Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs

[Raven Crowking]

See, this is where we disagree. You are claiming that the only goals that you as a player can have during a game are the goals outlined by the game itself in order to be playing any game.

You fail to understand the claim that I am making.

I am making the claim that, in order for an activity to be a game, the player(s) must have a goal related to the outcome of the game itself, and that the outcome of those goal(s) must be unknown.

The player(s) may have any additional goals they wish. For these additional goals, it doesn't matter whether or not the outcome is unknown.

Saying that a game must have quality X does not preclude any other qualities, so long as quality X is present.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

RC, I've come to the conclusion that you and I are not in disagreement about anything other than terminology and perhaps a different emphasis in GMing style.

That said, I don't think your definition is shared by a lot of people who adhere to the sandbox philosophy.

Perhaps when the RCFG GM's Handbook comes out........

 

[Janx]

Not caught up yet, but:That's cool, but ... don't you play for, like, a while? And don't players sometimes choose objectives that don't lock them in 24 - 7 - 52 - 80-to-life? Or is it really "not just an adventure, it's a job"?

If that's what you all prefer, then fine and dandy. I think a lot of us (at least of a certain vintage) tend to have more picaresque adventures. Conan, Fafhrd and Mouser, etc. -- even Elric, who really was on hot rails along with his whole world -- wandered and wondered and plundered from one fortune or folly to another. The D&D game has always seemed to me mainly set up for that in spades.

I think you're finally acknowledging that you can see the scenario I'm talking about.

The effect I'm describing tends to happen in a serial campaign, where the next sesssion very likely represents the next game day/moment since the group last played.

If you play episodicly, disconnected stories, where the only thing that mattered from last session is what are your stats and what equipment do you have, that describes the conan style.

Both are valid ways of playing.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Janx, your experience is different from mine here. I tend to keep track of time, and the next game is almost always the next moment, or only a short period of time has passed if necessary (like the party chooses to spend the winter in X while the paladin commissions new armour).

Yet I see a lot of Conan style, too.

Or, maybe a better description would be, "A lot of goal-driven adventures interspersed with a lot of curiosity-driven adventures".


RC

 

[Janx]

In RCFG, I used the following definitions:

Adventure: Any series of encounters that forms a distinct arc within a campaign. An adventure could be attempting any goal that the players decide upon, from generally exploring a ruin to getting revenge on an enemy to rescuing the Duke from His enemies.

Campaign: A series of play sessions and/or adventures, linked by common characters, a common milieu, and/or an interlinked thematic or plot component.

Milieu: The overarching setting in which a series of game sessions takes place, including all of its locations, Powers, NPCs, monsters, and so on.

Plot: The machinations of a character within the milieu. Both player characters and non-player characters can engineer plots within the game, which often then serve as hooks for adventures. Note that this is different than the plot of a novel, as the outcome is not predetermined.

Story: What happens at the game table, only known or told after the events have occurred. It is not the Game Master’s job in RCFG to plan a story that the player characters are intended to follow, per se. Rather, the Game Master sets up situations and plots which the player characters may attempt to interact with in whatever way they like.

Most of these apply to sandbox and more linear games alike, IMHO. The end of the last definition, of course, differs.


RC

I can agree with these definitions. Like CR, I don't think we're in actual disagreement.

When I talk about using story elements, in the end, I expect to use them such that the adventure that just finished sounds like a story that made sense.

Using motivations for the NPCs so their actions make sense
recognizing when the climax is happening and make it climactic
using twists, complications or setbacks when the party screws up or things have gotten too easy or slow
using foreshadowing or chekov's gun to show something that will be important later in the game

 

[Raven Crowking]

using foreshadowing or chekov's gun to show something that will be important later in the game

On EN World, one often hears how the PCs never have forwarning of the Medusa's lair. As though creatures live in the world and leave no signs of their being there. A little foreshadowing (by which I mean adding the pieces of broken statues in areas before the medusa is met) goes a long ways!


RC

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

out of curiosity, when did you start gaming?

1983. I've played with all age groups from the Gygax crowd (indirectly through Robert Bigelow of Dragon's "Through the Looking Glass") to my own son (8-years-old). My current regular group has members ranging from 21-42 years old. Plus experience running from small GameDays to GenCon.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

There's plenty of room between "infinite" and just 3 or 4!

Of course, it's plenty easy to chop down possibilities and lay rails. All it takes is lack of imagination.

Only four possible reasons to go to Giant Land? Only five possible ways to get there? That would be 20 adventures already, and I could think of more.

The beauty of it is that I don't have to! The players are likely to think of things I never would have thunk.

The section I bolded is where we may be talking past each other. I would consider "Giant Land" one hook, even if there are multiple reasons to go there and multiple ways to get there. So, by the way you're looking at it 3-4 adventure hooks become 60-80 hooks. I think that fits a good middle ground between one hand and infinity.

And it does not require a "pure" sandbox campaign to work player input into a campaign. Even with plotted adventures players think of different ways to get there and different reasons to go, so by your view they create new adventures within the adventure all on their own. When a bad DM stifles this and makes it his reason and his way, then it's a railroad and no fun. But there's nothing wrong with giving the hook for Giant Land and letting the players follow it in their own way.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

(1) It is not a fictional environment; it is a game environment.

I'm not sure I can converse with you on this topic anymore if you cannot equate that a game environment is a fictional environment. You may want to watch a certain movie starring Tom Hanks if you are unable to differentiate.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You are talking past each other, because of the difference between "hook" and "adventure".

A single adventure can easily support a dozen hooks. So, if you count hooks rather than adventues, the number can grow pretty large pretty quick.

If you consider an adventure as a specific outing along a specific course, with a specific goal in mind, you get the numbers Ariosto is talking about. One of the goals (and strengths) of sandbox play is the re-use of design elements. So, creating Giant Land does not create just a single adventure, but an element in play that can be used for multiple adventures.

This happens in AP-type games too, albeit to a more limited extent. For instance, Rise of the Runelords allows for modest exploration of a dungeon complex that the characters must later return to. Moreover, the town of Sandpoint is used throughout the AP.


RC