Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs

[Raven Crowking]

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.

The game environment is a type of fictional environment, even if it cleaves closely to a real-world environment, just as the New York of the Spider-Man movies is a fictional New York.

The distinction Ariosto is trying to draw, I believe, is between the type of fictional environment that occurs in a movie or novel, and the type of fictional environment that occurs in a game. This is, IMHO, really a matter of how the environment interacts with the medium (film, book, or game). So, "novel settings" and "game environments" are really subsets of the overarching set "fictional environments".

I don't believe that anyone involved in the discussion actually thinks Castle Greyhawk or Waterdeep are real places!

 

[The Shaman]

I would argue that this "distressing" number of players has been conditioned by a lifetime of books, movies, graphic novels, oral storytelling, and other fictions, which are all based upon certain story-structure fundaments.

I disagree. First, I don't think that fiction and gaming are as alike as you do.

Second, in its second decade roleplaying game designers introduced the notion that gaming should model the structure of a story, or even be a means of creating a story, and that notion took over thinking in the hobby right at the time the popularity of roleplaying games was reaching its all-time peak.

I suspected that Vyvyan Basterd would give me a 1980s start date for gaming because of this.

And even if you cling to the idea that this unfortunate, distressing situation is caused by other GMs' conditioning, that might lead one to ask: If so many players and GMs play this way, maybe it's not because of GM brainwashing after all. Maybe its because that's the way they like to play!

CR, conditioning is not brainwashing, and honestly it's pretty insulting that you framed my post that way.

 

[Ariosto]

by your view they create new adventures within the adventure all on their own.

No. Their adventures ARE "the adventure".

So, creating Giant Land does not create just a single adventure, but an element in play that can be used for multiple adventures.

Exactly!

FICTIONAL: If boards set up for a Squad Leader scenario are a "fictional environment", then fine. That Stone Building on a Level 2 Hill is scary because of its LOS to ground you'll probably want to cross. Chekov's gun? That's your SU 122; it's up to you to bring it to bear, or not.

Quite simply, there are a whole lot of games -- really, the majority! -- in showing up to play which one does not expect to get told a story. Your taking for granted something so actually odd is itself curious. The notion that I should offer some special Warning: This is NOT a Theatrical Production! to people invited to play a game strikes me as quite outlandish -- as I imagine it would to anyone to whom I am likely to extend such an invitation.

 

[Ariosto]

FICTIONAL

Chekov's gun tells us that in a story, if we see a gun early on, we expect it to be used later. Put into this context, if your fictional environment introduces a spooky castle on a hill, it's natural for your players to assume it's significant in some way. This is true in every other fictional context your players have ever experienced throughout their lives. Why would you expect it not to be true in your fictional game?

I responded on the understanding by which the argument is logical, i.e., that by "fiction" was meant the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narrative, esp. in prose form. So, then Vyvyan Basterd lashed out with:

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.

Oh, as in something feigned, invented or imagined, as in an imaginary thing or event postulated?

Make up your mind, please.

 

[Janx]

Quite simply, there are a whole lot of games -- really, the majority! -- in showing up to play which one does not expect to get told a story. Your taking for granted something so actually odd is itself curious. The notion that I should offer some special Warning: This is NOT a Theatrical Production! to people invited to play a game strikes me as quite outlandish -- as I imagine it would to anyone to whom I am likely to extend such an invitation.

I'm too lazy to hunt down the text in all the RPGs and editions that comment on how this "game" does not have any winners or losers, unlike normal games.

It goes back to at least 2E, and I've seen it in countless other non-D&D rpgs.

An RPG seems to be a hybrid of simulation of a fictional world and a theatrical prodction. The main debate is really that some DMs lean more to the left or right.

In all cases, the DM decides what is there and what happens next. it is all DM fiat, even the simulation. As proven the moment something happens that isn't explicitly covered by the rules and the DM makes a decision. That includes whether to put the front door of the spooky mansion facing north versus south, to which PC gets attacked by Orc #5.

I agree that in no game do I expect to be TOLD a story. However, in a game about fictional characters (ie. individuals) doing heroic stuff, I expect that the events that occur ultimately FORM a story.

Seriously Ariosto, what's the big deal? Here's a challenge, write down the events of your last gaming session. Maybe include an introduction, if the party was in the middle of something. What you have when you are done, is a story. It may be well written. It may not make any sense. It may be boring.

My intent as a DM, is that when you are done with my game session, and you do that same exercise, that the outcome is a decent story that you enjoyed. The core objective is of course that you enjoyed it. Everything else is just a tool and style to achieve that.

Since people enjoy talking about themselves (true, it's the secret trick to mixing at parties, listen to other people). A story about YOU (ex. your PC) is more fun than a story about ME (ex. my DMPC/NPC). To reinforce the last statement, the story must be a good one that you built. Me making up a story about how ariosto saved princess flumph will not appeal to you as much as me enabling you to save/kill whomever you want in a cool fashion.

