You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[N'raac]

True. But did they build cities? Without wood?

Well, let's explore this.

We've played out the trip through the desert. Against the wishes of one player, who complained all the way about these random encounters - over the course of 2 weeks of ingame time, 40+encounters with an assortment of powerful, dangerous desert beasts. We got to the city - barely alive - but we got there.

Now, let's resupply. OK, 5 characters, plus mounts and animal companions - need to replenish two weeks of provisions. No problem, just scratch the gold off, lots of provisions here in this wood-framed general store. And let's get longspears - heck, lets get two each just in case - a lot of those desert beasts loved to charge! No sweat, the weaponsmith has a huge wooden shop stacked to the rafters with weapons of all shapes and sizes. Oh, wait, I want to upgrade to Plate Mail. Check with the armorsmith in that two story wooden shop. "Let me check, my friend - I fear we may have a shortage in your size." "Oh, it is as I feared, I am very short of full plate armor in Short Fat Dwarf size - I have only four suits that will fit you perfectly! We must hope one is in a style pleasing to you!"

As we exit the marketplace, there seems to be something of a stir. What's this? A huge military force has surrounded the city!

Now, what I've been hearing for what, 75 pages, is that the siege is good because we can leverage it. But I've also been told not to kick the scenery or it will fall over. Now, what's better:

"Oh a siege - we will have to negotiate with its leaders"? Maybe those leaders aren't open to any negotiations - after all, this is the same sucky GM who made us trudge through that desert an even added some "role play" with his precious NPC rather than a simple gold for plate mail adjustment to the character sheet, so his siege likely sucks as well.

But shouldn't a player be able to work out that:

- despite having no local supply, the city has tons of food and provisions;
- despite having no local supply, there are wooden buildings everywhere, along with wooden weapons, etc.
- despite having no local supply, metals are also plentiful - four suits of Short Fat Dwarf size Plate Armor off the rack?
- it can't be getting shipped in over the desert - we barely made it through all those desert encounters!

So can we find out how it is that they can easily import all this stuff, circumventing the desert beasts, and use that to leverage as a tool to better deal with the siege? And if not, why not? Where did my player empowerment go?

OK. That's not what I had in mind when I used the phrase, though. And of course there is backstory - it's just that the backstory is introduced in support of metagame goals. The GM needs an NPC to do XYZ, or underpin ABC; so introduces one; and then gives it the appopriate backstory.

But having added that, is it now open to the players leveraging it? "A mad wizard created it" is the GM equivalent of "my PC is an orphaned loner" - no hooks, nothing that can be leveraged. A dungeon that has a history, a backstory and has been designed consistent with that enables the players to make an educated guess about what should be down here (just like expecting a suitably large city will have certain resources - maybe it won't, but most will). A "mad wizard" dungeon exists for the sole purpose of confounding the PC's/players and has no such educated guess/leveraging capacity. What was that inverted ziggurat, or boiling bubble, designed for? Who cares - it's a PC maze. And that can be fun too - but when every game features the "mad wizard dungeon with enemies who exist for the sole purpose of killing PC's", there's not a lot there for the PC's to leverage.

And I find it a bit strange that the Mad Wizard Dungeon is a perfectly acceptable trope, but a desert encounter is unacceptable because I either can't leverage it, it's not relevant or it's completely and totally contrived that there should be an encounter in the desert surrounding the city that is actually RELEVANT to the only significant settlement in the region. But "a mad wizard built it hundreds of years ago, and no one since has been able to get past its sealed entrance" is not at all contrived.

Sure.

The second bit is the bit where we apply different techniques. For instance, the PCs in my game killed a lich a few sessions ago. Now it's going to come back to have a second go, having reconstituted itself around its phylactery. At the time they killed it, I didn't know where it's phylactery was. I've now decided how I want to handle that (although my players haven't learned that particular bit of backstory is). In making that decision I also added a bit more backstory to the lich, which I anticipate will come out in the pending encounter. But given that all of this stuff is pre-play, it is all subject to real-time variation and elaboration in the course of play, including adding in different backstory if I think of something at the time that will be more interesting and put more pressure on the players.

