Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs

[avin]

my players are only in it for the free boze and snacks... /cry

 

[ExploderWizard]

my players are only in it for the free boze and snacks... /cry

That is a shame.

Your players get free booze?

Tell me about your campaign, it sounds fascinating.

 

[maddman75]

From my point of view, only if the players want their characters to be able to lose. I think most players want a real possibility of failure, because that makes success sweeter, so that does not interfere with OP's post at all.

This is the tricky part. One of John Wick's articles talked about the John McClaine Principle. Essentially, almost all PCs want to be John McClaine from Die Hard. They want to be outgunned, outnumbered, but because they are clever and fighting for What's Right, they come out in the end. But only after getting punched, kicked, tossed around, ducking under machine-gun fire, running barefoot across broken glass, and jumping out of a 40th floor window crashing into another window and yelling 'Yippie-kai-ay, MFer!' before laying the bad guy out. They're bruised, bloody, and limping, but they came out on top.

So how do we get that in a game? The more 'old school' style RPG says the way to get there is to focus on the outgunned and outnumbered. Throw machine guns and broken glass and see if they can do it. Some of us find that deeply unsatisfying though. Either we try to act like John McClaine and get killed, or we tread carefully, cautiously, downright paranoid. But that doesn't feel like John McClaine either.

The solution is to disassociate 'character death' and 'defeat'. My players know that I'm a downright evil bastard, and cackle madly as they flail under my torments. However, I don't tend to kill PCs very often. In many games I upfront tell them 'your character isn't going to die if you don't want them to.' Since I'm doing all this character driven conflict and drama, killing a PC is much more disruptive. But I can find ways to make them pay for failure.

 

[pawsplay]

As the GM, my job is to make is to make sure that when the Batman takes down the Joker, it's because he earned it, not because his name is on the cover. If you want your wildest fantasies to come true, write some fan fic.

 

[fuzzlewump]

So how do we get that in a game? The more 'old school' style RPG says the way to get there is to focus on the outgunned and outnumbered. Throw machine guns and broken glass and see if they can do it. Some of us find that deeply unsatisfying though. Either we try to act like John McClaine and get killed, or we tread carefully, cautiously, downright paranoid. But that doesn't feel like John McClaine either.

In my opinion you're confusing John McClaine and Rambo here. (I'm talking only about Die Hard 1 here). The odds are against McClaine, but he doesn't just take the elevator to where the hostages are and the BBEG are and just open fire. He is very cool and calculating, hiding from his pursuers, taking their stuff when he can, and using guerrilla warfare to take them down.

 

[AverageCitizen]

It's very easy to either focus too much on your own dream, alienating the players, or or too little, alienating yourself.

Yeah, I'm being player-centric here, but you're definitely right. We DMs need to get our kicks too, but I have more fun when I manage to do both.

I'm with you Average Citizen. I run games that create great stories, but I'll be clear that I only do this because I think its fun, and my group thinks its fun. We like exploring conflicts and themes. We like having big dramatic moments. We like each session to wrap up the current conflict as handily as a weekly TV show, even if there is a larger 'plot arc' working.

I don't think its about dream fulfillment for my group though. At least I hope not, my players are pretty adept at coming up with flawed, in some ways defective characters.

Good on you guys. That sounds fun.

I think that players that are more self-aware or more well-read (interesting how those tend to go together) are more able to isolate different parts of their personality or even potential personality and channel that into a character. But in DnD and in literature, the best characters are ones that we can relate to. So... I'd suggest that your players have more diverse, literate and well-developed fantasies, but you're still in the business of helping them explore those, just maybe one part at a time.

How is the OP not claiming that "my play style is superior to your play style, period"?

Yeah sorry about that. I don't mean anything by it. For some people its just a game, but for some people its a game + some other interesting stuff. That's all I'm suggesting here.

I think the OP makes an interesting point. It's probably true for many that their wish-fulfillment has something to do with what they'd like to happen to their characters. But I doubt it's true for everyone.

Look at D&D as a form of fiction. Its interactive and personal, but it's still fiction, akin to books, plays, movies, television, comics, and bedtime stories. People enjoy fiction for lots of complex reasons. It's true for D&D as well.

I'd suggest amending the thesis to "find out what each players wants for the character, and make that happen". That's almost certain to be a winner. But it's not necessarily what the player personally dreams of.

I think your amended thesis is a winner, but I don't think its as far from the original as it seems. I was just trying to make the point that sometimes the players don't have a conscious plan, but they still have hopes and experiences that we can leverage to make the story satisfying for them. If they've already got it figured out, then by all means help them get there, we just have to make sure their goals are validated with struggle and some supporting story elements.

