RPGs are ... Role Playing Games

[Doug McCrae]

A story arc has a targeted end point.

Does it? Or does it have several targeted beginnings (the starting points for the adventures that make up the arc) and several routes whereby the players might reach those beginnings. Plus some cool scenes the GM prods, but doesn't force, the PCs towards.

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

Sounds like a plot.

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.

So you ended your chapter on a cliffhanger? Nice storytelling.

 

[coyote6]

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.

I disagree, with respect to RPGs. For me, a story arc in an RPG campaign might be "Lelenia discovers the truth about her heritage" or "Mel deals with her father's murderer." In the former case, I did know the end point, as I knew what Lelenia's heritage was; I didn't know most of the middle, as that was highly dependent on the PCs' actions. I had some possibilities in mind, some of which worked their way into the action, some of which didn't.

In the latter case, I had no idea how it would end, as I had no idea what the player or PC would choose to do upon learning her mother was secretly a crazed nobility-and-fame-hungry, Grazzt-worshipping witch. (I didn't even know if she'd find that out, really. I think they were a couple more failed saves vs. charm effects from a Total Party Charm, anyways. )

Indeed, having watched all of the X-Files, I am confident that "story arc" doesn't necessarily equate to "targeted end point" in television writing, either. You might start an arc, with no end in mind, just to see where it goes. You might start an arc with an end in mind, and have it change as things go along. Because, as you point out, you can't perfectly predict an RPG session; stuff happens. But stuff happens in TV, movies, and writing, too, so it isn't totally dissimilar.

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.

But some games do have known desired conclusions; if the premise of an RPG campaign is that the PCs are trying to overthrow the Evil Tyrant and Restore Liberty and Justice to the People, then there is a desired conclusion -- victory over ET, and RLJP. Whether or not that desire is met is a question, and how it goes down is another (and perhaps the most interesting).

So while it might not be a useful device for your gameplay, but I don't think it's true for all games, everywhere.

 

[Desdichado]

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.

:shrug: I've read plenty of novels that had chapters end of cliffhangers routinely. In fact, it's even a suggested technique for writers of thrillers.

That's neither here nor there, though: you said that your game can't be divided up into discrete units. Unless you've got some kind of Pbp continuous play paradigm, I think that's clearly false: a session is a discrete unit. And if so, then taking exception to likening a session to a chapter is just semantics.

Given the various definitions of scene, then yes in the sense of a locale.

It almost seems as if you're picking a needlessly constrained interpretation of the word for no reason other than to demonstrate how sandboxy your game is. If you have a keyed location, it's a scene. You've got a setting, you've got things that could happen, and things for the PCs to interact with. The end effect of this is that it's a scene. I can't think of any compelling reason to insist that it isn't a scene, other than that you take exception to the artsy-fartsy Thespianism or something implied in that choice of word.

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.

Again with the needlessly constrained interpretation! Why does a story arc have to be have a targeted endpoint? According to who? Again, it feels as if you're rejecting the terminology just because it came from fiction rather than because it doesn't accurately describe what happens in game.

There's a reason that people use terminology from film, TV, stage, and novel-writing to apply to their RPGs. Because they're essentially the same things. When we've got waterfowl that quack and flap, and water runs off their backs, why wouldn't we call them ducks? And if we do, why do the usual suspects have to show up and argue that, no, in reality they must be mutant albino penguins, because ducks and RPGs just do. not. mix.

 

[The Shaman]

As Hobo says, a session is analogous to a chapter. Another popular one these days is to think of sessions as episodes, and overarching plots as season arcs. In a game based on superhero comics it might be appropriate to think of sessions as issues. I don't do this btw but I don't regard it as a crazy view, or as 'not a rpg'.

Chapters, scenes, and episodes are characterized by rising and falling action, plot progression, and so on. They're discrete parts of a story, deliberately chosen by the author and editor.

Compare that to, "Okay, it's eleven o'clock, let's stop here and pick up here again next week." That's not a chapter or an episode, unless you believe a writer simply inserts a new chapter heading every thirty pages regardless of what's going on in the story.