See, I would not have a ton of difficulty with this. But as I compare it with comments made over a hundred or so pages in this thread, it seems inconsistent with many of the claims made earlier.

I could certainly see a player stating that "I know liches have phylacterys, and I do not want to face this thing again - we need to find its phylactery". That PC has no chance of accomplishing his goal, at least not immediately as he wishes, since no one knows where the phylactery is, GM included. Now, maybe that lich killed a PC and we want revenge. So we start casting divination spells to find that phylactery. Story Now! We want that phylactery and we want it NOW! We are not interested in playing out ANYTHING ELSE until we have dealt with that phylactery. STORY NOW!! Or is this somehow different and, if so, why is this an exception to the standard of player goals driving the scenes?

Oh, but you just want to "put more pressure on the players" - sure, we'll just assume whatever result is the worst possible case for the PC's. After all, that's what GM's do!

I have no idea if Kas would negotiate or not. There's nothing in his backstory that I know of that points either way. (Other than the fact that he is known as a traitor, so may not stick to the upshots of negotiation.) I made decisions about his personality and motivations - including his attitude to the PCs, and to the niece - during play as seemed appropriate to keep the game moving and give the players something interesting to engage with in the situation.

But you grabbed Kas right off the shelf with some pre-existing history. If the PC's had suggested he join them in a quest to return Vecna to his heights of power, would he possibly be good with that "to keep the game moving and give the players something interesting to engage with in the situation", or would his history dictate that this is simply not an option? Alternatively, would a payer who cleverly incorporates Kas' enmity with Vecna into the negotiations gain no advantage, or would he be able to leverage the established personality of the NPC?

My point is, by and large, you can exchange the settings in a lot of fiction and the plot remains largely unchanged. There's a reason that you can film movies set in New York in Toronto.

Until you want a shot of the Empire State Building and the Statue of Liberty, rather than the CN Tower.

So why did anyone make West Side Story? Not because "it's Romeo and Juliet", but because "it's like Romeo and Juliet, but set in 50's/60's New York". It is commonly referred to as "inspired by", rather than being, Romeo and Juliet. Similarities and differences exist (Juliet doesn't walk off the stage at the end of Romeo an Juliet, for example). Neither Tony nor Maria commit suicide. The intersection of a same/very similar plot with similar characters and a different setting creates a work that has endured for well over 50 years from the original Broadway production.

 

[Celebrim]

But, you're the one claiming that plot in indelibly linked to setting. I would say that there are some pretty significant setting differences between 14th century Italy and 20th century New York. Or Denmark and Kenya. Yet, you can retell these stories with the plot virtually unchanged, despite the setting being very different.

Within the frame work of a play, because within the framework of the play, all the essential differences are trivialized. Seriously, there is a big difference between scrubbing the proper nouns off of a story and reinserting new ones and changing the setting. You can retell these stories with the plot unchanged, because fundamentally the setting is the same. This is easiest to see in the Leonardo DiCaprio version of 'Romeo and Juliet' where the set the play in the context of modern day drug wars, and replace all the sword fights in the original with gun fights. But, they don't actually alter the story at all to accomodate the guns. Rather the play assumes that guns and swords serve the same functional purpose, so for the purposes of the play guns are swords. The writer trivializes the differences in setting, and removes anything between the two settings that might cause descrepencies. They don't even scrub the proper nouns off. The modern city still has a 'Prince'.

There may be very significant differences between 14th century Italy and 20th century New York, but they don't show up in the play. For the purposes of the play, all these differences are generally set aside and there is a one to one mapping of ideas, places, persons, and concepts in the original setting to the new setting. But, that means it isn't really a new setting at all. It's the old setting in a new costume. It's essential character hasn't changed at all. To the extent that you don't actually change the setting and you ignore any essential differences in culture, social structure, and setting between two different eras, you can tell the exact same story. But then the setting isn't really 14th century Italy or 20th century New York. Shakespeares plays are, regardless of the date on the play, told in his own present day or in a fantasy version of the same.