I read a book called "the Hero With a Thousand Faces" (I think) and it explored the fact that pretty much all popular stories speak to us on a deep level and something about them is familiar and relates to our own desires, fears, or experiences. Its kind of like that argument that there are only like 6 stories that get retold over and over, I forget the exact number. So I'd suggest that the reason there are so many complicated reasons why people like fiction is because people have many complicated layers in their psychological makeup. See what I'm saying?

How much then are you willing to allow your players to fail? Can their characters lose, can they die? Is defeat truly a possibility?

You've never day-dreamed about dying? About who would show up at your funeral and what they would say?

You've never wanted to go out in a blaze of glory?

BTW, when you say story game, what exactly do you mean? Is it just a matter of how seriously the world and characters are taken, or is it about telling a specific story or what? Maybe I'm being dense, but I'm not 100% clear on what you're advocating beyond "feed your players power fantasies and they'll love you".

I think when you say "a matter of how seriously the world and the characters are taken" you're getting really close. I hadn't thought about it that way, but yeah I think its something like that. I'll have to think about it.

From my point of view, only if the players want their characters to be able to lose. I think most players want a real possibility of failure, because that makes success sweeter, so that does not interfere with OP's post at all.

Also, your "interesting situations" framework is not mutually exclusive from the original post. It's just a matter of making interesting situations from the desires of the players. For instance, a player tells you his character is searching for the man who killed his father. For a more rewarding game, the combats should make the character closer to finding that man. I don't agree with every combat, unless you're an incredibly sly writer. I don't think every character with separate goals can have their stories furthered by each combat.

And, if all player's want is to bust down doors and take treasure, then that is their dream that the OP is speaking of.

Yeah you get it. When I say every encounter do remember that we have more than one player here, so it doesn't have to be working for everybody. And also I'm talking about an ideal here. In practice things tend to get a bit murky...

Note: Combats are not the only encounters I was referencing.

As the GM, my job is to make is to make sure that when the Batman takes down the Joker, it's because he earned it, not because his name is on the cover. If you want your wildest fantasies to come true, write some fan fic.

Many fanfics are fantasies without validation. Just giving your players everything they are after may be what they think they want, but what they really want is a fight. How many times in your fantasies have you beaten the Joker without him making you earn it?

 

[AverageCitizen]

As a long-time "primary dm" for many groups, I couldn't disagree more. What you post might be true for your preferred playstyle, but I don't find it to be true at all for mine.

I could as easily say that the dm's primary job is to have fun, and the players are there to amuse him while he does it.

Thats cool. And you're right, this is just me. I get a kick out of fulfilling the players. Still I think you may be missing what I mean by validate. Most of what GMs do is validation. We make them earn it so that it means more.

Still I am not sure if that is your qualm so I am just guessing here. I'd be interested in hearing more about why you disagree.

 

[maddman75]

As the GM, my job is to make is to make sure that when the Batman takes down the Joker, it's because he earned it, not because his name is on the cover. If you want your wildest fantasies to come true, write some fan fic.

Uh, thanks for telling me that I'm gaming wrong.

I understand the other style, just talking about what makes my game tick.

Generally, I'm not going to be asking the question 'can Batman take down the Joker.' Its going to be more along the lines of 'What will Batman give up to take down the Joker?' or 'Can Batman take out someone as crazy as the Joker without going crazy himself?'

That doesn't mean I should be writing fanfic instead of playing games.

 

[pawsplay]

Uh, thanks for telling me that I'm gaming wrong.

I don't believe I have addressed you, personally.

I understand the other style, just talking about what makes my game tick.

Generally, I'm not going to be asking the question 'can Batman take down the Joker.' Its going to be more along the lines of 'What will Batman give up to take down the Joker?' or 'Can Batman take out someone as crazy as the Joker without going crazy himself?'

That doesn't mean I should be writing fanfic instead of playing games.

I don't understand how you can have an RPG without uncertainty. I mean, I've seen freeform RPGs, and those are well and good, but I just don't get how someone can pick up D&D or DC Heroes or Vampire and believe they can know the future without compromising the basic design of the game.

 

[Ariosto]

Whatever floats your boat, baby!

However, if you try to convince the rest of us that the purpose of a game of Chess is to make sure that White always gets Black in check mate, then you're being absurd. Bringing that attitude to a normal Chess match is obnoxious.

There is a conventional understanding, and that serves an eminently practical purpose. It is the same with Dungeons & Dragons as with Bunnies & Burrows or Axis & Allies, Dogs in the Vineyard or My Life With Master, Snit Stomping or Scrabble.