Suspension of Disbelief
Mark C. Wallace
Mark C. Wallace (m...@clark.net) wrote:
: I've said that I personally write games which are 'tightly plotted'.
: I find it difficult to maintain suspension of disbelief in 'world based'
: games.
: I'll now take my place behind this fortification, and await.
Mark? Can you hear me back there? My throat's getting a
bit hoarse down here among the beseigers; maybe you ought to send
out an envoy of some sort? I wouldn't dream of asking you to open
those gates. Not yet, at any rate.
I'm not altogether sure I wish to engage you on this
subject, as elsewhere you have made statements about your own
suspension of disbelief that seem quite consistent with a preference
for world-based games. Perhaps our terminology is not quite
aligned.
Could you give a concrete example of something that might
break your suspension of disbelief in a world-based game, something
that would not be likely to occur in a plot-based game? I'm sorry
to ask this of you -- I DO remember your dislike for the use of
concrete examples in debates -- but I'm afraid that I'm really
having some difficulty imagining what you mean.
-- Sarah
Sarah has asked me to provide an example of where world based games
strain my suspension of disbelief, but games do not. Part of
her confusion arises because some of my comments about suspension of
disbelief are not incompatible with a loosely plotted/world based
approach. She is correct to question whether our terminology is in
synch.
First, let me try to clarify the issue of terminology. I think the
distinction between world based games (WBG) and plot based games (PBG)
is clear in my mind. Plot based games are about a single event in
history. There is a theme which organizes and unifies the central plot,
and all the subplots.
World based games have a consistent setting, but many plots. Generally
there are many plots interwoven together. The subplots may eventually
escalate into the plot of a later episode, may involve different
characters, and may address different themes.
Many PBG can be played in the same world. Sometimes even
with the same characters. But each plot is separate; the terms of the
conflict which leads to climax are distinct.
As a final note on terminology, I believe that setting is a crucial part
of the game. If the actions of the charcters or NPC's (e.g. the
blaspheming smith) are incompatible with the setting, it jepoardizes
both a WBG and a PBG.
I hope that that short introduction makes clear my terminology. Now
let me work on the quesiton of why WBG are more likely to strain my
disbelief than PBG Essentially then, a PBG has 'Unity of Action' as
defined by Aristotle. A WBG has less unity. [Opponents
might argue that a world based game has unity of space - but that space
is imho so broadly defined as to compromise the nature of this term.]
In a general sense, I find that as I depart from the three Aristotelian
unities (Space, Action, and Time), I find it more difficult to maintain
suspension of disbelief. The themes which organize the conflict become
either cliche, careworn, tired, or empty. The characters escalate more
and more towards the heroic. In my experience, characters world based
games are rarely tragic. Usually they survive, and overcome their
limitations. At this point, either the limitations escalate to be
heroic, or the character loses something crucial to my appreication.
Although it is possible to imagine otherwise, in most of the World based
games (WBG) I've played, the protagonist(s) wind up saving the (world ||
country || princess || maguffin) over and over. In 'reality' (whatever
that is), continued threats lead to the creation of institutions, which
are rarely fun to roleplay. The villian(s) must come up with ever new
inventive ways to threaten the maguffin. This can be done for a short
time. Then it becomes implausible. It requires either the invention of
insane, megalomaniac villians (ala Broccoli's James Bond), or of
superhumanly clever villians, who can outwit and outmaneuver the
institution charged with the protection of the maguffin.
Of course, it is possible to focus on a different combination of
maguffin/villian/externals for each episode. Why then are these
characters always involved? Why is it that the externals change, but
the protagonnist is always the same? Without Unity of action, space, or
time, why are these characters always involved - and always the only
ones to act dramatically. Isn't anyone else capable of solving the
problem?
It is possible that the reasons these characters are always involved is
that they're limited in space - e.g. they're all bound together in a
travelling group. In which case, in order to create a rising line of
tension, I prefer that the group's actions be organized around a
consistent plot and theme.
Let me finish with an analogy. How many books or movies have you seen
which have had more than 4 parts, and still maintained the tension?
The drama? even Tolkien is organized into a trilogy and a standalone
novel, each of which deals with different conflicts.
I think I've succeeded in addressing your questions Sarah, without
resorting to specific examples. Let me know if I'm wrong.