But I find it interesting that you think this analogy good, because there are some fundamental differences here between the play and the RPG. One is a bit obvious. Not every story can be so easily moved. In particular, many modern stories depend on technology as an essential plot point. You can't tell the story of the Matrix by scrubbing the proper nouns off and setting it in say 14th century Verona. Early modern Europe doesn't have a parallel for hacker culture, telephones, computers, AI, etc. The story won't resonate and in some elements won't make sense. I suppose you could have someone in 14th century Verona discover he doesn't live in 14th century Verona, but in the Matrix - which means that you haven't really changed the setting in its essential character. You'd have to invent parallels for all the original setting elements in the new setting, which again would be really the old setting in a slightly different costume. The problem with your analogy is that it is all well and good to imagine the original story being ported from 14th century Italy to 20th century New York by making some costume changes, but its impossible to imagine the original story being written with exactly the same structure if it was first concieved in 20th century New York by a writer living with knowledge of 20th century New York. The original Romeo and Juliet actually has artifacts of its setting and of the setting that the original writer and audience lived in that enrich understanding of the play. When you really begin to port the story to a new setting beyond scrubbing the proper nouns off, and you begin to tie the new story to the essential elements of the new setting, you pick up story not in the original. Say you are writing 'West Side Story'. At some level it's 'Romeo and Juliet'. But suddenly, the new story deals with elements of racism that the original story just doesn't have. The elements of poverty, disillusionment, alienation, and so forth that we as the modern reader know of from street gangs aren't really in the original story. In 'West Side Story' the protagonist is a good kid trying to work his way off the streets. In 'Romeo and Juliet', Romeo is a spoiled little rich boy. The authors are dealing with completely different issues and evoking completely different responses from the audience. Shakespeare gives a pretty scathing attack on upper class rakes. Romeo is a pathetic. He's a cry baby, with no real understanding that his sword is a murder weapon. Tony on the other hand is on the edge of gang culture, working for a living, doesn't want violence, and would rather use fists if it came to that. Where Romeo is meant to invoke criticism from the audience, Tony is meant to invoke sympathy - as are the Sharks. The biting criticism of the story of the larger society is very different. The story changed because the setting changed. So Maria walks away at the end because if she committed suicide, then it would diminish her in the eyes of the viewer.

But you miss an even bigger point, and that is that a play is a non-organic fiction with a fixed story arc and a single writer. RPGs are collaborative fictions written in real time by multiple writers and where the outcome of essential plot elements is resolved using fortune mechanics. The way these stories get created is entirely different especially in any case where the players have any sort of agency in the story. Whatever approach we use here - 'my way', 'pemerton's way' - the setting plays a much bigger role in the formulation of a story than it often does in a play or short story. Whether 'setting' in the RPG context means 'the stuff the player wrote in his backstory' or it means 'the intersection of the player backstory with the GM's invented world', its from setting and player choice that the RPG story proceeds. The process is not congruent in its details to the creation of plays.

Either way, plot is indelibly linked to setting.

 

[sheadunne]

Either way, plot is indelibly linked to setting.

I'm not arguing with your discussion of setting and story, but plot isn't connected to setting or story. Plot is the series of events that leads to a conclusion. In a typical D&D game, plot may not be a connected series of events (unless you're running a structured AP for instance). Although usually the plot ends up making itself known by the end.

The plot of the matrix, overthrow tyranny, is a universal plot that has existed since storytelling began. What's connected in the retelling of the matrix is the setting and story. You can't tell the same story of the matrix in 14th Italy, but you can certainly have a story with the same plot, which is overthrowing tyranny (ie control).

I just wanted to clarify here.