The climax of Tomb of Horrors, a very linear adventure, is when the demi-lich skull rises up and starts sucking souls. That's a scene, and a dramatic one too.

Tournament module, and one specifically not recommended for on-going campaigns, if I remember correctly.

And I've neither played it nor run it, by the way.

GDQ is a story arc. It's a story arc as it is written, the story is clear in the text, before the PCs ever interact with it.

So anytime locations are linked by a common purpose, that's automatically a story arc? I don't think so.

In the Temple of Elemental Evil, collecting the gems to place in the Orb of Golden Death is a plot. As are similar 'collect the set' MacGuffins - there are several in the 1e DMG, such as the Rod of Seven Parts and The Teeth of Dahlver-Nar. These are plots because the future events - the PCs collect one part, then another and so forth - are right there in the text.

I think the definitions of a plot, a scene, et al, are being stretched to ridiculous lengths by some in this thread in an effort to prove . . . what, exactly? That those of us who don't write discrete adventures, who eschew conceits related to what we perceive to be a very different medium, are wrong about how we conceive our own games?

As far as citing the examples of modules, I'll ask the same question I did in another thread where EGG was cited as being in favor of fudging: so what? I don't run modules; in fact, I never owned, played in, nor ran ToEE or ToH, and neither the Teeth of Dahlver-Nar nor the Rod of Seven Parts ever appeared in any game I ran.

And I find the idea that because an artifact is composed of multiple parts it automatically presumes that some sort of plot is inherent to their use to be the most bizarre definitional stretch of all. A referee could plug one tooth into a treasure horde and leave it at that if she chooses without any assumptions at all about the other teeth.

Perhaps most importantly this "appeal to Gygax" presumes that my goal is to play all roleplaying games the way that EGG advocates. I have tremendous respect for EGG, and I appreciate the games he wrote, but D&D isn't my favorite game by any stretch of the imagination, nor is my approach to gaming solely predicated on "how Gary did it."

 

[ExploderWizard]

As Hobo says, a session is analogous to a chapter. Another popular one these days is to think of sessions as episodes, and overarching plots as season arcs. In a game based on superhero comics it might be appropriate to think of sessions as issues. I don't do this btw but I don't regard it as a crazy view, or as 'not a rpg'.

Well, if you are writing the arc for season two and the arc begins with all the characters from season 1, set to go but play is still
going on in season 1 then I would say that you might have some good roleplaying going on but hardly a game.

The climax of Tomb of Horrors, a very linear adventure, is when the demi-lich skull rises up and starts sucking souls. That's a scene, and a dramatic one too. And I don't mean 'scene' in the hippy sense of 'quite a scene, man'. Though it would be that, too.

The skull in the chamber is indeed quite a scene (locale definition). The sequence of action definition cannot be applied if there is a game taking place.

GDQ is a story arc. It's a story arc as it is written, the story is clear in the text, before the PCs ever interact with it.

It is a complex multi-part plot unless the activities of the PC's are dictated or assumed, then it is a story arc.

In the Temple of Elemental Evil, collecting the gems to place in the Orb of Golden Death is a plot. As are similar 'collect the set' MacGuffins - there are several in the 1e DMG, such as the Rod of Seven Parts and The Teeth of Dahlver-Nar. These are plots because the future events - the PCs collect one part, then another and so forth - are right there in the text.

My memory on TOEE is a bit fuzzy. Is collecting the gems the plot or the means used enact the plot?

 

[ExploderWizard]

But some games do have known desired conclusions; if the premise of an RPG campaign is that the PCs are trying to overthrow the Evil Tyrant and Restore Liberty and Justice to the People, then there is a desired conclusion -- victory over ET, and RLJP. Whether or not that desire is met is a question, and how it goes down is another (and perhaps the most interesting).

Quite so. I will rephrase desired conclusion to known conclusion. As long as resolution remains an unknown quality until revealed in play the game remains a part of rpg.

 

[Fifth Element]

Own the words. Make them yours. We're talking about games here. If you think someone is using a word in a derogatory manner, embrace that word and subvert their misguided attempt at superiority!

Yes, I am a railroader. What of it?

That sort of thing.

