Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs

[CharlesRyan]

Barony of Lord FriendlytoPCs becomes Barony of Lord Mwahaha? Not only can I live with that, but it might even motivate the players after the fact.

Heck, yeah. The game needs to have twists and turns that are unforeseen even to the GM, in my opinion. Keeps the world alive and keeps the GM's job interesting.

The story-oriented GM sits down with his notes after that session and asks "How does this affect things? How do the antagonists react? How about the allies? Do I need to rewrite my next chapter, tweak it, or throw it out? I was going to get to point A in the plot via a certain route--is that still the best route, or does another way make more sense now? Or do I skip point A and start steering toward point B."

Story arises naturally from the game. I would go so far as to say that story structure arises naturally from a good game.

Mmmmmaybe. But I would argue that yours is the hard way to get there. And that better story structure arises from a little bit of planning and management.

I would say that the DM controls all of the world, but the players control their characters' actions, so the DM should allow them to do so with the context of a world that makes sense insofar as the DM is able to make it make sense.

Sure, but again in my experience players willingly--gleefully, even--move in the direction of the plot once the initial buy-in has occurred.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The sandbox-oriented GM sits down with his notes after that session and asks "How does this affect things? How do the antagonists react? How about the allies? Do I need to rewrite any of my game elements, tweak any of them, or throw any out?

The sandbox-oriented GM does not think in terms of "chapters" however, nor in terms of steering the PCs (apart from ensuring that they have, or can reasonably obtain, information in order to make viable choices).

 

[CharlesRyan]

The only real difference I see between the foreshadowing I do, and the foreshadowing you do, is that my players are asking "What does this mean is happening in the world?" while yours are asking "What does this mean is happening in the plot?" I.e., my group is wondering what Lord Mwahaha is up to as opposed to what the DM is up to.

(But even so, this is really blurry, because your group is also wondering what Lord Mwahaha is up to, and mine is also wondering what I am up to.....only the emphasis has changed!)

Even given your caveat, I'm not sure I agree. I can't speak for my players, but as a player myself, I don't spend much time musing on my GM's intentions as separate from the in-game events.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Even given your caveat, I'm not sure I agree. I can't speak for my players, but as a player myself, I don't spend much time musing on my GM's intentions as separate from the in-game events.

I can remember a formulative experience, back in early 1980, where as a PC I was following a road down a gently wooded slope and encountered a swampy area around a lake. That the area actually made sense sparked a crucial epiphany. That I could think about the world as though it really existed, and have those thoughts and the choices they lead to be validated in-game meant that I was not simply trying to read the DM's mind. The world did not require me to go simply where the DM wished me to.

A good campaign milieu allows you to make choices on this basis, IMHO. The players should not simply have to guess what the GM is thinking. When things don't seem to make sense, it should be a clue that the players are missing an important piece of information, not that the GM didn't bother with that part of the world because "the plot" is following A to B to C.

If the GM does not treat the world as though parts of it do not matter, the players can make decisions based on the world presented, and make those decisions with confidence.

So, sure, in-game events may be a clue as to your GM's intentions if your GM is determining what the plot will be. But, if you are exploring the dungeons of Madbob, then what you know about Madbob might be the first thing you consider. Unless, of course, what you know about Madbob is only that the GM wants to steer you toward B.

I am not saying your game is like that. But there certainly are published adventure modules that are like that in a nutshell.

EDIT: This also reminds me of the WLD thread where GMs decide what path their players will follow through the WLD. WTF? IMHO, this is something that the players should decide, based on the information that they obtain while exploring.


RC

 

[The Shaman]

I agree, this character has depth. He has goals and a personality. I might argue that he lacks a bit of relationship with the other characters and the people in the setting, but, that's a quibble and not terribly important.

A character in a sandbox setting may develop important relationships with other characters and people in the setting, if it's that player's desire to do so. The character may rise through a political or social heirarchy, if the character is so inclined. The character may found such a hierarchy, if the player wishes.

The only limits on the character's relationship to the setting and non-player characters are the player's imagination and acquring the means to achieve those goals in the course of the game.

Now, how will he succeed at this goal? What in this setting will allow him to achieve this goal? How, specifically, will this particular setting allow him to achieve this goal?

That's up to the player and the character to figure out, using the tools available in the game (or potentially making new tools that don't already exist in the setting).

To me, another way would be to have a setting where your character is on his road to godhood of a specific people. You would have ties to those people, links, history, a background stretching back.

Or you can develop those connections in the course of play instead, which would be my preferred method.

Your achievement of godhood would likely be pretty much guaranteed, so long as you continue playing.

As both a player and a referee, I expect or offer opportunities, not guarantees.