Setting - Where the story takes place
Story - The description of the events
Plot - The is the connection of events leading to a conclusion

In context of D&D each encounter in a game is an event connected to the plot (although that plot might not be known at the time of the event, depending on play style). You can run the same event in any setting, which won't change the plot, but it will change the story told. Which is why people can play the same D&D module (with the same plot) and have completely different play experiences (stories), and have it run in different locations (settings).

Anyway, your description of the story/setting connection is right on.

Cheers

 

[sheadunne]

Double post

 

[Nagol]

I'm not arguing with your discussion of setting and story, but plot isn't connected to setting or story. Plot is the series of events that leads to a conclusion. In a typical D&D game, plot may not be a connected series of events (unless you're running a structured AP for instance). Although usually the plot ends up making itself known by the end.

The plot of the matrix, overthrow tyranny, is a universal plot that has existed since storytelling began. What's connected in the retelling of the matrix is the setting and story. You can't tell the same story of the matrix in 14th Italy, but you can certainly have a story with the same plot, which is overthrowing tyranny (ie control).

I just wanted to clarify here.

Setting - Where the story takes place
Story - The description of the events
Plot - The is the connection of events leading to a conclusion

In context of D&D each encounter in a game is an event connected to the plot (although that plot might not be known at the time of the event, depending on play style). You can run the same event in any setting, which won't change the plot, but it will change the story told. Which is why people can play the same D&D module (with the same plot) and have completely different play experiences (stories), and have it run in different locations (settings).

Anyway, your description of the story/setting connection is right on.

Cheers

Perhaps a better way to say it is the potential plot is integrated with the setting. What choices the PCs have as options depend on the setting. The plot is their choice and its resolution.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm not arguing with your discussion of setting and story, but plot isn't connected to setting or story.

Well, then you are arguing with me.

Plot is the series of events that leads to a conclusion. In a typical D&D game, plot may not be a connected series of events

Now I'm confused.

The plot of the matrix, overthrow tyranny, is a universal plot that has existed since storytelling began.

I agree that the plot of the Matrix is one of the archetypal plots, but we appear to have a very different understanding of what plot is or what the Matrix is about. The archeatypal plot of the Matrix is 'The Unrevealed King' - see for example the King Arthur story. I don't even agree that The Matrix is really about overthrowing tyranny, per se, although ultimately that's one consequence. Nonetheless, to say that all stories containing the 'The Unrevealed King' though they have common elements ('The King Knows Not Who He Is' or 'The People Do Not Know Their King' and 'The Land and the King Are One', etc.) also have the same plot is I think wrong. Plot isn't just a synonym for conflict. You can say that the conflict is 'Man versus Nature' or 'Man versus Society', but that really tells us nothing much about the plot since the conflict is only one small element of the plot.

'Leningen versus the Ants' doesn't have the same plot as Jack London's 'To Build a Fire', despite sharing the 'Man versus Nature' conflict. They are radically different stories not just in the series of events that occur, but in the theme these events reinforce. Nor are the two settings equivalent, though I suppose you could tell 'Leningen versus the Snow' and 'To Build a Fire' from the stand point of defending yourself from an encrouching ant swarm, the emotional impact would I think be different. (For one thing, 'Leningen versus the Ants' might be 'man versus nature', but 'Leningen versus the Snow' borders on 'Man versus God'.) At the end of 'To Build a Fire', the man's death is surprisingly gentle, but might be more horrific if he was eaten alive.

Your discussion of how a module leads to a plot is so interesting, I may have to start a different thread on that. Point being, I find it an intruiging example, but I don't draw the conclusion that you do. I'll just say here that I think it is wrong to concluded that because two people play the same module that they necessarily have the same setting or plot, much less story. And even if they did, two different stories can have the same plot, they will be just very similar stories if they do. And in general, we wouldn't find it too surprising if the same module produced two similar stories.

