Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs

[Hussar]

Player input is the best thing to happen to my games, too.

I'm constantly seeking input, usually like this: "Okay, what do your characters do now?"

My games wouldn't be the same without it.

My point here is that this is not the only way of doing things. When designing a campaign, another approach is to start by asking the players, "what game do you want to play?" and working as a group to hash out a rough outline of a game - typically high level stuff like theme, genre, maybe a couple of highlights.

My intent was that his intent was to gain an advantage.
/snip
RC

My solution is to not play with people like this any more. Since you have a choice of players, why would you include someone at your table whose play style you obviously don't share? If someone is trying to abuse the system to gain mechanical advantage, and continues to do so despite being told that such play is not preferred at the table, why play with this person?

The initiating space is primarily the domain of the DM. THe player doesn't have the authority to change or create, to some extent. Obviously, the act of creating a PC is the act of creation, as is tying it to the world. The player has limited rights pre-game. Smart players know how to get away with more, by making things up the DM likes, they inherently get to create more than dumb players who rub the GM the wrong way with their ideas.

Given how we don't really get much more control than that in the real world...
/snip

This is certainly one approach to gaming, and IMO, probably the most common one as well. I've certainly played, continue to play and DM in this style as well. Not all the time, now, but, there's certainly nothing wrong with it.

My ((proabably terribly described)) argument has been that this does not have to be true. That it is entirely possible for the players to be actively engaged in setting creation, even during play. They can also be actively engaged in theme and plot as well. It does require a very different mindset from the players though. The players have to be willing to take a different view of the campaign - in other words, they have to become a LOT less passive in their consumption of the game.

To me, there's nothing wrong with this. The play goals are simply very different from a standard (if that's the right term) campaign. Instead of "experience the adventures and see what happens" goals shift towards explorations of themes or concepts. If the group agrees to play a campaign centered around gender politics, for example, the events of the campaign are less important than that exploration. The events act as a framework or catalyst for generating that exploration.

I guess, at the end of the day, it comes all the way back to the usual disagreement I have with Raven Crowking - how important is the setting? If exploration of setting is very important (which to RC and others I believe it is) then obviously it makes sense for the GM to have a much greater control and emphasis on the setting. OTOH, if exploration of the setting is less important, and exploration of concept is more important, then setting gets to fade back and plot becomes a lot stronger.

 

[Hussar]

and Some of us, though, have been adults for a long time -- and for a long time enjoyed the original saying that it is up to the players to choose what their characters undertake, to act as self-determining protagonists rather than like fish being played..

But, what if that choice is made BEFORE the campaign starts? Does that invalidate the choice?

 

[Ariosto]

It lacks depth because, at the time of character generation, the PC's have almost no connection to the campaign.

You can say so, but that does not make it so. Alternatively, you could stop trying to claim a monopoly on depth. It's odd that you either do not see or really do intend the implication that real life "lacks depth".

If it makes absolutely no difference when I go to Giant Land whether I play a paladin or an assassin - we'll meet exactly the same things, in the keyed adventure (to use your words) - how can depth be achieved?

First, a big HUH?? to "in the keyed adventure (to use your words)". Second ... come on, really ... does the independent existence of San Francisco really doom your life to petty shallowness? Or do you believe that you have some magical power over all the habitats and inhabitants of Earth, that by its virtue grants your life every bit of depth it possesses?

It's like saying that half way through a movie, you whack the protagonist, replace him with a totally new character with no previous interaction with the story and it will be as equally emotionally resonating as a movie where the protagonist actually continues throughout the entire story.

No. It's like saying, "We are not watching a movie; we are playing a role-playing game!"

So, again, I'm going to ask, other than "over time" how do you achieve emotional resonance within the game?

"Other than over time"? What in blazes do you mean?! Even a heroin junkie needs time to experience the injected rush!

If I'm doing nothing but dungeon crawls, killing and looting with my buddies, then no worries. ... But, it's about as deep as the average rain puddle. Sometimes I want a campaign with a bit more meat to it.

