Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Oddly enough, for all of Hussar's claim to the contrary, the game he cites allows for a greater range of unknown outcome, due to a greater range of control over the framework, than is typical in a game like D&D.

I believe pawsplay is wrong when he makes the above comment, because all games exist within a framework, and no game allows "full freedom of action" (in that the player's actions are always constrained by the framework). In 1e D&D, for example, the framework tells my magic-user what spells he can cast, and how many times per day. The framework is actually quite constrictive.

Normandy can be the framework for a game that allows a very wide range of action -- wider, perhaps, than in the typical RPG -- while still leaving the framework (the wider historical picture) intact. That would not impede its being an RPG at all.


RC

 

[ExploderWizard]

But it is a game, so why would you try to say that it's not? What possible agenda could someone have to try and exclude games that aren't exactly like the kinds of game that they already like to play?

Because it is an attempt to invalidate someone else's way of playing the game.

Activities that are not games are excluded from the games category by virtue of thier nature. No one needs to do this.

Perhaps there is a mistake in terminology going on. Success and failure are NOT the same as winning and losing. Winning or losing a game requires that game to have a defined end along with victory/loss conditions that can be objectively measured. D&D is not a competetive game. The game does not have a defined endpoint and specific victory conditions. If the PC's defeat the big bad guy and save the world then they have achieved a measure of success but not victory. Likewise if several PC's die while attempting to eliminate the big bad then the group experiences a measure of failure but this is not a loss.

Either way, the game can continue. The "end" of the game is entirely subjective. Even after a TPK the players can roll up new characters and carry on.

Gameplay and resolution mechanics exist because the outcome of certain actions are in doubt. If there is no doubt, then there is no need to roll the bones in the first place. The illusion of doubt can only produce the illusion of a game. In a fixed boxing match those who agree to the fix are removing the sport from the activity. The boxers still throw punches and the crowd still cheers but there is no sport taking place. The match has become an exhibition (usually to make money). If the crowd is on board with the arrangement and still enjoys watching it, does that put the sport back into the activity? I think not.

In a similar vein, engaging in a "game" in which the PC's will be successful regardless of the twists and turns employed to get there does indeed take the gaming part of the activity off the table. This in no way invalidates such activity from being fun or worthwhile for those involved, but merely from being a game.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Although I agree that Hussar is crouching the argument in these terms, I find nothing in SA that contradicts "let story emerge from (in being told about) events driven by players playing their roles pretty much as real people in a real world".

And, contrary to his assertation SA uses dice.

And, contrary to his implied assertation, dice (or any other random number generator) are not needed to provide uncertainty of outcome. Witness chess, checkers, and go.

The only conclusion I can draw here is that Hussar has not actually paid close attention to the structure of the activity he is participating in, and has not been honest with himself or with us about his level of understanding of the same.

(And that's not a poke; I've been guilty of the same in the past, and will no doubt be guilty of the same in the future. AFAICT, we all have.)



RC

 

[Desdichado]

I can't make head or tail of what you're trying to say here, but the phrasing vaguely suggests certain slanders often hurled (in disregard for actual history) at a game I have enjoyed for more than 30 years.

That's absurd. He offered up an opinion (the "I think" qualifier) to basic dungeoncrawling had gotten boring.

I find it boring too. It's not slanderous to say that I think dungeoncrawling is boring, it's a valid opinion. It's also not personal no matter how long you've played the game, and the "actual history" as evidenced by the changing fads in game design seem to suggest that that is exactly what happened. That's why the so-called "Hickman Revolution" was so popular; folks (in general) were tired of disassociated dungeoncrawling. It was (and remains, IME) a playstyle in decline.

 

[Janx]

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.

I think you just missed the point of the conversation. I don't think ANYBODY in here is advocating "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."

Folks advocating plot are NOT using the definition of plot as "script" (def #4 if I recall). They are using the definition where it sumarrizes the situation.

If we're talking about potato salad recipes, it would be polite of you to contribute to recipe discussion, not food poisoning. A brief reminder to refrigerate is sufficient advice to avoid the perils or improper potato salad processing. Otherwise going on and on about food poisoning is just thread crapping.

If you're incredulous that we can run a game with a plot, ask for examples. Just please, stop with this plot=railroad crap that doesn't move the discussion along.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It's not slanderous to say that I think dungeoncrawling is boring, it's a valid opinion. It's also not personal no matter how long you've played the game

Hobo is correct. Personal preference is something everyone has, and taking offense because someone's personal preference doesn't match our own is ultimately absurd.

