Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs

[Woas]

What if the player decided when their character died? For dramatic purposes.

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.

 

[Hussar]

Y'know what? I'm out. I'm done. This has gotten personal, yet again. For some reason, people are misreading what I'm saying, taking it to mean things that are obviously not true, simply to dogpile on a point that I'm not even trying to make.

Shame really. I enjoyed this conversation. But, apparently, even the suggestion that there might be other ways to play is just too much for some.

Have fun.

 

[Hussar]

What if the player decided when their character died? For dramatic purposes.

Dammit, ninja'd as I was posting.

To me, it totally depends on what style of game you are running. In the sandbox style, that's pretty much a no no. You probably shouldn't do that.

However, in a theme based game? Totally for that. Since emotional depth is the goal here, I can get behind that completely.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

I gave clear examples. What happened to them?

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

You have still to answer what you mean by "depth".

Now add to that what you mean by "engaging".

Finally, it is untrue that "The choices [you] have have nothing to do with the character [you] create" unless you are somehow unable to make a character that makes sense within the milieu presented. Me, I have no such difficulty. I've honestly met very, very few people who do.


RC

 

[Woas]

Can you explain further? A sandbox style game (I use the term loosely as I still don't know what the consensus meaning of that word is around here but anyway...) allowing a player to determine their character's death as the ultimate sacrifice/bargaining chip to alter events, especially if the game uses some sort of game-economy (bennies, fate points, etc.) that allow the player further narrative/scenario control would be a yes yes.

To me, it totally depends on what style of game you are running. In the sandbox style, that's pretty much a no no. You probably shouldn't do that.

However, in a theme based game? Totally for that. Since emotional depth is the goal here, I can get behind that completely.

 

[Janx]

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.

I'm OK with that. On just about anythread here, we should ALL assume the other person is talking about their methods and how they are working for them. Thus, Hussar talks about HussarWayism, and Ariosto is talking about Ariostoism. Where some folks take it to onetruewayism is by attacking somebody else's wayism.

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.

I don't disagree with this. In any of the games that I have had minimal planning with my PC and the DM and the world, before game start, they probably have minimal depth. I believe I have made memorable characters despite that, though some were less memorable than others. I believe that my more memorable of those characters were because I brought a depth to those characters, despite the lack of material to work with. I won't claim "acting skill", but what I'm talking about is how an actor can bring a character to life. At times, I can make more out of what little I've been given to work with. And as the game goes on, it gets better.

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?

Yup, that sucks. But I'm a story GM, not a sandbox GM. SO I do try to prevent PC death when I can. I have to make the PCs believe death is very possible. And at times, the dice have to fall where they may. PC death is a tricky thing. There are side effects for protecting PCs and benefits. There are side effects for killing them off willy nilly, and benefits.

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.

I think I said something to the same effect. Exceptions don't count. They're interesting, they're anecdotal. For the purposes of making a general rule or observation, they don't count. Yet people like to cite them anway.

I like to think that people play RPGs to get away from the real world. To do what they can't, and NOT have the same consequences and limitations that block them from venting their frustrations in real life.

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.

I don't disagree with you here. Ariosto has been chastized at least once by a moderator in this thread, and in the earlier pages he seemed to be the "dogs suck, why would you want one" type person at a dog show. He could use to show a little respect and tone down the rhetoric when he's in a thread about a topic he disagrees with.

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.

Yeah, I do assume a lot of combat, but then I'm mostly talking D&D. Even D&D doesn't have to be pure combat. But then, the base topic of that point was PC death, which generally happens in combat....

My point was that some folks cited earlier in this post will take anything said here to mean railroading, as evidenced by the length of this thread and how much it was NOT about using plot, and instead trying to explain how plot was not railroading.

 

[Janx]

I gave clear examples. What happened to them?



You have still to answer what you mean by "depth".

Now add to that what you mean by "engaging".

Finally, it is untrue that "The choices [you] have have nothing to do with the character [you] create" unless you are somehow unable to make a character that makes sense within the milieu presented. Me, I have no such difficulty. I've honestly met very, very few people who do.


RC

RC, it might be handy to start over a bit with Hussar. I've mostly lost base on what the two of you were even debating. Which seems to be the problem that I keep seeing posts of "if you see what I posted way back long ago, I answered your question". Which post, what question?

While my definition of depth or engaging probably varies, I assume its close enough to either of yours to be able to talk about it.

What's a depth or engaging mean to a character on a TV show. I assume it's nearly the same thing in an RPG.

Go watch the pilot episode of a TV show. Then watch the whole season.

Some characters lacked depth in the pilot, others didn't. Some of the characters gained depth over the course of the season.

It is probable that the show writers did not write a ton of backstory for a pilot. They probably did make up a little bit, just not all the details that show up in later "personal" episodes.

The actor (aka player) brings depth to a PC, not just by the material written in backstory, but by how they interpret and play with what they have.

In many ways, the character is defined more by what you see on screen (game play), than by what was written down in backstory.

 

[The Shaman]

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!!!!!

Okay.

I don't believe I've said anything to the contrary.

That's not onetruewayism.

Liking a playstyle doesn't mean one can't approach it with a bit of onetruewayism; they aren't mutually exclusive propositions.

Personally I try to be careful to qualify when I'm speaking in what I believe are general truths applicable to most games and gamers (something I do very, very rarely) and when I'm talking about things that are specific to my own preferences and experiences. If you think it would help, I'll just try to assume that when you make these sorts of statements . . .

;5027589It lacks depth because, at the time of character generation, the PC's have almost no connection to the campaign. While, as has been mentioned earlier, that depth may be achieved over time, that presumes that the campaign will last that long AND that the player will be playing the same character long enough to achieve that depth.

. . . that you're speaking solely to your own experience and preference and not trying to make a sweeping generalization about a play style. Hopefully this will serve to clear up misunderstandings.

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.

Upthread I explained the kinds of character backgrounds I like to see from players. Let me quote that for you again.

What I tell my players is a good background explains your character's motivation for not staying home and being a tradesman or an accountant or a courtier, and then stops. A background sets up the game; it doesn't intrude upon it.

If the players have done what I've asked of them, each of those characters has a reason to dive into that world. They hit the ground looking for trouble, right from the giddyup. They are engaged from the very moment we start playing because they took the time to determine why they are where they are.

"My character is the son of a Scots Guardsman and aspires to be a Marshal of France." "My character is a remittance man, but his measly stipend isn't enough to support him in the fashion to which he is accustomed." "My character is a student of theology who plans to pursue dual careers in the Church and as a royal minister, like Richelieu." "My character broke the gender barrier by becoming a fencing master and she wants to earn the reputation as the best fencer in France . . . no, Europe!"

In my opinion every one of those characters is fully engaged with the setting from the moment we sit at the table together, because I asked the players to determine why their characters choose to adventure. They have goals to pursue, not a plot to follow.

And the only thing needed to make those characters was a simple introduction to the setting.

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?

You tell me. You said upthread that you like many different styles of play, too, so why would you keep making characters, if indeed you really enjoy this playstyle?

In my experience, if a player enjoys playing the game I'm running, then that player will continue to make characters for the game as many times as necessary, in order to keep playing. A character death is a setback, not a reaons to quit.

 

[The Shaman]

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

Now, if only you live in SoCal . . .

 

[The Shaman]

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 my experience those are in fact among the worst referees to play with.