Oh, do tell! Please, Hussar, count the ways in which killing and looting in dungeons is soooo inferior to killing and looting on your movie set. Please, Hussar, tell us how we must be limited to doing nothing but that if we do it at all, despite the fact that good old D&D right from the start was for a much wider ranging campaign.

Oh, heck, Hussar, why not just tell us how horribly inferior D&D is to the game you really want to play -- then you can tell us why on Earth you are farting around here on a thread about being D u n g e o n Masters????!!!

 

[The Shaman]

My point here is that this is not the only way of doing things.

I don't see very many people arguing that there is only one way of doing things. I do see people expressing their personal preferences about what they like from a roleplaying game.

Of course there are a couple of exceptions. Like this guy.

It lacks depth because, at the time of character generation, the PC's have almost no connection to the campaign.

Now that smacks a bit of onetruewayism.

If characters are replaceable, why would I, as the player, bother achieving any depth?

Because you don't know if your character will be replaced or not. You play the character as if he's the only character you'll have in the game, until the events of the game prove otherwise.

Look up John Rawls and the "veil of ignorance" sometime. It applies remarkably well to rpg character creation.

It's like saying that half way through a movie, you whack the protagonist, replace him with a totally new character with no previous interaction with the story and it will be as equally emotionally resonating as a movie where the protagonist actually continues throughout the entire story.

As Ariosto noted, the experience of playing a roleplaying game is not the same as watching a movie, but just to humor you, watch To Live and Die in L.A. sometime.

 

[The Shaman]

Upthread, I suggested that the "status quo" setting Hussar described may well be impossible. This is because I do not believe that it is possible, ever, to fully detail a world prior to play beginning. Sooner or later, the GM will have to build more, and to extrapolate from what is known about the setting. There is, IMHO, no way to avoid this.

As a result, I do not believe that there is any problem whatsoever with logical extrapolation on the basis of character backgrounds or whathaveyou. If a character background is intended as a showhog, ("I am pursued by the agents of SPECTRE!") or to give some advantage ("I am the nephew of the King!") then it should be vetoed. If the character background is intended to tie the character to the world, and to further invest the player in what is happening at the tabletop, then I am all for it.

Upthread I promised I would come back to this, and as I can't sleep erm now's as good a time as any.

One of the best examples I've seen of a system that allows players to develop characters with extensive backgrounds tied to the setting is Traveller. Part of my affinity for Traveller is that character generation and background development isn't something that happens before the game: it's the first experience of playing the game.

Now one of the consequences of playing Traveller is that character backgrounds may run to decades, so when the player asks, "My character spent twenty years in the Scouts; does he know anyone at this base?" the referee must be able to respond to that. Among the many wonderful articles published for the game are supplemental rules for randomly resolving that very question. In this way a referee can let fate play a role (and roll) in the outcome. So that's one way to do it.

Right now I'm prepping for a Flashing Blades game. Characters in FB may have Advantages and Secrets: among these are features like Contact, Secret Loyalty, Debt of Honor, Double, Member of an Order, and others, all of which involve some degree of connection with a non-player character or group. I'm okay with this because the Advantages and Secrets are bounded: if you take a Contact, or a Secret Loyalty, for example, the nature of the relationship is governed by the rules. This helps to avoid the fanwank aspect of chargen that I find so offputting. So that's another.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Upthread I promised I would come back to this, and as I can't sleep erm now's as good a time as any.

Glad you did.

 

[Ariosto]

[Homer] Mmmm ... Flashing Blades ... [/Homer]

 

[Janx]

It's like saying that half way through a movie, you whack the protagonist, replace him with a totally new character with no previous interaction with the story and it will be as equally emotionally resonating as a movie where the protagonist actually continues throughout the entire story.

PC death is a risk of playing a game where the DM let's the dice decide.

There are pro's to NOT killing of PCs, and there are pro's to killing them off.

A game where the players think they're PCs can die has a different feel than one where they don't think they can die.

This is why the best "we don't kill PCs" DMs don't tell their players that and in fact, make the players THINK the PCs are going to die.

In a game where "anything" can happen and you don't want to be "railroading", PC death is a valid outcome. It totally changes the story.

