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

[pemerton]

Let's discuss pacing first since that was what your comment was about. I have taught for over 20 years. Lesson plans are almost identical to running a session.

I've also taught, for over 30 years, although in a higher education rather than school context.

I don't find the comparison between a lesson and a RPG session very apt. When I take a lesson, there is a certain amount of material that I have to get through, in order to deliver the prescribed curriculum within the timeframe allocated (X hours per less, Y lessons per week, Z weeks per semester). Therefore, planning how I will get through it, making room for dealing with student questions, handling student questions during the course of the lesson, etc are all important factors.

But a RPG session is not like that at all! As a GM, I'm not in a didactic relationship to the players at all. There's not some pre-established content that I "have" to get through. I look to the game system itself, and the unfolding events of play - and the way the former handles the latter - to ensure pacing.

If the game system doesn't reliably produce good pacing when played according to its rules and procedures, I would say that's an issue with the game. Which is not to say that different people can't have different experiences with the same game - there's nothing wrong with that! (In a recent conversation with someone playing Mythic Bastionland, I discovered that my group got through much more content in our fist session than their group does in a typical session.) But when it is in my table's hands, I want the game to produce pacing that works for my table.

 

[Reynard]

But a RPG session is not like that at all! As a GM, I'm not in a didactic relationship to the players at all. There's not some pre-established content that I "have" to get through. I look to the game system itself, and the unfolding events of play - and the way the former handles the latter - to ensure pacing.

Do you ever run convention games?

 

[pemerton]

Purely trad games certainly produce stories, arguably more organic ones.

No one is saying they don't produce stories. But they produce them far more slowly.

Given the amount of GM force involved in trad RPGs (as opposed to old school ones) I'd also say that Apocalypse World and Masks for example produce stories significantly more organically than most trad RPGs.

I agree with Neonchameleon. Although I'm not sure what @Reynard has in mind by "purely trad games".

I also don't know what "organic" is supposed to mean here.

But anyway, I've played a lot of Rolemaster (thousands of hours). I've also played a bit of Burning Wheel (not that many hours, though!). The two systems have some stuff in common: intricate PC build (lots of stats/attributes, long skill lists, etc); complex and sometimes even baroque resolution mechanics; a general tendency towards detailed and even gritty FRPGing. Rolemaster is trad; Burning Wheel is "indie". And Burning Wheel produces story more effortlessly, and more quickly in play, than Rolemaster. If I had to identify one as "organic", it would be Burning Wheel. You have to work hard at Rolemaster to get it to produce satisfactory, engaging story.

I don't buy it. Story mechanics by definition take the "organic" out of it.

What's a "story mechanic"? What are the "story mechanics" in Burning Wheel? Or Apocalypse World?

 

[Reynard]

I agree with Neonchameleon. Although I'm not sure what @Reynard has in mind by "purely trad games".

I also don't know what "organic" is supposed to mean here.

This is one of those times where I feel like you are being a little intentionally obtuse.

Be that as it may, what i mean is that games without story focused mechanics proceed naturally with things happening because of choices and die rolls and things. And therefore the resultant "story" is more organic, unencumbered by fingers on the scale story mechanics.

 

[pemerton]

Do you ever run convention games?

No. I'm talking about playing with my friends. (Which the person I replied to, @Scott Christian, also was as best I can tell.)

The convention games I've played in tend to be railroads, for obvious reasons. The most enjoyable ones tend to railroad for most of the game, but open up into a real decision at the climax: and if the colour has been engaging on the way through, and the GM is skilled at bringing that colour to a crescendo at the end, then the decision as to how to resolve can be very engaging. (And the colour can be engaging on the way through, if done well.)

 

[Neonchameleon]

I don't buy it. Story mechanics by definition take the "organic" out of it.

What exactly do you call "story mechanics"? And why do you think the games I've listed have them?

 

[pemerton]

Be that as it may, what i mean is that games without story focused mechanics proceed naturally with things happening because of choices and die rolls and things. And therefore the resultant "story" is more organic, unencumbered by fingers on the scale story mechanics.

Again, I don't know what you mean by "story focused mechanic". The games that @Neonchameleon and I were talking about were Burning Wheel and Apocalypse World. What are examples from those games of story focused mechanics?

 

[Reynard]

No. I'm talking about playing with my friends. (Which the person I replied to, @Scott Christian, also was as best I can tell.)

The convention games I've played in tend to be railroads, for obvious reasons. The most enjoyable ones tend to railroad for most of the game, but open up into a real decision at the climax: and if the colour has been engaging on the way through, and the GM is skilled at bringing that colour to a crescendo at the end, then the decision as to how to resolve can be very engaging. (And the colour can be engaging on the way through, if done well.)

I asked because running con games can definitely feel more like a lecture or presentation with regards to getting through certain content.

 

[Neonchameleon]

This is one of those times where I feel like you are being a little intentionally obtuse.

Be that as it may, what i mean is that games without story focused mechanics proceed naturally with things happening because of choices and die rolls and things. And therefore the resultant "story" is more organic, unencumbered by fingers on the scale story mechanics.

I'm not being obtuse here.

I can think of games with what I'd call "Story mechanics" (Fiasco springs to mind). But what I would think you mean by them are absent in the games I've mentioned.

 

[nevin]

Do you ever run convention games?

to be fair even convention games often end up with entirely different types of results based on how DM's style affect

I asked because running con games can definitely feel more like a lecture or presentation with regards to getting through certain content.

well even con games of the same content tend to have thier pacing affected by the DM running the content. One table might easily get to the end while another might go much slower. Sometimes it's the players and sometimes it's the DM who may spend more time explaining, spend more time with the npc sessions etc. Content I can run in say two hours some could do in one and other's will take 3. It's not like a factory where it can all be exactly the same.