Plotting Style
Rodney Payne
plot based gaming styles.
Basically, I believe there are two factors separating the plot based
style from the world based style: these are:
* Degree to which the setting is fixed.
* Level of suspension of disbelief with regard to `unusual events'.
What is a fixed setting? Well, very few GMs will detail every aspect of
their game world. However, even if most of the areas of that game world
are sketched roughly, some GMs prefer only to expand on those notes
rather than actually change them. These games feature fixed settings. An
example will hopefully explain.
The characters are in Burma, but the GM has a plot ready for them in
France. One of the PC's husband is also in France, and as part of the
background notes the GM has at least implied that the bad guys (tm) don't
know about him. In a fixed setting, this remains the case. In a flexible
setting, that relatively minor detail may change to encourage the players
to pursue the plot taking place in France (let's say the guy is kidnapped).
Since the players may be pretty much unaware of these details, the
fixed versus flexible axis is mainly a GM decision. How much is s/he
willing to modify the world background to pursue a particular plot.
What do I mean by suspension of disbelief? Watch some _Star Trek_, any
series. Every week the Enterprise runs into an unusual situation, that
can be solved (just) with the available resources, that often involves
character specific background. Now, even if we accept that the _Star
Trek_ universe is full of weird things, even if, between episodes, the
Enterprise encounters a lot of mundane stuff, it's still somewhat beyond
coincidence that they get into so much trouble. Even if you don't agree
with me about that series, I'm sure you can think of one that does
stretch credibility in this way: maybe the _Die Hard_ films. When we
watch such programs, when we read Agatha Christie novels, we are engaging
our suspension of disbelief. We accept that, as odd as it would be in
real life, the characters come across such situations regularly.
What requires suspension of disbelief varies with the setting. If the
PCs encounter two dragons in a fantasy setting, it's no big deal. If they
run into them in a cyberpunk game, something unusual is going on. Many
plot hooks rely on some intrinsic relationship with tht characters; but
only so many PCs can turn out to be lost rulers before it seems that they
share an almost cinematic portion of the history of the world.
The same applies to locations. If something unusual is happening
everywhere the characters go, or just everywhere in general (let's say
every location holds the seed to a genre fiction `plot'), then our
suspension of disbelief tends to be engaged.
This continuum is most useful in describing campaigns. For games which
deal only with a single plot (convention games, for example), a
distinction need be made only on the flexible versus fixed axis. Of
course, a limited term game without a flexible setting (written to ensure
the PCs follow the plot reasonably closely) would be unusual, because
such a game will probably end when the characters decide to move
significantly away from what the GM has preplanned. For example:
NPC: I'd like you to recover my lost jewels.
PCs: Sorry, it's not what we do.
NPC: OK.
GM: Well, that's the end of tonight's play.
So, with these two axes in mind, we can plot a given campaign on the
following plane:
Event Based | High SoD Plot Based
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed Setting | Flexible Setting
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Limited Duration Plot
World Based | Low SoD Based
Noting that most games will probably fall between, rather than at, the
extremes, and that campaigns may change over time, here are the
descriptions of the extreme cases:
* World Based: The players want a campaign that, though interesting, is
believably mundane. Plot hooks are fairly infrequent, though they may
occur. Character is explored within a particular setting, but the players
determine campaign direction. If they leave a given location, the plot
will only follow them if this makes sense within the predetermined world
background. This type of game requires a detailed setting. Explorations
of real world historical periods are often world based.
* Event Based: The world background is never modified to entice the PCs
back to the plot, but the PCs will find `interesting' things wherever
they go. The world, as for world based games, must be highly detailed.
Probably a narrative structure unique to roleplaying: you don't often see
characters in novels just up and leave without tying up the loose ends.
A _Star Trek_ campaign would probably be event based.
* Plot Based: The PCs explore one `interesting' plot after another, but
the GM usually manipulates the setting so that they never move away from
the current one. In a well run plot based game, there will not be any
`railroading', because there is either a tacit agreement to stick with
what's presented, or the GM makes unnoticed changes to things, using what
s/he knows about the characters to encourage them to play it as
written. A James Bond style espionage campaign is probably plot based.
* Limited Duration Plot Based: only one plot is played through, so
suspension of disbelief problems of this type are not encountered. The GM
manipulates the setting to ensure the plot unfolds in the general
direction s/he has before play starts. Convention scenarios are usually
limited duration plot based.
Just to make sure this isn't seen as partisan: I play games of all the
above types. No style is better, it's just a matter of personal taste.
Games generally work better when everyone has the same preferred style.
And the decision to use a plot based style may be based on either
dramatic preferences or necessity (I don't have time to detail much more
than the basic plot).
Thoughts?
--
Rodney Payne | What is the meaning of life? Life has no
| meaning. It's just a fortunate coincidence
spur...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au | of carbon chemistry. Forget about it.
rgp...@cfs01.cc.monash.edu.au | Anonymous
Andrew Finch
: Since the players may be pretty much unaware of these details, the
: fixed versus flexible axis is mainly a GM decision. How much is s/he
: willing to modify the world background to pursue a particular plot.
I run fully plotted games. I deal in complete backgrounds, and although
information may change because I allow a good deal of player
improvisational control, that is not a necessity. With a more
improvisationally restrictive stance, I would have very fixed settings.
: What do I mean by suspension of disbelief? Watch some _Star Trek_, any
: series. Every week the Enterprise runs into an unusual situation, that
: can be solved (just) with the available resources, that often involves
: character specific background.
This is clearly a genre device and has nothing to do with plotting
specifically. I've run plotted games of Star Trek, and plotted games of
Cyberpunk, and plotted games of modern horror, and plotted games of
Arabian adventure. Some plots are intense, but low key, like the
resolution of a love triangle. Engaging for the paryicipants, but not
world shattering, nor very unbelievable. Some plots I've run a basically
unfair, without the resources necessary to move through the conflict, and
most of the time they end in tragedy (unless the players are very, very
clever). A plot is structure. It can be used in *any* type of game. There
is, arguably, a meta-game difference in feel between a plotted an
dunplotted game, but I haven't found it necessary to stretch the bounds
of suspension of disbelief, or wildly alter my settings in order to run
plot based games.
: plot hooks rely on some intrinsic relationship with tht characters; but
: only so many PCs can turn out to be lost rulers before it seems that they
: share an almost cinematic portion of the history of the world.
That's silly. A plot hook need not be large. It need not be world
shattering. It only needs to be central to the character which it hooks.
I run fairly fixed setting, long term, improvisational campaigns, which
are consistently plotted, yet tend toward gritter, 'realistic' feeling
games. And none of these choices are antithetical to the others in my
experience.
I still think your chasing phantoms.
David
Rodney Payne
>I run fully plotted games. I deal in complete backgrounds, and although
>information may change because I allow a good deal of player
>improvisational control, that is not a necessity. With a more
>improvisationally restrictive stance, I would have very fixed settings.
Then, as I have said before, you are probably running an event based game.
>: What do I mean by suspension of disbelief? Watch some _Star Trek_, any
>: series. Every week the Enterprise runs into an unusual situation, that
>: can be solved (just) with the available resources, that often involves
>: character specific background.
>This is clearly a genre device and has nothing to do with plotting
>specifically. I've run plotted games of Star Trek, and plotted games of
>Cyberpunk, and plotted games of modern horror, and plotted games of
>Arabian adventure. Some plots are intense, but low key, like the
>resolution of a love triangle. Engaging for the paryicipants, but not
>world shattering, nor very unbelievable.
My typology doesn't preclude such games, they simply don't occur at the
extremes. Low suspension of disbelief, and the setting may be flexible,
fixed, or anywhere in between. However, if such plots develop from hooks
created by the GM, they will eventually invoke a suspension of disbelief.
Indiviually, they are believable, but when compounded they stretch the
boundaries of coincidence. Such suspension of disbelief may seem
irrelevent to you, but I know that to others it is important.
>Some plots I've run a basically
>unfair, without the resources necessary to move through the conflict, and
>most of the time they end in tragedy (unless the players are very, very
>clever). A plot is structure. It can be used in *any* type of game. There
>is, arguably, a meta-game difference in feel between a plotted an
>dunplotted game, but I haven't found it necessary to stretch the bounds
>of suspension of disbelief, or wildly alter my settings in order to run
>plot based games.
Again I think you're equivocating between my definition of a plot based
game and yours. Campaigns featuring several unusual event series
involving the player characters invoke this sort of suspension of
disbelief by definition. It may not bother you to suspend your disbelief
in this way, but you are still doing it.
If, as I suspect, some of these games are limited duration plot based
games, then they involve less suspension of disbelief.
>: plot hooks rely on some intrinsic relationship with tht characters; but
>: only so many PCs can turn out to be lost rulers before it seems that they
>: share an almost cinematic portion of the history of the world.
>That's silly. A plot hook need not be large. It need not be world
>shattering. It only needs to be central to the character which it hooks.
Not silly at all: you're being too literal. A campaign following 10 years
in the life of the PCs, featuring 15 such plots, invokes a level of
disbelief suspension that some players find uncomfortable. If the plot
hooks and connected plots are really so minimal, then the game is world
based.
>I run fairly fixed setting, long term, improvisational campaigns,
So they simply vary on the fixed to flexible axis. There's no problem here.
>which
>are consistently plotted, yet tend toward gritter, 'realistic' feeling
>games. And none of these choices are antithetical to the others in my
>experience.
I have never suggested that a plot based game cannot be gritty. You're
confusing two different types of disbelief suspension. The number of
`plots' in, say, _NYPD Blue_ requires a suspension of disbelief (their
lives are `interesting' even for New York cops), but it still has a
gritty, realistic feel (well, it's meant to anyway).
I've don't see how your games, as described, fail to fit on my typology.
Andrew Finch
: Then, as I have said before, you are probably running an event based game.
I don't think I could run a more thouroughly plot based game.
: >This is clearly a genre device and has nothing to do with plotting
: >specifically. I've run plotted games of Star Trek, and plotted games of
: >Cyberpunk, and plotted games of modern horror, and plotted games of
: >Arabian adventure. Some plots are intense, but low key, like the
: >resolution of a love triangle. Engaging for the paryicipants, but not
: >world shattering, nor very unbelievable.
: My typology doesn't preclude such games, they simply don't occur at the
: extremes. Low suspension of disbelief, and the setting may be flexible,
: fixed, or anywhere in between. However, if such plots develop from hooks
: created by the GM, they will eventually invoke a suspension of disbelief.
Why? That makes no sense. If they develop from the GM they *must* invoke
suspension of disbelief, but if developed from the players they are
magically hidden in common sense? There is *no* difference between a plot
hook developed by the GM, and ones developed by the players. In the plot
based games which I'm used to running, the players do develop many of the
plot hooks, and in fact, every plot hook I develop, they're responsible
for. Always character first. Plots are not about their events, but rather
about their characters.
: Indiviually, they are believable, but when compounded they stretch the
: boundaries of coincidence. Such suspension of disbelief may seem
: irrelevent to you, but I know that to others it is important.
It is totally important to me. I simply know that plot based games are
not bound to stretch suspension of disbelief any more than event or world
based games, or what ever type you wish to find boundaries for. A plot is
only a structure which dictates nothing about the genre of the game. A
plotted game need not be episodic, nor outrageous, in pieces, or when
strung together. The only difference is that someone has bothered to work
out the details of plot structure in advance, rather than haphazardly as
the game progresses. Just like I usually work out the NPCs and their
motivations before the game begins, rather than haphazardly as it goes.
Does that stretch the boundaries of disbelief?
: Again I think you're equivocating between my definition of a plot based
: game and yours.
I'm using the only fair definition I can think of, which is that a plot
based game is a game based on a plot. I'm not going to argue plot
structure here, becuase we've done that, but I certainly think the great
majority of people would take one look at my games, and tag them as plot
based.
: Campaigns featuring several unusual event series
: involving the player characters invoke this sort of suspension of
: disbelief by definition.
First, you can't invoke suspension of disbelief by definition, it's a
first person in the moment psychological experience. You'll only narrow
the usefulness of your topology to yourself that way.
Second, name me a game that did not feature 'several unuasual event
series involving the player characters'. What you're saying is that any
game which is even marginally interesting will invoke suspension of
disbelief. Welcome to the party.
: If, as I suspect, some of these games are limited duration plot based
: games, then they involve less suspension of disbelief.
Many of them are not limited duration, except that they stop when they
stop, but they've gone for over a year, which I suspect qualifies as a
longer term campaign.
: >That's silly. A plot hook need not be large. It need not be world
: >shattering. It only needs to be central to the character which it hooks.
: Not silly at all: you're being too literal. A campaign following 10 years
: in the life of the PCs, featuring 15 such plots, invokes a level of
: disbelief suspension that some players find uncomfortable.
Then don't do it. I could come up with twice that many plot hooks that
don't need to be near that large. I can come up with plot hook after plot
hook that are no larger than anything run in those 'world based' games,
which, from what I've seen are mostly grand or epic quest games, and
twice as guilty of this as any plot based game I've seen.
: If the plot
: hooks and connected plots are really so minimal, then the game is world
: based.
Small plot hooks don't mean no plot. An Unmarried Woman, Kramer Vs.
Kramer, The Razor's Edge, none of these had world shaking plots, nobody
rescued a whole city, yet they were each plotted films, not 'world based'.
If I work on a lve triangle between characters, someone's relationship
with their father, a growing understanding of adulthood, these are still
plotted.
Actually, these big 'unbelievable' plots which you seem to think are
necessary in a plotted game, don't even count as plots in my book.
They're just events. Plots are about the characters. The only reason for
the epic struggle in Star Wars is so that Luke can become a man. It could
have been done as a Lassie movie, and probably has been before. The scale
you wish to work at is entirely a decision of aesthetics by the players
and GM.
: >I run fairly fixed setting, long term, improvisational campaigns,
: So they simply vary on the fixed to flexible axis. There's no problem here.
They seem to vary on every one of your axis. If your definition can't
contain my plotted games, I'm not convinced it can contain anybody's. I
think it's vapor.
: I have never suggested that a plot based game cannot be gritty. You're
: confusing two different types of disbelief suspension. The number of
: `plots' in, say, _NYPD Blue_ requires a suspension of disbelief (their
: lives are `interesting' even for New York cops), but it still has a
: gritty, realistic feel (well, it's meant to anyway).
: I've don't see how your games, as described, fail to fit on my typology.
I don't see how they do fit, since they don't break suspension of
disbelief, but are long term plotted, but vary on the fixed to flexible
axis...
The biggest gap to me is that there is no game under your definition
which will not break suspension of disbelief, since you've defined that
break as occuring around any set of large or interesting events. I don't
really care about large, but I try to stay away from those games without
interesting events.
David
Rodney Payne
>: My typology doesn't preclude such games, they simply don't occur at the
>: extremes. Low suspension of disbelief, and the setting may be flexible,
>: fixed, or anywhere in between. However, if such plots develop from hooks
>: created by the GM, they will eventually invoke a suspension of disbelief.
>Why? That makes no sense. If they develop from the GM they *must* invoke
>suspension of disbelief, but if developed from the players they are
>magically hidden in common sense?
Reread what I wrote. I said if they `develop from hooks created by the
GM.' Not `if they develop from the GM.' Vast difference. A game which
relies on *player created plot hooks* which the GM develops is world
based. Suspension of disbelief develops from a sequence of unlikely
occurences: if a character's personality is such that s/he keeps
initiating interesting (or mundane) things, that is perfectly consistent
with the real world and causes no suspension of disbelief of this sought.
However, if plot hooks which are unusual (in frequency) for the setting
keep occuring, this sought of suspension of disbelief is required.
Nonetheless, I'm going to refine the model as primarilly for use with
long term multi `plot' games, and call the low suspension of disbelief,
flexible setting to accomadate the plot extreme `mundane plot based.'
(The term `mundane' is not to indicate such games are boring.)
* Mundane Plot Based: These games feature few GM introduced events which
are `unusual' for the setting, but the setting is kept flexible in order
to maintain the player characters' involvement with the current plot.
(Short term plot based can still be used to reflect `unusual' plotted
games that avoid suspension of disbelief because the `unusual' things
don't keep happening to the same characters.)
>There is *no* difference between a plot
>hook developed by the GM, and ones developed by the players. In the plot
>based games which I'm used to running, the players do develop many of the
>plot hooks, and in fact, every plot hook I develop, they're responsible
>for.
See above. Such games are world based. That you elaborate on them or plan
contingences based around character is irrelevent. In fact it is required.
>: Indiviually, they are believable, but when compounded they stretch the
>: boundaries of coincidence. Such suspension of disbelief may seem
>: irrelevent to you, but I know that to others it is important.
>It is totally important to me. I simply know that plot based games are
>not bound to stretch suspension of disbelief any more than event or world
>based games, or what ever type you wish to find boundaries for. A plot is
>only a structure which dictates nothing about the genre of the game. A
>plotted game need not be episodic, nor outrageous, in pieces, or when
>strung together.
While I think that repeated GM intorduced plot hooks will almost always
require suspension of disbelief, I can imagine that a sufficiently
mundane series of such hooks could make up a campaign, and am introduing
`mundane plot based' as an appropriate term.
>The only difference is that someone has bothered to work
>out the details of plot structure in advance, rather than haphazardly as
>the game progresses. Just like I usually work out the NPCs and their
>motivations before the game begins, rather than haphazardly as it goes.
>Does that stretch the boundaries of disbelief?
It has nothing to do with it, but I never said it did. Depending on
whether you manipulate the setting to maintain a specific plot, it will
be world based or mundane plot based (or event or plot based, but you
insist that your games require little suspension of disbelief). What you're
describing is called common sense, and, while essential for a world or event
based games, is certainly useful with a plot based campaign of either type.
>: Again I think you're equivocating between my definition of a plot based
>: game and yours.
>I'm using the only fair definition I can think of, which is that a plot
>based game is a game based on a plot. I'm not going to argue plot
>structure here, becuase we've done that, but I certainly think the great
>majority of people would take one look at my games, and tag them as plot
>based.
Yes. Mundane plot based if they don't involve any (or much) suspension of
disbelief.
>: Campaigns featuring several unusual event series
>: involving the player characters invoke this sort of suspension of
>: disbelief by definition.
>First, you can't invoke suspension of disbelief by definition, it's a
>first person in the moment psychological experience. You'll only narrow
>the usefulness of your topology to yourself that way.
Then let me rephrase. For many people, `several unusual event series
involving player characters' requires a suspension of disbelief, a
suspension they'd rather not effect.
>Second, name me a game that did not feature 'several unuasual event
>series involving the player characters'.
Easily. I have played world based games of GURPS Aztecs, GURPS
Swashbucklers, a fantasy game loosely based on Rolemaster, and a
Shadowrun campaign, all of which were world based, and were more explorations of living in those societies than plotted adventures.
>What you're saying is that any
>game which is even marginally interesting will invoke suspension of
>disbelief. Welcome to the party.
No. Any game that is `interesting'. If you'd read my earlier posts
(which, as you've been away, you may not have), you'd know that by
`interesting' I meant similar to what you might expect in a film, or a
novel. Roleplaying is not, however, film or prose. Things that are
enjoyable in a roleplaying game (experiencing a different society) may,
if taken by themselves, bore the average filmgoer to death.
I certainly wouldn't play a game that simply wasn't interesting (with
out the the quotes).
>hook that are no larger than anything run in those 'world based' games,
>which, from what I've seen are mostly grand or epic quest games, and
We've had different experiences then.
>twice as guilty of this as any plot based game I've seen.
Nobody said world based games don't involve suspension of disbelief, just
not *that* type of suspension of disbelief. And, of course, they may not
be run as they're intended.
>: If the plot
>: hooks and connected plots are really so minimal, then the game is world
>: based.
>Small plot hooks don't mean no plot. An Unmarried Woman, Kramer Vs.
>Kramer, The Razor's Edge, none of these had world shaking plots, nobody
>rescued a whole city, yet they were each plotted films, not 'world based'.
>If I work on a lve triangle between characters, someone's relationship
>with their father, a growing understanding of adulthood, these are still
>plotted.
Hm. I think `planned' might be a more accurate term, but I think I'd have
to see one of them run before I knew for sure. Do you, by chance, have a
transcript of one of them, and the accompanying plot notes.
>Actually, these big 'unbelievable' plots which you seem to think are
>necessary in a plotted game, don't even count as plots in my book.
Nor in mine, but they are plot hooks.
>: >I run fairly fixed setting, long term, improvisational campaigns,
>: So they simply vary on the fixed to flexible axis. There's no problem here.
>They seem to vary on every one of your axis. If your definition can't
>contain my plotted games, I'm not convinced it can contain anybody's. I
>think it's vapor.
I'd think just the opposite. Whenever the hallmarks of the particular
style you describe your games as being are raised, you deny that those
elements are present. That my model seems more troubled (though I don't
believe it is) describing your particular style doesn't surprise me at all.
>I don't see how they do fit, since they don't break suspension of
>disbelief, but are long term plotted, but vary on the fixed to flexible
>axis...
Mundane plot based to world based, or somewhere in between.
>The biggest gap to me is that there is no game under your definition
>which will not break suspension of disbelief, since you've defined that
>break as occuring around any set of large or interesting events. I don't
>really care about large, but I try to stay away from those games without
>interesting events.
`Interesting' not interesting. Nobody plays games that aren't, in some
way, interesting to them.
Kevin R. Hardwick
On 17 Jul 1995, Rodney Payne wrote:
> Reread what I wrote. I said if they `develop from hooks created by the
> GM.' Not `if they develop from the GM.' Vast difference. A game which
> relies on *player created plot hooks* which the GM develops is world
> based. Suspension of disbelief develops from a sequence of unlikely
> occurences: if a character's personality is such that s/he keeps
> initiating interesting (or mundane) things, that is perfectly consistent
> with the real world and causes no suspension of disbelief of this sought.
I'm confused, Rodney. Suppose I tell my players: here is the setting,
devise appropriate characters. And then I read the character historys and
devise a plot based on the dramatic conflict within them. Is this plot
or world based?
I guess it all depends on what you mean by "hook." Is a plot "hook" for
you what Syd Field means by a "plot point" and what David Berkman calls a
"plot twist"? Or is it some motivation within a character that causes
that character to enter into some sort of conflict, either internal or
external, and attempt to resolve it?
I don't see how suspension of disbelief impinges here, one way or the
other. If the plot is a "coming of age" story, and the character comes
of age over, say, six months worth of play, and the next plot is about
the character's marriage, and the next plot after that is about the
character dealing with the death of his parants, and by contrast, with his
own mortality--where does suspension of disbelief come into it? Aren't
all of these things plausible? And yet every one could be the result of
a GM instigated plot.
Moreover, everyone of these plots could be very dramatic and meaningful,
although not of necessity action oriented. Handled properly this could
be quite a game.
> However, if plot hooks which are unusual (in frequency) for the setting
> keep occuring, this sought of suspension of disbelief is required.
Again, I just don't see how "suspension of disbelief" helps us
distinguish between formally plotted and subjectively plotted games.
[Mark Wallace and I had dinner last night with Sarah Kahn and Charles
Seaton (who are as charming and intelligent in real life as you might
easily imagine from reading their posts--well, Sarah's posts anyway <g>)
and agreed that "subject" was a better term for the first-person
in-character narrative stance. Since you can tell stories about every
game in which you participate (and do so on a regular basis during play to
make sense of where you are and where you are going) ALL games are in
some sense plotted. So the distinction is between games in which the GM
or the players or both attempt to plot in a formal, literary sense and
those games in which all rely on the narrative stance of the subject to
create the story. Sarah has suggested that this can in part be described
by looking at who has the authority to turn 'incidents' into 'events,'
per Dibell's definitions of those terms. Anyway, when I use the term
"subjectively plotted" above what I am referring to is the first-person
in-character narrative stance.]
It seems to me that both kinds of narrative run the same risks of
suspension of disbelief--in both cases the setting must be believable, as
must the characters. If both of these tests are met, why will a
formally plotted game be more likely to jar suspension of disbelief than
a subjectively plotted game?
Best,
Kevin
Andrew Finch
: Reread what I wrote. I said if they `develop from hooks created by the
: GM.' Not `if they develop from the GM.' Vast difference. A game which
: relies on *player created plot hooks* which the GM develops is world
: based.
Read what I wrote. What I'm saying is that it makes no difference,
developed from the players, developed from the GM, started by the players
and developed by the GM, started by the GM and developed by the players.
I have been playing over 2 years worth of troupe style games, with lots
of improvisation, and no one can tell the difference between any of the
above plots. Usually they are a combination of GM and player initiation
and development, but it does not matter. I've run games based entirely
off of GM plots, and games based entirely off of player plots. I hjave
yet to see any difference in the way they are run, accepted by the
players, or developed.
: Suspension of disbelief develops from a sequence of unlikely
: occurences:
Like those which are the bread and butter of every game I have ever
played in or seen run.
: if a character's personality is such that s/he keeps
: initiating interesting (or mundane) things, that is perfectly consistent
: with the real world and causes no suspension of disbelief of this sought.
I have never initiatred an event as a GM which is not perfectly
consistent with the world, so how can I have ever broken suspension of
disbelief in my GM initiated plots.
: However, if plot hooks which are unusual (in frequency) for the setting
: keep occuring, this sought of suspension of disbelief is required.
Then suspension of disbelief is *always* required. Tell me what happened
during your last game. And the game before. And the game before that. All
normal, not out of the ordinary, uninteresting, plain, mundane events?
: flexible setting to accomadate the plot extreme `mundane plot based.'
: (The term `mundane' is not to indicate such games are boring.)
What is it to indicate then? Tell me a mundane plot, which is not out of
the ordinary, therefore requiring no suspension of disbelief, which is
fun and interesting.
: >There is *no* difference between a plot
: >hook developed by the GM, and ones developed by the players. In the plot
: >based games which I'm used to running, the players do develop many of the
: >plot hooks, and in fact, every plot hook I develop, they're responsible
: >for.
: See above. Such games are world based. That you elaborate on them or plan
: contingences based around character is irrelevent. In fact it is required.
Then I have the most thouroghly plotted world-based games you can
imagine. Those world based games that are pre-scripted beforehand, rely
on the plot through the entire run, base result decisions upon that plot,
are now 'world-based'. I think your definitions need some work.