And again, you can put the same plot in a different setting, but if the plot isn't going to adapt, it implies that the new setting has a one to one and onto relationship with the original setting. Thus, we could say, "Orcs = Storm Troopers, Wizard Knights = Jedi, The Black Knight = Darth Vader, The Dark Lord = The Emporer, The Unknown King = Luke Skywalker, Magic = The Force, The Dragon = The Death Star" and whatever, and we could move one fantasy story in a futurist fantasy setting to a quasi-medieval fantasy setting with little difficulty. We might however have a great deal of difficulty doing so if we changed the setting in fundamental ways: there is no magic, there is a monotheistic god, there is no ruling tyrant but rather a democracy or a beloved extant king, the setting requires that the culture reject the idea of a savior, etc. If the setting fundamentals change, for example you want to set a fantasy story where learning magic is fundamental to the plot in a setting where magic has no good counterpart, then you might have a problem. Sanding off the proper nouns and changing the drapes doesn't really change the fundamental setting much. Creating a setting to fit the plot is of course easy, but not every setting supports every story and that is fundamentally my point.

Anyway, your description of the story/setting connection is right on.

Huh. I don't understand you.

 

[sheadunne]

Huh. I don't understand you.

That's okay. I probably didn't address it clearly enough. I find that Plot and Story are completely different things and can't be used interchangeably. Consider this, Plot is the outline and story happens when you fill it in. The details of the story are unimportant to the plot as long as the plot progresses. Some RPG play styles require a plot be designed before play begins (it doesn't matter what happens during an event as long as they are able to move on to the next event and thus move along the plot), while other play styles require that the plot develop over the course of play (events are prepared ahead of time, but in response to the actions the players take, thus creating the plot after the event). Looking back at any particular campaign though, and a plot and a story can and do emerge, regardless of whether the plot was known before or after game play.

And again, you can put the same plot in a different setting, but if the plot isn't going to adapt, it implies that the new setting has a one to one and onto relationship with the original setting. Thus, we could say, "Orcs = Storm Troopers, Wizard Knights = Jedi, The Black Knight = Darth Vader, The Dark Lord = The Emporer, The Unknown King = Luke Skywalker, Magic = The Force, The Dragon = The Death Star" and whatever, and we could move one fantasy story in a futurist fantasy setting to a quasi-medieval fantasy setting with little difficulty. We might however have a great deal of difficulty doing so if we changed the setting in fundamental ways: there is no magic, there is a monotheistic god, there is no ruling tyrant but rather a democracy or a beloved extant king, the setting requires that the culture reject the idea of a savior, etc. If the setting fundamentals change, for example you want to set a fantasy story where learning magic is fundamental to the plot in a setting where magic has no good counterpart, then you might have a problem. Sanding off the proper nouns and changing the drapes doesn't really change the fundamental setting much. Creating a setting to fit the plot is of course easy, but not every setting supports every story and that is fundamentally my point.

I don't think plot requires that level specifics that you are giving it. Magic/Force, Dark Lord/Emperor etc are simply tools used to describe the event. They are story elements, not plot elements. If the plot requires a conflict between two characters, it doesn't matter how that conflict is portrayed, as long as it progresses to the next plot point.

If the setting fundamentals change, for example you want to set a fantasy story where learning magic is fundamental to the plot in a setting where magic has no good counterpart, then you might have a problem. Sanding off the proper nouns and changing the drapes doesn't really change the fundamental setting much.

Learning magic is fundamental to the story, not to the plot. The plot only requires that the event resolves to progress to the next point. Magic can be replaced with a tuna fish sandwich and it wouldn't matter as long as it moves forward.

. . . not every setting supports every story and that is fundamentally my point

I agree, but that isn't relevant to plot, only to story, and that's my point. We disagree on the level of connectiveness between story and plot and that's okay.

 

[Celebrim]

I agree, but that isn't relevant to plot, only to story, and that's my point. We disagree on the level of connectiveness between story and plot and that's okay.

