Why is it a bad thing to optimise?

[Greg K]

On the setting vs. story

I agree with JamesonCourage, creating a detailed world with background events happening is just setting. It is a place for which the characters to interact.

In my opinon, story is
1. What happens as or after the players engage with the setting and a particular adventure or campaign ends; and/or

2. Some campaign plot/outline the GM puts upon the players. For instance, back when I larped, the Storyteller had a specific story in mind and gave us the illusion of choice.

The illusion broke when my character killed his Big Bad Villainess. After notifying the main Storyteller, the Assistant Storyteller returned to tell me he just had a big argument with the Storyteller, who was retconning the event. The Storyteller was letting her get away, because it would deny everyone else the big ending he later had planned for the campaign (Unfortunately, this also led to a falling out between the Storyteller and the Assistant, who had been good friends).

Later in the campaign, the Storyteller, completely, de-powered another character at the very end with a retcon to showcase his big ending with the big bad. (The funny thing was the player of this character had just talked me into returning, after several months, stating that the Storyteller had stopped this behavior).

 

[Greg K]

On the issue of tailored vs. status quo, I prefer to have a mix.

When I create the setting, I create a lot of status quo encounters- Major NPCs, Unique Monsters, tribes of monsters, etc., a dungeon or two (I don't use many dungeons)

However, I also use tailored encounters. When I create the initial scenario for the campaign, I draw off of the PC backgrounds. I take into account their level so they have some chance of success and I give them opportunities to use their abilities. I don't, however, guarantee them success.

Following the initial adventure, the campaign is based on where the players choose to go and my having the world "respond" to the actions of the characters. If the players choose to go to a status quo encounter/area, I am not changing it whether it is too easy or too hard.

On the other hand, I will use a tailored encounter if they return to character X's homeland where an encounter is waiting with the character's rival and his friends. I will, also throw in some status quo encounters/challenges if they make sense (e.g., the king's guards, the entry to the court wizard's lab).

 

[Hussar]

On the setting vs. story

I agree with JamesonCourage, creating a detailed world with background events happening is just setting. It is a place for which the characters to interact.

In my opinon, story is
1. What happens as or after the players engage with the setting and a particular adventure or campaign ends; and/or

2. Some campaign plot/outline the GM puts upon the players. For instance, back when I larped, the Storyteller had a specific story in mind and gave us the illusion of choice.

The illusion broke when my character killed his Big Bad Villainess. After notifying the main Storyteller, the Assistant Storyteller returned to tell me he just had a big argument with the Storyteller, who was retconning the event. The Storyteller was letting her get away, because it would deny everyone else the big ending he later had planned for the campaign (Unfortunately, this also led to a falling out between the Storyteller and the Assistant, who had been good friends).

Later in the campaign, the Storyteller, completely, de-powered another character at the very end with a retcon to showcase his big ending with the big bad. (The funny thing was the player of this character had just talked me into returning, after several months, stating that the Storyteller had stopped this behavior).

So, essentially, we have either sandbox or railroad? I've never really bought that comparison. For one, it's ridiculously easy to railroad in a sandbox, but, for another, saying that events that occur outside of the player's current view is setting is a really strange definition of "setting".

Orcs are raiding a caravan. The call goes out for heroes. Setting or Story?

While the PC's are doing something else, Baron Von Badass goes into their home and steals their Lucky Charms. Setting or Story?

A demon prince hatches a plan which will result in massive destruction across Greyhawk. Setting or Story?

I try to use setting in the meaning the word typically has - the location where the PC's exist. It's like a geography or social studies class. Sure, there might be some historical context there, there has to be, but, that's generally not going to have any immediate impact.

Anything that has any sort of impact on the PC's is story or plot. Plot or story answers why the PC's are adventuring. And anything to do with that why is part and parcel to story.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I try to use setting in the meaning the word typically has - the location where the PC's exist. It's like a geography or social studies class. Sure, there might be some historical context there, there has to be, but, that's generally not going to have any immediate impact.