: While I think that repeated GM intorduced plot hooks will almost always
: require suspension of disbelief, I can imagine that a sufficiently
: mundane series of such hooks could make up a campaign, and am introduing
: `mundane plot based' as an appropriate term.
A 'sufficiently mundane' series of hooks has no conflict, and therefore,
you're correct, no plot. And if that's what it takes to make sure I don't
have to suspend any prescious disbelief, then I think I'll stay with the
unordinary, the interesting, and the suspension of disbelief.
: `Interesting' not interesting. Nobody plays games that aren't, in some
: way, interesting to them.
But 'interesting events', if in any way unusual, would require suspension
of disbelief. I'm wondering what these interestinbg but not unusual
events are?
David
Andrew Finch
: create the story. Sarah has suggested that this can in part be described
: by looking at who has the authority to turn 'incidents' into 'events,'
: per Dibell's definitions of those terms. Anyway, when I use the term
: "subjectively plotted" above what I am referring to is the first-person
: in-character narrative stance.]
Now that makes a lot of sense, and may act as a useful delineation. I'll
have to think about that.
Here's a question. Is the subjectively plotted game (or world-based),
where the authority to turn incidents into events, merely a subset of the
plotted troupe style game?
David
Magnus Lie Hetland
>OK. Here goes an an attempt to clarify my distiction between world and
>plot based gaming styles.
>
> So, with these two axes in mind, we can plot a given campaign on the
>following plane:
>
>
> Event Based | High SoD Plot Based
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> Fixed Setting | Flexible Setting
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> | Limited Duration Plot
> World Based | Low SoD Based
>
i don't quite get why you think that world based games are low on SoD.
>
>* Limited Duration Plot Based: only one plot is played through, so
> suspension of disbelief problems of this type are not encountered. The GM
> manipulates the setting to ensure the plot unfolds in the general
> direction s/he has before play starts.
I don't see how this reduces the SoD.
> Convention scenarios are usually
> limited duration plot based.
>
> Just to make sure this isn't seen as partisan: I play games of all the
>above types. No style is better, it's just a matter of personal taste.
>Games generally work better when everyone has the same preferred style.
>And the decision to use a plot based style may be based on either
>dramatic preferences or necessity (I don't have time to detail much more
>than the basic plot).
>
> Thoughts?
I think your types are reasonable, but I don't quite agree with your use of the
SoD-dimention. Maybe I don't understand what you mean. I dunno.
Rodney Payne
>From: "Kevin R. Hardwick" <krhr...@wam.umd.edu>
>Subject: Re: Plotting Style
>Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 09:51:13 -0400
>I'm confused, Rodney. Suppose I tell my players: here is the setting,
>devise appropriate characters. And then I read the character historys and
>devise a plot based on the dramatic conflict within them. Is this plot
>or world based?
It depends. The chief difference, as I see it, is whether you see these
characters carrying out a single `plot' (allowing for some variability) to a
conclusion (though again that conclusion may be flexible. An extreme plot
based game will have very little option as to its progression and
conclusion, and this will be reflected, I believe (and such is my
experience) by the degree to which the GM manipulates the setting to
encourage the players to pursue it. Thus, such games feature a flexible
setting.
One more example, which, if it fails to illustrate, will be the last I
post here. I'm happy with the model (though perhaps not with my success in
communicating it), but as this has become a three way conversation of little
general interest, I'll take any further queries in email.
For the purposes of illustration I'll select a fairly familiar setting and
a fairly chiched `plot': those are easiest to demonstrate with. The
characters are present in a city when the local lord starts looking for help
in rescuing his daughter. Let's assume one of the characters is a leader
type whom the others defer to (named Jill). One of her weaknesses is her
vanity and poor (but hidden) self-esteem (what Adler would call a
superiority complex). Another of the characters has a reputation as a
competent mage, and his (reputed) abilities are just what the lord needs
(let's call him Jack). He is known to be in town, so the lord seeks him out.
He asks Jill what she thinks, but Jill just wants to stop by here on the way
top somewhere else, and declines.
Add to this equation that Jill has a rival, and the two constantly try to
outdo one another when they are together. Boris is, at this point, 200
miles to the south and up to something of his own. Nothing major, but if
it goes through it will have noticeable consequences.
So, Jill has declined the `plot'. The lord isn't one to push, so at this
point the world based GM simply leaves the players to their own choices.
The plot based GM, however, wants the players to participate in this
rescure attempt. So s/he manipulates the setting a little. It won't really
hurt the setting if Boris happens to be passing through at the same time,
perhaps the morning the players plan to leave. So, whadaya know, Jill
bumps into Boris, who proudly declares he's going on the rescue attempt.
Thusly, the GM relies on Jill to now *want* to go after the daughter: s/he
manipulates the setting so that characters are now motivated to attempt
the rescue.
Now, this type of play requires a cooperative group. I know some players
who'd spot it a mile away (even if Boris was meant to be in town) and
complain. But I don't run plot based games for them. It is, as I said
before, a matter of tacit agreement.
What if Boris was meant to be in town anyway? Well, then it's a world
based game too. But is Boris always seems to be around, even when he really
should be somewhere else (perhaps overseeing his estates), then the game
becomes event based because Boris's frequent appearence requires a
suspension of disbelief. Unless of course part of Boris's character is to
`follow and harass Jill,' in which case it's world based. But if the sheer
number of missing children (or other similar plots) becomes too much, the
game is again event based because these `unusual' events keep happenning.
>I don't see how suspension of disbelief impinges here, one way or the
>other. If the plot is a "coming of age" story, and the character comes
>of age over, say, six months worth of play, and the next plot is about
>the character's marriage, and the next plot after that is about the
>character dealing with the death of his parants, and by contrast, with his
>own mortality--where does suspension of disbelief come into it? Aren't
>all of these things plausible? And yet every one could be the result of
>a GM instigated plot.
No, these aren't issues on the suspension of disbelief continuum. In fact,
they're not really what I mean by a plot. These are events, as far as I can
tell, that players are free to react to as they wish. And, as they are
mundane (that is, not `unusual' for the setting), this is probably a world
based game.
A world based game doesn't feature no GM input: it's quite the opposite.
But the GM doesn't attempt to subtly push the characters to do things by
manipulating the setting *on an as required basis*. If you want to do a
marital stress plot, but Joe just up and leaves his wife to roam Africa (to
pinch what I believe is a Green Arrow plot), you don't change things that
you've already decided on to get him to come back.
>Moreover, everyone of these plots could be very dramatic and meaningful,
>although not of necessity action oriented. Handled properly this could
>be quite a game.
I have no doubt.
>Again, I just don't see how "suspension of disbelief" helps us
>distinguish between formally plotted and subjectively plotted games.
>It seems to me that both kinds of narrative run the same risks of
>suspension of disbelief--in both cases the setting must be believable, as
>must the characters. If both of these tests are met, why will a
>formally plotted game be more likely to jar suspension of disbelief than
>a subjectively plotted game?
It won't, but that's not where I draw the distinction. If it
does require a suspension of disbelief because of the number of `unusual'
events, then it's plot based. If it does not, then it is mundane plot based
(for which I'm looking for a better term).
Although subjectively plotted and formally plotted don't exactly match my
terms, roughly speaking, if a subjective game requires no suspension of
disbelief, it's world based, and if it does (the characters encounter
unusual events which they may or may not pursue), then it is event based. Of
course, these are the extremes: a game may fall anywhere along the
continuum.
Rodney Payne
(My novell account again, direct email to spur...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au.)
Andrew Finch
: One more example, which, if it fails to illustrate, will be the last I
: post here. I'm happy with the model (though perhaps not with my success in
: communicating it), but as this has become a three way conversation of little
: general interest, I'll take any further queries in email.
Well, I think there's probably more interest than that, but as you see it.
The following is a completely world based set-up that no plot based GM
would bother with. It works poorly, as noted, as a plot based scenario,
because it is missing the plot. It has a setup for events, but that's
all. In order to compel the players along, ridiculous circumstances need
to be enforced, to coral the player's options. I would opt out of such a
game fast. The fact that it's used as an example of a plotted game is
curious. I would say that it was a perfect example of what bothers me
most about world-based play, which is the tendency to pay too little
attention to the story.
: For the purposes of illustration I'll select a fairly familiar setting and
: a fairly chiched `plot'.
I wouldn't have minded a cliched plot, but I don't find one in the
description given.
[Snip game example]
: So, Jill has declined the `plot'.
It sounds like you're implying that this is not much of a plot. I would
agree. I wonder why you used it as an example?
: The lord isn't one to push, so at this
: point the world based GM simply leaves the players to their own choices.
: The plot based GM, however, wants the players to participate in this
: rescure attempt.
Does the plot based GM? That's a strong assumption of motive I would
disagree with.
: So s/he manipulates the setting a little. It won't really
: hurt the setting if Boris happens to be passing through at the same time,
: perhaps the morning the players plan to leave.
First complaint. Why is Boris 'happening' to pass through such a dead
give away manipulation, but the king needing his daughter rescued, and
needing just the skills these chacaters happen to have, a 'natural'
event, which may be simply put aside by a 'world-based' GM. That whole
set-up with the king reeked of cheap manipulation to me, so I don't see
the diff. If you're saying that a world-based GM will allow the players
to make their own decisions, while a plot-based GM will play stupid
control games, then I strongly disagree.
Second complaint. A plot-based GM would have had reasons, natural to the
setting (at least as natural as the event hook with that king) for each
and every character to be intested in this 'plot'. There would be no last
minute obvious manipulations because the plot-based GM would be better
prepared. This event would have been set-up for starting games back, and
entering this 'plot' would seem an easy and natural extension of previous
events. The hook used for each character would be the players definition
of that characters dramatic necessity, what they hope to gain or achieve.
These hooks need to be merely incentives, and don't in any way need to
constantly stretch the boundaries of reality.
: What if Boris was meant to be in town anyway? Well, then it's a world
: based game too. But is Boris always seems to be around, even when he really
: should be somewhere else (perhaps overseeing his estates), then the game
: becomes event based
I think it becomes stupidity-based, and manipulation-based, and no good
GM or group, world-based or plot-based, is ever going to play such a game.
: A world based game doesn't feature no GM input: it's quite the opposite.
So it features GM control?
: But the GM doesn't attempt to subtly push the characters to do things by
: manipulating the setting *on an as required basis*. If you want to do a
: marital stress plot, but Joe just up and leaves his wife to roam Africa (to
: pinch what I believe is a Green Arrow plot), you don't change things that
: you've already decided on to get him to come back.
So world based GMs never change things they've already decided? Is this a
topology or thesis of gaming morality?
: >must the characters. If both of these tests are met, why will a
: >formally plotted game be more likely to jar suspension of disbelief than
: >a subjectively plotted game?
: It won't, but that's not where I draw the distinction. If it
: does require a suspension of disbelief because of the number of `unusual'
: events, then it's plot based.
I don't think that is anything other than a political statement, and
obviously has nothing to do with the required characteristics of a
plot-based game. So if it's a game you don't like, you call it plot-based.
: If it does not, then it is mundane plot based
: (for which I'm looking for a better term).
I would still like to hear these 'mundane' plots that do not stretch
suspension of disbelief.
David
Kevin R. Hardwick
writing this while thinking about his recent posts. But this is very
much aimed at the rest of the rgfa world as well--please don't be put off
by the way I have framed the initial comments!
A question for David Berkman: Have you ever played in a fun world-based
game? If so, what made it fun?
Let us assume that the world-based GM self-consciously subordinates the
story in order to emphasize other ends. Under what conditions is this a
smart thing to do?
Put this still another way. The narrative stance model suggests various
ways in which narrative can be used to interpret events. Sarah suggested
that they cannot all bear equal emphasis at the same time--certain
narrative stances of necessity entail the subordination of others. (More
on this if anyone desires--just ask.) I want to suggest that each of these
perspectives is valid, and that different kinds of games will result if
we choose to emphasize one perspective rather than another. Which
stances will a world-based GM seek to emphasize?
I want to draw the contrast between plotted and world-based game
styles--not so much to celebrate the one over the other, as to understand
and highlight the differences between them. To do this, we must contrast
a GOOD, STRONG world-based game with its equivalent plotted
game--otherwise we are just constructing straw men.
David, your rhetoric has not helped here. I appreciate that you strongly
prefer plotted games, of the sort that THEATRIX describes. But there are
plenty of informed, smart, rational people (Rodney, for example, or John
Kim) who also like world-based games. Let us assume that these people
are just as theoretically informed as you (with John and Rodney that
seems like a safe bet)--so this is not a communication issue. What is
different between a plotted and a "world" based game that accounts for
their preferences?
What is good about a good world-based game? What are the strengths of
that style of play?
As Rodney has described it, I am not sure that (given a good GM) the
players will ever know the difference. So in this sense the difference
(as Rodney describes it) is largely one of GM preparation.
An aside. I am very uncomfortable with both terms being used in this
debate. All--or at least most--good plotted games will have a strong
setting. Plotted games of necessity are world based. And all--or at least
most--world based games have stuff going on the background--of necessity
they contain plots. Moreover, all players, of necessity, will make sense
of any game via narrative--in this sense all games are plotted. Our
terminology seems imprecise.
The difference is better captured, it seems to me, by the distinction
Sarah suggested between incident and event. Incidents are part of the
setting, while events are part of the plot (because they matter to
character). The question is: who decides? The player, or the GM?
An "incident" based game is one in which the players have the authority
to determine what things in the setting matter and what things don't.
Much of the time this will result in a subjectively narrated game--the
first person, subjective stance will be provileged. Sometimes, much more
rarely in my personal experience, the player will sketch out the dramatic
trajectory of the character, and in cooperation with the GM will create a
dramatic narrative plot based on that trajectory.
An "event" based game is one in which the GM attempts to structure events
in the game around the dramatic conflicts inherent in the characters.
The GM will erect an armature--the plot--in order to do this is a
satisfying fashion. As Rodney notes, it helps a great deal in such a
game if the players are aware of the game's emphasis and cooperate (I'd
be curious on your experience here, David). This kind of game privileges
several of the other narrative stances, most prominently that of actor
and audience.
I'm not entirely comfortable with this terminology either, although I
think it is much better than the current "plot" vs. "world" dichotomy we
have been using.
My best,
Kevin
Kevin R. Hardwick
On Wed, 19 Jul 1995, Rodney Payne wrote:
> In article <Pine.ULT.3.91.95071...@rac3.wam.umd.edu> "Kevin R. Hardwick" <krhr...@wam.umd.edu> writes:
> >From: "Kevin R. Hardwick" <krhr...@wam.umd.edu>
> One more example, which, if it fails to illustrate, will be the last I
> post here.
If you prefer, of course. I'm enjoying the conversation.
> >I don't see how suspension of disbelief impinges here, one way or the
> >other. If the plot is a "coming of age" story, and the character comes
> >of age over, say, six months worth of play, and the next plot is about
> >the character's marriage, and the next plot after that is about the
> >character dealing with the death of his parants, and by contrast, with his
> >own mortality--where does suspension of disbelief come into it? Aren't
> >all of these things plausible? And yet every one could be the result of
> >a GM instigated plot.
>
> No, these aren't issues on the suspension of disbelief continuum. In fact,
> they're not really what I mean by a plot. These are events, as far as I can
> tell, that players are free to react to as they wish. And, as they are
> mundane (that is, not `unusual' for the setting), this is probably a world
> based game.
I think you have missed my point. Each of those is a separate STORY,
told by the troupe and plotted (mostly, or initially) by the GM.
The first story is a coming of age story: Luke Skywalker becomes a man
The second is a romantic story: Luke falls in love and marries
The third is a drama about coming to grips with mortality
Each of these stories contains lots of events, and numerous incidents
too. The stories for each of them could be fast-paced action, (ala
STARWARS) or much slower paced (ala romantic comedy).
What I don't see here is how this particular sequence requires suspension
of disbelief. For a player, a coming of age story might be very
appropriate at the beginnig of a characters RPG "life." And it is quite
logical and normal and believable that such a character would fall in
love and get married. And finally, "mid-life" crisis, as the character
ages and deals with the inevitablity of personal death is likewise
common enough that it will not jar. This is in many ways a very
beliveable sequence of plots.
Of course, there are many other such sequences that don't require
suspension of disbelief either.
I just don't see how a plotted game, or a sequence of plotted games,
requires suspension of disbelief. Since SoD is the basis of your
typology, this strikes me as important.
> A world based game doesn't feature no GM input: it's quite the opposite.
> But the GM doesn't attempt to subtly push the characters to do things by
> manipulating the setting *on an as required basis*. If you want to do a
> marital stress plot, but Joe just up and leaves his wife to roam Africa (to
> pinch what I believe is a Green Arrow plot), you don't change things that
> you've already decided on to get him to come back.
Right. In a plot based game, as I use the term, Joe would have to
violate character to "just up and leave." He can still do that, but it
means that the "things that matter" to the character--the character's
dramatic necessity--has sharply evolved. Or else <grin> that I (as GM) have
seriously screwed up in understanding what is important to Joe. If the
former, I need to know what's going on in Joe to explain this radical
shift of emphasis and motivation--which will likely be the spark for new
plots (probably in Africa!)
Plot isn't something that a GM imposes ON the characters--it is something
that the GM derives FROM them. It is organic in the character--back to
David's elliptical "Plot is character."
> >Again, I just don't see how "suspension of disbelief" helps us
> >distinguish between formally plotted and subjectively plotted games.
>
> >It seems to me that both kinds of narrative run the same risks of
> >suspension of disbelief--in both cases the setting must be believable, as
> >must the characters. If both of these tests are met, why will a
> >formally plotted game be more likely to jar suspension of disbelief than
> >a subjectively plotted game?
>
> It won't, but that's not where I draw the distinction. If it
> does require a suspension of disbelief because of the number of `unusual'
> events, then it's plot based. If it does not, then it is mundane plot based
> (for which I'm looking for a better term).
Hmm. I think the terminology is once again screwing us up. With my
players the SoD problem is a genre problem--my latitude to mess around
with SoD is a matter of pre-agreed genre of the game. But this is true
regardless of whether or not I as Gm determine what is event and what
incident, or the players do that.
> Although subjectively plotted and formally plotted don't exactly match my
> terms, roughly speaking, if a subjective game requires no suspension of
> disbelief, it's world based, and if it does (the characters encounter
> unusual events which they may or may not pursue), then it is event based. Of
> course, these are the extremes: a game may fall anywhere along the
> continuum.
I think that suspension of disbelief is important--but I don't think it
corresponds to the various kinds of plotting or lack thereof. SoD and
Narrative (synonym for plot) are two different typologies.
My best,
Kevin
Reimer Behrends
[The Jill vs. Boris example]
Hmm. I have two problems with that example.
First, given how Jill is defined as a character, the GM could have
known in advance that she was likely to reject the plot. Thus it
strikes me as a not particularly valid example.
Second, and more important. All examples so far that I can remember
(that's over the last few months) where the players twisted the plot in
some unexpected fashion were of the 'abandon ship' variety. That is,
they didn't exactly twist the plot, but instead ignored it wholesale.
That an attempt to rescue the plot will hurt suspension of disbelief is
obvious, but with an adequate plot hook the problem wouldn't have
arosen in the first place. And I don't see why a plot-based GM can't
switch to a different plot, but instead is assumed to pursue the last
one no matter what the cost.
Reimer Behrends
Andrew Finch
: A question for David Berkman: Have you ever played in a fun world-based
: game? If so, what made it fun?
Yes. Characterization, interesting background, forward momentum,
empowerment, depth, and complexity.
: Let us assume that the world-based GM self-consciously subordinates the
: story in order to emphasize other ends. Under what conditions is this a
: smart thing to do?
Since character is plot, you can't subordinate one to get the other. You
can disregard plotting in order to accentuate a particular feel of
amorphous, chaotic, life, but since all the other factors that make life
interesting are missing, I find this style just gets bogged down a lot. I
don't think you need to be as detailed about plotting as I normally like
to get, but you need to pay attention to the story, as a story. What feel
you want that narrative to have is up to the group.
: Put this still another way. The narrative stance model suggests various
: ways in which narrative can be used to interpret events. Sarah suggested
: that they cannot all bear equal emphasis at the same time--certain
: narrative stances of necessity entail the subordination of others.
I disagree. Narrative stances are shifts in perspective, which happen
continuously, rapidly, and smoothly. So, although I agree that all stances
can't bear equal emphasis at the same time (in fact, you get ony one at a
time), they may all come into play many times over the course of several
seconds. It's an organic process which can be handled as such. At any one
time, you emphasize what's useful, and may end up covering all stances
equally within the same game (or not, but the exact balance will shift
from game to game).
: I want to draw the contrast between plotted and world-based game
: styles--not so much to celebrate the one over the other, as to understand
: and highlight the differences between them. To do this, we must contrast
: a GOOD, STRONG world-based game with its equivalent plotted
: game--otherwise we are just constructing straw men.
I agree.
: David, your rhetoric has not helped here. I appreciate that you strongly
: prefer plotted games, of the sort that THEATRIX describes. But there are
: plenty of informed, smart, rational people (Rodney, for example, or John
: Kim) who also like world-based games.
I've had many rational discussions with them about it. I have no problem
contrasting a strong world-based game, with a strong plot-based one. I
think that strong world-based games will pay strong attention to story
and meta-game issues, and that strong plot-based games will pay strong
attention to world background and details (something I've always approved
of). In other words, you won't get a difference. But I've never been
against developing good worlds, just developing them in absence of good
plots.
: The difference is better captured, it seems to me, by the distinction
: Sarah suggested between incident and event. Incidents are part of the
: setting, while events are part of the plot (because they matter to
: character). The question is: who decides? The player, or the GM?
But isn't this a question of improvisational control, which can be
handled in either world-based, or plot-based games?
: I'm not entirely comfortable with this terminology either, although I
: think it is much better than the current "plot" vs. "world" dichotomy we
: have been using.
I think you're dealing with two issues which are becoming prominent in
the industry; do you begin to treat the narrative as a 'narrative', with
all that implies, and do you allow improvisation and to what extent?
These are both subjects which were ignored or purposely left out of the
majority of games for years, which I think makes the world-based game a
subset of the possibilities implied in RPGs. We're just expanding the
horizins a bit. Does this make a new type of game, or is it just a wider
perspective?
If there's is a difference, I think it's to be found in the perspective
from which a game is planned and executed. In the world-based paradigm,
everything can be forward resolved. In the plot-based paradigm, the GM
will backwards resolve many adjudications. That's a big difference, and
may be ultimately what people are arguing over.
David
Charles M Seaton
Kevin R. Hardwick (krhr...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
: The difference is better captured, it seems to me, by the distinction
: Sarah suggested between incident and event. Incidents are part of the
: setting, while events are part of the plot (because they matter to
: character). The question is: who decides? The player, or the GM?
: An "incident" based game is one in which the players have the authority
: to determine what things in the setting matter and what things don't.
: An "event" based game is one in which the GM attempts to structure events
: in the game around the dramatic conflicts inherent in the characters.
I'm not the best person to respond to this -- Sarah being
incommunicado and all -- but I THINK your terminology here doesn't
quite follow Sarah's distinction. Her dividing line wasn't whether
incidents or events were more important -- following Dibble's (sp?)
distinction, an incident is ALWAYS in the background, and an event
is ALWAYS in the foreground. What is important is who has the
authority to turn an incident into a plot: If only the GM, then we
are in a "plot-based" game. If some or all of this authority is
vested in the players, then we are slipping down the continuum
towards "world-based."
Calling them "incident" and "event" based game SEEMS to imply that
the "event" based game is somehow more important, or meaningful,
than the "incident" based game -- and therefore that the GM's
decisions are more important than the players'. Unintentional on
your part, I'm sure; but the connotation is there, nonetheless.
Of course, I could be getting this entirely wrong. I've only been
kibbutzing this discussion, and I missed the Grand Summit Dinner
Meeting, being in Massachusetts at the time.
: I'm not entirely comfortable with this terminology either, although I
: think it is much better than the current "plot" vs. "world" dichotomy we
: have been using.
Unfortunately, I don't have anything better to offer in its place,
aside from "plot" and "world," which, as we all know, are
problemmatic.
Let me interject something, here -- we all agree (I think...) with
Sarah's assertion that all four narrative stances are present in any
game -- Author, Actor, Audience, and In Character -- but that any
one can be anathema to the others, and that to privelege one, you
end up slighting others. But in any game, the focus can swing from
one to the other to the other...
Anyway. It seems to me that "plot" and "world" work in a similar
fashion: both are present in any game; both have a tendancy to work
at odds with each other; and specific elements of a game can be said
to be either "world" or "plot" based, but the emphasis can switch
back and forth repeatedly within a single game.
Looked at that way, it almost seems absurd to speak of "plot-based"
or "world-based" games, any more than one would speak of
"Author-stance" games, or "In Character-stance games." They are
extremes, which don't exist (or would be difficult to find) in the
real world -- as ever, compromise is necessary.
To illustrate: a "plot-based" game would be one in which the GM did
not allow the players to transform incidents into events, no
matter what their characters did. A "world-based" game would be in
in which the GM NEVER transformed an incident into an event, but
merely reacted to the players' decisions.
The first would be the irresistable Railroad from Hell; the second,
the immovable Tangle of Undirected Trivia. (Actually, it just
occurred to me that the better definition of "world-based" in the
above dichotomy is one in which GM and players have EQUAL authority
in transforming an incident into an event -- but that demolishes my
pretty symmetry, and with it, my argument. Sigh. Can you tell I'm
making this up as I go along?)
We are not left in a vacuum, though. We have a tool, a point of
distinction -- did the player make the decision, or did the GM? --
and with it, we can examine specific incidents in people's games,
look for tendancies in GMing styles, and argue over minutiae, rather
than make sweeping generalizations about what is or isn't a "plot"
and what the hell "character" has to do with it, anyway. For
instance, to start the ball rolling -- David Berkman gives his
players a very powerful tool for transforming incidents into events:
improvisation, a la Theatrix. Of course, he then constrains this;
having his hermetically-sealed train of plot points, it is then
arguable how much authority the players have to transform an
incident into an event. Do players in a Berkman game have any real
authority to transform incidents to events? If so, how much, and in
what aspects of the game?
