Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs

[Ariosto]

Who is this "we" you refer to? I certainly don't need that. I am perfectly happy using an RPG in order to explore themes and concepts in a manner which does not require me to adhere to random polyhedrals for conflict resolution. You might need that. And that's fine. I got zero problem with that.

However, please, it's not the only way of gaming.

Look, it's just a well established convention in the hobby that when we speak of a game we mean something a bit more specific than the vague "an amusement or pastime". It's a bit much to expect that we're all totally ignorant of conventional usage of the term.

 

[FireLance]

Playing a scene, with a beginning and a foregone conclusion, could be a game, but it's not a roleplaying game, because in a roleplaying game, a character has full freedom of action. If you wanted to be really picky, you might call it a role-taking game, but honestly there is little reason to call it something other than a storytelling game, or improvisation.

If I might interject here for a moment: would it be more accurate to say that as long as the characters still get to make meaningful choices which result in different outcomes, even if all of the outcomes have certain similar elements, it is still a role-playing game?

Consider the following (admittedly fairly contrived) scenario: the characters are chasing after a fleeing villian when they come across a group of farmers menaced by a band of hobgoblins. The players could choose to ignore the farmers' plight and continue to chase after the villain, in which case they are likely to capture him after a hard fight, or they can stop to help the farmers, in which case the villian will escape them. However, the DM has decided that if the villain escapes from the PCs, he will encounter another group of bounty hunters who will capture him instead. Further assume that the players are experienced enough to know that they have no real chance of success if they split the party in order to pursue both objectives, so they must effectively choose between helping the farmers or continuing to pursue the villian.

Now, in both cases, the villian is captured. The only difference is who does the capturing. Is this still a role-playing game?

Now add a further twist: if the players decide to continue pursuing the villian, a mounted patrol of guardsmen come by shortly after they leave the scene and saves the farmers so that even that outcome remains unchanged regardless of the players' choice. Effectively, the players' choice becomes whether they want to be known as the heroes who captured the villian or the heroes who saved the farmers. Is this still a role-playing game?

 

[pawsplay]

If I might interject here for a moment: would it be more accurate to say that as long as the characters still get to make meaningful choices which result in different outcomes, even if all of the outcomes have certain similar elements, it is still a role-playing game?

Sure. The only qualifications are that it be a real choice and the consequences of the choice be logical.

 

[Ariosto]

And Greyhawk made a huge impact, because it was the first setting that was out of dungeons and instead took place in a city.

City State of the Invincible Overlord in the Wilderlands preceded the World of Greyhawk Folio and later Boxed Set, neither of which particularly "took place in a city". If you're thinking of the eventual City of Greyhawk boxed set, that was a really late entry in the fantasy-game city field!

What I meant was random hack and slash gets old after a while. Heck I played old school d&d for years!

See, the way you put that, it sort of looks like an equation of "random hack and slash" with "old school D&D". Which is, you know, a bit misleading as the XP incentives in OS D&D are to avoid random fights and get treasures with as little trouble as possible. That's sort of the opposite of "new school" 2e, 3e and 4e, in which wandering monsters are "XP on the hoof" and slaughter is the primary way to advance.

 

[The Shaman]

What makes movies and novels and comic books and plays and so on engaging isn't the actual possibility of defeat, but the perception of that possibility. Combine that with challenges and plenty of twists and turns along the way, and doubt about the outcome becomes part of the experience.

In my experience, RPGs really aren't any different.

And in my experience, they are quite different: in fact, that difference is one of the fundamental appeals for me of roleplaying games vis-à-vis movies, novels. comic books, et cetera.

I have zero say in how a story or a movie or a comic book plays out. I have no control over the choices of any of the characters; I can only discover what the author has in mind for them.

Playing a roleplaying game is nothing like that experience. I control one or more of the characters, and I decide how they react to the situations that unfold in the course of play. My skill as a player and the luck of the dice determine what happens when that character attempts to do something in the game-world.

For me, that experience is nothing like reading a story or watching a film.

Like fiction and movies, they rely on the suspension of disbelief, and part of that suspension is ignoring the fact that the protagonists almost alway prevail.

But you can play roleplaying games in such a way that the presumption of the protagonists prevailing is removed, eliminating the need for suspension of disbelief and further distancing the experience of playing a roleplaying game from reading stories et al.

And when you get right down to is, the RPG experience usually isn't about whether you're going to win or lose in the end anyway--it's about what you're going to do next to get out of the current sticky situation. The perceived possibility of defeat adds to the tension that makes those decisions interesting. I suppose the real possibility of defeat supports that perception, but I don't think it's necessary for most people.

That "real possibility of defeat," as opposed to the "perceived possibility," is one of those fundamental appeals of roleplaying games that I alluded to in the beginning of my post. It's one of the elements that separates gaming from reading a book or watching a film.

My point is that even though we know the outcome of the battle, the first 24 minutes of Saving Private Ryan are still engrossing, thrilling, and intense. In fiction, a preordained outcome is not antithetical to enjoyment--in fact, it really doesn't have much to do with it one way or another.