John Novak
>First, let me try to clarify the issue of terminology. I think the
>distinction between world based games (WBG) and plot based games (PBG)
>is clear in my mind. Plot based games are about a single event in
>history. There is a theme which organizes and unifies the central plot,
>and all the subplots.
<Blink>
What about a game set in a richly detailed world, which is set in
motion ('pinged' in the engineering vernacular) by one or several
large, world-shaping events at the very beginning?
As an example, what about a game which is set in a very detailed
subcontinent, where in the first session, the players learn that
a Great Prince has been assassinated, a powerful religious ledaer
is suspected of ordering the death, and a civil war is brewing?
It should be fairly obvious, through knowledge imparted on that
first session, that the civil war is largely inevitable and will
be very bitter-- there probably won't be too many places not
affected.
Still, the players are given the free reign and allowed to take
part in this war in any manner they wish. Sign up with one side
or the other, act as independant peacemakers or mercenary
leaders, gun runners, spies, diplomats, or even simple caravan
gaurds and traders trying to make a buck in a nasty world.
I'd say it's both plot-based (as everything is touched on by the
advent of the civil war-- that _is_ the backplot, to my mind) and
world-based, as I have no preconceived notions about how the
players will alter things, or where they'll go.
[...]
>I hope that that short introduction makes clear my terminology. Now
>let me work on the quesiton of why WBG are more likely to strain my
>disbelief than PBG Essentially then, a PBG has 'Unity of Action' as
>defined by Aristotle.
I'm not sure if you consider this good or bad.
I consider it acceptable _if_ the players have been asked by the
GM to come up with characters capable of working together.
> A WBG has less unity. [Opponents
>might argue that a world based game has unity of space - but that space
>is imho so broadly defined as to compromise the nature of this term.]
According to your definitions, I think the scenario I described
above would be world-based then. It could easily changed to
plot-based, however, simply by asking the players to pick a
common prupose, and let me know about it a week before we start.
(I'd add, too, that most of my games are like the above-- I
design a world, and then kick over a hornet's nest, watching the
players try to keep their characters from being stung to death.)
>In a general sense, I find that as I depart from the three Aristotelian
>unities (Space, Action, and Time), I find it more difficult to maintain
>suspension of disbelief. The themes which organize the conflict become
>either cliche, careworn, tired, or empty. The characters escalate more
>and more towards the heroic. In my experience, characters world based
>games are rarely tragic. Usually they survive, and overcome their
>limitations. At this point, either the limitations escalate to be
>heroic, or the character loses something crucial to my appreication.
I can't say I've experienced this myself, but look forward to
your comments on the scheme I devised above. I'd say by _this_
passage that my scheme is plot-based by your definition, as I
wouldn't expect a loss of unity or the conflict to become cliche,
careworn, etc.
But you might.
>Although it is possible to imagine otherwise, in most of the World based
>games (WBG) I've played, the protagonist(s) wind up saving the (world ||
>country || princess || maguffin) over and over. In 'reality' (whatever
>that is), continued threats lead to the creation of institutions, which
>are rarely fun to roleplay. The villian(s) must come up with ever new
>inventive ways to threaten the maguffin. This can be done for a short
>time. Then it becomes implausible.
Probably this is why I don't try to runmy games past their
breaking point. There comes a time when movies fade to black
(barring sequels) books close the back cover, and heroes ride off
into the sunset as the dice clatter one last time. (Or, the
heroes languish blinded in prison, if your tastes run to the
tragic.)
I have used the same world more than once, but often projected
forward enough in history to allow for a reasonable "sequel" with
new characters, and a setting influenced by the actions of past
heroic figures.
>Of course, it is possible to focus on a different combination of
>maguffin/villian/externals for each episode. Why then are these
>characters always involved? Why is it that the externals change, but
>the protagonnist is always the same? Without Unity of action, space, or
>time, why are these characters always involved - and always the only
>ones to act dramatically. Isn't anyone else capable of solving the
>problem?
<Shrug>
I just saw _Die Hard 3_ the other night.
(Good movie, BTW-- full of things that Go Fast and Blow Up.)
Why was Bruce Willis' character the only person capable of any
effective action in the first two movies? Because he's the hero,
this is fiction, and there's going to be Some suspension of
disbelief going on. (Of course, in the second movie, he asks
ironically, "How could the same damn thing happen to the same guy
_tiwce in a row_!?" or words to that effect.)
