Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs

[pawsplay]

Imagine if you will, a line on which the degree of difficulty toward meeting the game's goals are arrayed from 1 to 10 (almost certain to almost impossible). You can have a game anywhere in that range, but not in 0 or 11 (certain success or certain failure to meet the goals).


RC

If you mean goals of play, I think I can buy this. However, I think goals, in the context of a game, makes me think of in-game objectives, which are not always explicitly present (though if the characters have any vitality to them, goals will arise duing play). I think this may be a case where vocabulary is very important. The Forgie term "agenda" springs to mind but obviously comes with some baggage.

 

[pawsplay]

For you, you look at the prohibition to commit suicide for the PC and say that that prohibition makes the game no longer an RPG. I look at it as, this is an act that is totally out of character for a character in this game, and as such will almost never come up in play, thus it's effectively the same as flat out ruling you can't do it.

How do you know it's out of character? Particularly, if the player made the character?

 

[Umbran]

I believe that should clear up Ariosto's apparent lack of reading comprehension abilities as well.

Rude. Very rude.

And ironic, really. How many times on these boards have moderators posted warnings against being insulting, or getting personal? One might wonder how you can bear to accuse others of lacking in comprehension skills while demonstrating your own lack in that area in the same sentence.

How about we all avoid this kind of stuff in the future, hm?

 

[Hussar]

How do you know it's out of character? Particularly, if the player made the character?

How many characters have you seen in D&D for which killing themselves would be in character? Outside of perhaps a Japanese inspired Oriental adventures style game.

Let me be perfectly clear here. I do think that falling on your own sword for no reason, while perhaps not explicitly forbidden by the game, is certainly not a real option in any game I've ever played. As I said, outside of a Oriental adventures style D&D campaign, when is commiting suicide for no apparent reason considered acceptable play?

Raven Crowking. Again, we're back to where we started. Just because the start points and end points are fixed does not mean that all points in between are. Your example of a book presumes that there is only two states, complete freedom where all points, from beginning to end, can be changed and no freedom where all points must be fixed.

This is where we disagree. I think you certainly can have a fixed beginning, and a fixed ending, but all the points in between those two points can have a huge number of choices. We start in the Shire, we end on the volcano, but, how we get from point A to point B is the game.

 

[pawsplay]

As I said, outside of a Oriental adventures style D&D campaign, when is commiting suicide for no apparent reason considered acceptable play?

Vampire: The Masquerade.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Raven Crowking. Again, we're back to where we started. Just because the start points and end points are fixed does not mean that all points in between are.

Nor did I say that. What I said is that the outcome of the goal(s) must be unknown. If you can example me something where (1) the outcome of the goal(s) is known, and (2) the outcome of the goal(s) is not fixed, I will be quite surprised indeed.

When reading a book, my goal is to read the book. The outcome is known. Do I read it on the can? In bed? On the subway? The route is unknown, but has nothing to do with the goal.

Conversely, I can easily conceive of a game, as I have said multiple times in this and other threads, where the framework is fixed (including going to Mount Doom), but where the goal(s) (i.e., find out who is going to turn on the Nine Walkers, and thwart his attempt) is unknown. Mind you, the outcome of the goal(s) being unknown is going to impact the framework, so it would only be accurate to say that part of the outcome is known, and that it is the important part (i.e., the part that is the outcome of the goals of the players) that is unknown.


RC

 

[Hussar]

When reading a book, my goal is to read the book. The outcome is known. Do I read it on the can? In bed? On the subway? The route is unknown, but has nothing to do with the goal.

Hang on, why is your goal to read the book necessarily? That is one possible goal, but there are others that could exist. Perhaps you want to expand your vocabulary. Perhaps you want to learn something. Why is "finish this book" the only possible goal.

Thus, I can finish the book, which is one goal of having a book, yet my primary purpose of reading the book isn't simply to finish it. My goal has very little to do with the act of reading the book. My goal is to expand my vocabulary (for example). Thus the end result is entirely known (I will finish the book), and the achievement of my goal is pretty much a foregone conclusion (assuming there is at least one new word in this book).

So, you can certainly know that you will achieve all your goals in reading this book.

Or, if you look at it another way, if you accept that simply resolving a situation in an RPG is not the only goal you can have during play, then event resolution does not have to be unknown in order to achieve a goal during play.

Pawsplay - umm what? What kind of V:TM game do you play where a player will turn to you and say, "Y'know what? I don't like this character, I go for a walk outside" and this is entirely in character and acceptable behaviour at the table?

In any game I've ever played, in any system, offing your own character for no apparent reason is seen as very bad play.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Or, if you look at it another way, if you accept that simply resolving a situation in an RPG is not the only goal you can have during play, then event resolution does not have to be unknown in order to achieve a goal during play.

Oh, you can roleplay without any concern whatsoever with event resolution. Concern with event resolution, however, is a property of games.

It is also, I note, a property of Sufficiently Advanced. Is there any particular game that you think it is not a property of?


RC

 

[pawsplay]

Pawsplay - umm what? What kind of V:TM game do you play where a player will turn to you and say, "Y'know what? I don't like this character, I go for a walk outside" and this is entirely in character and acceptable behaviour at the table?

So you're a damned undead creature whose humanity has been stolen. It's out of character to be suicidal? It's certainly in genre. Ann Rice's books feature several attempted vampire suicides. It's not that I would expect someone to say, "This vampire sucks, I'm standing in the sun," although if they did, I wonder what you could do to stop them, apart from taking away control of their character. It seems more likely that a character might:

- Commit suicide after quite a number of sessions, in which the character's misery is explored, leading to a natural and thought-provoking conclusion that life as a monster is not worth living
- Stay behind to save a life, confirming their humanity and allowing them to die with moral integrity
- Risk exposure, without intending to commit suicide. In this case, the possibility of exposure to the sun exists, which means it is not only possible but the GM must be ready with some kind of adjudication if it occurs.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I'd like to understand what others think the victory conditions or measures of success are in children's games?

I don't believe children set out with any goal in mind when playing Cowboys & Indians. You wouldn't tell a 6-year-old to go write a book or audition for a play instead of collaboratively creating a story about Cops & Robbers. These look to me like games without meaningful victory conditions, measures of success, or even rules. The sole intent is to pretend to be someone you are not.

I can also imagine that a game could use the same framework from a more mature perspective. The intent would still be to explore another role and how you would handle that role. You would create a story together not for the purpose of passing it to others outside the game or to play out for an audience, but instead for the sole enjoyment of those playing the game. That's what makes this type of an activity a game to me and not just "shooting the breeze", writing a book, or acting in a play.

Oh, you can roleplay without any concern whatsoever with event resolution. Concern with event resolution, however, is a property of games.

To me, the intent behind why you are roleplaying determines whether it is a gam or not. If you are doing so to help others understand the roles of others then it is a Roleplaying Exercise, like those used by companies and therapists. If you are roleplaying because you wish to entertain an audience, then you are most likely an Improv actor or aspiring to be one. But if you are just getting together with a bunch of friends to roleplay for the fun of it, then it is a game.