(Not that I mean to pick on you specifically, Mr Berkman; but you
are rather a flashpoint in the whole debate).
One other point I wanted to make in this morass is that this
transformation, of incident into event, does not necessarily have to
occur during game-time; it can just as easily occur after the game,
when the player (for instance) is structuring the game in their
memory, or relating it to a friend. (Think of the legendary theatre
anecdote about the actor playing a bit, one-line role as a messenger
in some forgotten play. When asked what the play she was in was
about, the actor responded, "It's about this messenger, who has to
deliver a message to the king...")
Any incident which resonates with the character, any incident which
seems important to the character, is going to seem like an event in
retrospect, no matter how incidental it was to the plot of the game
as a whole. It doesn't matter HOW much control the GM retains over
this transformation during the game -- however railroaded it was,
the GM has no authority over what the player does post facto.
Or to tie it back to another thread: the character is always the
protagonist of their own story.
Ouch. I think I just gave myself whiplash.
: My best,
As ever.
: Kevin
kip manley enn...@student.umass.edu
"One is said to be in a sad kippage, when reduced to a disagreeable
dilemma."
my opinions do not necessarily reflect those of the Nine
Charles M Seaton
converting Sarah's bedroom into a gigantic planter.
Kevin R. Hardwick (krhr...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
: [...] Put this still another way. The narrative stance model
: suggests various ways in which narrative can be used to interpret
: events. Sarah suggested that they cannot all bear equal emphasis at
: the same time--certain narrative stances of necessity entail the
: subordination of others. (More on this if anyone desires--just
: ask.) I want to suggest that each of these perspectives is valid,
: and that different kinds of games will result if we choose to
: emphasize one perspective rather than another. Which stances will a
: world-based GM seek to emphasize? [...]
I this may be a misguided question: Both plot- and world-based GMs
will be flipping handily back and forth between all four stances
(assuming there are NPCs to be played), although sometimes in
different ways.
It's tempting to say that a plot-based GM will spend more time in
the Authorial stance - after all, plotting is part of what an
"author" does, right?
But a world-based GM has less tools for pacing than a plot-based GM,
so more Authorial emphasis must be placed there. A world-based GM
will often find herself with many more subplots to
contend with than her plot-based counterpart, and each subplot takes
some Authorial input from the GM.
Nor can we say the world-based GM emphasizes the Authorial stance
=more=. There are Authorial stances that only the plot-based GM
will use. You, Kevin, once described giving your players' a
"magician's choice": a NPC who, depending on the players' actions,
could turn out to be one of two people, whichever would best serve
to push the players' towards your intended plot. This is an
Authorial complication that the pure world-based GM [see
disclaimer*] will never deal with.
[*] The pure world-based GM lives in a magical grove with
the pure plot-based GM, along with unicorns, the perfect
marriage, and an economy in which inflation, unemployment,
interest rates and the deficit are all low at once. It is
a beautiful place, which is why we spend so much time talk-
ing about it, even though none of us have ever been there.
As for the other stances: the GM will assume the Actor and IC stance
based on how much she wants to invest into her NPCs, a choice that
she's free to make anywhere on the world/plot spectrum.
Does the world-based GM spend more time as Audience? In =practice=,
it does seem to me that world-based players may spend more game time
chatting between themselves IC, which does tend to push the GM to
spending more time as Audience, but I can't see any =structural=
reason why this is so: I've played in (relatively) plot-based games
that still had a lot of IC chatter.
What makes you think there's a connection between emphasis on
stances and emphasis on plot or world based play?
: What is good about a good world-based game? What are the
: strengths of that style of play?
: As Rodney has described it, I am not sure that (given a good GM)
: the players will ever know the difference. So in this sense the
: difference (as Rodney describes it) is largely one of GM
: preparation.
I mostly agree with Rodney - the main difference is in how many
tools the GM has to affect the outcome of the game, and from the
players' pov this may be a nonexistant difference. This is
especially true because plot/world is not an either-or question, but
a spectrum, and nearly every game will have elements of both styles,
residing nearer to the midpoint of the spectrum than on either end.
On the other hand, there are some games that come close to the ends
of the spectrum. For instance, in our Ares Magica world, one of the
GMs could run a game in which she had nothing in mind, except having
the characters go through lives for one week of IC time. (The
obvious next step is to do without the GM altogether.) Whatever
happens, happens: at the end of seven IC days, it's over, even if
two of the characters have meanwhile scheduled a duel for the eigth
day. Admittedly, this sort of game isn't everyone's cup of tea, but
I think our group could have a lot of fun with this.
Or the characters all wake up naked, inside a dungeon, with skills
and personalities but no memories. The GM intends (plots) to put
each character through the heroic cycle, and at the end of it the
characters will escape the dungeon, wandering blinking but
victorious into the daylight to try and find out who they are. To
make sure that they all do this in the proper order, she has made
the dungeon a grid of equal-sized rooms: she keeps the room
descriptions on interchangable notecards, and chooses which room
each successive door leads to based on what her plot requires.
(Alternatively, she just improvises the rooms as the party comes to
them; the point is, the world shapes itself mainly according to the
needs of the GM's preplanned plot.) Again, not everyone would like
to play in this game, but it could be fun for some players. I'd
give it a shot.
: An aside. I am very uncomfortable with both terms being used in
: this debate. All--or at least most--good plotted games will have a
: strong setting. Plotted games of necessity are world based. And
: all--or at least most--world based games have stuff going on the
: background--of necessity they contain plots.
This is not a contradiction if you think of plot/world as a
spectrum, rather than an either-or dicotomy.
: Moreover, all players, of necessity, will make sense of any game via
: narrative--in this sense all games are plotted. Our terminology
: seems imprecise.
Only because it's new, and has yet to lose other connotations when
we're using it in context. Yes, in that sense all games are plotted
- but that particular sense is irrelevant to the particular spectrum
we're discussing, which refers only one aspect of the process by
which a game is made, =not= the process of absorbing and
understanding the game afterward.
Is a comic book realistic or expressionistic? The question is
meaningless unless we know what =aspect= of a comic is being
discussed (art or story, for instance?), but that doesn't mean that
the terms "realistic" and "expressionistic" can't be usefully
applied to comic books, only that we have to be aware that these
(like, I daresay, most useful words for discussing art) can have
different meanings in different contexts.
: The difference is better captured, it seems to me, by the
: distinction Sarah suggested between incident and event. Incidents
: are part of the setting, while events are part of the plot (because
: they matter to character). The question is: who decides? The
: player, or the GM?
This seems to me to be a good defining trait between the two ends of
the spectrum we're discussing; I'm with you so far. <g>
: An "incident" based game is one in which the players have the
: authority to determine what things in the setting matter and what
: things don't. [...]
: An "event" based game is one in which the GM attempts to structure events
: in the game around the dramatic conflicts inherent in the characters.
: The GM will erect an armature--the plot--in order to do this is a
: satisfying fashion.
No, no, no! This is (to me) at =least= as bad as the false
implications created by using the words "World" and "Plot" to refer
to the spectrum. It is, first, just as innaccurate: "Incident-
based" games can have just as many events as "Event-based," and vice
versa.
Second, at least the world-plot distinction has the advantage of
being (relatively) intuitively obvious: it may be innaccurate when
one looks closely, but it can often be instinctively grasped with
only a little explanation, an advantage that should not be thrown
away lightly. Obtuse language is sometimes necessary, but we should
avoid it whenever possible.
If we =must= rename the spectrum, let's choose something more
accurate. How about "player-directed" (the extreme end of which is
GMless play) and "GM-directed" (the extreme end of which is a
reading of a prewritten play)?
: An "event" based game is one in which the GM attempts to structure
: events in the game around the dramatic conflicts inherent in the
: characters. The GM will erect an armature--the plot--in order to
: do this is a satisfying fashion.
Sorry to make you repeat yourself <g>, but I wanted to comment on
another aspect of this paragraph. Isn't "the GM attempts to
structure... the game around... the characters" more a description
of what a =good= plot-based (or whatever) GM does than of what
=every= GM does? It seems to me quite possible to run a plot-based
game without basing it this much in the characters: it may not be a
good game, but it's a game nonetheless.
: This kind of game privileges several of the other narrative stances,
: most prominently that of actor and audience.
Why? I'm not trying to be troublesome, I just don't see where this
view is coming from (and forgive me if you've explained it in
another post I've missed). Also, are you talking about the stances
privileged for the GM, the players or both?
Yours,
--Ennead
Charles M Seaton
[Most of what I'd say to Kip is already in my reply to Kevin, so
I've snipped almost everything. There was a bit at the end I wanted
to disagree with, though:]
Kip wrote:
: One other point I wanted to make in this morass is that this
: transformation, of incident into event, does not necessarily have to
: occur during game-time; it can just as easily occur after the game,
: when the player (for instance) is structuring the game in their
: memory, or relating it to a friend. (Think of the legendary theatre
: anecdote about the actor playing a bit, one-line role as a messenger
: in some forgotten play. When asked what the play she was in was
: about, the actor responded, "It's about this messenger, who has to
: deliver a message to the king...")
It seems to me this legendary actor is mixing up her Audience and
IC stances. <g>
: Any incident which resonates with the character, any incident which
: seems important to the character, is going to seem like an event in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: retrospect, no matter how incidental it was to the plot of the game
: as a whole. It doesn't matter HOW much control the GM retains over
: this transformation during the game -- however railroaded it was,
: the GM has no authority over what the player does post facto.
^^^^^^^^^^
A true and interesting, but largely irrelevant to the world/plot (or
incident/event, or player-directed/GM-directed) spectrum, which
refers only to how the game is created, =not= how we construct it
afterwards. Not that the process of converting experience into
narrative (be it in game or in life) isn't facinating, but it's not
what we're discussing here. <g>
Furthermore, you're conflating the IC perspective with the player's
perspective, in a rather sneaky and, I suspect, subconcious manner.
That's what I highlighted above: your quiet shift from talking about
the character's perspective to the player's.
From IC, any incident which resonates and seems important becomes an
Event. But as a player I also have the Audience and Author stances
to draw upon: using those perspectives, I can easily discern that
what seems like an Event to my character might only be an Incident.
For instance, in our current game (halted until Sarah gets back from
vacation, alas), one of my characters is spending most of his time
building a wine bottle pyramid, alone in his room (this involves a
lot of drinking and passing out, of course). From the IC
perspective, this seems very significant: in fact, it seems like a
good metaphor for the character's whole life. But from the
perspective of all the players, =me=included=, it seems
inconsequential, an Incident if there ever was one.
(Of course, future events may change the bottle pyramid into an
Event, but it seems unlikely. Or, as an Author, I could decide to
manipulate the game to =make= the bottle pyramid an Event, but as
both Author and Audience this seems an unpromising direction to move
the game in, so I probably won't.)
Yours,
--Ennead
Ray Trent
>I've had many rational discussions with them about it. I have no problem
>contrasting a strong world-based game, with a strong plot-based one. I
>think that strong world-based games will pay strong attention to story
>and meta-game issues, and that strong plot-based games will pay strong
>attention to world background and details (something I've always approved
>of). In other words, you won't get a difference. But I've never been
>against developing good worlds, just developing them in absence of good
>plots.
Perhaps this would be an interesting axis: how are events
resolved/generated?
In what I think most people mean by a "plot based" game, event
resolution and generation mostly takes place in reference to someone's
idea of what will make a good story.
In what I think most people mean by a "world based" game, event
resolution/generation mostly takes place in reference to someone's
idea of what is consistent with the setting of the world, the laws of
physics and metaphysics in that world, and the attempted actions of
the characters. Any spontaneous events that occur would be a product
of that setting (which, would, of course, include the characters and
their motivations since the characters are part of the world).
To put this into terms of the Theatrix rules: one of the first
questions in your event resolution table is: does the plot (i.e. the
GM's notion of what will make a good story) require some particular
outcome?
In a purely "world based" game, the answer to this question would
*always* be "no". No events would occur because of what the GM thinks
would make a good story. No decisions would be based on what would
make a good story. The good story that could result would happen
purely because logical consequences of actions in a well crafted,
character focused, world will often lead to interesting stories. Much
of the responsibility for this good story would fall on the capacity
of the players to make "interesting" choices.
In a purely "plot based" game, this question would *always* be
answered "yes". Everything that happened would happen because GM
thinks it will make a good story. The good story that could result
would happen purely because the GM's notion of what makes a "good
story" is correct. Probably, much of the responsibility for this good
story will fall on the GM.
Neither extreme will ever happen, of course.
One interesting question that comes out of this is: why might it make
sense to try to come up with an idea of what would make an interesting
story (i.e. predict the plot) in a purely world based game?
I think it makes a lot of sense to do this even if it seems like it
should be "useless" or even misguided. The reason is that I expect
that good players will discover the interesting stories hiding in your
settings. If you try to think about what would make an interesting
story in your world, I believe you will be better prepared
*regardless* of what actually happens in the game. The danger, if you
are attempting to run a purely "world based" game, is that you'll
inadvertently make decisions based on what will lead into your
prepared areas...possibly "railroading" the players.
An almost identical, though opposite, argument (even down to the
"dangers") can be made for preparing a good setting if you intend to
run a purely "plot based" game.
That *doesn't* mean there's no difference between the two.
Good games are possible with both strategies. People on the net seem
to worry about "railroading" more in plot based games, and they should
worry about it, because railroading *doesn't* lead to good stories. So
fine...avoiding railroading is obviously something a good "plot based"
GM will have to include in their criteria for making decisions, right?
Suspension of disbelief is a bit of a side point, but it may correlate
with this axis somewhat, because the definition of the term is vaguely
related to the definition of this axis, but it depends a great deal on
the GM.
In a perfect and pure world-based game, the only suspension of
disbelief that should theoretically be necessary is that required to
believe in the fictional reality of the world.
In a purely plot-based game, it is much harder to determine what level
of suspension of disbelief could be required. Generally, the players
will still have to suspend disbelief in the fictional reality.
Therefore, there's a strong tendency for greater or equal suspension
of disbelief in plot based games. Certainly, if the events that occur
are contradictory or unbelievable (due to possible disregard for their
"realism"), then such a game would require more suspension of
disbelief. On the other hand, most people think that good stories
require the minimum possible suspension of disbelief, so less might be
required than even in a purely world based game (because people tend
to misunderstand coincidence and probability). It would entirely
depend on the GM's tolerance for unbelievable events in a "good
story".
--
"When you're down, it's a long way up
When you're up, it's a long way down
It's all the same thing
And it's no new tale to tell" ../ray\..
John H Kim
I go, I want to attack the World-based versus Plot-based distinction
again. (I've finally succumbed to using the P-word since it seems to
be the most natural).
I will be using an extended example of a scenario from my old
Star Trek campaign.
David Berkman <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
>Kevin R. Hardwick (krhr...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
>: I appreciate that you strongly prefer plotted games, of the sort that
>: THEATRIX describes. But there are plenty of informed, smart, rational
>: people (Rodney, for example, or John Kim) who also like world-based games.
>
>I've had many rational discussions with them about it. I have no problem
>contrasting a strong world-based game, with a strong plot-based one. I
>think that strong world-based games will pay strong attention to story and
>meta-game issues, and that strong plot-based games will pay strong attention
>to world background and details (something I've always approved of). In
>other words, you won't get a difference. But I've never been against
>developing good worlds, just developing them in absence of good plots.
But I think that there is a real trade-off
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
BACKGROUND:
There was a world in the Organian Neutral Zone (Castor IV) which
had a humanoid society at a roughly medieval level of technology. Around
30 years ago, the Klingons had traded with the dominant culture (the
Arain empire) -- giving them weapons for mining rights and labor.
In subsequent events, the Federation occupied that area. Early
on, a captain dealt with the altered culture by arming a tribe which
opposed the Arain Empire. Subsequently the Federation established a base
in orbit, and refrained from any further interference in the culture.
With the Organian peace treaty, the world fell in the Neutral
Zone, so the Federation base was largely demilitarized. Nine years
later, the Organian requirement were intensified, and the base (along
with everthing else along the Neutral Zone) was completely disarmed.
As it happened, 15 years ago Captain Eve Anderson (a PC) of
the Light Cruiser _Gettysburg_ had been the Head of Exploration Command
on the Castor IV base.
-*-*-*-
THE CONCEPT:
Now, for this scenario I had a basic idea -- a character and an
event. Vilid was the leader of a tribe of desert nomads who were
fighting the Arain Empire, which was still dominant with its advanced
weapons. Vilid's people had been watching the Running Star (the base
in orbit) and knew of its association with the Sky Demons who had helped
the Arains. From legend, Vilid thought that there were Sky Demons
disguised among the people (Federation anthropologists).
He had a plan to find a Sky Demon, and trick the demon into
bringing him to the Running Star, where he would demand weapons to fight
the Arains with. His men would stalk strangers in cities, and then check
them for red blood (which distinguished the demons from regular people).
After finding one, his men would bind and gag it to prevent it from
working its magic -- and then they would drug it, torture it and deprive
it of sleep.
Then, Vilid would stage a mock "rescue". He would burst in on
the torturers (i.e. his men) and thrash them, and thus bring the demon
into his debt. He would bring the demon back to his "hideout", where a
sensuous woman would tend to its wounds in a most sympathetic manner...
Then "Arain guards" would begin pounding at the doors: they were all
trapped and would be killed unless _someone_ could transport them
away...
-*-*-*-
THE SCENARIO:
In my idea, Vilid's plan works -- they found a Federation
anthopologist, and in his confused state, they tricked him into saving
what he thought were his friends, by emergency transporting them to the
base. What followed was a furious and confused melee as Vilid and his
men took over the base, which was caught by surprise due to the recent
Organian disarmament of all of its high-tech weapons.
The PC's were the senior officers on board the _USS Gettysburg_,
which was patrolling the Neutral Zone, and would naturally be called in
to the situation. Also, Captain Eve Anderson (a PC) had been the Head
of Exploration Command on the Castor IV base 15 years ago, before it was
demilitarized, and was familiar with the situation on the world.
Unfortunately, the _Gettysburg_ (along with all other border
units) had also been affected by the Organian disarmament.
-*-*-*-
THE QUESTION:
Now, with this setup, it is still an open question as to what the
scenario will consist of. The situation is a morass of issues: the Prime
Directive, saving the base personnel, and practicality. Further, there
was an extreme potential for miscommunication and misinterpretation on
both sides.
WORLD-BASED:
In a world-based approach (how I actually ran it), I would detail
more about Vilid's character, culture, and background. Then the course
of the negotiations would be determined largely from the sequence of
negotiations as the PC's found out about the situation. In play, this
became a big debate among the players as to whether Vilid was a hero
or a terrorist. In a primitive culture, this is the classic act of a
mythic hero (i.e. tricking your way into heaven and demanding help from
the gods). In a modern culture, this is more the act of a terrorist.
For detail, I had a bunch of notes on Vilid's personality and
culture. I had sketchy details on his men, plus the base and its
personnel (which I should have prepared more, but I didn't have
enough time).
PLOT-BASED:
In a plot-based approach, this sort of ambiguity is problematic,
because it leaves the resolution undetermined. Were I to run this as a
plot-based approach, I might try something like:
-> Plot Turn 1: Recognizing the Myth
The PC's realize the "heroic" nature of Vilid's undertaking.
-> Pinch 1: Investigations
By hooking up to some of the base's internal monitoring systems
(which Vilid does not understand), the PC's can eventually identify
the `hostages' and thus `safely' assault Vilid and his men. In
the "pinch", they will send a covert engineering team to hook up
to these systems.
-> Midpoint: A Change of Heart
According to the Prime Directive, the PC's should probably kill
him - if he goes back to the planet now, he will carry too much
information of the Federation, which may interfere with culture
even more. At the Midpoint, the PC's get the option of killing
him, and thus now are faced with the question of whether they
_should_.
-> Pinch 2: Plans in Motion
This is a fairly freeform stage. Having given them the tools to
safely defeat Vilid, they should set themselves up for an assault
which uses these plans.
-> Plot Turn 2: A New Light
In hooking up to the base's systems, they have access to the
anthropology reports. An astute officer will notice that the
reports strongly suggest that the Arains, at least, already
know a fair bit about the Federation base somehow. Thus, it
may be that the Prime Directive does not directly apply, and
they don't have to kill him. This may have to be confirmed by
rescuing an anthropologist (probably the one that Vilid tricked)
from the base.
-> Resolution: The Wrap-Up
Now the PC's can find an appropriate way to deal with Vilid
without killing him (either a non-lethal assault or negotiation).
In the Star Trek tradition, they should probably give him a
speech to teach him something before he goes.
-*-*-*-
PRO's and CON's
Now, I see these as being something of a trade-off. In the
plot-based approach, I am more prepared for what I think will happen.
However, to get this linear plot I have to sacrifice some of the more
interesting ambiguities of the situation (IMO). For the plot to work
as planned, I need some solid cues to the players -- most notably I
need to make Vilid more of a sympathetic character once they begin to
understand him.
In the world-based approach I get more of the ambiguities which
intrigued me about the situation. I have to think on my feet a lot more
to get a satisfying resolution.
As it happens, when I ran this in a world-based approach, the
players were intrigued, but not too satisfied with the resolution (I
think). The players never entirely agreed in an opinion on Vilid.
Due to their disarmed state, the Captain Anderson eventually agreed
to negotiate with Vilid -- but she remained dissatisfied with that as
a solution. They agreed to give Vilid weapons equal to what the Arain
Empire had (in a loose interpretation of the Prime Directive), but
offered no other aid (and tried to minimize any hints they might give
by casual conversation). This made for a rather anticlimactic ending
as Vilid and his people struggled to find a way back to the planet.
This was the plan, but I should note that the Science Officer,
Lt. Cmdr. Ghasim was a devout Muslim and was mightily impressed with
the desert nomads. In the exit, he gave some unauthorized hints to them
about technology, and resolved to get them a copy of the Koran at some
later point.
Now, I think that with a little more preparation time, this
could have been a great scenario -- but as is it was intriguing but not
fully satisfying. I can only theorize about what it would have been
like in a more plot-based approach -- but I have some fair ideas. I
think it would have run more smoothly, but it would be less interesting
at least to me. I think that the player-to-player debate would have
been significantly less intense, which IMO was the highlight of the
scenario.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim | "Whatever else is true, you - trust your little finger.
jh...@columbia.edu | Just a single little finger can... change the world."
Columbia University | - Stephen Sondheim, _Assassins_
Mary K. Kuhner
>[The Jill vs. Boris example]
>Hmm. I have two problems with that example.
>First, given how Jill is defined as a character, the GM could have
>known in advance that she was likely to reject the plot. Thus it
>strikes me as a not particularly valid example.
In my experience, though perhaps Jill/Boris should have been predicted,
it is *not* always possible for the GM to know whether a plot will fly.
In fact, it's not always possible for the player to know. Sometimes
tiny details in presentation (like a character's inexplicable dislike
for someone's mannerisms) can make a big difference.
My GM once spent the better part of four or five hours talking through a
variety of scenarios with me, in order to guess how my characters (in a
one-on-one game) would react. We both thought we had figured it out.
Then, in the actual game, suddenly a normally quiet character spoke up--he
had figured out what the enemy was going to do, and in a few calm words
convinced the entire party to completely abandon its plan. I didn't
know this would happen--how could the GM be expected to know?
>That an attempt to rescue the plot will hurt suspension of disbelief is
>obvious, but with an adequate plot hook the problem wouldn't have
>arosen in the first place. And I don't see why a plot-based GM can't
>switch to a different plot, but instead is assumed to pursue the last
>one no matter what the cost.
> Reimer Behrends
If you keep coming up with more plot hooks, the very frequency of hooks
will start to get obtrusive after a while; but you're right, a flexible
GM will abandon his current plot and switch to another if the current
one just isn't flying.
However, I disagree that one can provide a foolproof plot hook. Even
with great cooperation between GM and players (I play primarily with my
husband) sometimes the GM just won't guess right about how to get the
players to go along, unless they are willing to sacrifice a certain
degree of roleplaying verisimilitude in order to go along. The question
then becomes how much verisimilitude you're willing to sacrifice, and
what's the best way to do it?
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Kevin R. Hardwick
On 20 Jul 1995, Ray Trent wrote:
> In article <3ujrp7$f...@crl13.crl.com>, Andrew Finch <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
> Perhaps this would be an interesting axis: how are events
> resolved/generated?
>
> In what I think most people mean by a "plot based" game, event
> resolution and generation mostly takes place in reference to someone's
> idea of what will make a good story.
>
> In what I think most people mean by a "world based" game, event
> resolution/generation mostly takes place in reference to someone's
> idea of what is consistent with the setting of the world, the laws of
> physics and metaphysics in that world, and the attempted actions of
> the characters.
Ray--your post was thoughtful, and I learned something from it. That
said, I think you are using the term "event" differently than Sarah, or
David, or I have been in this conversation.
Events are dynamic elements in the setting--things that happen--that are
important to or matter deeply to a character.
Incidents are things that happen that are, for the most part, peripheral
to the character.
Both pre-plotted and retroactively-plotted games must have
both--incidents are necessary to make the setting seem real, and a
character for whom nothing mattered would be pretty dull.
So this isn't really about action resolution--you can run a fine plotted
game using simulationist mechanics, and you can run a subjectively
plotted, retroactively plotted (world-based) game diceless. What it is
really about, it seems to me, is how the story is developed, and how
characterization is developed, and the relationship between the two.
My best,
Kevin
Ray Trent
Kevin R. Hardwick <krhr...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>> In what I think most people mean by a "plot based" game, event
>> resolution and generation mostly takes place in reference to someone's
>> idea of what will make a good story.
>>
>> In what I think most people mean by a "world based" game, event
>> resolution/generation mostly takes place in reference to someone's
>> idea of what is consistent with the setting of the world, the laws of
>
>said, I think you are using the term "event" differently than Sarah, or
>David, or I have been in this conversation.
You're correct, of course. Sorry about that. Leave it to me to jump in
after being away for months and use obsolete terminology.
Anyway, I was including both "events" and "incidents", and in fact all
situations and occurances in the metric I proposed. Perhaps "situation
resolution/generation" would have been a more chronistic :-) way of
phrasing it.