We may know the outcome of the battle, but with a couple of exceptions we don't know the outcome of the battle on the characters on the screen. We can surmise that Toms Hanks and Sizemore are going to get off the beach, but the decision to cast relative unknowns in the supporting roles means that when we see faces in the LCVP as the landing craft races for the beach, we don't know who lives and who dies when the ramp drops. Part of my investment in that initial scene in the theatre, aside from the very visceral reaction of considering my grandfather landing on Palau and Saipan, comes from not knowing the fates of the many soldiers introduced in that scene.

But again, however engrossing or intense or horrifying that scene may be, the experience of it is very different than having the ability to say in the context of playing a game, "Okay, I'm tossing a smoke grenade to cover my dash from the hedgehog to the sand embankment, and once I get there, I'll prep a rifle grenade to drop on that machinegun nest."

Two very different experiences.

And I think the same thing is true with RPGs. When you get down to it, what really matters when you're gathered around the table isn't how will this all end?, it's what's going to happen next?.

When you know that your character can fail and fail epically, then how will this end? really matters because there may not be a what's going to happen next? for that character.

Why do you play RPGs? There are much better game categories for honing your game-playing skills.

Why do you play RPGs? There are much better media for creating shared fiction.

As for me, I enjoy the game part of "roleplaying game" as much as I do the "roleplaying" part. There are rules to master, tactics and strategies to test, skill to be gained.

 

[Gizmoduck5000]

What a load of horse dung.

If you want to create a work of narrative excellence...then forgo the rulebooks and dice and just write a damn book.

If you want to create a work of compelling theater...then try out for a stage play.

Both offer potentially more tangible rewards than an RPG...last I checked, they don't give out Pulitzers or Tonys for "best roleplaying game."

We play games for one purpose above all else...to have fun. Some people find the more thespy/talky aspects of the game more fun than the hack n' slash which is perfectly fine...but for the OP to claim that beer n' pretzel gamers are "missing out" because they don't share his/her playstyle is nothing more than pretentious, self-important ass-hattery of the worst order.

"It's not ROLL-playing it's ROLE-playing!"

We see this little rhetorical gem bandied about constantly on gaming forums...but in actuality, neither is correct. It's a roleplaying GAME...and as someone much more eloquent than I has stated:

"Anyone who prioritizes artistic expression over fun in a GAME has their head so far up their own ass, they can tongue their tonsils from behind."

 

[fuzzlewump]

We play games for one purpose above all else...to have fun. Some people find the more thespy/talky aspects of the game more fun than the hack n' slash which is perfectly fine...but for the OP to claim that beer n' pretzel gamers are "missing out" because they don't share his/her playstyle is nothing more than pretentious, self-important ass-hattery of the worst order.

I don't disagree that it is pretentious and self-important, but is it true? Would people who play 'beer and pretzel' games have more fun with story elements? It's an honest question for me, doesn't every D&D game have some amount of story element? Do you name your character? Do you ever speak in character? Can you call your character something more, even if only an ounce more, than a pile of numbers?

I don't know what you're implying by 'beer and pretzel' exactly, but I think that anyone playing D&D will have more fun to have at least that 'ounce more' of story. Maybe it's a "my playstyle can beat up your playstyle" argument, but I can't imagine someone wanting to imagine silhouettes floating around and making 'attacks' on other silhouettes until one of them disappears. You probably want to imagine fantasy monsters and heroes or something of that sort to go along with the numbers.

 

[Ariosto]

The contention is really over whether to let story emerge from (in being told about) events driven by players playing their roles pretty much as real people in a real world ... or whether to impose an artificial plot, so that the "players" are that more in the theatrical sense of actors following a script in order to present a preconceived story.

 

[Gizmoduck5000]

Maybe it's a "my playstyle can beat up your playstyle" argument, but I can't imagine someone wanting to imagine silhouettes floating around and making 'attacks' on other silhouettes until one of them disappears. You probably want to imagine fantasy monsters and heroes or something of that sort to go along with the numbers.

It absolutely IS a "my playstyle can beat up your playstyle" argument...and as always it's an argument completely without merit.

Maybe there are people out there that want nothing more than to play a set of numbers beating on another set of numbers...who cares? It's not like you have to play at their table, is it?

Assigning value judgments to people's hobbies is arrogant and ultimately masturbatory.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Except for one very salient point which you glossed over.

The players, through the use of twists, can resolve any conflict at any point in time to their own benefit. Twists uber ales is a quote you missed (look under the conflicts chapter).

Didn't ignore it; the designers warn you that using it to resolve the main conflict can easily remove you from the game.

In SA, it is clear that the players are intended to have a great deal of control over the framework, including a high level of control over what the victory conditions are, and what the means for resolving those victory conditions are. That is not the same as saying, as you did, that the outcome was known aforehand.

Nor does your "very salient point" make the outcome known aforehand (assuming, as you did earlier, and as the designers do, that the player actually wishes to engage with the game). Shifting the terrain doesn't make your argument any stronger.

Again, your example is a critical fail toward demonstrating your position, while it is a good example reinforcing mine.

I realize that I didn't prove my point to you, but then I cannot conceive of what would actually do so. The game is available for anyone to examine, and encourage them to do so. They can easily make up their own minds.


RC