No, I think we disagree on the detail of the summation of the story which constitutes plot. You seem to want a definition of "plot" that is very high level indeed. That is, you seem to think that "Man Versus Society" or only slightly more refined "Overthrow Tyranny" is a sufficient description to be a plot. So, while you might be happy with "Man Versus Nature" as the 'plot' of Jack London's, "To Build a Fire", I would see the plot as, "A man is freezing in the cold of an artic wilderness, and to survive the night he must build a fire with limited resources under harsh conditions." And for me, even that one sentence description suffices only because the story is so simple. The plot of 'The Lord of the Rings' would require at least a half-dozen sentences, dealing with largely separate stories of its two main protagonists 'Frodo' and 'Aragorn' and the main challenges they are faced with over the course of the story. It would not be enough to say the plot is, "Overthrow Tyranny" or even "Frodo has to get rid of a ring." because those statements are radically disconnected from essential elements of the story and connected to unessential elements (the ringness of the anti-quest item). We know nothing about the shape of the story from that statement of plot. There might be many stories with the same plot, the basic plot of 'To Build a Fire' doesn't give the details of the wilderness, the resources, the challenges, or even whether the man lives or dies or maybe even more importantly how we are meant to view the whole affair - comic, tragic, heroic, cautionary, sympatheticly, etc. But the plot does tell us something about the story, which is why in casual usage when someone says, "What is the plot of the movie?", you know to say something about the setting and to begin telling the story in outline.

That's okay. I probably didn't address it clearly enough. I find that Plot and Story are completely different things and can't be used interchangeably.

Ok, I agree that they can't be used interchangably. But what really confused me is when you defined plot as 'a series of events' in one sentence, then asserted it wasn't 'a series of events' in another sentence, and finally went on to say that 'Overcoming Tyranny' is a plot (when clearly, 'Over coming tyranny' isn't a series of events).

Consider this, Plot is the outline

Right. And 'Resisting Tyranny' isn't an outline.

I don't think plot requires that level specifics that you are giving it.

No, but setting does. And plot, being an outline of events, requires specific elements before that outline makes sense. The Star Wars story requires a young lost heir (Luke), a great and secret power (The Force), a Dark Lord (The Emperor), a Wizard mentor who can teach the secret power (Obiwan), and to a lesser extent various other things I mention because the plot of the trilogy - that is the outline of the story - will mention all of these things. Now the plot might loosely serve for a retelling of Theseus or of Star Wars, and the heir may or may not succumb to tempation (its a Greek Tragedy rather than a Fairy Tale) but in general I see the plot as being more detailed than you are here trying to make it.

If the plot requires a conflict between two characters, it doesn't matter how that conflict is portrayed, as long as it progresses to the next plot point.

I think you are confused. The plot doesn't require Luke, but it does require The Lost Heir. The plot doesn't require The Emporer, but it does require The Dark Lord. The central plot points here that you mention are going to be about this:

"A Dark Lord rules the land unjustly. The Lost Heir is drawn into The Conflict, when he hears the cries of The Princess. He begins his Heroes Journey, and is brought into confidence by The Wizard - who tells him of his inheritance and begins to train him in the ways of The Magic. The Wizard is slain by The Black Knight, a servant of The Dark Lord. The Lost Heir avenges himself on the Dark Knight, and then slays The Dragon - thererby saving the Princess and Her People. But the Dark Knight is not slain, and the The Dark Lord orders him to slay The Lost Heir. The hero enters into The Underworld, and there his tempted by The Dark Lord who reveals that he is The Lost Heir's father...." And so forth. Of course the full story has many details and small twists I've left out. And of course, while we know what those plot points mean, I've deliberately left them vague to show that in outline the plot is actually very broad.

Learning magic is fundamental to the story, not to the plot.

No, I'm sorry but while learning 'magic' is not part of the plot, learning 'The Magic' whether it is how to take control of computers, who to pull of a con, how to fight, etc. is ALWAYS a part of this plot and is essential to it. Learning 'The Magic' is an essential plot point in the sort of bildungsroman. Daniel-San has to learn 'The Magic' from Mr. Miyagi. A setting which doesn't have 'The Magic' can't tell this story, which means that you need a certain sort of heroic romanticism in your setting - no matter how gritty your setting might be.