(Of course, that doesn't mean you can redefine "dungeon crawl" to mean "drinking in a pub" because you enjoy drinking in a pub and you want to convince your buds who enjoy dungeon crawling that they've always enjoyed drinking in a pub, too -- they just think they were doing something else due to nostalgia.

It is perfectly valid, IMHO, to expect terms to carry some form of meaning. Otherwise terminology is useless. I am not in favour of accepting that "X means anything I want X to mean" simply because it seems politically correct to accept that sort of statement [in that otherwise you might be accused of pedentry, dismissing someone's playstyle, or whatever]. YMMV.)


RC

 

[Desdichado]

Hobo, I don't think anyone is trying to oppress you or others by defining "game." However, I cannot be in a discussion and permit game to mean absolutely anything.

Don't be melodramatic; I don't feel oppressed. However, I cannot be in a discussion in which common usage of the word "game" is ignored in favor of some more limited definition that suits the purpose of the guy trying to coin it, but no one else. You're trying to limit the definition of game in such a way that commonly accepted games are excluded. The flippant discussion aside, there is no "win condition" to Spin the Bottle or Truth or Dare, for example. Therefore, saying that a game must have a "win condition" or it isn't a game is patently and obviously false, unless you try to say that Spin the Bottle and Truth or Dare are not games. Since such a claim is assinine, the claim was put forward that actually there are win conditions, but I hope that wasn't put forth seriously, because, c'mon. That's one of the worst cases of special pleading I've read in a long time.

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.

That's another easily falsifiable claim. Of course in a roleplaying game, a character doesn't necessarily have full freedom of action. In almost every game I've ever been in, the game has had all kinds of limitations, from the obvious ("no, you can't build a giant laser to write your name on the moon; this is D&D and you're a 1st level halfling rogue") to the local and situational ("No, I don't allow any male players to play female characters; I've had too many problems with them") to the mechanical ("I said you're a 1st level halfling rogue! No, you cannot cast fireball at the goblins!")

Because Hussar's example restricts freedom of action in different ways than you're used to, you (apparently) aren't seeing the dichotomy; but your game has all kinds of restrictions on freedom of action too. They just fade into the background because you're used to them.

So using that qualifier is easily falsifiable, and creating a new label because "that's not a roleplaying game" is a bad idea. Back in my day, if a game came out like that, we'd just say, "that's a really weird concept for a roleplaying game. I don't like it. No thanks." Where this idea came from that we must now redefine roleplaying games specifically to exclude games we don't like is a mystery to me.

 

[Desdichado]

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

:shrug: You obviously just made that up, though, is the problem. That's not a qualifier for a roleplaying game. It might be a qualifier to a good roleplaying game, but I've played in plenty (and mostly not enjoyed them, but that's neither here nor there) where that was not true.

 

[Raven Crowking]

A note on what ExploderWizard said, above:

In an RPG, there are generally games nestled within games. For example, each combat can be viewed as a single game, with victory conditions such as survival, killing the bad guys, avoiding a TPK, etc. The victory conditions are subject to change as the combat goes on.

Likewise, each round within that combat can be viewed as its own game, where the victory conditions measure your effectiveness in the round.

Likewise, each session, each adventure, each arc, etc., can have victory conditions while containing within them an almost infinite number of shorter "games" that each has its own set of victory conditions.

"Victory conditions" do not imply that the RPG is over; they imply that the participants can measure some level of success or failure.

The same is true in games like chess or Monopoly. Capturing your opponent's queen is a measurable victory, even if you ultimately lose the game. Landing on Boardwalk after your opponent built hotels there is a measurable failure in Monopoly.


RC

 

[Desdichado]

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.

Ah, but see here you are failing to separate what you like about RPGs from what is inherent and objective about RPGs.

I like that too; don't get me wrong. But just because that's what I like, I don't try to claim that that's an objective quality of RPGs. It's just a quality of an RPG that I would be interested in playing.

Also (and not directed at you, Shaman), I think we've kinda lost sight here of the fact that Hussar's admittedly kinda extreme example aside, we're talking about GMs who like to plan a bit of plot into the game. How we got to such an extreme of "that's not even a game anymore!" I'm not sure (and I don't have the patience to go back through the thread and find out). I think these rather extremist claims really don't help meaningful discussion.