Personally, I think it's rather futile to try to figure out what turns
"incidents" into "events". In every game I've ever played in, no two
people have even had the same opinion about which occurances *were*
events and which were incidents...except in *very* macroscopic terms
(e.g. "yeah, I'd say that when we fulfilled our quest to kill the dark
lord, that was a pretty event-like occurance"...and I suspect I'd even
get argument on that generalization from some of my group).
Even in the most "plotted" game, players (including the GM) who want
to make incidents into events or events into incidents will do so, and
there's not much way outside of total order or total chaos to prevent
it from happening.
Trying to predict when this will happen and catagorize how this will
happen is interesting and possibly even useful, but also ultimately
frustrating. At least with what *I* would call good players. But then,
I prefer being kept on my toes at all times :-).
In my dichotomy, I'm talking about: How does the GM determine...What
that NPC will do or think? Whether that sword blow hits or misses and
what the effects are? What NPCs will interact with the PCs and how?
What the NPCs' personalities will be like? What world events to
mention to the PCs? The answers to player questions about
objects/people/places that the GM has not considered in advance? What
obstacles to put in the PCs way? What tools to provide? What to tell
the player when asked how hard something looks, etc.
In short, what criteria does the GM use in making all of his or her
GMing decisions.
I was thinking it might be interesting to look at this questions from
the viewpoint of 2 possible ends of a spectrum: On one end "By
whatever the GM thinks makes the most sense for the
setting/genre/characters" and on the other end "By whatever the GM
thinks will make the best story". These extremes are profoundly
different ways of making these important decisions. And it seems to me
that these extremes are at the heart of the debate regarding what
differences there may be between "world based" and "plot based" games.
I, too, don't think it matters whether you use dice. Humans make
exceptionally good simulators of things within the normal range of
human perception...the only reason I see to use dice is to act as a
(flimsy) shield against (perceptions of) bias and to allow any
individual outcome to be "unexpected" by all of the participants
rather than just the players.
As a possibly interesting side issue, I think very different
motivations for gaming underlie the extremes of these methods.
I find it extremely unlikely that any GM actually *at* either extreme
would generate very good games. Both goals have their uses and merits.
For my personal taste, as both a player and as a GM, I prefer (to
perceive the game as) something roughly 2/3rds of the way towards the
"whatever makes the most sense for this setting/genre".
>So this isn't really about action resolution--you can run a fine plotted
>game using simulationist mechanics, and you can run a subjectively
>plotted, retroactively plotted (world-based) game diceless. What it is
>really about, it seems to me, is how the story is developed, and how
>characterization is developed, and the relationship between the two.
I guess what I'm getting at is re-examining "how the story is
developed" as being "is the story developed" vs. "does the story
organically evolve". The same is true for characterization, too, of
course. Do the players evolve their understanding and portrayal of
their characters in response to "external stimuli" in the game world
or in response to what they think will make them as interesting as
possible to the other players and to the GM.
Of course, in practice, we all do both.
As a gross generalization, though, my experience has been that if
you're running mostly simulationist (whether using dice or not), it's
going to be extremely difficult to generate pre-plotted stories that,
when run, turn out looking anything like the pregenerated plot in
either structure or content, in any but the most fatalistic genres and
with any but the most sheeplike or unimaginative players (or the very
cream of the crop of "in character" roleplayers...in certain limited
circumstances where you *really* understand the characters). Maybe I'm
just not good enough at plotting, but every time I try it, I end up
having to tweak things away from what I think would "really" happen in
order to keep the story even vaguely on track.
If you're running purely "story-based", there's not much point in
retroactively plotting because every occurance in the game will have
been generated with an eye towards creating the plot that eventually
ended up happening.
Scott A. H. Ruggels
>spur...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Rodney Payne) wrote:
>>OK. Here goes an an attempt to clarify my distiction between world and
>>plot based gaming styles.
>>
>> So, with these two axes in mind, we can plot a given campaign on the
>>following plane:
>>
>>
>> Event Based | High SoD Plot Based
>> |
>> |
>> |
>> |
>> |
>> Fixed Setting | Flexible Setting
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> |
>> |
>> |
>> |
>> |
>> |
>> | Limited Duration Plot
>> World Based | Low SoD Based
>>
>
>
>>
>> suspension of disbelief problems of this type are not encountered. The GM
>> manipulates the setting to ensure the plot unfolds in the general
>> direction s/he has before play starts.
>
>
>> Convention scenarios are usually
>> limited duration plot based.
>>
>> Just to make sure this isn't seen as partisan: I play games of all the
>>above types. No style is better, it's just a matter of personal taste.
>>Games generally work better when everyone has the same preferred style.
>>And the decision to use a plot based style may be based on either
>>dramatic preferences or necessity (I don't have time to detail much more
>>than the basic plot).
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
>SoD-dimention. Maybe I don't understand what you mean. I dunno.
>
>>
>>--
>>Rodney Payne
I think the model is missing something How about...
Y
Plot Based
|
|
| / Fixed Setting
| /
| /
| /
|/
X Romantic ---------------+--------------- Simulationist
High SoD /| Low SoD
/ |
/ |
/ |
Flexible setting Z/ |
|
|
|
World Based
I think the X,Y axes are pretty solid, but I am a little shakey on the Z axis. The X,Y seems broad enought to cover most of the tend=
encies of a lot of the games mentioned. The Fixed versus Flexible, I do not think this is a tendancy significant enough to warrent i=
ts own axis. Somethijng like Player Character significance vs. Pawns of Large forces, but that doesn't seem to work either. Comments=
?
Scott
Reimer Behrends
: In article <3ujp7u$s...@news.cs.tu-berlin.de> behr...@buran.fb10.tu-berlin.de (Reimer Behrends) writes:
[...]
: If you keep coming up with more plot hooks, the very frequency of hooks
: will start to get obtrusive after a while;
Only if you label them as such. ;-) I might well present my players
with a lot of apparently everyday events (or should I rather say
'incidents'? ;-) ), each of them being suitable as a plot hook for the
same plot.
As an aside, for some people on this group I sometimes wonder how they
can ever possibly enjoy reading a book, given the effort they seem to
need for suspending disbelief. :-)
[...]
: However, I disagree that one can provide a foolproof plot hook.
No disagreement here. I think this is impossible, too. However, in my
opinion players not taking up a plot hook is far less of a problem than
players twisting plots in unexpected ways. At least I experience the
latter case quite often, while the problem of players bypassing a plot
in its entirety is quite rare.
[...]
Reimer Behrends
Charles M Seaton
Kevin R. Hardwick (krhr...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
: Ray--your post was thoughtful, and I learned something from it. That
: said, I think you are using the term "event" differently than Sarah, or
: David, or I have been in this conversation.
[snip]
: So this isn't really about action resolution--you can run a fine plotted
: game using simulationist mechanics, and you can run a subjectively
: plotted, retroactively plotted (world-based) game diceless. What it is
: really about, it seems to me, is how the story is developed, and how
: characterization is developed, and the relationship between the two.
That being said, Ray has proposed a valuable dichotomy, it seems to
me -- what is the driving mechanism behind task resolution? Story
considerations, or considerations of setting/genre/believability?
In fact, it may be a better dichotomy than Sarah's Player or GM
consideration, in distinguishing between the two ends of this
troublesome spectrum of "plot" or "world." I'll elaborate.
First, I want to propose "story-based" as the term rather than
"plot-based." "Plot-based" seems to be raising too many spectres in
people's minds of pre-plotted games, of rail-roading, and of the
Theatrix/Syd Field paradigm, with all its attendant pinches and
midpoints and turns and whatnot. These certainly belong at that end
of the spectrum, but they are too limited to serve as the descriptor
of that end of the spectrum. "Story-based" better encompasses all
the possibiltites, and serves as a better counterpart to
"world-based."
This came to mind as I was reading John Kim's excellent post about
his Star Trek game. I was constructing in my mind ways I would
approach his situation -- and I have considered myself a primarily
plot-based GM, though I have always had reservations about myself
"plot-based" -- so I was looking forward to comparing it with his
own ideas of approaching it as a plot-based game; and what I saw was
simply a proposed plot. Which, yes, is the epitome of plot-based --
but far too limited to serve as the counterpart to his world-based
approach.
Instead, I would approach his situation with one question firmly in
mind: "What's going to make a good story?" Before the game began, I
might have certain scenes in mind which I would work to include --
the initial negotiations between the captain and the "terrorist",
for instance -- a cinch to include -- or (a better example) perhaps
the idea of the devout Muslim becoming attached to the rebels, and
attempting to convert them, might appeal to me as a subplot which
would make a good story; and so I would take actions to plant such
an idea in the character's mind. This is not, NOT a world-based
approach; such an approach would NOT be done by a world-based GM.
Instead, like Mr Kim did, such a plot would be allowed to emerge if
it occurred to the player/character, but no steps would be taken to
bring it about. If it happens, it happens; if not, oh well.
Please note that my own approach -- what is going to make a good
story -- does not depend on a pre-ordained plot, or a pre-destined
set of steps. One's idea of what's going to make a good story can
change or be changed from moment to moment as a game goes on; what
I'm thinking (as GM) during a game probably best translates as,
"Okay, now that the players/characters have done THAT, what is going
to make the best story?" Also, going into a game, my idea of a
"good story" may vary anywhere from a set of killer scenes which
ought to happen in A, B, C, D order, or something as nebulous as an
emotional "arc" that I want to put one of the players/characters
through, and whatever actions or events help to bring that arc about
are going to be favored.
Sarah's Dibble Distinction -- who has the authority to convert an
incident into an event, the player, or the GM -- is STILL a valuable
tool for examining games and gaming. But as Ray pointed out, it can
be very problemmatic assigning the blame in some situations. Also,
I don't think it provides the best tool for distinguishing between
story-based concerns and world-based concerns, which, to me, is the
heart of the spectrum. For instance, a troupe of players who divide
Dibble's Authority evenly at all times could all decide that their
primary concern is to tell a good story. And so they are
story-based, not world-based. Also, one can speak of players whose
playing style or preference is story-based or world-based, within
the larger context of a game which might be run on opposite
principles.
-----------------
"What makes a good story?"
"What is most believable given this world?"
Obviously, when you start to get into the nitty and the gritty, it
isn't that simple; anybody is going to make decisions using both
criteria in any given game. It is possible for primarily
story-based GMs to have a great deal of respect for their world, and
not violate any of its precepts; if she's GMing in a collective
world, she'd damn well better, or face outraged comments from other
players who have created parts of said world. She can still be a
story-based GM, though. And even the most stoic world-based GM has
faced a situation in which the dice dictated that Captain So-and-so
just died even though EVERYone realizes that he just CAN'T; said GM
then fudges the roll, and lives with his decision, and is still a
world-based GM. One speaks of tendancies, and generalizations, and
such generalizations are, as Ennead pointed out a few posts back, a
valuable thing to have to communicate broad-based ideas to people,
even if the generalizations aren't as accurate when looked at in the
minutiae.
So. To sum up. I propose that we keep the spectrum, but instead of
"plot-based" vs. "world-based," we should call it "story-based" vs.
"world-based." That the dividing point of such a spectrum be Ray
Trent's Question: "Is the primary concern of the GM/group what makes
a good story, or is it what makes for a believable world?" That
Sarah's Dibble Distinction is still a valuable tool, but not in this
context. And that we should all immediately begin to hash this out,
and if you think I'm completely wrong, you jump right in feet-first
and let me know where and why.
Okay?
kip manley enn...@student.umass.edu
"The panel load on the upper lateral system is 25 x 150 = 3 750 lb =
3.75 kips."
James
than plot-based but it hardly matters now. And I don't really think
the criteria 'what makes a good story' means much. Even if tastes agreed,
you'll probably find that each player in the GMs campaign is playing a
somewhat different game, taking part in a fairly different
story.
I'm sure that at an intuitive level we all have a pretty good grasp of
the difference between the world-based and the plot/story-based games.
The difficulty seeems to be that the examples offered are too
sophisticated, often part of established campaigns, to express two
styles in their purest forms.
Lets take published scenarios for this latest example which should help
establish common ground. Say Joe reads a scenario which he finds clever,
original and exciting. He plays around with it for a while and decides
it would work better in a cyberpunk setting. Once Joe is happy with is
preparation, he invites his pals over to play that
specific scenario. Does this sound like a plot based game?
Of course once they game starts, anything can happen. The GM wants to
play that scenario. He's spent time an money on it. He believes in it
and is sure the players will enjoy it. So if the players start by
ignoreing the main hooks, it s not unlikely that the GM will make afew
attampts to get the scenario going from the back door. If he is
prepared to push on with the story regardless, he might find it
difficult to find players for the second session.
I've got a published scenarios I acquired for a few pence not so long ago
which can serve to illustrate the world-based type of game in its most
primitive form. It is called the ISLE OF DREAD and I believe it was D&D's
first wilderness adventure. I remember being very puzzled
when I first read it. I was looking for the plot summary, like you us
ually get. But there wasn't because there isn't any plot. basically its
just a map of this dreadful island with descriptions of the features at
each location.
So let's say Sally buys the ISLE of DREAD and is really taken by it.
She adds a few details, practices the voices of various NPCs. Then
she calls over her friends, places them on the Isle. From that moment
onwards its up to the players to decide what to do. There are
opportunities to start trade with the natives, open a gold mine or,
what they heck, kill monsters from dawn to dusk. Its their world (okay
island) to do what they want with.
So why did Joe decide to run on scenario and Sally another? Joe has
got a good solid story going for him, something that will thrill, amuse
and excite his players. He has a good idea of where they are going so
he can plan ahead and fill in more of the details.If the players
cooperate, they are in for a treat. However, the more
imaginative, eccentirc or plain pig-headed the players, he greater the
pressure on the scenario. And so the players, being players, side-step
the really good bits, miss vital clues and get the completely wrong
impression of that NPC. What seemed to be a fool-proof plot is clearly
not PC proof as they proceed to wreck the game in a thousand ways.
In the end Joe will have to work hard to keep the adventure from
falling apart.
Sally does not have any clever plots in store. Nor does she have highly
drammatic set scences prepared. She is banking on the fact that her
players enjoy expressing themselves above all else and given a
stimulating environment they will come up with something themselves. In
a sense Sally has less to worry about. But a lot can still go wrong.
Things might get off to a very slow start and boredom could kill the
game before it even started. The players could just sit back expecting
for the plot-hook to come or just stick to the first feature they hit,
despite, for Sally, it is the less interesting part of the island. And
although in theory nothing the players do in Sally's game can wreck the
adventure as since, the actions of the PCs may alter the tone of the
adventure, making the rest of the isle design inappropriate.
These two examples are a tad childish and extreme, but they are not
entirely unrealistic. And I hope they serve to highlight the
relative strengths and weaknesses. How this actually help further
the debate I don't know. I guess I just felt like posting something.
Sorry.
-- James --
Andrew Finch
: it would work better in a cyberpunk setting. Once Joe is happy with is
: preparation, he invites his pals over to play that
: specific scenario. Does this sound like a plot based game?
No. It sounds world-based. To be plot-based, I expect the characters
would be pre-made for the scenario, which is written with an actual
factual plot. I've seen lots of world-based scenarios, so at this point
it's hard to tell, but my guess is not.
: cooperate, they are in for a treat. However, the more
: imaginative, eccentirc or plain pig-headed the players, he greater the
: pressure on the scenario.
The greater the pressure on a world-based scenario, which was never
composed around a flexible plot structure, but was rather just an ordered
sequence of events. The events don't go in order, the players take off
elsewhere, and the adventure is in trouble. My problem with these
adventures is that most people never write plots, they write summaries of
what was supposed to happen. I can't blame them. It's darn hard to write
a descent plot for a bunch of characters you don't even know, for group
dynamics you'll never see.
: Sally does not have any clever plots in store. Nor does she have highly
: drammatic set scences prepared. She is banking on the fact that her
: players enjoy expressing themselves above all else and given a
: stimulating environment they will come up with something themselves.
I think anyone writing a descent plot banks on this as well. I guess what
we mean by world-based and plot-based games is not so intuitively
obvious. Most people know nothing about plotting besides coming up with
a rigidly ordered series of scenes. I don't think that's it.
I would ask you what your definition of plot is, but then we would get
into that issue again.
David
Andrew Finch
: "What makes a good story?"
: "What is most believable given this world?"
These are not at all mutually exclusive. There is a set of descriptions
and adjudications which contains them both, and that set describes a
genre. How you answer these questions changes the genre, and they're both
important.
I don't see the world/plot based distinction here. I used to run very
world-based games, and I think most people who saw them would easily tag
them as world based, but I regularly did stuff you've said a world-based
GM would definitely not do. All GMs lead now and then. They have to. It'
spart of having a world with realistic forces acting within it. Those
adjudications divert and change PC actions, and influence PC decisions.
Improvisation is a tool for every GM I've ever seen. So little of even
the most detailed world-based games is ever really decided in advance.
WOrld-based games count on decision flexibility. SO do plot based games.
Maybe thay count on it in different ways, but I have yet to be convinced.
: So. To sum up. I propose that we keep the spectrum, but instead of
: "plot-based" vs. "world-based," we should call it "story-based" vs.
: "world-based." That the dividing point of such a spectrum be Ray
: Trent's Question: "Is the primary concern of the GM/group what makes
: a good story, or is it what makes for a believable world?"
What if you demand both. Are you saying that attention to one will
automatically detract from the other, making this a spectrum? I disagree.
David
Rodney Payne
articles as soon as I have time, but I had to comment on something here.
bcks...@crl.com (Andrew Finch) writes:
>The greater the pressure on a world-based scenario, which was never
>composed around a flexible plot structure, but was rather just an ordered
>sequence of events. The events don't go in order, the players take off
>elsewhere, and the adventure is in trouble.
Finally. Proof that David's basic definition of world based is different
from mine (and quite a few others, I would think).
World based games are NOT, repeat NOT an ordered sequence of events. A
world based game, at the far end of the spectrum, has the most flexible
plot structure imaginable, because everything is preplanned. All
contingencies are prepared for. It doesn't matter what the players do,
because the GM will have prepared for their actions: every part
of the world is detailed.
Of course, no game is completely world based: nobody can prepare that
much. But the world based GM aspires to it, nonetheless.
Perhaps it's just a few notes jotted down, but the world based GM
attempts to have everything make sense in terms of the setting, as in,
`What are the logical consequences of this action.' But no predetermined
series of events is anticipated, or favoured over others because of story
considerations. Predetermination is, I believe, the province of plotted
games, at least as I, and I think most other people, have been using the
term.
Andrew Finch
: Finally. Proof that David's basic definition of world based is different
: from mine (and quite a few others, I would think).
: World based games are NOT, repeat NOT an ordered sequence of events. A
: world based game, at the far end of the spectrum, has the most flexible
: plot structure imaginable, because everything is preplanned.
If, at the far end of the spectrum, everything in a world-based game is
pre-planned, giving it the most flexible plot structure imaginable, then
you have just described a plot-based game.
: All
: contingencies are prepared for. It doesn't matter what the players do,
: because the GM will have prepared for their actions: every part
: of the world is detailed.
Ah, yes, Fantasyland. I know it well. What about player input and
creativity? That no longer matters because the good of the citizen has
already been prepared for.
: Of course, no game is completely world based: nobody can prepare that
: much. But the world based GM aspires to it, nonetheless.
Yes, it's that aspiration I have some problems with. I think nobody
actually does this because in actuality, it wouldn't work. This is not a
real environment, and doing this to a game would not make it more real.
All it would do is make it real restrictive.
: Perhaps it's just a few notes jotted down, but the world based GM
: attempts to have everything make sense in terms of the setting
Of course. SO doea a plot based GM. The two are in no way exclusive.
: considerations. Predetermination is, I believe, the province of plotted
: games, at least as I, and I think most other people, have been using the
: term.
But didn't you just finish saying that in the ultimate world-based game,
everything is preplanned? Or is it plot based that's pre-planned? Now I'm
confused.
David
Ray Trent
>Charles M Seaton (ENN...@phobos.oit.umass.edu) wrote:
>: "What is most believable given this world?"
>
>automatically detract from the other, making this a spectrum? I disagree.
There's nothing wrong with demanding both, any more than there's
anything wrong with demanding one and letting the other happen as it
may.
Theatrix seems to try to at least allow for both in its decision
tree...the answer to the first question ("does the plot require some
particular outcome?") defines the dichotomy...say "yes" and you move
more down the story-based path, say "no" and you move more down the
"world-based" path.
Since we're not talking about binary logic here, and your flowchart is
only a rough guide, it's certainly possible to answer that first
question "yes and no". In which case, you get something more middle
of the road.
So?
The spectrum does not attempt to say *anything* about the *quality* of
the game...that's not the point at all. You can have wonderful and
horrible games at any point along the spectrum (I'd tend to say that
the extremes result in bad games, though).
I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that the two sides "detract"
from each other, but they are very different focuses.
Unless you are a perfectly prepared, perfectly omniscient GM, there
will come a time in any game where "good story" will be pitted against
"what would make the most sense". It's not necessary that one choice
be *better* than the other...but it's folly to say that they aren't
*different*.
This is completely separate from talking about "consistency", by the
way. It's entirely possible to run a *purely* story based game where
nothing inconsistent ever happens.
Sure, that shot at the villain *could* have missed...but why did it?
Did it miss because you wanted to preserve the villain for some later
part of the story, or did it miss because you really honestly thought
that it *should* have missed given the setup and skill of the
characters involved (insert some kind of probabilistic mechanism here
if you prefer to simulate that way).
Of course, the answer could be "the shot missed for both
reasons"...but unless you plan utterly perfectly, it's very unlikely
that the answer will *always* be "both". At some point, in any *real*
game, you'll have to decide which is more important in that particular
situation.
It's almost *never* going to be *inconsistent* to say the shot missed,
even if the *whole* reason you're saying so is to preserve the
villain...even if you think that the shot probably *should* have hit
given the setup, but in that case it's not accurate to say that you
decided whether the shot should hit or miss based on what would make
the most sense in the world. This doesn't have to be binary at all, of
course...there are many more choices available than "hit or
miss"...the question is *why* did you choose whichever one you chose?
Being somewhere on the spectrum simply means that you are generally
inclined to give that much weight to the 2 concerns.
Andrew Finch
: There's nothing wrong with demanding both, any more than there's
: anything wrong with demanding one and letting the other happen as it
: may.
No, there isn't. I was objecting to the treatment of realism and story as
opposite ends of a single axis, in which moving towards one automatically
moves you away from the other. I don't think they're mutually exclusive,
and each group may pay as much attention to either or both as they wish.
: The spectrum does not attempt to say *anything* about the *quality* of
: the game...that's not the point at all.
Nor was mine about quality. I was responding to the definition of an axis.
David
Kevin R. Hardwick
On 24 Jul 1995, Andrew Finch wrote:
> I guess what
> we mean by world-based and plot-based games is not so intuitively
> obvious.
This has been my contention all along. I still think it is fruitful to
consider how one goes about constructing and appreciating the story,
since story clearly figures in all RPG games, of whatever stripe. The
stories of world-based games, on the whole, seem qualitatively different
than those of plot-based games.
I dislike this terminology a great deal--ALL games will have both setting
and structure, and every good game in which I have played has given both
thorough attention. I don't think this captures the distinction very
well at all. We need something better than world and plot, and BOTH
terms are suspect.
My best,
Kevin
John H Kim
David Berkman <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
>James (ja...@jpb-s.demon.co.uk) wrote:
[...]
>: Once Joe is happy with is preparation, he invites his pals over to
>: play that specific scenario. Does this sound like a plot based game?
>
>No. It sounds world-based. To be plot-based, I expect the characters
>would be pre-made for the scenario, which is written with an actual
>factual plot. I've seen lots of world-based scenarios, so at this point
>it's hard to tell, but my guess is not.
What constitutes an "actual factual plot"? I know lots of
scenarios which have pre-made characters and a sequence of scenes --
does this count? Many tournament modules are done this way. Of course,
the characters rarely fit well with the sequence of scenes -- making
it a sequence of incidents rather than a "plot" by your terminology.
Does it simply have to be good in order to be a plot?
-*-*-*-
My understanding of the disagreement over the definition is this:
Taking three sample games
Game 1) Has a planned sequence of events, which is unrelated to character
and fairly inflexible.
Game 2) Has an organic plot which flows out of the characters, so that
what they would naturally do given the world ends up being the
same as the planned plot.
Game 3) Has no planned sequence -- rather, the GM makes up a lot of
background and adjudicates based on that during the game.
Now, David (I think) is calling #1 and #3 "world-based", and #2
"plot-based".
In my own definitions, I called #3 "world-based", and #1 and #2
"story-based" -- where #1 is badly-handled story-based, and #2 is
well-handled story-based.
-*-*-*-
Personally, I like my definitions -- but I'm willing to be flexible as
long as you just *define your terms*.
Doug Dawson
: Ray Trent (r...@clement.erg.sri.com) wrote:
: : There's nothing wrong with demanding both, any more than there's
: : anything wrong with demanding one and letting the other happen as it
: : may.
: No, there isn't. I was objecting to the treatment of realism and story as
: opposite ends of a single axis, in which moving towards one automatically
: moves you away from the other. I don't think they're mutually exclusive,
: and each group may pay as much attention to either or both as they wish.
Hmm? You seem to view an axis in a different method than I do.
Certainly, when you establish an axis, it is possible to move from one
end to the other, but that isn't the only possible direction. Also,
moving towards one end doesn't mean you're reducing absolute emphasis
on the other end. The defining of an axis merely says that any game can be
placed on it defined by its relative emphasis.
To use a poor analogy, I'll use a red-blue axis, for mixtures of red and
blue paint. If you pour in a liter of red and a liter of blue, you've
got something exactly midway between the endpoints.
Pour in twelve more liters of blue and twelve more liters of red and you've
still got something exactly midway between, but differing in volume from
the first mix.
Pour in ten liters of white, and you've got something differing
in color from the first mix, but still midway between the endpoints.
Perhaps most relevant, pour in another liter of blue, and you move
towards the blue end...but you've got just as much red as you ever did.
You haven't reduced your emphasis on red, you've just increased your
Andrew Finch
: David Berkman <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
: >I used to run very world-based games, and I think most people who saw
: >them would easily tag them as world based, but I regularly did stuff
: >you've said a world-based GM would definitely not do.
