The Da Vinci Cod (And Needless Plot Complications)

[Drew]

No, not The Da Vinci Code, but the parody of that book by Adam Roberts called The Da Vinci Cod.

We receive a lot of strange things to be given away as prizes at the radio station where I work. We recently were shipped five copies of this book, and I've been leafing through it. I give it a mixed review so far, but the point of a parody book is kind of lost on me anyway. Not really the point of this post.

There was one point which actually had me laughing out loud (or at least audibly chuckling) and got me thinking about plots in general and plots roleplaying games specifically. You see, the book begins (much like the target of its parody) with a man killed in an art museum. Knowing that he is dying, the victim has just enough time to scrawl a single message in his own blood. In the original book, he creates an obscure clue that gives the protaganist just enough info to eventually lead him into a massive web of deceit and conspiracy. In the parody, however, he writes the following message:

"THE CHATHOLIC [sic] CURCH HAD ME MURDERED"

The principle joke here is that any idiot can decipher this "anagram" to learn that the victim believed his murderer to be working at the behest of the catholic church. It got me thinking that much of the original book could have been shortened (and the victim would have had a much better chance of getting his message across) had he simply written exactly what the meant on the wall (or floor, or whatever.)

Would this have made for a very good book? Probably not. Would it have made way more sense? Sure. Now, I know that there are some plot reasons why the character in the Da Vinci Code wanted his information to go only to one man, thus the need for an obscure clue. I'm not looking to discuss that. I will note, however, that there were probably other, less contrived ways of "hooking" the protagonist into the book's plot.

What I'm wondering is, how often do DMs or game authors follow silly or far-fetched plot hooks or devices out of laziness or simply because they make for more exciting games/stories? Does it bother you when this happens? Does it hurt your sense of versimilitude, or do you just shrug it off as part of the genre?

Anybody have any examples of this in games/books/whatever? And, uh, do you like codfish?

 

[Aaron2]

Does it bother you when this happens?

This kinda thing bothers the heck out of me. But, then again, I've never been good at making murder mystery adventures.

Anybody have any examples of this in games/books/whatever?

I, Robot. The dude has himself killed rather than just walk down the street, pick up a pay phone can call Will Smith with the details. That was even sillier than the "A.I. results from random bits of unused code."


Aaron

 

[Henry]

I can take a plot twist or two, but needless complications (like Elminster asking you to fetch his laundry because he's too powerful to bother with that) get to me.

I do have an explanation for strange clues left by the dying, however. Remember that when dying, your mind can play tricks on you, or "work funny" sometimes. If you are losing blood, and especially if the attack has caused brain damage, the dying person can be fixated on one specific thing until death, and that thing can have (to the person) a definite and immediate trail of significance, though to the living and those who seek the truth, it can take some figuring out what the significance is.

When planning a convoluted adventure, it behooves a DM to have it make sense, and to plot for magic and high technology's effect on it.

For instance, mysterious stranger kills another man in the dead of night; dying man leaves one last clue. Big whodunit, huh? Well, the PC cleric breaks out his trusty speak with dead spell and BLAM! The corpse tells you who was the person who killed him.

THAT's why the killer, knowing such things exist, either disguises himself, or uses a magical disguise to turn into someone else entirely, throwing suspicion off of himself.

Divinations and contact other planes got you down? Then use other equivalent magics to confuse the issue, or just be plain crafty! Several years ago, In Piratecat's famous Heroes of Daybreak/Spira game, the party chased, divined, and legend lored someone for MONTHS, only to find out their REAL foe had used another legendary figure's name, and it took the players forever to catch wind of it. Simple misdirection, and it worked!

 

[wedgeski]

What I'm wondering is, how often do DMs or game authors follow silly or far-fetched plot hooks or devices out of laziness or simply because they make for more exciting games/stories?

(Emphasis mine.) I think you've hit upon the essential quandary right there in your question. There comes a point where rigorous attention to common sense and 'the real world' just leaves the game in the dust.

 

[Drew]

(Emphasis mine.) I think you've hit upon the essential quandary right there in your question. There comes a point where rigorous attention to common sense and 'the real world' just leaves the game in the dust.

I agree that adhering to rigorous common sense can take the fun out of game. Don't you think, though, that a DM or author should at least adhere to enough common sense to avoid harming the player's/reader's sense of disbelief? I think the challenge is to find the balance between the two.

Edited By Me For BrevityI do have an explanation for strange clues left by the dying, however...
When planning a convoluted adventure, it behooves a DM to have it make sense, and to plot for magic and high technology's effect on it....

Good points, Henry, and good advice. Has anyone ever taken the time to write down the various "mystery breaker" spells and abilities in D&D and given ways (both rules and plot ideas) for thwarting them? Sounds like a good idea.

 

[Falkus]

I, Robot. The dude has himself killed rather than just walk down the street, pick up a pay phone can call Will Smith with the details.

I'd advise watching the movie again. There actually is a very, very, very good reason why he didn't do wht you suggested.

 

[Rackhir]

I'd advise watching the movie again. There actually is a very, very, very good reason why he didn't do wht you suggested.

That movie really should have been named "The Humanoids" since the plot is essentially that of the Jack Williamson story, which was written specifically to turn the three laws of robotics on their head.

 

[Aaron2]

I'd advise watching the movie again. There actually is a very, very, very good reason why he didn't do wht you suggested.

Care to clue me in? He obviously could have walk out of his office and house, he did so to give that speach Will Smith watched. He had complete autonomy in his own office. He could have written a note and mailed it or even dropped it off. What have I missed?


Aaron

 

[Gold Roger]

I once have blown a whole campaign to hell because of this. So yeah, I try to avoid it. Plots can still be needlessly complicated though, it shouldn't go out from the partys allies though, but should come from the villains cleverness.