However, unlike a movie, the player can roll up a new one, you can either try to pick up the pieces, or drop the story altogether. This is a big difference from the typical movie.

As a DM, when you're PC dies, the party is now at reduced strength. I could let the remaining party continue onward to mount doom, and probably take out another PC every few encounters, until I get a TPK. Or I could let you roll up a new PC and continue the quest back at full strength. Does that hurt the verisimilitude? Probably just a bit. But it's probably more fun.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

My solution is to not play with people like this any more. Why would you include someone at your table whose play style you obviously don't share? If someone is trying to abuse the system to gain mechanical advantage, and continues to do so despite being told that such play is not preferred at the table, why play with this person?

Because they're a friend. Because I like screwing with players who try to milk the system. Because the person is new to roleplaying and I'd like to impart the wisdom of my ways upon them. Because excluding people just because they disagree with you is a slippery slope. These are a few reasons I've included someone in our game despite our differences.

Oh, heck, Hussar, why not just tell us how horribly inferior D&D is to the game you really want to play -- then you can tell us why on Earth you are farting around here on a thread about being D u n g e o n Masters????!!!

I think you might want to dial back the caffeine intake. Or increase it.

 

[Hussar]

I don't see very many people arguing that there is only one way of doing things. I do see people expressing their personal preferences about what they like from a roleplaying game.

Of course there are a couple of exceptions. Like this guy.Now that smacks a bit of onetruewayism.Because you don't know if your character will be replaced or not. You play the character as if he's the only character you'll have in the game, until the events of the game prove otherwise.

Sigh. How many times do I have to state that I LIKE PLAYING THE SAME GAMES YOU DO BUT I ALSO LIKE OTHER STYLES TOO!!!!!

That's not onetruewayism.

You've still not explained how your character in a sandbox has any connection to the setting at character creation. You take it as a given, yet give no evidence. The player creates his character, plops down in the place where the DM starts you off at, hits you with the local color, draws attention to the points of interest and then turns to you and says,

"What do you want to do?"

How is that depth? How is that engaging in any way? The choices I have have nothing to do with the character I create.

Now, as far as playing your character like he's the only one, there's the rub isn't it? What if I die? What if I die twice? How much effort am I going to put into engaging in your campaign after replacing my character for the third time?

Look up John Rawls and the "veil of ignorance" sometime. It applies remarkably well to rpg character creation.As Ariosto noted, the experience of playing a roleplaying game is not the same as watching a movie, but just to humor you, watch To Live and Die in L.A. sometime.

The existence of exceptions does not invalidate my point. Ariosto, for some bizarre reason, seems to think that because the real world is a sandbox, then gaming worlds must be sandboxes too.

You accuse me of onetruewayism, yet, repeatedly, Ariosto at the very least, has been openly derisive of any playstyle other than sandbox. Yet, you do not take him to task. One wonders why.

PC death is a risk of playing a game where the DM let's the dice decide.

There are pro's to NOT killing of PCs, and there are pro's to killing them off.

A game where the players think they're PCs can die has a different feel than one where they don't think they can die.

This is why the best "we don't kill PCs" DMs don't tell their players that and in fact, make the players THINK the PCs are going to die.

In a game where "anything" can happen and you don't want to be "railroading", PC death is a valid outcome. It totally changes the story.

However, unlike a movie, the player can roll up a new one, you can either try to pick up the pieces, or drop the story altogether. This is a big difference from the typical movie.

As a DM, when you're PC dies, the party is now at reduced strength. I could let the remaining party continue onward to mount doom, and probably take out another PC every few encounters, until I get a TPK. Or I could let you roll up a new PC and continue the quest back at full strength. Does that hurt the verisimilitude? Probably just a bit. But it's probably more fun.

But notice something here. Your entire point centers around a combat centric game. Now, for D&D, that's not a far assumption, but, again, that's not the only way to play. Exploration of setting is not the only way to play either, despite claims to the contrary in this thread.

Taking death off the table =/= railroading by any stretch of the imagination.

Yes, you can play rpg's completely unlike a movie. I've never said you couldn't.