RPGs are ... Role Playing Games

[Hussar]

I don't see how choosing the appropriate definition of a word used to clarify context counts as a constrained concept.
When I refer to a scene it makes sense to clarify which type of scene is meant.
Scene as a setting or location is accurate. Scene as a specific sequence of events is not.

So, in any given module, when it says, "When Monster X sees the party, it attacks", we're no longer playing an RPG? Man, I don't think I've EVER played an RPG in thirty years. After all, we have a location, we have a sequence of events, we have characters within it.

The only thing we don't have is the resolution. Of course, scene does not require a resolution to still be a scene. See Improv Acting if you think that's not true.

 

[Desdichado]

I don't see how choosing the appropriate definition of a word used to clarify context counts as a constrained concept.
When I refer to a scene it makes sense to clarify which type of scene is meant.
Scene as a setting or location is accurate. Scene as a specific sequence of events is not.

So, in any given module, when it says, "When Monster X sees the party, it attacks", we're no longer playing an RPG? Man, I don't think I've EVER played an RPG in thirty years. After all, we have a location, we have a sequence of events, we have characters within it.

The only thing we don't have is the resolution. Of course, scene does not require a resolution to still be a scene. See Improv Acting if you think that's not true.

This is how. You're not choosing the appropriate definition of the word to clarify context, you're rejecting the appropriate definition of the word to muddle context and ... I dunno, put forward some kind of sandbox uber alles agenda? You tell me.

I don't know how you can say you're choosing the appropriate definition through context when you're refusing to admit that the word even applies to your games.

 

[Lanefan]

The scenario outlines actions that NPC's plan to take and how these actions may differ if the PC's become involved.

Of course. But once all those actions have been resolved (no matter how) you've built another piece of a story.

How does keying a map= writing a scene? If I say that Area 5 on the map is the lair of a hungry owlbear, what makes that fact alone a scene? Area 5 only becomes a scene or setting if the players interact with it. The players may give area 5 the old right hand wave and never explore it. Area 5 contains what it contains. It is not random.

It is written as a potential scene with potential actors. It becomes an actual scene if the PCs blunder in there; the owlbears become actual actors either in this case or if they wander out of area 5 and meet the PCs elsewhere.

Yes. NPC's have goals, tactics and resources used to acheive these goals, and sometimes these goals are time sensitive. A plot and a timeline do not equal a story arc. The missing component is the players and their actions. Baron Von Badass attempting to seize the throne is a plot being hatched by the Baron. A story arc by definition spans something and assumes activity and involvement by the PC's.

If the plot and timeline affect the game at all, they've become part of the arc. Baron Badass hatches a plot to take the throne. The party could get involved and try to stop him; they have lots of time but fail to pick up on the clues, and instead go off to bash some Ogres in the mountains. Meanwhile, old BB takes the throne - the first the party know of this is when they get back to civilization, because the borders are closed against them unless they pay a hefty acquisition tax that didn't exist when they left but has since been imposed by Baron - well, King now - Badass. And now they've got to decide whether to deal with him, ignore him, accept him, or whatever - regardless, he's become part of the story.

The purpose of a story arc is to move characters from one state to another. If the players are responsible for that movement then it cannot
be written into a pre-defined arc.

True to some extent, but the further purpose of a story arc is to give the PCs a background behind what they do; to give their decisions and movements consequences and results, and to give them choices. If they are presented with hooks for three different courses of action and choose one, that does not mean the other two disappear.

It certainly is. Does a game session have to equal a chapter? Last session we ended in the middle of tense action during a brief pause. Next session we will pick up right there.

Great!

There's those DMs who really do try to have each session be a chapter, with something of a beginning, middle, climax, and end. I am not one such.

But that doesn't mean there's no chapters. Let's say you're running a 6-adventure story arc...wouldn't each adventure in effect represent a chapter?

A story arc has a targeted end point. The DM cannot predict or write the players part and the players cannot predict or write the DM's part. The whole point of a story arc is to map the flow of the story to it's desired conclusion. A game does not have a known desired conclusion and thus the arc has no endpoint. This is a device useful for fiction, not gameplay.

I think you're assuming a bit too much structure in the "story arc" idea. Sure, a story arc has a targeted end, but in a D+D game there's no saying the PCs will ever get there - they might give up on the quest halfway through, for example; or might get hooked into another story that better captures their interest; or could in fact be working on several intertwined stories at once!

And by the time they reach the "targeted end" of one story arc you should have them nicely hooked into at least the next two. (assuming, of course, the campaign you're running is intended to be more than a single story arc in length)

Lanefan

 

[The Shaman]

Of course. But once all those actions have been resolved (no matter how) you've built another piece of a story.

Okay, I'm not EW, but I'm going to take a hack at these.

I think most of us are trying to convey that "story" in the sense of the tale of the adventurers' exploits after they happen is different from "story" in the sense of planning a series of structured encounters or adventurers leading to a climax of some sort. The former is an emergent feature only recognizible as such after the events of the game transpire.