Magic can be replaced with a tuna fish sandwich and it wouldn't matter as long as it moves forward.

That's some tuna fish sandwich. I would suggest that if you filled in 'The Magic' in the story above with 'making tuna fish sandwichs', you'd have a very particular sort of story. A cute one no doubt, but a particular one. However, you can't fill in 'The Magic' in the story with 'ordindary tuna fish sandwich'. It has to be extraordinary tuna fish sandwiches.

 

[innerdude]

I see "scene framing" as a relevant analog for "plot" -- It's the situation, or basic premise, that establishes the kinds of actions participants engage in. "Setting" may also be an aspect of the scene frame, as in many cases the setting determines A) if certain "plot points" are valid / invalid based on the established fiction, and B) constrains the available actions of the participant (as noted, a 14th-century Italian can't log on to a computer and search the Internet to get information on the Borgia family).

In some cases the setting may constrain the plot, the story, or both, or neither.

For me:

Plot = Part 1 of the "Scene Frame," the overall "situation" that bounds the story, and establishes possible actions.
Setting = Part 2 of the "Scene Frame," the physical "scenery" and chronology that establish relevant plot points and constrain character actions in a given situation.
Story = Actions taken by participants / actors within the scene frame.
Narrative = The evaluative judgment of the "rightness" or "wrongness" of those actions, as it relates to human experience.

These are all obviously arbitrary definitions, but for me they work fairly well to differentiate the concepts in my mind.

Interestingly, when evaluating fiction, which do we establish first? In most cases, it's the setting---where is it happening, what's the time period, what social / technological / political forces are at play etc.--and THEN we talk about the plot.

 

[sheadunne]

No, I think we disagree on the detail of the summation of the story which constitutes plot. You seem to want a definition of "plot" that is very high level indeed. That is, you seem to think that "Man Versus Society" or only slightly more refined "Overthrow Tyranny" is a sufficient description to be a plot. So, while you might be happy with "Man Versus Nature" as the 'plot' of Jack London's, "To Build a Fire", I would see the plot as, "A man is freezing in the cold of an artic wilderness, and to survive the night he must build a fire with limited resources under harsh conditions." And for me, even that one sentence description suffices only because the story is so simple. The plot of 'The Lord of the Rings' would require at least a half-dozen sentences, dealing with largely separate stories of its two main protagonists 'Frodo' and 'Aragorn' and the main challenges they are faced with over the course of the story. It would not be enough to say the plot is, "Overthrow Tyranny" or even "Frodo has to get rid of a ring." because those statements are radically disconnected from essential elements of the story and connected to unessential elements (the ringness of the anti-quest item). We know nothing about the shape of the story from that statement of plot. There might be many stories with the same plot, the basic plot of 'To Build a Fire' doesn't give the details of the wilderness, the resources, the challenges, or even whether the man lives or dies or maybe even more importantly how we are meant to view the whole affair - comic, tragic, heroic, cautionary, sympatheticly, etc. But the plot does tell us something about the story, which is why in casual usage when someone says, "What is the plot of the movie?", you know to say something about the setting and to begin telling the story in outline.

Plot is the series of events leading to a conclusion,. Overthrowing tyranny is the plot. The events that lead to the conclusion show to progression toward that plot. The entire point of having the events happen is to reach the conclusion, which is overthrowing tyranny.

Ok, I agree that they can't be used interchangably. But what really confused me is when you defined plot as 'a series of events' in one sentence, then asserted it wasn't 'a series of events' in another sentence, and finally went on to say that 'Overcoming Tyranny' is a plot (when clearly, 'Over coming tyranny' isn't a series of events).

It seems that part of my sentence got removed or unedited or something.