: Well, David, I think you've made clear that your definition
: of "world-based" is different than other peoples'. As a suggestion,
: why don't you describe the games you used to run, and let others
: judge whether they were "world-based"?
They had characters, NPCs, places, and background events. Some background
events intersected the PCs lives. These events were not planed with any
line of dramatic development in mind. I had certain things I thought
might happen, but not really knowing why things occured as they did, I
was often wrong. Sometimes the players went in other directions.
Sometimes I had nothing occuring where the players did go, and they would
play for hours with nothing happening, following some totally unplanned
red herring, discovering the world as it was, normal, and not very
conflictual. Sometimes they got frustrated doing this, but that's part of
life. They pften described my games as 'fixed', with railraod treacks, or
like a roller coaster ride. If you went in certain directions, things
happened, and only in those directions. The rest of the world was much
flatter and seemed unresponsive. Actually, there just wasn't anything
particularly special heppening in those places. The certain direction
that things would happen in were simply the ones that important NPCs were
actually doing stuff, following their own dictates in. Sometimes these
dictates were not in the PCs best interest, and a scenario would occur.
But that was up to the PCs to find and follow, if they wished. Sometimes
the PCs would take certain actions that would short circuit the whole
building series of events. Sometimes the PCs would be unaware that this
had occured, and their 'trail' would disappear on them, and they would
spend hours trying to figure out what happened, getting frustrated. But
that's part of life.
When I switched to a plot-based style, the first comments I heard,
repeatedly, is that the railroad tracks had gone away, and it now seemed
as though the PCs inhabited a full world. There was no longer a
particular direction to the scenarios. The fact is, that the tracks were
now always in front of them, wherever *they* decided to turn.
David
Andrew Finch
: What constitutes an "actual factual plot"? I know lots of
: scenarios which have pre-made characters and a sequence of scenes --
: does this count?
Nope. And I've been over this ground a lot. However, in a previous post
I've given the closest I can get to a 1 or 2 line definition, so just
look back 2 posts.
: Many tournament modules are done this way. Of course,
: the characters rarely fit well with the sequence of scenes -- making
: it a sequence of incidents rather than a "plot" by your terminology.
Yes.
: Does it simply have to be good in order to be a plot?
No. But I think that the same things which make for good plots also make
for good games.
David
Ray Trent
>: There's nothing wrong with demanding both, any more than there's
>: anything wrong with demanding one and letting the other happen as it
>: may.
>
>No, there isn't. I was objecting to the treatment of realism and story as
>opposite ends of a single axis, in which moving towards one automatically
>moves you away from the other. I don't think they're mutually exclusive,
>and each group may pay as much attention to either or both as they wish.
First of all, I'm not talking at all about "realism". You can have the
most outrageously insanely unrealistic genre (say, 4 color or space
opera) and still fall solidly onto the world-based end of the spectrum.
This axis measures a certain part of the motivation behind decisions,
not the outcome of the decisions.
If your decisions are motivated *primarily* by concerns of story
rather than primarily by concerns of setting, then you are "story
based". If your decisions are motivated *primarily* by what the
setting, world, characters, and possibly logic dictate rather than
primarily by what might fit your idea of a good story, then you are
"world based".
If you are motivated equally by both, then you're near the middle
point. How well you carry out your decisions will affect the *quality*
of your game in any case, but it won't change the basis of your
methodology.
Again, if you're perfect, and always plan impeccably, none of this
should matter...your setting and characters will always result in a
good story and there will never be a conflict. IMNSHO, it's always a
good goal to strive for this kind of perfection.
This axis only comes into play in situations where there is the
potential for conflict between story and world. If introducing some
spontaneous twist makes less sense in the world, but would make a
"better" story, which way will you decide: throw in the twist or not?
And how will you get there?
A good "world based" GM would probably save the idea for some later
time or even a later game where it might better fit the
world/setting/situation or might adapt the twist until it fit the
situation. A bad "world based" GM might just discard the good idea as
irrelevant to their "perfectly crafted" setting.
A good "story based" GM would figure out some way to change the world
unbeknownst to the players to make the twist fit, or might throw it in
anyway as long as it wasn't inconsistent with the genre-logic (whether
it makes the *most* sense in the world being more or less irrelevant
as long as it makes *some* sense). A bad "story based" GM might throw
it in whether it was consistent or not.
As you can see, the differences between "good" GMs of either type can
be extremely subtle...but they're still there. Even if it's something
as mild as which side of the equation changes to allow for the
"desired" solution.
Andrew Finch
: If your decisions are motivated *primarily* by concerns of story
: rather than primarily by concerns of setting, then you are "story
: based". If your decisions are motivated *primarily* by what the
: setting, world, characters, and possibly logic dictate rather than
: primarily by what might fit your idea of a good story, then you are
: "world based".
I think I may be 'genre-based'.
: This axis only comes into play in situations where there is the
: potential for conflict between story and world. If introducing some
: spontaneous twist makes less sense in the world, but would make a
: "better" story, which way will you decide: throw in the twist or not?
: And how will you get there?
For me, world and story are a synthesis which produces genre. For
something to violate the world would mean violating the physics of the
environment, which is never a decision I would make without another valid
'world-based' reason for doing so. I can't think of anything violating
the 'story', although some events may be more aesthetically pleasing than
others. I try never to violate good plot structure, for the same reasons
I don't violate the world physics. However, I think you can violate the
genre you planned to run, and the more you do so, the more you produce
some other genre.
Where this places me on the scales of world and story, I don't know.
David
Scott A. H. Ruggels
>As an aside, for some people on this group I sometimes wonder how they
>can ever possibly enjoy reading a book, given the effort they seem to
>need for suspending disbelief. :-)
>
> Reimer Behrends
Well I read non fiction mostly. War histories, and books on society, or
art techniques. My rare non-fiction is mostly technothrillers, (I can
hear the sarcasn gearing up out there in the audience but it will do no
good. I am thick headed and immune to sarcasm and irony :-))
Scott
Raymond Charles Parks
>
>To explain my comment that the pre-made scenario described is
>world-based, and not plot-based, because it only gives an ordered
>sequence of events:
>
>A plot is not a sequence of events. It is a structure with key scenes
>meant to hold a dramatic line of development, based around a central
>conflict which extends from the dramatic needs of the protagonists.
>
>Fixed orders of scenes, which is mostly what you get with pre-made
>scenarios, are not dependent on a plot at all, but rather a series of
>setups and events within the world, which the players are intended to
>encounter and overcome.
EUREKA!
After months of lurking and reading your posts I finally
understand why you call story-based games "world-based".
You assume that the sequence of events style of current
commercial scenarios is what the other posters consider to
be "plot-based". That assumption may be a little unfair. I
suspect that many of your fellow posters have as much sense
of the dramatic as you. But this also explains why you long
ago criticized "world-based" games without the scenarios as
being mere collections of random events.
Do you determine every detail of every pinch, turn, etc.
in advance of a game, or do you predict them loosely and
detail them extemporaneously? If the latter, I understand
why you call your games world-based. You have a detailed
setting/background so that you can improvise the necessary
plot elements as the game progresses.
I find this revelation somewhat ironic. What you think
you have discovered as a new way to run games is the way my
friends and I ran them back before the days of commercial
scenarios. In prehistoric times, there were no scenarios
with sequences of scenes and plot synopses. At most, one
might find the sort of detailed description mentioned
earlier in the post about the Isle of Dread. Actually, when
I started rpging there were no commercial scenarios, and we
came up with our own worlds from scratch. When the PCs
decided to do something (usually explore a new dungeon or
visit a new city :-)) we would try to arrange the "wandering
monsters" or "random encounters" so as to make things more
interesting. We did not use the formalism of the model you
advocate, but we certainly tried to vary intensity and
timing of events, reflect possible plots in the world around
the PCs, and respond to the developing characters with
soap-opera or comic-book serial plots. As the PCs grew to
have true character, the events became more tailored to
them. Challenging a paladin to defend the weak and
helpless, involving PCs in court politics, and having their
real lives outside of adventuring intrude were all standard
plot elements. All of these incidents/events/plot hooks
were, of course, completely consistent with the rather
detailed worlds we developed.
Is my revelation wrong, or am I connecting with what you
have been trying to say?
Raymond
Scott A. H. Ruggels
Mary K. Kuhner
> Do any of you feel that you have run into the "restrictive"
>limit, where you think you have created too much detail?
>John Kim | "Whatever else is true, you - trust your little finger.
>jh...@columbia.edu | Just a single little finger can... change the world."
I have seen four things go wrong with detail. The first one is mainly a
flaw in GMing, but the others can be more serious.
(1) Knowing a lot creates a temptation to lecture or overdescribe, and
can also lead to tedious arguments (especially in historical settings).
One wants to avoid substituting "The GM's Guide to Glorantha" for the
actual adventure.
(2) Creating a setting initially in great detail, rather than letting
it grow up slowly from a vague start, can lock you into early decisions
that turn out not to be the best. It can also deny you
locations/historical periods into which to insert later brilliant ideas.
A gaming world that's been played for a long time and is known in great
detail sometimes just won't accomodate the GM's new ideas (though this
can be overcome by deliberately leaving isolated, unknown areas in the
initial design).
(3) Knowing too much about the broad geography and history of the
gaming world can make it seem dry and unmagical. I have a general rule
that I don't want to know too much more about the setting (as GM) than
the people living in it do--if their maps say "Here be dragons" and
nothing else, I'd also like to be unsure about those areas till the game
actually does in that direction.
On the other hand, detailed knowledge gives the game incredible
richness, and is generally a good thing--I just find it useful to draw
limits to the detailing and leave some areas open for future
development. I've *never* felt I knew too much about an NPC or a small
setting. It's the big picture that should have some gray areas.
My GMing style is probably just a little towards the world-based end of
the spectrum, but has some definite plot-based elements; in particular,
I sometimes won't determine what is "true" in the game world until I've
seen some play and decided what would work best. I don't plan much,
though.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Andrew Finch
: Which is to say, my _definition_ of a world-based game (formulated
: long before this article) is that it does not have an ordered sequence
: of events to occur during the game.
To explain my comment that the pre-made scenario described is
world-based, and not plot-based, because it only gives an ordered
sequence of events:
A plot is not a sequence of events. It is a structure with key scenes
meant to hold a dramatic line of development, based around a central
conflict which extends from the dramatic needs of the protagonists.
Fixed orders of scenes, which is mostly what you get with pre-made
scenarios, are not dependent on a plot at all, but rather a series of
setups and events within the world, which the players are intended to
encounter and overcome. All well and good, unless the players go
elsewhere. They've never refused a plot, they've gone to part of the world
not described by the store bought scenario, and it all collapses.
Actually, I think these games would be far easier to recover if they were
truely plot-based, rather than being descriptions of a segment of a
world-based campaign.
David
John H Kim
it. (I'll come back and see how it's doing two weeks from now).
David brought up the idea that too much world detail was
restrictive and unhelpful to the feeling of reality. This is fairly
contrary to my own experience, so I'd like to share my thoughts on
the subject.
David Berkman <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
>Rodney Payne (spur...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au) wrote:
>: All contingencies are prepared for. It doesn't matter what the players
>: do, because the GM will have prepared for their actions: every part
>: of the world is detailed.
[...]
>: Of course, no game is completely world based: nobody can prepare that
>: much. But the world based GM aspires to it, nonetheless.
>
>Yes, it's that aspiration I have some problems with. I think nobody
>actually does this because in actuality, it wouldn't work. This is not a
>real environment, and doing this to a game would not make it more real.
>All it would do is make it real restrictive.
Hmmm. I suppose I would agree that there is a point where too
much world detail is restrictive -- but for me that level of detail is
unreachable for human GM's. In practice, I have always found that
the more detail I put into my world, the more real it seems.
I do think that information can get unwieldy -- especially if it
is poorly organized. For example: a GM details out a city, but then has
to go shuffling through his notes every time the PC's walk a block.
Again, though, I have almost never found this to be a problem in
practice.
Rather than being restricted, I've generally found that more
detail is inspirational.
-*-*-*-
For example, my _Star Trek_ campaign developed as much detail
as I could manage. For example, at one point, I was working out
preliminary details on a medieval technology world in the Organian
Neutral Zone, which was in one of the PC's history. It was by
putting this together that I was inspired by the idea of Vilid and
the "terrorist" scenario (which I used as a recent example in the
world-based versus story-based debate).
Every detail that you put in opens up new possibilities. The
key is to _draw_ upon your world rather than try to _impose_ things
on it for your scenarios.
-*-*-*-
Now, my canonical example of a highly detailed world would be
real-world history. I played/GMed for a while in a troupe-style
campaign which was set at various periods in history, where the PC's
were all immortals of one sort or another.
Now, for each of the scenarios I ran, I spent a while in the
library researching the time and place. I was always delighted to get
more information, and would incorporate them into what I was doing or
would use them otherwise.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Do any of you feel that you have run into the "restrictive"
limit, where you think you have created too much detail?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim | "Whatever else is true, you - trust your little finger.
jh...@columbia.edu | Just a single little finger can... change the world."
John H Kim
onto the debate and then run off for Europe on the morrow where I can't
read or reply (I think).
Anyhow, I am once again reposting my definitions for
"Story-based" and "World-based".
David Berkman <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
>: David Berkman <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
>: >The greater the pressure on a world-based scenario, which was never
>: >composed around a flexible plot structure, but was rather just an
>: >ordered sequence of events. The events don't go in order, the
>: >players take off elsewhere, and the adventure is in trouble.
Agh! David, I have posted several times the definitions
which I refer to, and numerous people have said they basically agreed
with me. If you are going to use your own meanings for words, *please*
express the definitions you are thinking of.
The statement you give above is in direct contradiction to
what many of us consider the definition of "world-based" games.
I am reposting my own definitions below...
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
[REPOST]
"Story-based" refers to a campaign or episode in which the GM
prepares primarily by thinking through how the plot will proceed -
outlining a progression of scenes and the development of the central
conflicts (in a literary sense). The campaigning chapter of _Theatrix_
is the purest outline of "story-based" planning in this sense. World
details are prepared only as they relate to the story as it is outlined
-- i.e. the house where Pinch I takes place might be detailed, but the
details of house next door are left open for Improvisation since they
do not relate to the story.
"World-based" refers to a campaign or episode in which the GM
prepares by detailing the elements of the world: the setting, the
characters and their motivations, plans, etc. There will, of course,
be "plots" going on - characters naturally have goals and plans of how
to achieve them. But the GM does not plan on a single plotline - at
most, he prepares the plans which various NPC's have at the start.
Note that there is a difference between having "a little bit of
plot" and being `plot-based'. A good world-based campaign setup will
have lots of "plot" going on - people are doing things, and there are
conflicts between their goals.
Of course, most campaigns are neither "world-based" nor
"story-based"; but rather somewhere in between. Nevertheless, I think
it is helpful to identify which extreme a given campaign tends towards.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Which is to say, my _definition_ of a world-based game (formulated
long before this article) is that it does not have an ordered sequence
of events to occur during the game.
Brushing past the semantics: Rodney, you, and myself are all
*agreed* that games which have an inflexibly prepared sequence of events
are generally bad in that they fail to respond to player input. You
apparently label these as "world-based", Rodney and I do not.
Now, then, as for games which do not prepare a sequence of
events -- but simply detail background, characters, and setting.
I'm not sure what you label these, but I label them "world-based".
Your comments on this I'll put in a new thread, with the subject
line: "How Much World Detail?"
John H Kim
and "story-based" distinction...
David Berkman <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
>I used to run very world-based games, and I think most people who saw
>them would easily tag them as world based, but I regularly did stuff
>you've said a world-based GM would definitely not do.
Well, David, I think you've made clear that your definition
of "world-based" is different than other peoples'. As a suggestion,
why don't you describe the games you used to run, and let others
judge whether they were "world-based"?
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
As an example: I ran a Mega-Traveller game my first year of
college. It was in my own universe, and was about first contact
with a transcendent alien race.
I had several scenarios built up: an encounter with an "infected"
station by artifical electronic lifeforms - then the infection of the
ship which would bring it to a halt once it reached the next system
(neccessary or they would just jump out after a certain point).
Now, it turns out that the players were much sharper than I
had guessed -- and they did a reasonable job of stopping the infections.
However, I figured that they had to go on to reach the next step -- so
I had an NPC on board betray them. (This is what most people call
"railroading").
NOTE: To me, this is clearly story-based, just story-based done very
badly.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
A rather more problematic case would be an AD&D tournament I
once ran at Atlanticon, in early high school. Now, this was a
dungeon scenario, called _The Wierd of Sathar_.
It was about going into a ruined underground dwarven monastary,
and trying to recover a holy artifact from it. Now, we designed the
monastery as pure architecture: putting quarters, etc. where they should
be.
As we went along, though, we figured out where clues should be
to the location of the artifact, and scattered them around. There was
no plot sequence to them -- we just made sure that between enough of
the clues, the players could figure out where the artifact was and
"win".
Also, there was a herd of burrowing monsters who were passing
through the area, who formed the time pressure and the "wandering
monsters" for the scenario. Their passage would slowly cause sections
of the place to collapse, in a planned sequence (done with the placement
of the clues in mind).
Once the clues were in place, however, we made entirely
world-based decisions -- and the layout itself was designed with
world-based architectural decisions. If the party got stuck, we
did not lead them out of it.
NOTE: I would say this one is a mixture of story- and world-based.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>All GMs lead now and then. They have to. It's part of having a world
>with realistic forces acting within it. Those adjudications divert
>and change PC actions, and influence PC decisions. Improvisation is
>a tool for every GM I've ever seen. So little of even the most
>detailed world-based games is ever really decided in advance.
>World-based games count on decision flexibility. SO do plot based
>games. Maybe thay count on it in different ways, but I have yet to
>be convinced.
So what about your earlier games makes you say they were
"world-based"? What were they like, and how do they differ from
the games you run now?
(BTW, could you send a copy of your reply to me email -- I'm liable
to lose the article since I won't be back for two weeks.)
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>: That the dividing point of such a spectrum be Ray Trent's Question:
>: "Is the primary concern of the GM/group what makes a good story, or
>: is it what makes for a believable world?"
>
>What if you demand both. Are you saying that attention to one will
>automatically detract from the other, making this a spectrum? I
>disagree.
Just as a side note here: they don't have to be diametric
opposites for there to be a spectrum between them. For example, you
could form a spectrum of architecture between functionality and
esthetics. They don't neccessarily conflict with each other -- but
it is possible.
Andrew Finch
: To use a poor analogy, I'll use a red-blue axis, for mixtures of red and
: blue paint. If you pour in a liter of red and a liter of blue, you've
: got something exactly midway between the endpoints.
I think of this as two scales. You can be at any point on either scale.
An axis has endpoints, and moving towards one moves away from the other.
David
Andrew Finch
: After months of lurking and reading your posts I finally
: understand why you call story-based games "world-based".
How can you lurk for months? Glad to have you with us.
: You assume that the sequence of events style of current
: commercial scenarios is what the other posters consider to
: be "plot-based". That assumption may be a little unfair.
Close. I think that this style is labeled as plot-based by many people.
For me, it has everything but a plot.
: I
: suspect that many of your fellow posters have as much sense
: of the dramatic as you.
I know they do. Many have at least as good an understanding of theatrical
forms. We may quibble about the basis of plot, but the basic ingredients
are commonly shared. However, the poster to whom I have been responded
did hold up a pre-made commercial type scenario as an example of
plot-based play. I disagree.
: But this also explains why you long
: ago criticized "world-based" games without the scenarios as
: being mere collections of random events.
Yes, somewhat roughly, but yes.
: Do you determine every detail of every pinch, turn, etc.
: in advance of a game, or do you predict them loosely and
: detail them extemporaneously?
I pre-determine every *important* detail. What's important depends on the
world, the players, the situation, the genre, etc. I don't demand they
turn out that way. Knowing why these things are important is probably the
greatest part of it, but I know of no better way of determining that than
doing the work of constructing the plot.
: If the latter, I understand
: why you call your games world-based. You have a detailed
: setting/background so that you can improvise the necessary
: plot elements as the game progresses.
Called my games world-based. John Kim asked me what was world-based about
my previos GMing style. I attempted to respond. I now work in a very
different manner. Of course, I would still call them world-based in the
sense that background detail is still an important element. Probably mor
eimportant now that I make better use of it.
But you're right, I have a detailed background to make plot improvisation
possible. I have a detailed plot to make world improvisation possible.
: I find this revelation somewhat ironic. What you think
: you have discovered as a new way to run games is the way my
: friends and I ran them back before the days of commercial
: scenarios.
I started GMing in the days of the white boxed D&D. I think you've
mistaken my description of how I used to run, with what I tend to do now.
: earlier in the post about the Isle of Dread. Actually, when
: I started rpging there were no commercial scenarios, and we
: came up with our own worlds from scratch.
I can count the number of pre-made modules I've used on one hand. I think
this may be true for many of the posters you're reading here.
: Is my revelation wrong, or am I connecting with what you
: have been trying to say?
Hard for me to say. I'm not sure what you've pegged me to. I know that
plot elements are present in every game, even the most world-based. What
I'm advocating is a construction that is as detailed in the meta-game as
in the game. I also happen to allow a lot of improvisational freedom, and
I use an adjudication scheme that begins with the conclusion and works
back to the causes, rather than the more usual simulation oriented
approach. But we haven't touched on these things in this thread (nor are
they necessarily relevant to it).
Does that help?
David
Andrew Finch
: I'm not sure that genre moves a game along the axis. Theoritically, a world
: based game has a
: world which is trying to simulate a "genre" (and the genre could be unique
: to the GM or it could be one of the more recognized genre such as 4
: colour).
For me, world design can't simulate genre, nor can plot design. Not
alone. Genre is a combination of both.
: Whether or not a GM is true to the genre does not, in my mind,
: change the gaming style (world or story based). I'm with Ray on the
: definition of the differences between the two: story based is where GM
: decisions are based on what makes a good story; world based is where the
: GM makes decision based on "logical" otucome within the context of the world.
I try to do both. I try to make the decision which makes for the best
story, and based on the 'logical' outcomes within the world context. I
design both background and plot in detail. Where does that leave me?
David
Doug Dawson
: Doug Dawson (ddda...@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu) wrote:
OK, as I said, you apparently think of an axis in a different way from
me. I would definitely think of the above as an axis.
Is it possible, then, that you are viewing world-based and plot-based as
two scales? Is this one of the sources of disagreement?
In my terminology (okay, I haven't been active in this discussion, but
I'm putting my point in regardless), most things that I would guess you
would class as separate scales, I could consider as an axis.
Any RGB color classification corresponds to a point on an RB line, after
all. (This does however point out that while everything can be placed
on the axis, the axis rather dramatically fails to define everything
by itself.)
A Lapalme
> Ray Trent (r...@clement.erg.sri.com) wrote:
>
> I think I may be 'genre-based'.
>
> : This axis only comes into play in situations where there is the
> : potential for conflict between story and world. If introducing some
> : spontaneous twist makes less sense in the world, but would make a
> : "better" story, which way will you decide: throw in the twist or not?
> : And how will you get there?
>
> For me, world and story are a synthesis which produces genre. For
> something to violate the world would mean violating the physics of the
> environment, which is never a decision I would make without another valid
> 'world-based' reason for doing so. I can't think of anything violating
> the 'story', although some events may be more aesthetically pleasing than
> others. I try never to violate good plot structure, for the same reasons
> I don't violate the world physics. However, I think you can violate the
> genre you planned to run, and the more you do so, the more you produce
> some other genre.
>
> Where this places me on the scales of world and story, I don't know.
>
based game has a
world which is trying to simulate a "genre" (and the genre could be unique
to the GM or it could be one of the more recognized genre such as 4
change the gaming style (world or story based). I'm with Ray on the
definition of the differences between the two: story based is where GM
decisions are based on what makes a good story; world based is where the
GM makes decision based on "logical" otucome within the context of the world.
Alain
Andrew Finch
: Is it possible, then, that you are viewing world-based and plot-based as
: two scales? Is this one of the sources of disagreement?
Seems to be.
I'm willing to call an axis what I now call a scale, but I would like a
word to use to mean what I now call an axis. Does that make sense?
David
Ray Trent
>: definition of the differences between the two: story based is where GM
>: decisions are based on what makes a good story; world based is where the
>: GM makes decision based on "logical" otucome within the context of the world
>
>story, and based on the 'logical' outcomes within the world context. I
>design both background and plot in detail. Where does that leave me?
I've said this before, but, given no other information, you're right
smack dab in the middle of the "axis" (This stuff is all
reletive...you can redefine your coordinate space pretty much
arbitrarily). If you like thinking of "story" and "world" as 2
orthagonal axes, fine, go ahead. I'll just change to polar coordinates
and define *my* axis as the angle between them.
Nerd stuff aside, maybe this example will spark some interesting
conversation:
Genre: dark cyberpunk
The axis in terms of plot generation:
You've decide that the PCs are going to be recruited by a corporation
to do some dirty work for them and that the corporation is planning on
double-crossing the PCs later (call it the "Midpoint" if you want).
Is this a "story based" plot or a "world based" plot on the axis I'm
talking about?
The answer is: you can't tell from this description. The question
revolves around motives, not outcomes. If you thought up this idea in
isolation as something that would make a neat story, it was probably
"story based". If your world contains a corporation likely to engage
in such behaviors, and the PCs happened came into the purview of that
corporation, opening up a reasonable and likely possibility that the
PCs and corporation would collide, you're basically "world based".
The axis in terms of event resolution and improvised events:
Suppose one of the characters "sees through" the recruitment officer
in some way (intuitively, irrationally, or even logically) and decides
that the PCs would best be served by killing this guy before he gets
them into trouble.
A good "world based" GM might be frustrated, but would think something
like: "Interesting choice...is the character able to perform this
action? Is there anything in the setup that would prevent him from
doing it? No? (insert possible simulation here) Ok...one dead
recruitment officer. Now...let's see, what are the likely
ramifications of this act? Well, the corporation will likely be mad at
the PCs...maybe they'll send a hit squad after them. They'll probably
still need someone to do the proposed dirty work for them...who will
they find? Will the law be after the PCs? Hmmm, not in this
genre. etc. Let's see, what's most likely to happen to them now...ah
here's a few ideas...'so what do you guys do next?'"