The PCs are travelling down a mountain trail. While on the trail a rockslide starts that might crush the entire party. I would say the setting could have a large impact in this case.

Anything that has any sort of impact on the PC's is story or plot. Plot or story answers why the PC's are adventuring. And anything to do with that why is part and parcel to story.

The PCs answer why the PCs are adventuring. Plots there may be all over the place but each of them are tied to elements of the setting.
If you happen to find one that isn't, pluck it like a weed.

 

[JamesonCourage]

So, essentially, we have either sandbox or railroad?

Did this one get ignored?

In my opinon, story is
1. What happens as or after the players engage with the setting and a particular adventure or campaign ends; and/or

By this definition, story seems more like retelling events. I don't see how that makes it "either sandbox or railroad".

 

[Hussar]

The PCs are travelling down a mountain trail. While on the trail a rockslide starts that might crush the entire party. I would say the setting could have a large impact in this case.

Why did the rockslide occur? Random encounter? Trap? Something to knock off a couple of hit points before a larger encounter?

It would be extremely rare for that event to have occured in a complete vacuum.

The PCs answer why the PCs are adventuring. Plots there may be all over the place but each of them are tied to elements of the setting.
If you happen to find one that isn't, pluck it like a weed.

That's a bit glib. The PC's are in location X resolving Y because of the setting? Because the players decided that Y will need resolving without any input from the DM?

Of course plot is tied to the setting. That's the definition of setting after all - the location where the plots occur. Change the setting, change the plot.

I am arguing against Greg K's point that all of these elements are wrapped up in setting and plot only occurs after the PC's are involved.

 

[Janx]

The illusion broke when my character killed his Big Bad Villainess. After notifying the main Storyteller, the Assistant Storyteller returned to tell me he just had a big argument with the Storyteller, who was retconning the event. The Storyteller was letting her get away, because it would deny everyone else the big ending he later had planned for the campaign (Unfortunately, this also led to a falling out between the Storyteller and the Assistant, who had been good friends).

Later in the campaign, the Storyteller, completely, de-powered another character at the very end with a retcon to showcase his big ending with the big bad. (The funny thing was the player of this character had just talked me into returning, after several months, stating that the Storyteller had stopped this behavior).

The illusion broke when my character killed his Big Bad Villainess. After notifying the main Storyteller, the Assistant Storyteller returned to tell me he just had a big argument with the Storyteller, who was retconning the event. The Storyteller was letting her get away, because it would deny everyone else the big ending he later had planned for the campaign (Unfortunately, this also led to a falling out between the Storyteller and the Assistant, who had been good friends).

Later in the campaign, the Storyteller, completely, de-powered another character at the very end with a retcon to showcase his big ending with the big bad. (The funny thing was the player of this character had just talked me into returning, after several months, stating that the Storyteller had stopped this behavior).

That would be crappy GMing. The GMs got caught in a dependency trap, and since there was a chain of command and presumably a lot of pre-planned stuff at a LARP, he was stuck in his rut.

In a regular game, I would have avoided your encounter if I thought you were to encounter her to soon, or assuming you were that motivated, then she gets whacked, and I move on to the material I wrote for "the BBEG is dead what happens next.

At a LARP, the GMs should have let her die, but then reveal it was an impostor, or some such, just to retain their plotted storyline (they are stuck in a bigger rut, because of having so many people and heavy scripting). Thus, your victory would reveal some new info (she's got doubles), yet retain some of their original plans.

At a game table, i think a GM should be nimble enough to adapt to surprising outcomes, and decide if its a game ender, a setback/complication, or a new direction.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Why did the rockslide occur? Random encounter? Trap? Something to knock off a couple of hit points before a larger encounter?

It might have happened because these things just happen in that environment sometimes. No sinister intent.

It would be extremely rare for that event to have occured in a complete vacuum.

Yes. The event was assuming normal gravity and atmosphere.