Overcoming is a verb that indicates action. The plot is overcoming tyranny. Each event (plot point) supports this action and moves us closer to the conclusion of overcoming tyranny.

Right. And 'Resisting Tyranny' isn't an outline.

But it is.

No, but setting does. And plot, being an outline of events, requires specific elements before that outline makes sense. The Star Wars story requires a young lost heir (Luke), a great and secret power (The Force), a Dark Lord (The Emperor), a Wizard mentor who can teach the secret power (Obiwan), and to a lesser extent various other things I mention because the plot of the trilogy - that is the outline of the story - will mention all of these things. Now the plot might loosely serve for a retelling of Theseus or of Star Wars, and the heir may or may not succumb to tempation (its a Greek Tragedy rather than a Fairy Tale) but in general I see the plot as being more detailed than you are here trying to make it.

The story outline will mention those things, but the plot outline doesn't need to. I'm simply removing plot completely from story. Story without plot is simply a collection of random events that don't lead anywhere particular. Plot without story is a outline without detail, only indicating action toward the conclusion.

I think you are confused. The plot doesn't require Luke, but it does require The Lost Heir. The plot doesn't require The Emporer, but it does require The Dark Lord. The central plot points here that you mention are going to be about this:

"A Dark Lord rules the land unjustly. The Lost Heir is drawn into The Conflict, when he hears the cries of The Princess. He begins his Heroes Journey, and is brought into confidence by The Wizard - who tells him of his inheritance and begins to train him in the ways of The Magic. The Wizard is slain by The Black Knight, a servant of The Dark Lord. The Lost Heir avenges himself on the Dark Knight, and then slays The Dragon - thererby saving the Princess and Her People. But the Dark Knight is not slain, and the The Dark Lord orders him to slay The Lost Heir. The hero enters into The Underworld, and there his tempted by The Dark Lord who reveals that he is The Lost Heir's father...." And so forth. Of course the full story has many details and small twists I've left out. And of course, while we know what those plot points mean, I've deliberately left them vague to show that in outline the plot is actually very broad.

I would say that's a mix of story and plot and rather specific with details that aren't necessary. A plot outline when removed from story might look like this . . . the () indicates anticipated response the author is trying to achieve from the audience to reach the conclusion of the plot.

Action Scene (Excitement)
Background Scene (Informational)
Exploration Scene (Curiosity)
Meeting Scene (Happiness)
Transition Scene (Informational)
Action Scene (Suspense)
Rescue Scene (Excitement)
Transition Scene (Relief)
Loss Scene (Sadness)
Recovery Scene (Acceptance)
Action Scene (Suspense)
Celebration Scene (Rejoice)

That for me is the plot outline. You tend to see this over and over again in movies (especially action movies). The plot itself for this outline will be overthrowing tyrant. Everything else is story and setting. Sure you can fill it in with story and setting elements, but it's not necessary to see how the plot will progress.

No, I'm sorry but while learning 'magic' is not part of the plot, learning 'The Magic' whether it is how to take control of computers, who to pull of a con, how to fight, etc. is ALWAYS a part of this plot and is essential to it. Learning 'The Magic' is an essential plot point in the sort of bildungsroman. Daniel-San has to learn 'The Magic' from Mr. Miyagi. A setting which doesn't have 'The Magic' can't tell this story, which means that you need a certain sort of heroic romanticism in your setting - no matter how gritty your setting might be.

See above. I'm not disagreeing with you that story and setting are connected and that changing one won't reflect on the other, only that changing the story does not change the plot.

That's some tuna fish sandwich. I would suggest that if you filled in 'The Magic' in the story above with 'making tuna fish sandwichs', you'd have a very particular sort of story. A cute one no doubt, but a particular one. However, you can't fill in 'The Magic' in the story with 'ordindary tuna fish sandwich'. It has to be extraordinary tuna fish sandwiches.

It would most certainly change the story, but not the plot. It might not be the most useful story/setting to reflect the plot, but there it is.