 

[Janx]

A character may develop important relationships with other characters and people in the setting, if it's that player's desire to do so. The character may rise through a political or social heirarchy, if the character is so inclined. The character may found such a hierarchy, if the player wishes.

The only limits on the character's relationship to the setting and non-player characters are the player's imagination and acquring the means to achieve those goals in the course of the game.That's up to the player and the character to figure out, using the tools available in the game (or potentially making new tools that don't already exist in the setting).Or you can deveop those connections in the course of play instead, which would be my preferred method.As both a player and a referee, I expect or offer opportunities, not guarantees.

I just removed " in a sandbox setting" from your quote. Now we should be agreeing on the fundamental principles of what a PC should expect to be able to do in an campaign.

Just because I don't think a sandbox really exists doesn't mean you can't/aren't running a campaign based on the principles of a sandbox.

Nor does it mean that the traits you mention above are exclusive only to a sandbox.

 

[The Ghost]

The Ghost - I'm not in any way saying what you are doing is wrong. There's been a few people here who are trying to paint this as an either/or sort of thing and it's not. I'm simply bringing up alternatives.

Hussar - The Shaman pretty much said in his reply above what I was thinking. I do agree that what you said is another valid and entertaining way to play. I do think it is important to note that character depth can and often does exist in sandbox play.

 

[Ariosto]

Note the "such a limited storyline" below. How, oh how!, will we deal with our limitations!

I think Hussar there was referring to his method.

I got the impression that he thought those observations were revelations, though, rather than points we had noted before and repeatedly (especially considering previous threads with Hussar).

Par for the course, he is likely to turn (on a dime) and retroactively justify that particular dismay, but in the given context ... I think you simply misread.

 

[Ariosto]

The key is letting your players approach either the world or the plot in their own way without railroading them.

Which raises the key question of just what the heck you mean by "the plot".

You've touched on it yourself when you've talked about, for example, foreshadowing. Putting those statues in front of the medusa's lair lets you foreshadow on the encounter or perhaps adventure level. But it's hard to do it on a larger scale if you aren't willing to work from an outline for the game.

I've enjoyed a few instances when players' jaws almost literally hit the floor at the point of some grand plot twist or reveal. ... These moments can only occur if they're set up in advance. In an environment where the GM has no idea where the campaign will be in a few months, things like that might happen here or there, but more by chance and never (or very rarely) with the sort of impact or resonance I'm talking about.

"To work from an outline for a game" appears to mean making things turn out a certain way, which is correctly distinguished from my (and I think Raven Crowking's) style of play.

Just how it is to be distinguished from "railroading" is obscure, but a matter of which I am trying to wash my hands even though it was for decades a useful term.

Unfortunately, I must fall back on the old term. What CR proposes is simply that "you can't railroad players without laying down rails." I for one will not dispute that!

CR, you prefer what you prefer and we prefer what we prefer. If you would simply accept that, and moreover that a preference for playing old D&D one way does not preclude gaining relevant experience playing other games in other ways, then perhaps you could stop raising polemics against us and start to engage with us in productive discussion of techniques.

 

[Ariosto]

This is really well put; I wish I'd thought of stating it that way. It goes to the heart of my original point (that plot does not equal railroad).

Plots can be explored, just like maps. A GM worth his salt doesn't force players through a set of preconceived scenes with preconceived outcomes any more than he designs a dungeon that's just a straight line of rooms.

In fact, the plot-oriented GM probably has more leeway than a GM running the classic dungeon; the players aren't constrained by walls and can run off in unexpected directions. As I've said many times before, the good GM doesn't just allow this, he welcomes it. Keeps the game interesting. He can always go back to his notes between sessions and see how the new direction impacts things and what changes, if any, he needs to make to keep on course down the outline.

(Note that the latter is a comparison of plot to dungeon, not plot to sandbox. Yes, I know that a sandbox is not the same thing as a dungeon, Ariosto, nor am I saying it is.)

You keep spinning like a top!

In one moment you attack us precisely for not forcing outcomes; in the next you turn around and offer this. You cannot have it both ways.

Either you in fact disagree with Raven Crowking, or you are just bashing a straw man.

Maybe you have a bizarre, but at least internally consistent, vocabulary in which "plot" is simultaneously "not a railroad" and "not possible in a sandbox".

Just because I don't think a sandbox really exists doesn't mean you can't/aren't running a campaign based on the principles of a sandbox.

Right. That so encourages us to let you label us. If anyone wants to claim the "sandbox" label as applicable to him, and try to insist on an actually useful definition, then good luck to him! What Janx would do without it, Heaven knows.