If I were a member of the Forge, I might draft a lengthy treatise on the properties of, "Story After!"

It is written as a potential scene with potential actors.

If by "scene" you mean a place and its associated features and by "actor" you mean someone or something which does something, then I'd say you're using the words the same way I might in reference to a game.

If you're using "scene" in the sense of a subset of an act and "actor" as in someone playing a role, then no, that's not at all how I would use them.

This is one of the reasons, by the way, I've become very choosy about what words I'll use in describing my roleplaying game experiences. In another thread recently I talked about improvising, and someone else agreed but used an example of improvisation that I consider an anathema.

If the plot and timeline affect the game at all, they've become part of the arc.

This again is predicated on how you're using "story arc." Is it the events of the game described after they occur, or is it part of the particpants' planning process for the game?

Frex, I suppose you could say that the last game I ran, Traveller, featured a 'story arc,' which was the experiences of the crew of merchanters trading between star systems. However, my 'planning' for the game consisted of rolling random encounters and skinning them to fit the setting. The game produced a story, but none of the events of that story were known in advance of actually playing the game.

True to some extent, but the further purpose of a story arc is to give the PCs a background behind what they do; to give their decisions and movements consequences and results, and to give them choices.

The decisions and movements of the merchanters in my Traveller game had consequences and results, and the players had a virtually unlimited palate of choices limited only by their resources, all played out against a richly detailed setting, and there was nary an adventure path or story arc to be found.

Once again, e pur si muove.

Let's say you're running a 6-adventure story arc...wouldn't each adventure in effect represent a chapter?

Let's say you're running a game with no pre-planned adventures and no story arc . . . now how well does this apply?

I think you're assuming a bit too much structure in the "story arc" idea.

I would argue the opposite: some are framing ideas like "story," "scene," and so forth way too loosely.

If I write something in my notes on a location like, "The guards at the gate to the chateau will only admit those with business with Baron de Bauchery as evidenced by an invitation bearing his seal," it appears that some here are ready to exclaim, "See! You've created a scene, with characters, so that's a story!" It's getting pretty silly.

 

[ExploderWizard]

So, in any given module, when it says, "When Monster X sees the party, it attacks", we're no longer playing an RPG? Man, I don't think I've EVER played an RPG in thirty years. After all, we have a location, we have a sequence of events, we have characters within it.

The only thing we don't have is the resolution. Of course, scene does not require a resolution to still be a scene. See Improv Acting if you think that's not true.

Hardly. A "when" or "if" statement places a condition on certain actions and activities. The sequence of events is still unknown thus the scene is still within the setting context. IF monster X never sees the party, there is no attack.

The importance of open possibilities is the key. In a module, I don't need the author to tell me what is or is not a combat/ non-combat encounter. Previous actions and player decisions help determine that. No books to reference here right now. Later I will provide examples of the type of
crap I'm talking about in published adventures.

This is how. You're not choosing the appropriate definition of the word to clarify context, you're rejecting the appropriate definition of the word to muddle context and ... I dunno, put forward some kind of sandbox uber alles agenda? You tell me.

I don't know how you can say you're choosing the appropriate definition through context when you're refusing to admit that the word even applies to your games.

What word are you speaking of? Scene applies in the setting context. Story arc only has meaning in the rearview mirror.

 

[Fifth Element]

In another thread recently I talked about improvising, and someone else agreed but used an example of improvisation that I consider an anathema.

Hi, The Shaman!

Anathema, really? When talking about games of imagination?

Anyway, that's a problem you'll run across if you use words that have a fairly broad meaning, such as improvising, in a very specific way.

 

[The Shaman]

Anathema, really? When talking about games of imagination?

Yes, for me illusionism in roleplaying games is an anathema.

Anyway, that's a problem you'll run across if you use words that have a fairly broad meaning, such as improvising, in a very specific way.

My specific use for improvisation was clear from the context in which it was used.

Illusionism already has a name in gaming; calling it improvisation is obfuscation.

 

[Fifth Element]

Yes, for me illusionism in roleplaying games is an anathema.My specific use for improvisation was clear from the context in which it was used.

Oh, that's right. I was responding to the OP (in that thread), detailing techniques I use in the situation he was referring to (the topic of that thread). Since my post came immediately after yours and I used the word improvising, you assumed I was commenting on your post when I wasn't.

 

[The Shaman]

Oh, that's right. I was responding to the OP (in that thread), detailing techniques I use in the situation he was referring to (the topic of that thread). Since my post came immediately after yours and I used the word improvising, you assumed I was commenting on your post when I wasn't.

What you described in your post subsequent to mine already has a name, and it's not "improvisation."

 

[Fifth Element]

What you described in your post subsequent to mine already has a name, and it's not "improvisation."

What I described fits the broad definition of "improvisation" in the English language. This was my point; if you use a very narrow definition of a word, you shouldn't be surprised when someone uses the word in its broader sense. There is no standard for descriptive RPG language, so just because a blogger calls it one thing doesn't mean I have to do it as well, or even agree that the term fits.