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.