You can do that in a sandbox, just as well. By using story elements. Or to phrase it in sandbox terms, by not putting unrelated random junk in a world that is static and unmoving. I don't think in sandbox terms. I think in story terms. But that doesn't mean we're actually doing things wrong.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Quite simply, there are a whole lot of games -- really, the majority! -- in showing up to play which one does not expect to get told a story. Your taking for granted something so actually odd is itself curious.

I am not sure that anyone on this thread is actually taking that for granted. My reading is that some folks are talking about using story elements while in play. You can use story elements without actually telling someone a story.

I think that the problem is that RPG theorists have defined "sandbox" as mutually exclusive to "using story telling techniques". When there are ruined statues outside a medusa's lair, that is foreshadowing a potential encounter....a story telling technique that can be used to great effect in a sandbox game.

I'm too lazy to hunt down the text in all the RPGs and editions that comment on how this "game" does not have any winners or losers, unlike normal games.

As an aside, I would claim that the framework has no winners or losers, but most players know when they've done well or done poorly. I don't think that those editorial comments exhibit a great understanding of games theory, even if they do exhibit an understanding of how to use that framework.


RC

 

[Mark]

There's a sliding scale where the sandbox end generally equates to nothing but story elements existing in advance and the plotted end equating to where full tales exist and the player characters are essentially along for the ride. Very few games take place fully at either end of the sliding scale. Dropping full pre-written adventures into the mix of a somewhat character driven game tends to fall closer to the plotted end of the sliding scale. A homebrew with no pre-written adventures and tons of psuedo-static elements (people, places and things) sprinkled all over for the PCs to discover and through exploration link together (with a GM either randomizing or making decisions about reactions, consequences of actions, etc.) tends to fall closer to the sandbox end of the sliding scale. If one can generally suggest the course and outcome of a game prior to playing, the game probably exists closer to the plotted end of the sliding scale. If it can only be retold retrospectively because of the vast array of possible choices the PCs had during play, the game probably exists closer to the sandbox end of the sliding scale. With the right circumstances, players and GM most of these games would be quite enjoyable.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

FICTIONAL


I responded on the understanding by which the argument is logical, i.e., that by "fiction" was meant the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narrative, esp. in prose form. So, then Vyvyan Basterd lashed out with:

Oh, as in something feigned, invented or imagined, as in an imaginary thing or event postulated?

Make up your mind, please.

Your intended use of the word fictional was not clear to me and I took a tongue-in-cheek approach to determining what you meant. Sorry if you took my reply as lashing out at you personally.

I was using the latter definition of fictional. Also, I do not expect to enter a game to tell my players a story. But in an RPG I do expect to create a story as we go in conjuction with the players and the results of the rule system.

The only real difference I'm seeing as we speak of Sandbox vs. Plotted is who is driving the plot. If you have players that enjoy driving the plot then you should turn the dial more towards Sandbox. If they don't, then you should steer more towards Plotted. You can try fine-tuning the dial to get to the point that creates maximum enjoyment for your group. There is no right or wrong place on the dial, except in the case of trying to play under a style that makes the game unenjoyable for your own personal tastes.

@Shaman: Could you provide some evidence that 2nd-decade designers took this attitude? From my readings of Gygax in the '70's and from gaming with those who were close to him, the thing that made D&D not a tactical miniatures wargame like Chainmail was the personalization of your character like those in fantasy literature. The story elements were what separated an RPGs from Microarmor.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Dropping full pre-written adventures into the mix of a somewhat character driven game tends to fall closer to the plotted end of the sliding scale.

This is the only part of your post I disagree with, although if you specify/agree that there are certain pre-written adventures that are written as mini-sandboxes themselves (KotB, Lost City of Barakus), I would agree with you fully.


RC

 

[Ariosto]

I think that the problem is that RPG theorists have defined "sandbox" as mutually exclusive to "using story telling techniques".

Yeah, that looks like A big problem, anyway.

You can call having spoor of Gorgon near its lair "story telling technique", but why the compulsion to do so when in the event it is game design technique? Why call an old-style D&D campaign a "sandbox" all of a sudden, if you're going to let people define it into a straw man? The only reason I could see to use the new jargon was for clarity in communication. That's bunk when people don't desire understanding.

Seriously Ariosto, what's the big deal?

You tell me. You want what you want as DM. As far I can tell, your players are on the same page. "If it ain't broke, what needs fixed?" The way the rest of us play? Sheesh.

To reinforce the last statement, the story must be a good one that you built.

Right, I get it. If what I'm building is a "bad" story in your critical judgment, then it's your job to keep me from doing it? "Oh, no! Actually ..."

You can do that in a sandbox, just as well. By using story elements. Or to phrase it in sandbox terms, by not putting unrelated random junk in a world that is static and unmoving.

Gosh golly wow! You mean, we could actually play D&D in accordance with the instructions for playing D&D, as we have been for 35 years? Only, we need to start talking about it with terms such as "sandbox" and "story"?

You tell me: What's the big deal?