concerns/priorities), and (ii) how declared actions are resolved.

 

[pemerton]

The relationship between (i) resolution mechanics and (ii) the capacity of a RPG to yield story without anyone having to author story can be illustrated by comparing some combat mechanics (which are a very popular sort of RPG mechanic).

In classic D&D (the original game, B/X, and AD&D) the mechanics set out two ways a combat can end. NPCs/creatures can flee or surrender (because their morale breaks). Both PCs and NPCs can be killed (or, if death's door type rules are used, perhaps mortally wounded).

Here are the rules for a duel in Wuthering Heights:

Duel
Both would roll below their Rage.
Should one succeed and the other fail, the latter gets a Wound (see below)
Should both succeed, both lose 1 Rage point and the duel keeps on, if both would agree.
Should both fail, they stop the duel and become friends, or something like that. They would not fight again for 1d10 days.
Whatever the other's result, a Fumble shall give you a Wound.
If both Fumble, both are Wounded​

(There is another mechanical system for determining whether or not a wound is a mortal one.)

I think that the Wuthering Height system is more likely to take a situation of protagonist(s) in conflict and produce rising action and climax/resolution, than the classic D&D system: both its process - opposed rolls that produce an immediate result, rather than a host of rolls which mean that table time is focused on tactical wargame-esque concerns - and its outcomes.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Where do you stand? What is your preference when it comes to TTRPG play and story?

"Plot" is what the bad guys will or are doing. "Play" is the PCs / player's time rolling dice and passionately experiencing results. "Story" is what we do later at dinner.

I dont mind if others define things differently, however.

 

[Umbran]

For me, the big question is: What about the other players?

Spotlight hogging is a general issue, not narrative game specific. If you have players who don't respect the other players, that's going to be a problem whatever kind of game you are playing.

 

[Reynard]

You won't get a story out of AD&D 2nd ed, played according to the rules - that is, protagonists in a conflict with rising action, and climax/resolution - unless someone authors it. Dragonlance (which I know predates AD&D 2nd ed, but is something like a harbinger for it) and contemporary D&D adventure paths demonstrate this.

The same is also true of 1992 MERP. (Which is part of Tuovinen's point: MERP had not achieved the "holy grail" that it gestures towards.)

Simply setting up a scene and watching it unfold by dint of player action declarations won't, of itself, give rise to a story in RPG play. It depends on (i) how the scenes are set up (in particular, how they relate to the player characters and the PCs' commitments/concerns/priorities), and (ii) how declared actions are resolved.

I don't believe this for a second. The ruleset has little or nothing to do with a "story" playstyle.

Now, modules? Sure. They were often written in a "story" way -- but that's not rules.

 

[pemerton]

I don't believe this for a second. The ruleset has little or nothing to do with a "story" playstyle.

Well, on this we fundamentally disagree.

Games like Maelstrom Storytelling, HeroWars/Quest, Sorcerer, The Riddle of Steel, Burning Wheel, Apocalypse World - as well as some earlier proto-examples, like Prince Valiant and Over the Edge - make huge innovations in RPG design. The rules innovations that are found in these games are what make it possible to have RPGing that will reliably produce something like a story, without anyone having to author a story.