A good "story based" GM might do any number of things, but they are
likely to first think of plausible ways in which the PCs might fail or
be stopped in the attempt to kill the guy (because it will screw up
the story). Or he might think "How can I throw in plausible and
consistent events so that the PCs still run across the story in
question? Perhaps they discover that the people they were going to
'hit' have been 'tipped off' by the corporation that the PCs are
coming after them and are looking to take the PCs out first...perhaps
the next job they get will be interrupted by the corporation's
revenge...perhaps, etc., etc." Nothing is *inconsistent* about any of
these ideas, he strives to make the outcome be something that is
consonant with the setting...but the motivation is primarily to keep
the PCs involved in the story, however peripherally.
In this particular example, the outcome may not be any different at
all. The "world based" GM may end up drawing the PCs back into the
story. The "story based" GM may end up chucking this idea and
improvising a different story. It's the thought processes and the
coherent feel that inevitably evolves from them over time that
differs.
A bad "story based" GM will often end up "railroading" the PCs into
the plot regardless of whether that makes any sense or not. Perhaps
the corp will try again, except their recruitment officer is armed and
protected by guards this time, and the PCs are told they better go
along or they'll be toast. Or maybe it's just the next job that they
get offered that the plot will revolve around (with the "setback" just
completely ignored).
A bad "world based" GM will often be stuck for ideas and will fumble
along not sure what's going to happen next and with little ability to
make it fit the setting or remain consistent.
Christopher Pound
: David Berkman <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
: >I used to run very world-based games ...
:
: If you went in certain directions, things
: flatter and seemed unresponsive. Actually, there just wasn't anything
: particularly special heppening in those places.
Then it wasn't a world, was it? Just a few detailed locations relating
to one another only in terms of a rigidly constructed script. I propose
a new name for this kind of game -> script-based gaming.
Your solution was to throw away the script in favor of an underlying
structure you perceive in the script -> plot-based gaming. You seem
to think this solution results in a more coherent and enjoyable story,
because it's explicitly based on the structural elements to be found
in any Hollywood film.
Another solution is to throw away the script in favor of a more
thorough understanding of the setting -> world-based gaming. The story-like
coherence of this solution is generated after the fact, when structural
elements equivalent to those on which the plot-based game is based are
used to remember and narrativize the events of the world-based game.
It sounds like you've just never played in a setting, e.g. Tekumel,
Glorantha, Harn, or Jorune, where it's possible for the GM to develop
an encyclopedic command of the world and use that knowledge on the fly,
accounting for all contingencies and responding appropriately to every
character's concerns and every player's interests in the world,
over-arching structure of the adventure be damned.
--
Christopher Pound (po...@rice.edu) | They think they are Parisians, but
Department of Anthropology, Rice U. | they are nothing. -- Pierre Bourdieu
Andrew Finch
: : If you went in certain directions, things
: : happened, and only in those directions. The rest of the world was much
: : flatter and seemed unresponsive. Actually, there just wasn't anything
: : particularly special heppening in those places.
: Then it wasn't a world, was it? Just a few detailed locations relating
: to one another only in terms of a rigidly constructed script. I propose
: a new name for this kind of game -> script-based gaming.
It wasn't scripted at all. Not a bit. The world was very detailed. But
the number of things you can ever detail as a GM is small in comparison
to the actual volume of stuff in a world. Let the players go where they
will, and they hit stuff you haven't thought about. Watch your own games.
How often do the players talk to a pre-made character, go into a pre-made
building, or interact with a pre-made social structure, at the actual
detail level? I put a fair amount of time into my games, but there is no
way I've detailed the small mdecinals shop the players wander into in Burma.
: Your solution was to throw away the script in favor of an underlying
: structure you perceive in the script -> plot-based gaming.
My solution was to learn something about what a plot is, why it exists,
and how you structure one. And it wasn't my solution. I just stumbled
across this wealth of information.
: You seem
: to think this solution results in a more coherent and enjoyable story,
: because it's explicitly based on the structural elements to be found
: in any Hollywood film.
No. I could care less what's in a Hollywood film. The only reason there's
any resemblance is because Hollywood films have managed not to ignore the
last 2000 years of history and tradition in storytelling. Now I don't either.
: Another solution is to throw away the script in favor of a more
: thorough understanding of the setting -> world-based gaming.
That's exactly what I used to do. Yest, again, tehre were many flat
moments because the players moved to places I hadn't detailed, and I
didn't have any reasons backing up the meta-game aspects of the scenario.
And I had detailed worlds. Now, I detail far less, and am far more
prepared. I watch other peoples world-based games, and I see a lot of the
stuff that went on in mine. Flat time.
: It sounds like you've just never played in a setting, e.g. Tekumel,
: Glorantha, Harn, or Jorune, where it's possible for the GM to develop
: an encyclopedic command of the world and use that knowledge on the fly,
: accounting for all contingencies and responding appropriately to every
: character's concerns and every player's interests in the world,
: over-arching structure of the adventure be damned.
I have played extensively in Glorantha, a fair amount in Harn, others in
my group have played extensively in Jorune. Never did Tekumel. I tend to
dislike other peoples fully created worlds. I think the Ars Magica
approach is far better. They give social structure, historical
background, some specific locations, and you do the rest. What holds this
together is definitely story structure for me.
David
A Lapalme
> A Lapalme (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
>
> For me, world design can't simulate genre, nor can plot design. Not
> alone. Genre is a combination of both.
>
> : change the gaming style (world or story based). I'm with Ray on the
> : decisions are based on what makes a good story; world based is where the
>
> I try to do both. I try to make the decision which makes for the best
> story, and based on the 'logical' outcomes within the world context. I
> design both background and plot in detail. Where does that leave me?
>
the game is world or story based. Rather, it is how the game is ran which
determines that. See my above definition (Ray's really, (actually that's
the definition people used last year and I'm not too sure who pegged it)).
To me, deciding if a game is plot based is a simple thing: are in
game GM decisions made on the basis of producing a better story or based
on maintaining the consistency of the world. If the former, the game is
story based, if the latter, the game is world based.
And, just to add a bit here, I believe that a judicious and balanced use
of both approaches will make a better game. (but that is really just my
preference).
Alain
Christopher Pound
>I put a fair amount of time into my games, but there is no
>way I've detailed the small mdecinals shop the players wander into in Burma.
Once again, David Berkman argues against a straw man. Why should I have
expected otherwise, this time? Understanding the world in such a way that
it is brimming with difference (you'd wrongly say conflict) in every direction
is not at all the same as writing out every detail in the world. The
continued encountering of such differences and the development of personal
concerns in the world is, in my experience, how world-based play proceeds.
>No. I could care less what's in a Hollywood film. The only reason there's
>any resemblance is because Hollywood films have managed not to ignore the
>last 2000 years of history and tradition in storytelling. Now I don't either.
If you could care less about what's in a Hollywood film, then why do you
use Sid Field as your primary source for dramatic theory? Wait, I can
answer that. The truth is, you know diddly-squat about the histories of
storytelling and narrative theory and naively trust some Hollywood hack to
distill it all for you to the point where those 2000 years of storytelling
all seem to work in just the same way.
Unknown
than plot-based but it hardly matters now. And I don't really think
the criteria 'what makes a good story' means much. Even if tastes agreed,
you'll probably find that each player in the GMs campaign is playing a
somewhat different game, taking part in a fairly different
story.
I'm sure that at an intuitive level we all have a pretty good grasp of
the difference between the world-based and the plot/story-based games.
The difficulty seeems to be that the examples offered are too
sophisticated, often part of established campaigns, to express two
styles in their purest forms.
Lets take published scenarios for this latest example which should help
establish common ground. Say Joe reads a scenario which he finds clever,
original and exciting. He plays around with it for a while and decides
it would work better in a cyberpunk setting. Once Joe is happy with is
preparation, he invites his pals over to play that
specific scenario. Does this sound like a plot based game?
Of course once they game starts, anything can happen. The GM wants to
play that scenario. He's spent time an money on it. He believes in it
and is sure the players will enjoy it. So if the players start by
ignoreing the main hooks, it s not unlikely that the GM will make afew
attampts to get the scenario going from the back door. If he is
prepared to push on with the story regardless, he might find it
difficult to find players for the second session.
I've got a published scenarios I acquired for a few pence not so long ago
which can serve to illustrate the world-based type of game in its most
primitive form. It is called the ISLE OF DREAD and I believe it was D&D's
first wilderness adventure. I remember being very puzzled
when I first read it. I was looking for the plot summary, like you us
ually get. But there wasn't because there isn't any plot. basically its
just a map of this dreadful island with descriptions of the features at
each location.
So let's say Sally buys the ISLE of DREAD and is really taken by it.
She adds a few details, practices the voices of various NPCs. Then
she calls over her friends, places them on the Isle. From that moment
onwards its up to the players to decide what to do. There are
opportunities to start trade with the natives, open a gold mine or,
what they heck, kill monsters from dawn to dusk. Its their world (okay
island) to do what they want with.
So why did Joe decide to run on scenario and Sally another? Joe has
got a good solid story going for him, something that will thrill, amuse
and excite his players. He has a good idea of where they are going so
he can plan ahead and fill in more of the details.If the players
cooperate, they are in for a treat. However, the more
imaginative, eccentirc or plain pig-headed the players, he greater the
pressure on the scenario. And so the players, being players, side-step
the really good bits, miss vital clues and get the completely wrong
impression of that NPC. What seemed to be a fool-proof plot is clearly
not PC proof as they proceed to wreck the game in a thousand ways.
In the end Joe will have to work hard to keep the adventure from
falling apart.
Sally does not have any clever plots in store. Nor does she have highly
drammatic set scences prepared. She is banking on the fact that her
players enjoy expressing themselves above all else and given a
stimulating environment they will come up with something themselves. In
a sense Sally has less to worry about. But a lot can still go wrong.
Things might get off to a very slow start and boredom could kill the
game before it even started. The players could just sit back expecting
for the plot-hook to come or just stick to the first feature they hit,
despite, for Sally, it is the less interesting part of the island. And
although in theory nothing the players do in Sally's game can wreck the
adventure as since, the actions of the PCs may alter the tone of the
adventure, making the rest of the isle design inappropriate.
These two examples are a tad childish and extreme, but they are not
entirely unrealistic. And I hope they serve to highlight the
relative strengths and weaknesses. How this actually help further
the debate I don't know. I guess I just felt like posting something.
Sorry.
-- James --
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Magic Online Services Toronto Inc. (416) 591-6490
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Andrew Finch
A Lapalme
> Hmm. My own inclination would be to keep using axis, and simply have all of
> the axes range of none to lots-n-lots (a very technical term) of the thing
> being measure. The trick here is to not set traits in opposition a priori, but
> to allow them all to vary freely.
>
> In the case at hand, for example, I'd have at least the following axes:
>
> - degree of specific plotting
> - degree of world detailing, including plans of sundry NPCs
> - degree of attention to genre concerns
>
> While I _suspect_ that trying to maximize all of them would lead to strange
> internal incoherencies, I'm not really sure. And certainly one can have lots
> of several of them.
>
> I have a mental image of volumes being defined by a person's preferences
> marked along each axis. Some volumes would be long and skinny - lots of one
> thing and not much of the others. Others would be quite compact and near the
> origin - frankly, not much of anything. And so forth and so on.
>
> Is there any pressing objection to considering all these elements of game
> design as independent variables rather than opposed traits?
>
Well, there is from me. I still think it is an either or situation. If
the variables are truly independent, then any choice you make in one
should have no impact on the other. I'm sure we can all find cases where
this is not true: plotting, world detail and genre conventions are bound
to clash. If they clash, they are not independent.
In my mind, there is a high degree of correlation between world detail and
genre conventions. You can't have one without the other.
Also note that world detail has little to do with the concept of world
based gaming except that world based usually demands world detail while that
world detail does not world based a game make.
Alain
PS. I'm assuming we're still talking world-based vs plot based here.
that's what the header says.
James
think I did it and I've never even been in Toronto. --
-- James --
Bruce Baugh
:Doug Dawson (ddda...@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu) wrote:
:I'm willing to call an axis what I now call a scale, but I would like a
:word to use to mean what I now call an axis. Does that make sense?
Hmm. My own inclination would be to keep using axis, and simply have all of
the axes range of none to lots-n-lots (a very technical term) of the thing
being measure. The trick here is to not set traits in opposition a priori, but
to allow them all to vary freely.
In the case at hand, for example, I'd have at least the following axes:
- degree of specific plotting
- degree of world detailing, including plans of sundry NPCs
- degree of attention to genre concerns
While I _suspect_ that trying to maximize all of them would lead to strange
internal incoherencies, I'm not really sure. And certainly one can have lots
of several of them.
I have a mental image of volumes being defined by a person's preferences
marked along each axis. Some volumes would be long and skinny - lots of one
thing and not much of the others. Others would be quite compact and near the
origin - frankly, not much of anything. And so forth and so on.
Is there any pressing objection to considering all these elements of game
design as independent variables rather than opposed traits?
bru...@teleport.com _____________ http://www.teleport.com/~bruceab/
List Manager, Christlib, for Christian and libertarian concerns
Preview S.M. Stirling's forthcoming novel DRAKON at my home page
"Encrypt! Encrypt! OK! All-One-Key-Steganography-Privacy!
God's law prevents decryption above 1042 bytes - Exceptions? None!"
Andrew Finch
: If you could care less about what's in a Hollywood film, then why do you
: use Sid Field as your primary source for dramatic theory?
He's concise, effective, clear, easy to understand, and his work is meant
to be applied. The time and scope covered by the action of the typical
RPG scenario is about that covered by most films. Both of these are
highly visual events which depend upon the same kinds of theatrical
devices to communicate mood, intent, and genre. It works.
: Wait, I can
: answer that. The truth is, you know diddly-squat about the histories of
: storytelling and narrative theory and naively trust some Hollywood hack to
: distill it all for you to the point where those 2000 years of storytelling
: all seem to work in just the same way.
If you want a fight I would be happy to carry it outside, where the
kiddies can't hear.
David
Andrew Finch
: Is there any pressing objection to considering all these elements of game
: design as independent variables rather than opposed traits?
So far, none here.
David
A Lapalme
in this debate is how one views W-b vs P-B. By that, I mean that some
people have been looking on how a GM handles things while ohters have been
looking on how the players handle things and then some have been looking
on how the whole group handle things.
As has been pointed out before, what looks story-based may not be and
what looks world based may not be. While I realize that I'm limiting the
field of actions here, could we, perhaps limit our discussion to the GM's
POV? This might help reduce misunderstandings.
I'm not advocating that the players have no impact. I can certainly and
easily imagine player decisions being based on what action would improve
the story or would be consistent with the world. However, I think we need
to narrow the field a bit if we wish to define these terms in a useful way.
I'll use the Trent definition:
Plot-based/story based: where GM decisions, during play, are more likely
to be influenced by what makes a good story
Worldd-based : where GM decisions, during play, are more likely to be
influenced by the setting (in its broadest sense)
Example:
Once upon a time, I ran a game which lasted a whole week-end. This was
supposed to be the last game of a 3 year campaign and the players were
finally closing in on their nemesis.
During the confrontation, their nemesis, finding himself in a very tight
spot, decided that discretion was the better part of valour and decided to
teleport out. Since we were playing RM, it would take him 3 rounds to
cast the spell.
What happened was that, due to character hesitation, their nemesis did cast
the spell and disappeared. Their mission had failed and so ended the
campaign because it was Sunday night and I had a plane to catch.
My decision was world based. the NPC reacted according to his
characterization and the spell worked because the die rolled said so(ie
the reality of the world said so). It was internally acceptable that he
would try to escape. A story based decision, OTOH, would have allowed the
characters to succeed (maybe the spell failed, or fumbled or whatever) to
enhance the players sense of closure.
Regardless of whether my decision was good or bad (I personally consider I
made a mistake), I hope the above example illustrates the difference. I
realize that the example is a bit extreme and I would ask that we avoid
concluding that story-based is superior to world-based (in this particular
instance, I think a story-based decision would have served me and the
group better but that is just my opinion).
Alain
Andrew Finch
: My decision was world based. the NPC reacted according to his
: characterization and the spell worked because the die rolled said so(ie
: the reality of the world said so). It was internally acceptable that he
: would try to escape. A story based decision, OTOH, would have allowed the
: characters to succeed (maybe the spell failed, or fumbled or whatever) to
: enhance the players sense of closure.
Not necessarily true. I've had villains make their escape because they
were still good for a few story lines, and I wanted the players to work
harder to be permanently rid of a nemesis. When they get creative enough,
they get to kill the bad guy.
Rulemaster is inherently simulation based. You could have a shoddy excuse
for a world, and still roll the same dice, and come up with the same
results. You could have an intricate and detailed world, roll the same
dice, and come up with the same results. I'm not sure what bearing this
has on the debate, unless we want to talk about dice/diceless rules again.
David
Mary K. Kuhner
>Mary K. Kuhner (mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu) wrote:
>: At their home station, Jump City, the crew of Radiant has just trapped
>: and killed a vampire who was impersonating the daughter of a major
>: official (and relative of the captain's).
>Why not the highest official's daughter? Why this official?
>Why, when this occurs, is the captain of this ship (a merchant ship?)
>involved. Why not ask for help from the local planetary forces? The
>official being a relative, on this planet, where you could get to them,
>and being asked in, or just *happening* to stumble over this situation,
>it all seems a bit contrived.
You're not in possession of the whole story, so most of this is a bit
off base. Station, not planet, total population about 100,000.
Chernoi's family is in most of the major administrative
positions--there's about a 50% chance *any* important official is a
relative of hers. Chernoi's involvement came about because she was one
(of only about four) ship captains who could reasonably have been
approached by this vampire for passage; and she knew that the person was
a vampire due to a large chunk of detective work many months ago. As it
happens, she *did* get help from locals, but discreetly, because causing
a major panic on Jump City is no more in her best interests than in the
vampires' (that's why, months after she knew that there were vampires,
she'd still done nothing about them). It's a complex mid-campaign
situation. It's not 100% realistic, certainly (mainly because
interesting events cluster to some degree around the characters), but
most things progress due more to internal world logic than to game
logic. As it happens, I know that the GM didn't plan for the characters
to kill this vampire. They were at the party where she was looking for
passage (a Family party)--she approached Marcus, as she logically would--
Marcus then set up the trap, with himself as bait. It could equally
have happened that he said No, or said Yes and transported her as she
asked. The GM says that he didn't predict the outcome, and didn't
particularly *try* to predict the outcome.
>Where are Vampires likely to strike? Where did they come from? Where are
>they going to? When they strike, who will they strike? How will their
>victims react?
I'm the player, so I can't answer this question except to say that they
don't want a panic either, and Chernoi is just as dangerous a target for
them as they are for her (Family connections). The vampires, as far as
we know, currently exist by paying a (very thoroughly browbeaten) small
group of lackeys to serve as cattle. I am sure the GM is thinking hard
about what they're doing. They may be quite grateful, actually. She
was a *stupid* vampire and a danger to their security. Chernoi may have
done them a favor (not that they'll likely admit it). Then again, they
may decide that she's too dangerous to have around.
>It seems to
>me that this set was chosen for its story possibilities. And that's a
>plot-based decision.
Sure. No claim here that the game is pure world-based. I've never seen
one that was. I'd say it's slightly towards the plot-based end of the
spectrum (and I do see it as a spectrum). But the particular problem I
was looking at struck me as relatively world-based in origin, though it
was solved with a metagame solution.
[Valentine and the Dolmenites]
>Subplot and plot hook.
Maybe. Maybe just Incident. Chernoi could have refused Valentine
permission, and nearly did. It would not have made a big difference in
their relationship.
>This character is going to reluctantly hold up the entire ship on this
>planet, in a dinky little situation, which is great. This doesn't dictate
>how minutely this situation needs to be played out. It can be covered
>fairly quickly, focusing on the little interesting roleplay bits, while
>time passes.
The player happens not to care for this. I am a problem-solver. If I'm
going to spend time on a problem, I want enough information and enough
time to actually *do* it, not just pretend to do it and smile at the
camera for little roleplaying bits.
>The GM
>in this case may have brought up this tidbit with the Dolomites
>specifically to justify intensifying the Vampire situation. Plot-based.
He says: No. They were actually kind of incidental.
>Interesting questions. The characters should be sweating, trying to get
>back to answer them, but held up by a family of Dolomites making the
>neighbors uncomfortable. I like it. It has possibilities.
As a player, I didn't like it. The Dolmenites became less interesting
because my thoughts were elsewhere. The Vampires became less
interesting because they got "cold", and because information had time to
percolate through Jump City without our being there to hear/intervene/
appreciate it. I don't care for cut scenes under most circumstances.
I don't like having my ability to guess/intuit/understand the situation
compromised by too much out-of-character knowledge, especially in a
scenario which is in many respects a mystery. So if the characters are
away from Jump City, they and I miss out on what's going on during a
critical period of time.
>: their time; not the GM or player). A relatively pure story-based approach
>: might alter circumstances so that remaining on Anchaea no longer seems
>: reasonable (or might have seen this coming a little earlier and deleted
>: the Dolmenites in the first place).
>Why? What's best for the story is not to kill off subplots early, or to
>release tension you can still milk for some dramatic purpose.
You're trying to maximize tension? Appropriate for some genres, but I'm
not sure it's what I want here. I find overly prolonged tension without
resolution mildly nauseating and offputting.
>If you
>think of story as simply the events of the main plot, then maybe you're
>right, but I think of these things in other terms. Plots are about their
>characters. This main plot is turning a little character situation into a
>bit of drama. Keep it. Use it.
The drama, for me, was Chernoi's decision to allow Valentine to stay.
After that, it didn't engage me enough to justify letting the
characters' main interest, and my main interest, get stale. I would
like to see how Valentine would handle the Dolmenites--some other time,
when both he and I have our minds on it.
I think I see a difference in our outlooks here which may be important
in understanding why our evaluation of the situation differs. You're
looking at the Dolmenite incident as something important mainly in its
effect on the pacing and tension of level of the overall story. I am
looking at it as something that is either worth doing for its own sake--
an Event--or something that isn't worth doing and that therefore I'd
rather not take much game time on. I want to care about the Dolmenites
and what happens to them, or else not spend time on them. You're
closer, I would say, to Sarah's Author stance and I'm closer to her
In-Character one.
>: I am not sure how to classify what actually happened. We decided that
>: it was in character for Valentine to aid his family, but that we were
>: not going to play those scenes out--just a very brief summary.
>If this is a plot-based decision, it seems to me to be the wrong one. It
>doesn't do the subplot, or the main plot, justice. It leaves out possible
>charcterization moments that are important (I would say the most
>important). With a little bit of meta-game planning, and a cut scene or
>two, I think that whole scenario could have worked for the game, rather
>than being seen as an interruption to it. And that's my complaint with
>world-based play.
Huh? You argue that the game wasn't world-based, and then that it's an
argument against world-based play? I don't get it, but then I've never
been able to grasp how you're using those terms, except as "what I like"
and "what I don't like".
The GM made a metagame decision (abstract this part). You may dislike
his particular choice, but it was still clearly metagame. Level of
abstraction doesn't *exist* on a world level.
For this player, I happen to think that the GM's decision was one of the
two best he could have chosen. (The other would have been to tell me
"grit your teeth and stay in character" and then do such a good job with
the Dolmenites that they caught my interest; but that's a lot to ask.)
Certainly for a different player (or player group) a different answer
might have been preferable.
By the way, I'm not going to respond to any more posts from you, David,
until you provide an example of your own. Always criticizing others'
examples, but keeping your own material vague and general, allows you to
avoid all risk in a way I find annoying.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Andrew Finch
: concerns are story-based or world-based. As has been pointed out,
: these are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But. Every so often
: they will come into conflict.
Acid Test: When will these come into conflict? Any examples we could work
through?
: your assumption as to their reaction -- if Joe keeps violating their
: expectations by attempting to skew things towards his story, he is
: eventually going to reach a point where it isn't fun any more.
Any GM, story or world based, that constantly violates expectations, is
practicing poor GMing, and will upset the players.
David
James
Message-ID: <253506...@jpb-s.demon.co.uk>
Date: Saturday, Jul 29, 1995 10.08.45
Organization: None
Reply-To: ja...@jpb-s.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Newswin Alpha 0.7
Lines: 49
In article: <3vbka6$t...@nic.umass.edu> ENN...@deimos.oit.umass.edu (Charles
M Seaton) writes:
> Path:
jpb-s.demon.co.uk!news.demon.co.uk!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!btnet!newsf
eed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!news.texas.net!news.kei.com!world!ne
ws.mtholyoke.edu!news.umass.edu!nic.umass.edu!deimos.oit.umass.edu!ENNEAD
> From: ENN...@deimos.oit.umass.edu (Charles M Seaton)
> Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
> Subject: Re: World vs. Plot, Incident vs. Event
> Date: 28 Jul 1995 21:20:06 GMT
> Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
> Lines: 99
> Message-ID: <3vbka6$t...@nic.umass.edu>
> References: <3uu8va$q...@nic.umass.edu>
<3u9d4o$a...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au> <3ujrp7$f...@crl13.crl.com>
<3umlkv$o...@clement.erg.sri.com>
<Pine.ULT.3.91.95072...@rac3.wam.umd.edu>
<688080...@jpb-s.demon.co.uk>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: deimos.oit.umass.edu
> X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2v [VAX/VMS]]
>
> Kip here, but One of Nine...
>
> James (ja...@jpb-s.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
> : Perhaps term story-based would have been a better choice
> : than plot-based but it hardly matters now.
>
> Just out of curiosity: why is that? I think it's crucial that we
> develop some sort of critical vocabulary for role playing -- and
> find some common ground which all role players can agree to (or at
> least those of us interested in the theoretical end of things). I
> don't think "plot-based" had fixed itself firmly in everyone's
> consciousness -- in fact, the frequent arguments over it as a term
> suggest the opposite.
When I wrote this article, I was under the impression that, at least in
broad terms, there was an agreement on what was meant by world-based
plot-games, an it was only the details that needed to be ironed out. Under
those circumstances you don't want to tamper with the terminology. Since
then I've realized the issue is far from settled.