That's a bit glib. The PC's are in location X resolving Y because of the setting? Because the players decided that Y will need resolving without any input from the DM?

Not because of the setting, because of themselves. Have you never had players undertake adventures for reasons of thier own?

I am arguing against Greg K's point that all of these elements are wrapped up in setting and plot only occurs after the PC's are involved.

It depends on the plot. If Baron Badass hatches a plot to destroy the PCs then logically that plot can't exist without the PCs. If the Overlord of Ultimate Suffering devises a scheme to control weather and water flow in an area and demand ransom to relieve the drought, then he can set his plot into motion with or without the PCs becoming involved. In this case the villain might be a bit happier if the PC's didn't get involved.

 

[pemerton]

at its heart we have a GM that is probably very good at sandbox style play in yourself, and a bunch of us that are more plot or script driven that allow the players to change stuff but aren't as sandbox based. GMs will choose a style based on the needs of themselves and their players' preferences.

Both approaches are good

These are not the only two approaches to running an RPG. There is also the approach that is particularly identified with indie games like Maelstrom Storytelling, HeroWars/Quest, Burning Wheel etc, but is not limited to them (and in my view and experience existed as a playstyle well before those games were published.)

In this approach, the GM is responsible for framing situations which (i) tie into the interests/concerns of the players as expressed via their PCs, and (ii) which, when the PCs engage them, will produce consequences which (iii) are reflective of the players' interests/concerns, and which (iv) lead to new situations being framed. Rinse and repeat until the game is done.

Unlike a sandbox, in this sort of the game it is the GM and not the players who has the greatest degree of authority over scene-framing. Unlike a "scripted" game, it is the players as much as the GM who have control over the way that scenes are resolved (excatly how this is achieved goes to the heart of action resolution in this sort of game).

It is crucial to this sort of game that the GM not predetermine the outcome of scenes, because this would vitiate (iii) above, and thereby vitiate (i) above.

In my opinon, story is
1. What happens as or after the players engage with the setting and a particular adventure or campaign ends; and/or

2. Some campaign plot/outline the GM puts upon the players.

I think this omits a third possibility, namely, that story is what the players and GM jointly create in the course of playing the game - the GM by framing scenes, the players by engaging them via their PCs. There are a lot of games written to achieve exactly this sort of play - I've mentioned some of them above - and a lot of other games can be played, with more or less difficulty depending on the details of their mechanics, in this fashion. (In my own experience, 4e is extremely easy to play this way. In fact, it is almost as if it were written for it. Playing AD&D or Rolemaster like this is in my experience harder, due to various mechanical features, but by no means absurdly so.)

So, essentially, we have either sandbox or railroad? I've never really bought that comparison.

I'm not 100% sure what you have in mind as the third way, but I had a similar sort of response. My third way (which is really a very common third way) is described above in this post.

 

[Hussar]

Not because of the setting, because of themselves. Have you never had players undertake adventures for reasons of thier own?

Sure. But, without any DM input? That would be difficult, but not impossible, to do. By and large, even if the PC's have some goal in mind, it's the DM who's creating the adventure, including having a rockslide occur while the PC's are traveling from A to B.

That rockslide occurs for a reason. Every single time. That reason might be to add verisimilitude, to add excitement, to whittle away character resources, or any number of other reasons. But, it will always have a reason for occurring.

And, since it has a reason for happening at this point in time to these people, it's plot, not setting.

The Overlord of Ultimate Suffering devises a scheme to do something? That's plot. That, right there, is plot, not setting.

I know people seem to think that plot is a bad four letter word, but, that's only because people equate plot with railroad. Any time you have events in your game that occur with the idea that maybe your players will want to engage in those events, that's plot.

WHERE those things happen is setting. A sandbox without plot is just a travel guide. Might make an interesting read, but, it's about as interesting as watching paint dry to actually play. A good sandbox has plots. It has oodles of plots. It has all sorts of things happening.

Where those things happen is setting. Why, how and when those things happen? That's plot.