 

[ExploderWizard]

:shrug: I've read plenty of novels that had chapters end of cliffhangers routinely. In fact, it's even a suggested technique for writers of thrillers.

That's neither here nor there, though: you said that your game can't be divided up into discrete units. Unless you've got some kind of Pbp continuous play paradigm, I think that's clearly false: a session is a discrete unit. And if so, then taking exception to likening a session to a chapter is just semantics.

It almost seems as if you're picking a needlessly constrained interpretation of the word for no reason other than to demonstrate how sandboxy your game is. If you have a keyed location, it's a scene. You've got a setting, you've got things that could happen, and things for the PCs to interact with. The end effect of this is that it's a scene. I can't think of any compelling reason to insist that it isn't a scene, other than that you take exception to the artsy-fartsy Thespianism or something implied in that choice of word.

Again with the needlessly constrained interpretation! Why does a story arc have to be have a targeted endpoint? According to who? Again, it feels as if you're rejecting the terminology just because it came from fiction rather than because it doesn't accurately describe what happens in game.

There's a reason that people use terminology from film, TV, stage, and novel-writing to apply to their RPGs. Because they're essentially the same things. When we've got waterfowl that quack and flap, and water runs off their backs, why wouldn't we call them ducks? And if we do, why do the usual suspects have to show up and argue that, no, in reality they must be mutant albino penguins, because ducks and RPGs just do. not. mix.

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.

 

[coyote6]

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.

Myself, when I use (or see) terms like chapter, episode, scene, arc, etc., used in relation to RPGs, I tend to use a looser definition. So, if I say "scene", I mean something more like "a sequence of events in some particular location, at some particular time", not "a specific predetermined sequence of events".

Thus, if I refer (in preparation for the game, or whenever) to the "scene at the Duke's ball", I don't know what events are going to go on there. I might plan what the NPCs will do, sans intervention; I might try to figure out what the PCs will do (I'm GMing for people I've known for 20 years, so I can often guess fairly well); I might even be pretty dang sure about how it will likely play out. But I don't know for sure.

And it's still a scene to me.

(Then again, when I wrote stories for creative writing classes, I didn't always know how a story would end when I was writing it, either.)

 

[Doug McCrae]

As far as citing the examples of modules, I'll ask the same question I did in another thread where EGG was cited as being in favor of fudging: so what? I don't run modules; in fact, I never owned, played in, nor ran ToEE or ToH, and neither the Teeth of Dahlver-Nar nor the Rod of Seven Parts ever appeared in any game I ran.

Perhaps most importantly this "appeal to Gygax" presumes that my goal is to play all roleplaying games the way that EGG advocates. I have tremendous respect for EGG, and I appreciate the games he wrote, but D&D isn't my favorite game by any stretch of the imagination, nor is my approach to gaming solely predicated on "how Gary did it."

I agree with you, they were just examples. I deliberately chose those specific ones because they're familiar to many and also old school. Personally I think what Gary thought and the way he played is almost completely irrelevant. Everyone who plays rpgs has to find their own way of pretending to be an elf.

And I've neither played it nor run it, by the way.So anytime locations are linked by a common purpose, that's automatically a story arc? I don't think so.I think the definitions of a plot, a scene, et al, are being stretched to ridiculous lengths by some in this thread in an effort to prove . . . what, exactly? That those of us who don't write discrete adventures, who eschew conceits related to what we perceive to be a very different medium, are wrong about how we conceive our own games?

I fully admit that the story analogy works better for some people's games than for others. For a DM running the Dragonlance modules with strong reference to the novels, it works well. Equally it works for a Forge-y narrativist game, such as Sorcerer. These games, I believe from what I've been told, have a laser-like focus on dramatic decision points such as "Will Elendil the half-elf side with the elves or the humans?" The players' decisions are left open, so the games are not 'forced', they do not restrict the players' significant choices, in the way that a railroaded Dragonlance game would.

That said I think that I could look at the prep work for almost any rpg and point to what I could call scenes, plots and (if it was a campaign) story arcs. I appreciate that you find this terminology to be unhelpful in thinking about and describing your games and that you feel I'm stretching the meaning of these terms. I concede that I am using these terms in a broader sense than some do.