Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Hobo, if it will help, I will be happy to go into Truth or Dare to some extent, and I will be happy to discuss how game play has win conditions, as well as how player choices can raise the stakes for both winners and losers. If you are willing to discuss this with an open mind, I think I can demonstrate to you why Truth or Dare is a game, and why it meets the criteria described for being a game.

In doing so, I think a better understanding of Spin the Bottle will emerge as well.

Heck, after laying out ground rules, we could actually play Truth or Dare on EN World, and if doing so does not convince you that there are victory conditions in the game, nothing will!


RC

 

[Desdichado]

Hobo is correct.

I'm tempted to put that in my sig.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm tempted to put that in my sig.

Feel free. I call 'em as I see 'em.

Actually, that's the third time in two days: (1) Your take on The Incredibles is supported by the commentary of the creators, (2) your take on Dracula is supported by my reading (and, apparently, Umbran agreed as well that your take is not mutually exclusive, but supportive, of his), and (3) now.

Take it for what it's worth. You're on a roll.


RC

 

[maddman75]

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."

This is smug, arrogant and insulting. This might come as a huge shock to you, but my and my friends play games centered around stories and dealing with themes because we think its fun!

Playing in a sandbox is not in any way shape or form 'better', 'superior', or 'more pure' than playing with dramatics. It is far more fun for my friends and I. Who exactly are you to tell us that we have our heads up our asses?

As for defining characteristics of an RPG, I'd propose "A game that creates fictional space the players can explore and experience. The game rules determine events in that fictional space, though their results can be overridden if it would violate the fiction."

A wordy way to say 'has a GM or other means to remove nonsensical results'. You can play Monopoly and imagine yourself as a real estate tycoon, but there's no accounting for giving a property to a player 'because it would make sense'.

 

[The Shaman]

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

Well, let's take another look at that.

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.

Hmm, there's a specific reference to something I wrote earlier in my post.

What was that all about again?

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

So actually, taken in context, it appears I was only talking about one person's experience and interests: my own.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'd accept "A game that creates fictional space the players can explore and experience. The game rules determine the outcome of some events in that fictional space, though the participants do not necessarily rely solely upon the game rules to determine outcomes."


RC

 

[Umbran]

Several people here have gotten rude.

Is One True Wayism rude? Yes.

Is responding with vitriol and nastiness rude? Yes.

So, thread be warned - best behavior from this point on.

 

[The Shaman]

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?

I'm not going to get into the debate about whether something constitutes a roleplaying game or not - that way lies SAN loss - but I would like to comment on these outcomes: as a player, I might lose some faith in the referee if the situations played out the way they're outlined here.

The players and their characters made a meaningful choice, but the game-world remains status quo ante. If this happens over and over again, I would start to feel like my choices were pretty meaningless in the bigger picture, that the referee 's decided, "This is the way of it," and the actions of our characters don't carry meaningful consequences with respect to the world around the characters.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Shaman,

See if you like this example better: http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...46-confession-i-like-plot-10.html#post4995334

 

[The Shaman]

Shaman,

See if you like this example better: http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...46-confession-i-like-plot-10.html#post4995334

Good scenario. I replied in the other thread.