Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Niccodaemus" data-source="post: 5729812" data-attributes="member: 6683506">With all the discussion of railroading lately, I thought I'd start a thread specifically on "plot" in RPGs. It is something I have thinking a lot about lately, and I am a strong advocate of plot, even to the point of DM fiat over certain elements of the game. To that end, I've created my first post on my "behind the scenes" blog, which links to my campaign setting Shatterworld, and my thoughts behind the design of that setting.Here's a link to my post itself:<a href="http://shatterworldbts.blogspot.com/2011/11/plot-in-rpgs.html" target="_blank">Shatterworld: Behind the Scenes: Plot in RPGs</a>as well as a link to the Shatterworld setting:<a href="http://shatterworldrpg.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">Shatterworld</a>For this discussion, I'd like it to stay away from the definition of railroading as much as possible, and instead try to talk about plot from both a GM and player point of view. Here's an excerpt from my post that warrants some consideration:Freytag breaks plot down into 5 parts which might be more helpful.1) Exposition"The exposition introduces all of the main characters in the story. It shows how they relate to one another, what their goals and motivations are, and the kind of person they are. The audience may have questions about any of these things, which get settled, but if they do have them they are specific and well-focused questions. Most importantly, in the exposition the audience gets to know the main character, and the main character gets to know his goal and what is at stake if he fails to attain his goal."In game terms this is interesting, because the villains are arguably some of the "main characters" of the story.  One question and area of discordance in role playing games is the role of exposition. In a true sandbox style game, where player choice can affect the story in any number of unseen ways, it is possible that the introduction of the villain into the story immediately results in the death of the villain or all of the player characters.  As a GM, I tend to take an approach that to many is considered to be a "railroad" at this point. "Chance"(or dice rolls) may take a back seat to "Fate" (or GM fiat), and a villain may have the advantage of "plot immunity" for a short while.Also, the player does not "get to know" his goal, so much as choose it. I like for the players to "get to know" their options and what is at stake if they fail to engage a storyline. I sometimes do this by introduction of the "villain". I do not want to be a slave to the dice, and be hesitant to introduce the villain for fear that he may be outright killed. Nor do I want to escalate a game world arms race, in which the villain has so much firepower that he is effectively, un-killable. As a GM, I have no issue taking narrative control of the game, and dictating the nature of the villain's escape.Much more troubling to me is forcing Freytag's concept of climax into the game setting:"This struggle results with neither character completely winning, nor losing, against the other. Usually, each character's plan is partially successful, and partially foiled by their adversary."Hold the presses! Talk about pissing players off. I'm all for exposition and allowing for story development. But once a GM allows combat to take place, all bets are off. Trying to force a game into this type of story structure is almost certainly sure to result in a bad experience. Might the villain get away? Sure. Might he be in a position to "off" the players, and choose not to? Sure. But the players should have a very real opportunity to vanquish the villain here, once and for all (assuming they have done their homework, know how to vanquish him, and have the means to do it)."Falling action" is  particularly egregious in terms of gaming:"Freytag called this phase "falling action" in the sense that the loose ends are being tied up. However, it is often the time of greatest overall tension in the play, because it is the phase in which everything goes most wrong.In this phase, the villain has the upper hand. It seems that evil will triumph."Ok... now we're just getting campy. "Might" everything go most wrong? Sure. But that is dependent on player choice and the roll of the dice. Even the most die hard "railroading" GM should think three times about employing this type of story element. There is enough drama in the rolling of dice and doing actual battle without having to milk the situation by forcing the game into some pre-conceived structure of a well crafted plot.Finally comes "Resolution""5th -In the final phase of Freytag's five phase structure, there is a final confrontation between the protagonist and antagonist, where one or the other decisively wins. This phase is the story of that confrontation, of what leads up to it, of why it happens the way it happens, what it means, and what its long-term consequences are."This last phase seems perfectly reasonable. The only exception it that it may be synonymous with #3, or in a true sandbox game, may occur at #1. However, most of the "meat" of adventuring comes in #2. In my mind, if phase #1 isn't well crafted, and joined into willingly by both GMs and players, the game just becomes rolling so many dice, or spending a few hours at the improv. If GMs force a progression of #1 through #5, then it isn't so much a game, as a narrative experiment.So... my question is not about "is it railroading?"? My question is, as a gamer (either DM or player character), particularly one who likes story driven games, where do you fall in terms of acceptability of a DM driving plot?</blockquote>

Verification