BTW though I agree it would be disingenuous to view the ISLE OF DREAD as
anything but a monster hunt, the point is it doesn't have to be. I suspect
if one ran the module with a group of people who had never role-played
before it would play quite differently.--
-- James --
James
Message-ID: <791365...@jpb-s.demon.co.uk>
Date: Saturday, Jul 29, 1995 12.13.38
Organization: None
Reply-To: ja...@jpb-s.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Newswin Alpha 0.7
In article: <3uvij9$5...@crl.crl.com> bcks...@crl.com (Andrew Finch) writes:
> Path:
jpb-s.demon.co.uk!news.demon.co.uk!demon!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!howland.r
eston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!crl.crl.com!not-for-mail
> From: bcks...@crl.com (Andrew Finch)
> Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
> Subject: Re: World vs. Plot, Incident vs. Event
> Date: 24 Jul 1995 00:37:13 -0700
> Organization: CRL Network Services (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
> Lines: 39
> Message-ID: <3uvij9$5...@crl.crl.com>
> References: <3uu8va$q...@nic.umass.edu>
<3u9d4o$a...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au> <3ujrp7$f...@crl13.crl.com>
<3umlkv$o...@clement.erg.sri.com>
<Pine.ULT.3.91.95072...@rac3.wam.umd.edu>
<688080...@jpb-s.demon.co.uk>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: crl.com
> X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
>
> James (ja...@jpb-s.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
> : it would work better in a cyberpunk setting. Once Joe is happy with is
> : preparation, he invites his pals over to play that
> : specific scenario. Does this sound like a plot based game?
>
> No. It sounds world-based. To be plot-based, I expect the characters
> would be pre-made for the scenario, which is written with an actual
> factual plot. I've seen lots of world-based scenarios, so at this point
> it's hard to tell, but my guess is not.
Lets set aside the terms world and plot based for a second. The point I
would like to make is that Sally and Joe illustrate two extreme
examples of different styles of running games. The question is are these
differences significant enough to warrant a category of their own? Would
these categories be useful analytical tools? If the answer to both questions
is yes, then it would be useful to have a term to define them by.
I obviously believe the difference is an important and useful one. The two
styles of game style have different strengths and weaknesses. They appeal to
diffetrent types of players. Joe's players in Sally's game would soon get
bored. Likewise Sally's players in Joe's game could get frustrated.
The two styles as certainly common enough to be useful categories. I'd say
90% of the games I've played have been somewhere between Joe and Sally's -
the remainder are best classified as experiments or freak accidents.
A further question is whether these categories are in opposition to each
other (hence the axis/spectrum terminology). This is not as important as the
previous questions but its aesthetically pleasing nontheless. I'd venture to
guess that they are, as they both compete for the same resources. Let's
assume that the amount of time and energy one can devote to a game is
limited. The issue is then how to allocate these resources, both in terms of
GM preparation as for the players during the game. Where your group places
itself on the axis would determine how resources are allocated. The concept
of resource allocation could be extended to include things such as SOD,
player goodwill, stylistic coherence whatever, or maybe not, I'm not sure.
I'd best keep it simple for the moment.
The trouble I have with your version of plot-based game is that I neither
recognize it nor really understand what is involved. This may suggest that
its not be such a common style of play (or maybe just a recent trend that
hasn't reached the UK yet?). And as such its perhaps a too restrictive
category to be useful in this context. Similarly your world-based category
which covers both Joe and Sally's games may be too broad to be meaningful.
Which in turn makes any comparison between the two pointless.
--
-- James --
Mary K. Kuhner
At their home station, Jump City, the crew of Radiant has just trapped
and killed a vampire who was impersonating the daughter of a major
official (and relative of the captain's). In setting up the trap they
accepted a commission to deliver cargo to Anchaea, the next star system,
and immediately after the vampire's death they Jump to Anchaea and
deliver the cargo.
Valentine, the ship's engineer, is a native of Anchaea. The GM, working
(I think) out of a relatively world-based paradigm, notes that
Valentine's family is having trouble adapting to a family of Dolmenites
(cat-like aliens) who have moved in nearby. Val and his family are not
on great terms, but it's reasonable for them to ask him for help, since
he is a spacer and they are not, and since it will free them from having
to deal with the Dolmenites themselves.
It is in character for Valentine to ask for some ground time to work on
his family's problem, and as it happens it's in character for the
captain to reluctantly acceed.
From a story-based point of view this turned out to be unfortunate. The
dramatic weight of the story was back at Jump City. How was the
vampire's father going to react? How were the other vampires going to
react? Were we going to tell the father that we were responsible? Was
*he* a vampire? The Dolmenites were interesting in themselves (and
knowing more about them would be very useful in relation to other things
that had happened in the campaign) but neither characters nor player
were really interested in them at the moment.
A relatively pure world-based approach would, I suppose, leave things as
they are (only the *characters* can decide the Dolmenites are not worth
their time; not the GM or player). A relatively pure story-based approach
might alter circumstances so that remaining on Anchaea no longer seems
reasonable (or might have seen this coming a little earlier and deleted
the Dolmenites in the first place).
I am not sure how to classify what actually happened. We decided that
it was in character for Valentine to aid his family, but that we were
not going to play those scenes out--just a very brief summary. ("There
doesn't seem to be anything very sinister going on. Young Dolmenites
are wide open to your empathy--more so than humans--though their elders
are more closed. And it's hard to avoid the supposition that your
family, although it appreciates the help, is just as happy having you
live with the Dolmenites rather than at home. Oh, and a religious court
is being set up to decide if they can be Moslems, but you're not asked
to testify.") Radiant then went back to Jump City and the vampire
problem.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Andrew Finch
: A further question is whether these categories are in opposition to each
: other (hence the axis/spectrum terminology). This is not as important as the
: previous questions but its aesthetically pleasing nontheless. I'd venture to
: guess that they are, as they both compete for the same resources.
I'm willing to accept that the abstract categories you're presenting are
both real, and opposed. I don't think that you can look at any detail and
say, 'that's plot-based', or 'that's world-based', but I'm willing to
work with the fact that preferences, cognitions, and tastes tend to
produce the axis which you're describing. Is this now useful?
David
Andrew Finch
Nice example. O.K., I'll see whgat I can do playing devil's advocate.
Now I don't know what was in the GMs head, but from just this
description, whether he thinks he's running world-based or not, this is
what I see...
: At their home station, Jump City, the crew of Radiant has just trapped
: and killed a vampire who was impersonating the daughter of a major
: official (and relative of the captain's).
Major plot hook with a big point on the end. The Vampire happens to be
impersonating the daughter of the official. O.K. That's reasonable,
assuming their are Vampires, and the impersonation gets them close to the
seat of power. Why not the highest official's daughter? Why this official?
Why, when this occurs, is the captain of this ship (a merchant ship?)
involved. Why not ask for help from the local planetary forces? The
official being a relative, on this planet, where you could get to them,
and eing asked in, or just *happening* to stumble over this situation,
it all seems a bit contrived. If you want to be world based, you have to
think of it from this point of view...
Where are Vampires likely to strike? Where did they come from? Where are
they going to? When they strike, who will they strike? How will their
victims react?
Yeah, it could have been that official, on that planet, who would end up
getting the crew involved in a Vampire hunt, but is that really the most
believable, true to the world scenario? Or were a bunch of responses to
these world based questions answered in a way which would produce a
story? I mean, many perfectly realistic things are possible. It seems to
me that this set was chosen for its story possibilities. And that's a
plot-based decision.
: (cat-like aliens) who have moved in nearby. Val and his family are not
: on great terms, but it's reasonable for them to ask him for help, since
: he is a spacer and they are not, and since it will free them from having
: to deal with the Dolmenites themselves.
Subplot and plot hook.
: From a story-based point of view this turned out to be unfortunate. The
: dramatic weight of the story was back at Jump City.
Main plots exist to turn a character's subplots into drama. Main plots are
screw tighteners. It may be that this game is not as world-based as you
assumed. The problem here doesn't seem to me to be world and plot
conflicting, but rather, the GM not thinking in a way which will bring
the best use out of the plot-based decisions he's made. My contention has
never been to ignore world-detail, but rather, to stop ignoring the
meta-game. Here's a good example.
This character is going to reluctantly hold up the entire ship on this
planet, in a dinky little situation, which is great. This doesn't dictate
how minutely this situation needs to be played out. It can be covered
fairly quickly, focusing on the little interesting roleplay bits, while
time passes. As time goes by, the Vampires are back on the other world
recouperating from their losses, and planning their revenge. I would be
tempted to throw in a cut scene or two to show the players how much of
their work is being undone, and how bad the situation is getting. The GM
in this case may have brought up this tidbit with the Dolomites
specifically to justify intensifying the Vampire situation. Plot-based.
: vampire's father going to react? How were the other vampires going to
: react? Were we going to tell the father that we were responsible? Was
: *he* a vampire?
Interesting questions. The characters should be sweating, trying to get
back to answer them, but held up by a family of Dolomites making the
neighbors uncomfortable. I like it. It has possibilities.
: their time; not the GM or player). A relatively pure story-based approach
: might alter circumstances so that remaining on Anchaea no longer seems
: reasonable (or might have seen this coming a little earlier and deleted
: the Dolmenites in the first place).
Why? What's best for the story is not to kill off subplots early, or to
release tension you can still milk for some dramatic purpose. If you
think of story as simply the events of the main plot, then maybe you're
right, but I think of these things in other terms. Plots are about their
characters. This main plot is turning a little character situation into a
bit of drama. Keep it. Use it.
: I am not sure how to classify what actually happened. We decided that
: it was in character for Valentine to aid his family, but that we were
: not going to play those scenes out--just a very brief summary.
If this is a plot-based decision, it seems to me to be the wrong one. It
doesn't do the subplot, or the main plot, justice. It leaves out possible
charcterization moments that are important (I would say the most
important). With a little bit of meta-game planning, and a cut scene or
two, I think that whole scenario could have worked for the game, rather
than being seen as an interruption to it. And that's my complaint with
world-based play.
David
Andrew Finch
: You're not in possession of the whole story, so most of this is a bit
: off base.
I can only go by the example.
: she'd still done nothing about them). It's a complex mid-campaign
: situation. It's not 100% realistic, certainly (mainly because
: interesting events cluster to some degree around the characters), but
: most things progress due more to internal world logic than to game
: logic.
But in an openly plot-based game things progress by internal world-logic
as well. They just progress in the form of plots, which certainly seems
to be the case in your example.
: asked. The GM says that he didn't predict the outcome, and didn't
: particularly *try* to predict the outcome.
I'm not saying the game is intentionally plot based. The GM might think
of this as a purely world based game. Probably, most GMs consider their
games world based still. My point is that many of these games may be
thought of in world based terms, but are progressing by plots, and might
progress better if they were thought of in a more balanced fashion.
I am not accusing the game of being illogical, or poorly thought, or
inconsistent for the world. Nor do I think any good openly plot based
game will be illogical, or poorly thought out, or inconsistent for the world.
The originbal question was to find an example which had world and plot in
conflict, to see if they are indeed antithetical to each other, and in
what sense. I think this example, if anything, shows their unity and
harmony. I believe the problem you posed can be solved by looking at the
progressing plots for what they are.
: spectrum (and I do see it as a spectrum). But the particular problem I
: was looking at struck me as relatively world-based in origin, though it
: was solved with a metagame solution.
I think it was a plot based problem, and the solution would have been
more integrated with the ongoing events if it were trated as such.
: Maybe. Maybe just Incident. Chernoi could have refused Valentine
: permission, and nearly did. It would not have made a big difference in
: their relationship.
Yes. I produce many plot situations like this. The characterization
advances in either case, and either decision moves the plot forward.
: The player happens not to care for this. I am a problem-solver. If I'm
: going to spend time on a problem, I want enough information and enough
: time to actually *do* it, not just pretend to do it and smile at the
: camera for little roleplaying bits.
That's cheap, and not what I was talking about. I enjoy roleplay for its
own sake, and don't think of it as shallow smiling for the camera. If
done properly, I think you must get something out of it as well, or you
would choose another hobby. I'm not into forcing players to go through
odious tasks they detest, but I'm not above trying to stretch the
boundaries either.
: He says: No. They were actually kind of incidental.
Again, just because you're not thinking in plot terms doesn't mean you
don't work in plots. The GM is obviously world based. To me, the GM is
obviously working in a plot medium, and might get something out of a more
direct approach towards the meta-game.
: As a player, I didn't like it. The Dolmenites became less interesting
: because my thoughts were elsewhere. The Vampires became less
: interesting because they got "cold"...
Agreed. The plot wasn't thought of as a plot, and the Dolomites were not
thought of in relation to the main plot as a subplot, and the result is
that it was not handled as well as it might have been, and the game and
situations were not as enjoyable as they might have been.
I think this could have been played in counterpoint to the Vampire
situation. Rather than being on one situation, then moving to another,
the subplot is entangled into the main plot. Timing, coincidence, and cut
scenes are used to highlight this, and in the intergration, the Vampires
don't grow cold, and the Dolomites are given more forward momentum and
meaning.
: appreciate it. I don't care for cut scenes under most circumstances.
: I don't like having my ability to guess/intuit/understand the situation
: compromised by too much out-of-character knowledge, especially in a
: scenario which is in many respects a mystery.
I have never found cut scenes to destroy the mystery of the game. You
just have to use them with some understanding and intention.
You say you had problems with the way these events played out. I'm
offering an alternative. Or do you think that the GM took the only
appropriate option, and that sometimes the game will simply be
unsatisfying? If so, I disagree. What do you believe should have been
done?
: You're trying to maximize tension? Appropriate for some genres, but I'm
: not sure it's what I want here. I find overly prolonged tension without
: resolution mildly nauseating and offputting.
Overly prolonged, yes. I wasn't sugesting overly prolonged tension. I
think the situation, as run, was underplayed. The tension was cut short,
it was unsatisfying, and the main plot was interrupted for no purpose. A
stronger link between main plot and subplot, more tension, and more
meaning, might have resolved this.
: The drama, for me, was Chernoi's decision to allow Valentine to stay.
: After that, it didn't engage me enough to justify letting the
: characters' main interest, and my main interest, get stale.
Exactly. So the situation should never have been played out in this way.
What way should it have been played out? That is a meta-game, plot
oriented question, and unless you start asking them, you're not going to
find any magical answers.
: I think I see a difference in our outlooks here which may be important
: in understanding why our evaluation of the situation differs. You're
: looking at the Dolmenite incident as something important mainly in its
: effect on the pacing and tension of level of the overall story. I am
: looking at it as something that is either worth doing for its own sake--
: an Event--or something that isn't worth doing and that therefore I'd
: rather not take much game time on. I want to care about the Dolmenites
: and what happens to them, or else not spend time on them.
No. The difference is that I'm looking at the GMs POV, and you''re still
in the players. Step out of it for a moment. From the players POV, what
happened is what happened. It's an event which should either be
interesting or skipped (a plot based suggestion, by the way). But you
can't set the situation from this POV.
Think from the GMs POV. The question should become not whether to play
this out, but how to play it out. If a satisfactory way can't be found,
then you don't put it in. This is perfectly in step with your desires as
a player. What would have made this situation worthwhile for you, made
the entire incident more dramatic (given it some worthwhile conflict)? I
think playing it in counterpoint to the Vampire situation would have kept
it alive and integrated. But if you disagree, that's fine. I'm not saying
you'll love my playing style, but you have to ask the meta-game questions
to arrive at answers which will work for you. It's a meta-game problem.
: You're
: closer, I would say, to Sarah's Author stance and I'm closer to her
: In-Character one.
That's only because I'm talking from the POV of possibly being the GM for
this situation. I wish you would do the same. I would be interested in
the answers.
: Huh? You argue that the game wasn't world-based, and then that it's an
: argument against world-based play?
Yes. It's a plot based situation whose meta-game elements aren't being
recognized as such. You've said it didn't work for you. You've
consistently given meta-game reasons why it didn't work for you, yet
insist that it must be tackled as a world based problem. That doesn't
make any sense to me.
: The GM made a metagame decision (abstract this part). You may dislike
: his particular choice, but it was still clearly metagame. Level of
: abstraction doesn't *exist* on a world level.
I dislike the choice because it was a meta-game decision made without
refernece to plot and meta-game factors. You've posted that the GM
thought of the situation as world-based, coincidental, an event. Yet its
solution was a meta-game one. Why was that solution picked? What
meta-game reasons dictated that as a good solution? I think if you had
the answers to these questions, the solution would have been more
satisfactory, and there would have been no conflict between world and plot.
: For this player, I happen to think that the GM's decision was one of the
: two best he could have chosen. (The other would have been to tell me
: "grit your teeth and stay in character" and then do such a good job with
: the Dolmenites that they caught my interest; but that's a lot to ask.)
: Certainly for a different player (or player group) a different answer
: might have been preferable.
There are other choices. If you insist that they can not be used because
you don't want to know about the meta-game, then you're going to run into
these conflicts. But that's your choice, painting yourself into a
corner. There's no inherent conflict between world and plot in this
example though. You've simply limited the options you will accpet to a
point where that conflict must exist.
: By the way, I'm not going to respond to any more posts from you, David,
: until you provide an example of your own. Always criticizing others'
: examples, but keeping your own material vague and general, allows you to
: avoid all risk in a way I find annoying.
Be annoyed. I have provided several examples, including open invitations
to run sitautions or games. I owe John Kim a response on an ongoing
e-mail game as of now (sorry, John, I'll get back to the game when the
book we're doing is completely to bed, in about another 2 weeks). I'll
extand that invitation to you as well. I've posted, or had posted for me,
long sections of actual exchanges from these games. Were these examples
not good enough? Would you like others?
David
Rodney Payne
>: World based games are NOT, repeat NOT an ordered sequence of events. A
>: world based game, at the far end of the spectrum, has the most flexible
>: plot structure imaginable, because everything is preplanned.
>If, at the far end of the spectrum, everything in a world-based game is
>pre-planned, giving it the most flexible plot structure imaginable, then
>you have just described a plot-based game.
David describes something and calls it world based. I note that that is
not what I call world based, and I don't think anyone else does either. I
describe world based as I understand it (again suspecting that others
share my definition), and David says no, this is plot based.
What can I say? I indicate how your definitions are at odds with mine,
and you respond by confusing the issue further by suggesting yet another
unusual interpretation. Surely you must realise what the basic definitions
of these terms are. Are you trying to needlessly complicate matters? Your
definitions seem to boil down to world based = bad, plot based = good.
The consensus seems to be that there is a valuable distinction between
the two: if you disagree, then argue to that effect, but do so by
acknowledging how the terms are being used. Anyone can argue anything by
changing the meaning of the terms, but their argument will be worthless.
>: All
>: contingencies are prepared for. It doesn't matter what the players do,
>: because the GM will have prepared for their actions: every part
>: of the world is detailed.
>Ah, yes, Fantasyland. I know it well. What about player input and
>creativity? That no longer matters because the good of the citizen has
>already been prepared for.
Garbage. Otherwise, it no longer matters what you choose to do in the real
world, because those actions have already been prepared for by the laws
and pre-existing conditions within it. You no longer have any choice
about what you do, and are unable to use your creativity.
World based games work from this basis. They do not stifle player input
or creativity.
>: Of course, no game is completely world based: nobody can prepare that
>: much. But the world based GM aspires to it, nonetheless.
>Yes, it's that aspiration I have some problems with. I think nobody
>actually does this because in actuality, it wouldn't work. This is not a
>real environment, and doing this to a game would not make it more real.
>All it would do is make it real restrictive.
No more so than the real world. If you find the real world restrictive,
then you'll find world based gaming restrictive. Other people don't, and
world based gaming works fine for them.
>: Perhaps it's just a few notes jotted down, but the world based GM
>: attempts to have everything make sense in terms of the setting
>Of course. SO doea a plot based GM. The two are in no way exclusive.
I never claimed they didn't. I said (way back) it was essential for a
world based game, in no way not possible for a plot based game.
>: considerations. Predetermination is, I believe, the province of plotted
>: games, at least as I, and I think most other people, have been using the
>: term.
>But didn't you just finish saying that in the ultimate world-based game,
>everything is preplanned? Or is it plot based that's pre-planned? Now I'm
>confused.
Sigh.
In a world based game, the players are free to do as they please, and
the GM has prepared for anything they might do. In a plot based game, the
GM has certain situations which s/he wants them to explore, and uses
either game or metagame devices to get them there (in time or in space).
At least as I understand the term.
--
Rodney Payne | What is the meaning of life? Life has no
| meaning. It's just a fortunate coincidence
spur...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au | of carbon chemistry. Forget about it.
rgp...@cfs01.cc.monash.edu.au | Anonymous
Rodney Payne
>I dislike this terminology a great deal--ALL games will have both setting
>and structure, and every good game in which I have played has given both
>thorough attention. I don't think this captures the distinction very
>well at all. We need something better than world and plot, and BOTH
>terms are suspect.
Hm. I don't know that we need abandon them: perhaps the problem word is
`based'. Maybe it's better to use `emphasis'. I'm not keen on changing
plot to story, because story seems to belong to both ends. Someone could
tell you about a day in their life and it would be a `story', though it
would never have been plotted per se. So, how about `plot emphasis' and
`world emphasis'.
Of course, a plot emphasis game doesn't flow as nicely. We need a word
that shows an emphasis, however, without implying that the other type has
none of that style.
Rodney Payne
>To explain my comment that the pre-made scenario described is
>world-based, and not plot-based, because it only gives an ordered
>sequence of events:
>A plot is not a sequence of events. It is a structure with key scenes
>meant to hold a dramatic line of development, based around a central
>conflict which extends from the dramatic needs of the protagonists.
Generally this has been accepted. But this still entails setting
flexibilty for story purposes. The reason is `key scenes': a world based
scenario will not manipulate setting to ensure those key scenes occur.
>Fixed orders of scenes, which is mostly what you get with pre-made
>scenarios, are not dependent on a plot at all, but rather a series of
>setups and events within the world, which the players are intended to
>encounter and overcome. All well and good, unless the players go
>elsewhere. They've never refused a plot, they've gone to part of the world
>not described by the store bought scenario, and it all collapses.
No. The campaign does not collapse, because the players can do other
things. Since most of the world is predesigned (not the sequence of
events the characters must encounter (there are no such events), but what
will happen if they do w, x, y, z, or something else), the GM will be
prepared for any eventuality.
>Actually, I think these games would be far easier to recover if they were
>truely plot-based, rather than being descriptions of a segment of a
>world-based campaign.
It would be easier, yes, because less background detail is required
(though not necessitated).
Rodney Payne
>They had characters, NPCs, places, and background events. Some background
>events intersected the PCs lives. These events were not planed with any
>line of dramatic development in mind. I had certain things I thought
>might happen, but not really knowing why things occured as they did, I
>was often wrong. Sometimes the players went in other directions.
>Sometimes I had nothing occuring where the players did go, and they would
>play for hours with nothing happening, following some totally unplanned
>red herring, discovering the world as it was, normal, and not very
>conflictual. Sometimes they got frustrated doing this, but that's part of
>life. They pften described my games as 'fixed', with railraod treacks, or
>like a roller coaster ride. If you went in certain directions, things
>happened, and only in those directions. The rest of the world was much
>flatter and seemed unresponsive.
Then you simply had players unsuited to this style. Nobody said it was a
common preference, in fact when I started reading rgfm a couple of years
ago I was surprised by just how common it was. But it does exist, it is a
valid style, and it is substantively different to `plooted' games that
concentrate on dramatic tension. There are players who hate dramatic
tension, and find it incredibly forced.
>When I switched to a plot-based style, the first comments I heard,
>repeatedly, is that the railroad tracks had gone away, and it now seemed
>as though the PCs inhabited a full world. There was no longer a
>particular direction to the scenarios. The fact is, that the tracks were
>now always in front of them, wherever *they* decided to turn.
And I know many players who would find that forced. `Drama' seems to be
following them everywhere. Not a complaint you'd hear directed at film, or
theatre, or prose, or epic verse, but roleplaying is none of those things.
A Lapalme
> A Lapalme (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
>
> : My decision was world based. the NPC reacted according to his
> : characterization and the spell worked because the die rolled said so(ie
> : the reality of the world said so). It was internally acceptable that he
> : would try to escape. A story based decision, OTOH, would have allowed the
> : characters to succeed (maybe the spell failed, or fumbled or whatever) to
> : enhance the players sense of closure.
>
> Not necessarily true. I've had villains make their escape because they
> were still good for a few story lines, and I wanted the players to work
> harder to be permanently rid of a nemesis.
David, remember I did say this was the last game ofa 3 year campaign.
> When they get creative enough,
> they get to kill the bad guy. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
Which is definitely NOT a world based approach since the world does not
care whether or not the players are creative. I would consider that a story
based solution.
How about this for an insight: world based games are not dependent on
player perspective while story based ones are.
> Rulemaster is inherently simulation based. You could have a shoddy excuse
> for a world, and still roll the same dice, and come up with the same
> results. You could have an intricate and detailed world, roll the same
> dice, and come up with the same results. I'm not sure what bearing this
> has on the debate, unless we want to talk about dice/diceless rules again.
>
Not much. The point I was trying to make was to set a difference between
world-based and story based. In my example, dice had little to no impact
(I have never had any trouble in closing my eyes to certain die rolls) and
would rather hope to avoid the whole dice/diceless debate. It does have
impact on the current debate but will only serve to muddy the waters.
Alain
Mark C. Wallace
that for a plot based game, the characters would have been written
explicitly for that game (correct summary David?).
I too have begun with the assumption that I, the writer, write the
characters - the players play them. I agree with Mr. Berkman that my
authorship of the initial character helps me to plot, and to ensure
that the characters are strongly integrated into the plot (my
interpretation of the Berkman Shibboleth "Plot is character"). However,
although I'm a reasonably good writer (by my standards, as well as those
of the troupes with with whom I play), I find that my authorial voice is
limited; there are themes which I find difficult to express. I'm sure
that every competent, honest author would say the same.
Thus I've been experimenting with some different concepts.
I've tried to get the players to specify the themes they want to examine
in the character - the specific conflict that defines that character.
Then I write the hooks which link the character strongly to the plot.
(Usually associates and friends, or events in past history which serve
the purpose of both the player and the plot). The player and I then
discuss how likely this character template is to fulfill our mutual
goals. (some of which are hidden).
The other alternative is to specify the overall conflict, and ask
players to design characters which will be able to be integrated into
that conflict. The player and I adjust the plot and character to
facilitate the integration of the two.
Someone (I think on another newsgroup) suggested proposing the
archetypical character. e.g. "A homosexual younger son of a noble
household in an urban, bronze age setting." THe players then develop
characters that converge towards, but do not reach that archetype. E.g.
player 1 might develop a homosexual swordmaster for the city. Player 2
might develop a daughter of a noble household, who employs the
swordmaster. Player 3 might develop a character who relies on an urban
setting. Player 4 might develop a redsmith.... I haven't tried this
technique, but it sounds promising.
All of these techniques rely on an interative, iterative development
process, shared by the Director and the players.
I wonder if Mr. Berkman, or any others who practice the 'strongly
plotted' style have any thoughts or anecdotes relevant to these issues.
TO rephrase the question, how can one distribute the authorial
responsibility in character development? What does one sacrifice? What
does one gain?
Gotta run - my 3 year old demands my time, and she's more important than
you all. <smile>
--
Mark C. Wallace, Future Dead White Male, Hologram from Neptune
There is no Burma - only Zool
Bruce Baugh
ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (A Lapalme) wrote:
:> Is there any pressing objection to considering all these elements of game
:> design as independent variables rather than opposed traits?
:>
:Well, there is from me. I still think it is an either or situation. If
:the variables are truly independent, then any choice you make in one
:should have no impact on the other. I'm sure we can all find cases where
:this is not true: plotting, world detail and genre conventions are bound
:to clash. If they clash, they are not independent.
Sometimes they clash, sometimes they don't. It's that latter - the fact that
often the same decision enhances the sense of the world as a coherent place
_and_ advances a distinct plot _and_ fulfills the canons of the genre - that
leads me to treat them as independent. Or at least largely so; given finite
bandwidth (among other limitations) they can't be truly independent, but
they're certainly not opposed.
How many cases can you genuinely itemize in which plot _must_ happen at the
expense of either world or genre? The cases I know of (including my own
mistakes) tend to be a matter of trying to tell a story that doesn't fit the
world or genre, but that's just poor planning.
Andrew Finch
: In article <3uvij9$5...@crl.crl.com>, D. Berkman said that he expected
: that for a plot based game, the characters would have been written
: explicitly for that game (correct summary David?).
Got me. However, I think I achieve those expectations in much the way
that you suggest below.
: of the troupes with with whom I play), I find that my authorial voice is
: limited; there are themes which I find difficult to express. I'm sure
: that every competent, honest author would say the same.
: Thus I've been experimenting with some different concepts.
: I've tried to get the players to specify the themes they want to examine
: in the character - the specific conflict that defines that character.
: Then I write the hooks which link the character strongly to the plot.
Thus the Theatrix insistence that you have to know your end before you
can properly create your beginning.
: The other alternative is to specify the overall conflict, and ask
: players to design characters which will be able to be integrated into
: that conflict. The player and I adjust the plot and character to
: facilitate the integration of the two.
Thus, the suggestion to communaly develop the world (at least in some
basic sense of understanding), and to find some common focus for the group.
: Someone (I think on another newsgroup) suggested proposing the
: archetypical character. e.g. "A homosexual younger son of a noble
: household in an urban, bronze age setting."
Young Julius Ceasar
: swordmaster. Player 3 might develop a character who relies on an urban
: setting. Player 4 might develop a redsmith.... I haven't tried this
: technique, but it sounds promising.
Yes, it does.
: I wonder if Mr. Berkman, or any others who practice the 'strongly
: plotted' style have any thoughts or anecdotes relevant to these issues.
Yes.
: TO rephrase the question, how can one distribute the authorial
: responsibility in character development? What does one sacrifice? What
: does one gain?
You may not like the answer. I don't think you sacrifice anything, and
you gain a more enjoyable character, because there's immediate forward
motion, the character is going somewhere, and doing something (even if
it's lazily lying on a diaz, wishing he was a bird that could fly away
from the life he was destined to), the character starts the game deeply
engaged in the world.
Some people might say they enjoy developing the character over time, but
that still happens, and I have yet to personally meet someone who was
less satisfied with the slow expansion and development of the character
after it was carefully detailed to start with.
David
Andrew Finch
: Which is definitely NOT a world based approach since the world does not
: care whether or not the players are creative. I would consider that a story
: based solution.
I don't think so. The world does very much care. If this nemessis has
been such a bother, he must not have been easy to get rid of. If the
world didn't care how creative the players got, then the brilliant
villain could get taken out by a stupid plan as easily as a brilliant
one. Doesn't make for a very believable world.
David
Andrew Finch
: Then you simply had players unsuited to this style. Nobody said it was a
: common preference, in fact when I started reading rgfm a couple of years
: ago I was surprised by just how common it was. But it does exist, it is a
: valid style, and it is substantively different to `plooted' games that
: concentrate on dramatic tension. There are players who hate dramatic
: tension, and find it incredibly forced.
The same people who sit unaffected, blase, and unstimulated, through a
movie that critics, and your friends, are all calling 'gripping', and
'suspenseful'. All that dramatic tension, it's so forced.
I meet so few people who don't enjoy a game with lots of dramatic
tension. In fact, I have yet to meet one. Some people are more of a
challenge to create dramatic tension for, but if you give them the power
to alter the game flow, in order to point the way for you (I need this
because I tend to be rather dense), then I have yet to meet someone who
would not do so. You just have to listen.
David
Andrew Finch
: unusual interpretation. Surely you must realise what the basic definitions
: of these terms are. Are you trying to needlessly complicate matters?
Yes.
: Your
: definitions seem to boil down to world based = bad, plot based = good.
Only if you read just half the words.
: Garbage. Otherwise, it no longer matters what you choose to do in the real
: world, because those actions have already been prepared for by the laws
: and pre-existing conditions within it. You no longer have any choice
: about what you do, and are unable to use your creativity.
Prove that you do. Or prove that you do not. An RPG isn't the real world.
"Otherwise, it no longer matters what you choose to do in the real
world..." Are you serious? How can you possibly judge on that kind of
extrapolation?
: World based games work from this basis. They do not stifle player input
: or creativity.
: No more so than the real world. If you find the real world restrictive,
: then you'll find world based gaming restrictive. Other people don't, and
: world based gaming works fine for them.
I think you're seriously confusing things. I'm not sure what you're
demanding from your games, but I'm pretty certain it's not what I demand
from mine. I'm sure that's mutual.
: In a world based game, the players are free to do as they please, and
: the GM has prepared for anything they might do. In a plot based game, the
: GM has certain situations which s/he wants them to explore, and uses
: either game or metagame devices to get them there (in time or in space).
: At least as I understand the term.
I don't think you understand the term.
David
kas...@datasrv.co.il
: Hmmm. I suppose I would agree that there is a point where too
: much world detail is restrictive -- but for me that level of detail is
: unreachable for human GM's. In practice, I have always found that
: the more detail I put into my world, the more real it seems.
: I do think that information can get unwieldy -- especially if it
: is poorly organized. For example: a GM details out a city, but then has
: to go shuffling through his notes every time the PC's walk a block.
: Again, though, I have almost never found this to be a problem in
: practice.
: Rather than being restricted, I've generally found that more
: detail is inspirational.
That depends, also, on what the detail is.
Detailing every little rock on the way can get wearying and tedius.
Generally I find that if the GM likes detailing, he can write it down as
reference if the players, by any chance, decide to inspect that object.
no need to start blabbering for hours about the Pine Grove your player's
caravan just passed.
(Of course, I'm biased. I'm GMing Amber Diceless, where my players work
out the details of where they are themselves :)
: -*-*-*-
: Every detail that you put in opens up new possibilities. The
: key is to _draw_ upon your world rather than try to _impose_ things
: on it for your scenarios.
exactly. have the info ready, don't start force-feeding it to your players.
--- Aure Entuluva...
Avner Kashtan | "Jesus Saves Sinners!
| and Redeems them for valuable prizes"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: kas...@zeus.datasrv.co.il
Rodney Payne
>I wonder if Mr. Berkman, or any others who practice the 'strongly
>plotted' style have any thoughts or anecdotes relevant to these issues.
For an upcoming plot based campaign I intend to take the following
approach (which I've used before).
I determine the themes of my campaign. I give the players an idea of
the setting, the genre (for this one I'm being very vague: contemporary
Earth). I then ask them to come up with character concepts.
These concepts are then adjusted so that they'll fit in with the
setting. The player and I agree on background, personality, and related
issues. Then the player writes her/his character up.
Then I take the character and write my version of the background (which
may disagree wildly to not at all with the player's).
I then integrate that character into the setting to map out the campaign.
(That's pretty rough, btw, but hey, it's 8am.)
>Gotta run - my 3 year old demands my time, and she's more important than
>you all. <smile>
Isn't everyone? ;)
A Lapalme
>
> All of these techniques rely on an interative, iterative development
> process, shared by the Director and the players.
>
> plotted' style have any thoughts or anecdotes relevant to these issues.
My success at plotted game is directly correlated to the amount of input I
had during the character creation phase. The more input I had, the more
successfully the game ran (from both player and GM perspective).
> > TO
rephrase the question, how can one distribute the authorial
> responsibility in character development? What does one sacrifice? What
> does one gain?
Distributing the authorial aspect of character development (ie giving
the player a lot of input if not the major portion of it) has had the
following effect on my plotted games: they become weakly plotted. I can
prepare as much as I can but the further I go in the characters' future
the harder it becomes for me to predict how they will react.
Part of the problem I think, is that when a player creates a character,
that player cannot (usually) know as much about the setting as the GM.
Therefore, the character might end up a bit off and might not integrate as
easily. This can be partly remedied by continuous GM input during the
character creation process but, then, all that is happening, is that more
of the authorial run is again shifting towards the GM
Another problem is that, often, if not most of the time, a player might
only have a vague idea on how the character will be played. An idea which
looks good at design time might not be playable. Or, the player might
change his/her mind and decide to shift his/her character's emphasis in
another direction.
Plots have a difficult time surviving this kind of approach. A climax
which looked good and effective 2 weeks ago might become totally useless
when a player decides to play a character in a slightly different way.
When one is faced with this challenge, the most obvious answer is to drop
the plotting and run world-based. Unfortunately, at least in my
experience, this only works if the players are good roleplayers.
Otherwise, they just end up playing 2D characters.
*********
Character design with archetypes:
I've tried that. In my current sub-campaign of my current campaign (yeah
the one which started with the dead nobles), I wanted to explore the
rather grim side of a city under siege. So, I told the players the
situation (ie your character is in a city under siege) and the type of
characters which would work best (scumbags). They created that type of
characters (lowlifers, criminals, etc.). Up until now (about 6 sessions)
it has worked fairly well. Plotting has been difficult (character
motivation is shifting due to the maturity process) but not impossible.
As opposed to earlier plotted games, this one requires that I constantly
review all ongoing plot lines and modify them as required. It is kind of
working. For each plotline the finale had to be modified but not changed
that much. The real casualty has been pacing.
Alain
A Lapalme
> In article <DCFGD...@freenet.carleton.ca>,
> ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (A Lapalme) wrote:
>
> :Well, there is from me. I still think it is an either or situation. If
> :the variables are truly independent, then any choice you make in one
> :should have no impact on the other. I'm sure we can all find cases where
> :this is not true: plotting, world detail and genre conventions are bound
> :to clash. If they clash, they are not independent.
>
> Sometimes they clash, sometimes they don't. It's that latter - the fact that
> often the same decision enhances the sense of the world as a coherent place
> _and_ advances a distinct plot _and_ fulfills the canons of the genre - that
> leads me to treat them as independent. Or at least largely so; given finite
> bandwidth (among other limitations) they can't be truly independent, but
> they're certainly not opposed.
I agree that sometimes these can work in unison to create something that
is greater than the sum of the parts. The question is: does that happen
more often than the case where these three aspects come into conflict.
>
> How many cases can you genuinely itemize in which plot _must_ happen at the
> expense of either world or genre? ^^^^^^^^
I guess I view it differently. I have come across many instances where
world must happen at the expense of plot. I think part of this is related
to ones own preferences. In the past, I have tended to run world based
loosely plotted games. If the plot and the world clashed, the world won.
How many case can I itemize? I posted something yesterday about that.
(the one where the characters' nemesis escapes). I'm pretty sure I could
remember other cases.
>The cases I know of (including my own
> mistakes) tend to be a matter of trying to tell a story that doesn't fit the
> world or genre, but that's just poor planning.
Well, obviously, trying to tell a story which doesn't fit the world or
genre is a case of poor planning. I'm more concerned about the
real-gaming time problems. When one plan a scenario, I expect that we all
attempt to fully integrate plot, world and gnere. It's when that scenario
encounters the players that problems start to crop up: unexpected
character success (or failure), odd reaction to an NPC, players having a
bad night, etc.. When these things occur, plot and world can come into
conflict. (I omit genre because I feel that a genre is an aspect of the
world, not an independent factor).
Alain
A Lapalme
Duh!? I've re-read this 5 times and can't figure where you are coming from
on this one.
Alain
James
writes:
> I'm willing to accept that the abstract categories you're presenting are
> both real, and opposed. I don't think that you can look at any detail and
> say, 'that's plot-based', or 'that's world-based', but I'm willing to
> work with the fact that preferences, cognitions, and tastes tend to
> produce the axis which you're describing. Is this now useful?
>
> David
>
>
>
We use a lot of set categories to describe games to each other, for example
when recruiting players for a new campaign. The genre is one of the more
powerful (and dangerous) ways to convey the sense of the game to another
person. The tone can also be important qualifier. Sometimes the scope game
system is so narrow that, like say Paranoia, that the players know what to
expect just by the name. Descriptions like 'high-powered' or
'action-oriented' serve the same purpose.
I think the Joe-Sally axis should be up there with the rest. I also
think a GM should be conscious of where he places himself on the axis and
its implications. And in that respect ,yes , I think it is useful.
-- James --
James
Lapalme) writes:
> Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
> Path:
jpb-s.demon.co.uk!news.demon.co.uk!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!tank.news.p
ipex.net!pipex!news.sprintlink.net!gatech!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!spool.mu.edu!to
rn!nott!cunews!freenet.carleton.ca!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!ai453
> From: ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (A Lapalme)
> Subject: Re: World vs. Plot, Incident vs. Event
> Sender: ai...@freenet.carleton.ca (A Lapalme)
> Reply-To: ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (A Lapalme)
> Organization: The National Capital FreeNet
> References: <3uu8va$q...@nic.umass.edu> <3vd2n3$h...@crl.crl.com>
<3vdl36$e...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>
> Date: Sat, 29 Jul 1995 18:35:36 GMT
> Lines: 54
>
[snip]
>
> I'll use the Trent definition:
>
> Plot-based/story based: where GM decisions, during play, are more likely
> to be influenced by what makes a good story
>
> Worldd-based : where GM decisions, during play, are more likely to be
> influenced by the setting (in its broadest sense)
>
> Example:
>
[snip]
> My decision was world based. the NPC reacted according to his
> characterization and the spell worked because the die rolled said so(ie
> the reality of the world said so). It was internally acceptable that he
> would try to escape. A story based decision, OTOH, would have allowed the
> characters to succeed (maybe the spell failed, or fumbled or whatever) to
> enhance the players sense of closure.
What you describe here is perhaps the most crucial design decision a GM
makes. I know, I've made the same mistakes and felt embarassed for weeks. I
would have however said this is more a question of campaign tone and
stylistic coherence rather than using the highly controversial world-based
terminology.
If I may use the ISLE OF DREAD example again (please?) I'll illustrate the
point. Now Sally thought that she ought to promote a light-hearted pulpish
sort of tone. In which case she will probably fudge the dice rolls as if
there were no tomorrow. Larry OTOH feels that the only way to run such a
lame scenario is as a black comedy, some sort of fantasy Paranoia where life
is cheap. He rolls the dice in a very public fashion, almost to emphasize
how fickle fate can be.
Both Sally and Larry's games could fit under what-I-would-be-inclined-to-
call-a-world-based-if-I-didn't-know-better game. There is still no main plot
for waiting for the PCs to get caught up in. THE GM is still not trying to
give a sense of direction to the adventure, just colour and style. Or in
other worlds the structure (lack of?) is the same; what is different is the
tone of two the games.
Is this just another way of saying the same thing? I don't know. Tell you
what though, if a certain consesus can be built around the Trent
definitions, I'll be happy to join in.
--
-- James --
Mary K. Kuhner
world-based GM and a pure plot-based GM might fudge a die roll, if
they happened to be using dice. The difference is that the world-based
GM would probably be fudging because the result, as rolled, seemed
illogical or implausible given the setting. The plot-based GM, while
she might fudge for this reason, might also do so because the result
seemed detrimental to the story. So use of dice, and fudging die rolls,
are not diagnostic of the distinction we're trying to pin down--though
the reason for doing the fudging might be.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Rodney Payne
>From: bcks...@crl.com (Andrew Finch)
>Subject: Re: World vs. Plot, Incident vs. Event
>I meet so few people who don't enjoy a game with lots of dramatic
>tension. In fact, I have yet to meet one. Some people are more of a
>challenge to create dramatic tension for, but if you give them the power
>to alter the game flow, in order to point the way for you (I need this
>because I tend to be rather dense), then I have yet to meet someone who
>would not do so. You just have to listen.
We're down to yes/no arguments and anecdotes now, so there's no point
discussing this point.
However, this doesn't support your thesis that world based gaming is not a
valid form. Even if a given player enjoys a bit of dramatic tension from time
to time, that doesn't mean s/he enjoys it all the time. World based gaming is
a valid form if at least one person exists who prefers simulation to drama at
least some of time. There are many such people (I suspect Scott is one.
Scott?) It's a valid style. World based gaming is a valid style.
Rodney Payne
Andrew Finch
: However, this doesn't support your thesis that world based gaming is not a
: valid form.
I have never made such a thesis.
: Even if a given player enjoys a bit of dramatic tension from time
: to time, that doesn't mean s/he enjoys it all the time. World based gaming is
: a valid form if at least one person exists who prefers simulation to drama at
: least some of time.
There are many simulation decisions in a plot based game as well. In
fact, nearly every decision. They just also takemeta-game factors inro
account.
David
Rodney Payne
>From: bcks...@crl.com (Andrew Finch)
>Subject: Re: World vs. Plot, Incident vs. Event
>: unusual interpretation. Surely you must realise what the basic definitions
>: of these terms are. Are you trying to needlessly complicate matters?
>Yes.
Well, there you have it. David Berkman is trying to needlessly complicate
matters. So much for fruitful debate. ;/
>: Your
>: definitions seem to boil down to world based = bad, plot based = good.
>Only if you read just half the words.
You attempt to show that world based games are poor by simply defining them as
a style of gaming you don't like. You either do not know how a truly world
based game (in the accepted use of the term) operates, or you do and have
returned to equivocating in the hope of substituting it for an argument.
Nonetheless, your distinction is simply `world based games are <poor scenario
design>,' and very little else.
>Prove that you do. Or prove that you do not. An RPG isn't the real world.
>"Otherwise, it no longer matters what you choose to do in the real
>world..." Are you serious? How can you possibly judge on that kind of
>extrapolation?
Sigh. In simple terms, here is the argument:
P1. World based games attempt to mimic the real world in that the outcomes of
(human) action are defined by what the person (character) does, the
conditions apparent with respect to that choice, and the diagetic laws
that govern that world.
P2. In the real world, input from a person affects the future of that person.
The person's choices have a significant effect.
P3. In the real world, creativity exists, and creativity is a function of P2.
--
C. World based games allow player input to direct that character's life, and
allow for creativity to be part of the flow of play.
>: World based games work from this basis. They do not stifle player input
>: or creativity.
>: No more so than the real world. If you find the real world restrictive,
>: then you'll find world based gaming restrictive. Other people don't, and
>: world based gaming works fine for them.
>I think you're seriously confusing things. I'm not sure what you're
>demanding from your games, but I'm pretty certain it's not what I demand
>from mine. I'm sure that's mutual.
I demand many things from my games, and some of it is drama, and all
the trappings of plotted games.
>: In a world based game, the players are free to do as they please, and
>: the GM has prepared for anything they might do. In a plot based game, the
>: GM has certain situations which s/he wants them to explore, and uses
>: either game or metagame devices to get them there (in time or in space).
>: At least as I understand the term.
>I don't think you understand the term.
I can't not understand it. It's my definition, based on experience. I may not
understand your use of the term (though I believe I do), but I know the
meaning of mine.
(This is not the same as your personal use of the term `world based', BTW.
I posted my defintion of `plot based' before I started arguing with it. I
acknowledge your style of gaming as valid (though exactly what it entails
seems to change every post), I just call it event based. But you know
that. And you disagree. And so on and so forth....)
Rodney Payne
John H Kim
throw in some comments (but don't expect any quick replies). This
regards the classification of David's earlier campaigns, in terms of
`world-based' and `story-based'.
Now, a reminder: my definitions of these are about how a GM
prepares for a game -- A world-based GM prepares purely by setting and
character details; he does not work out an expected storyline. A
story-based GM prepares purely by his expected story -- i.e. if a
detail doesn't appear in the expected storyline, it is left "open".
Both these styles will naturally have both plot and character
in the end - but they are different methods to that end. Also note
that at this point I am not distinguishing how resolution is handled
during the game, although the philosophy will clearly have an effect
on this.
David Berkman <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
>John H Kim (jh...@konichiwa.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:
>: Why don't you describe the games you used to run, and let others
>: judge whether they were "world-based"?
>
>They had characters, NPCs, places, and background events. Some background
>events intersected the PCs lives. These events were not planed with any
>line of dramatic development in mind. I had certain things I thought
>might happen, but not really knowing why things occured as they did, I
>was often wrong. Sometimes the players went in other directions.
>Sometimes I had nothing occuring where the players did go, and they would
>play for hours with nothing happening, following some totally unplanned
>red herring, discovering the world as it was, normal, and not very
>conflictual.
Hmmm. OK - it sounds to me like your preparation was based on
working out a series of events - correct? So you might prepare a
"scenario" based on the kidnapping of the local lord's daughter?
And for the next scenario, you would try to think of something else
interesting to happen?
>
>Sometimes the PCs would take certain actions that would short circuit
>the whole building series of events. Sometimes the PCs would be unaware
>that this had occured, and their 'trail' would disappear on them, and
>they would spend hours trying to figure out what happened, getting
>frustrated.
OK. This sounds very much like my definition of a "story-based"
campaign -- in that the GM prepares a series of events rather than just
a background. The change, then, in your newer campaigns was that you
learned how to tailor the events of your campaign to fit the dramatic
needs of the characters (i.e. making them "plots" rather than just
"sequences").
-*-*-*-
What I would call a "world-based campaign" does not generally
rely upon discrete sequences of events -- rather, it relies upon
more general conflicts and forces in the world (where that "world"
may be anything from a small town to a galactic empire).
The setting for a world-based campaign will have inherent
conflicts, like an ongoing war perhaps. If the PC's wander beyond
the prepared material, they still have goals they can pursue and
conflicts that are going on around them. That is, it is not
dependent on isolated sequences of events for interest.
Now, a world-based game can certainly still have problems of
the players feeling bored or ineffectual. But in these cases they
will most likely *constantly* feel lost, rather than just when they
short-circuit or avoid the proper sequence of events.
-*-*-*-
For example, my second campaign in college was a very much
world-based game. It was set in a realistic modern world which had a
number of `paranormals' - people with superpowers of unknown origin.
These people appeared in specific geographic locales, and shared common
personality traits: they were highly competant and motivated, prone to
exploring mysteries and overcoming challenges.
My premise for the campaign was that the PC's were a group
of paranormals who were contacted by a man who had escaped from a
powerful secret society -- who wanted their help in finding out what
it was up to.
Now, as it turned out, they ignored that premise -- the shared
knowledge was enough to pull them together, but they never did investigate
the Society. Instead, they took off in a completely different direction.
This is the point, I think, where my campaign differed from
your early ones. I had designed my world with integral conflicts and
challenges. There were about 70 or so other paranormals in the world
as I had it. I did not have full details on all of them, but I had
outlines and ideas -- I knew that Dr. Moran and some others were
investigating the Gate to Otherworld, and there were various other
groups who were doing things.
Thus, when the PC's decided to go talk to with some Washington-
funded paranormals, I knew who they were and had some idea what they
were up to -- and with some time to prepare, I filled in the details.
My world was not scattered with sequences of events -- rather, it was
populated with groups and individuals in conflict.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
A typical problem for a world-based game is for the players
to make uninvolved and/or inactive characters. Thus, the GM might
design his world to be full of intrigue among various secret societies.
Then the players come up with forthright, honest investigators for hire.
As a result, their cases do not involve them in the ongoing conflicts
(much) and they complain that it is boring.
A heavily world-based GM must learn to work with his players
to come up with active and involved PC's. While this is true for
story-based GM's as well, it is much more important in a world-based
style.
Correspondingly, the key to a plot-based style is fitting events
to the dramatic needs of the characters -- whereas this is much less
emphasized in a world-based style.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim | "Whatever else is true, you - trust your little finger.
jh...@columbia.edu | Just a single little finger can... change the world."
Columbia University | - Stephen Sondheim, _Assassins_
John H Kim
David Berkman <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
>Doug Dawson (ddda...@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu) wrote:
>: To use a poor analogy, I'll use a red-blue axis, for mixtures of red and
>: blue paint. If you pour in a liter of red and a liter of blue, you've
>: got something exactly midway between the endpoints.
>
>I think of this as two scales. You can be at any point on either scale.
>An axis has endpoints, and moving towards one moves away from the other.
An axis as I'm familiar with it is defined by any two points --
they could be right next to each other, and they'll still define a
spectrum.
The same, I think, is true of resolution based on drama and
resolution based on "realism" (for that world). They might be similar
in many ways, but they are different to some degree -- and hence one
can extrapolate a spectrum between them.
NOTE: My definitions of "world-based" and "story-based" are distinct
from this scale of resolving actions based on "realism" versus resolving
based on "drama" (i.e. what makes a good story). Please keep this
in mind in discussion.