That aside, I think that a _good_ world-based campaign with a
competant GM can, if he so desires, use the seeds of the PCs'
last victory into the fruit of the next adventure. There are
several ways.
First, having dealt with one threat (and threat, here, need not
always be fantastic-- Evil archmages bent on destroying the
cuntryside for no adequately explained reason get old real fast--
threats can be political, social, and economic, too) the players
might simply be _expected_ to deal with the next threat.
They may by their natures be people expected to deal with those
threats. Perhaps their last victory won them lands and a title,
or a position with the Baron's advisor.
Perhaps the next threat arises as a direct result of their
actions.
Perhaps they gained enough notoriety that they are regarded as
obstacles to the next plot, even if the plot is being set in
motion by people completely unrelated to the first villains.
Perhaps they picked up enemies along the way.
Lots of ways-- those are just off the top of my head.
>It is possible that the reasons these characters are always involved is
>that they're limited in space - e.g. they're all bound together in a
>travelling group. In which case, in order to create a rising line of
>tension, I prefer that the group's actions be organized around a
>consistent plot and theme.
Ah, plot and _theme_!
Wth that word present, I think we might perhaps agree on a third
category of campaign settings.
Plot-based games (PBGs) revolve around a specific plot. "You
are elite advisors to the family of the Graf of Bek. Here is
what happens."
World-based games (WBGs) revolve around the richness of the world
in which they are set. "You, motley crew, have all been born to
various stations in the City of Bek."
Theme-based games (TBGs) revolve around a major plot hook in a
designed world, but allow freedom of motion and continuity both.
"You are near Bek, in the 17th century, and the war between
Catholic and Protestant has inspired many atrocities. You are
the survivors of a mercenary group which has been destroyed in a
recent raid."
(Points to anyone who can tell me what book I bought yesterday...)
(And of course, I'd have started out at the beginning of the war,
not in the middle, but that's a quibble.)
>Let me finish with an analogy. How many books or movies have you seen
>which have had more than 4 parts, and still maintained the tension?
>The drama? even Tolkien is organized into a trilogy and a standalone
>novel, each of which deals with different conflicts.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to illustrate, here.
--
John S. Novak, III j...@cegt201.bradley.edu
http://cegt201.bradley.edu/~jsn/index.html
The Humblest Man on the Net
Andrew Finch
: Still, the players are given the free reign and allowed to take
: part in this war in any manner they wish. Sign up with one side
: or the other, act as independant peacemakers or mercenary
: leaders, gun runners, spies, diplomats, or even simple caravan
: gaurds and traders trying to make a buck in a nasty world.
: I'd say it's both plot-based (as everything is touched on by the
: advent of the civil war-- that _is_ the backplot, to my mind) and
: world-based, as I have no preconceived notions about how the
: players will alter things, or where they'll go.
It isn't yet plot-based. A civil war is an event, not a plot. It's
background detail. A plot is something the characters are at the center
of. If a character can just as soon wait out the war as engage in it,
it's not a plot. If the Curch Leader who ordered the assasination is
holding a family member hostage unless the PC acts as a spy within the
royal House during the coming conflict, then it's a plot. Now the
character's dramatic necessities are hooked into the events.
A civil war is too large. It's impersonal. It's world-based. You can look
at it, kick it around, examine it, engage with it. It's a prop on a large
stage. A plot is a conflict which is an extention of the characterization
of the protagonists. It's very personal, and very close to home. There is
no objectivity, only a desire to act.
: According to your definitions, I think the scenario I described
: above would be world-based then. It could easily changed to
: plot-based, however, simply by asking the players to pick a
: common prupose, and let me know about it a week before we start.
Purpose won't make it necessarily plot based either, unless the players
tie their characters dramatically in with that purpose. But I still think
its hard to pull that off with 'big' events. They're great background,
but too large for plots.
: Plot-based games (PBGs) revolve around a specific plot. "You
: are elite advisors to the family of the Graf of Bek. Here is
: what happens."
That's world-based. Plot based does not depend on leading the PCs, or
telling them what they are going to do. It's a matter of structure and
emphasis, which can use a variety of techniques.
: World-based games (WBGs) revolve around the richness of the world
: in which they are set. "You, motley crew, have all been born to
: various stations in the City of Bek."
Is also world-based, but could be just as easily plot based as the
previous one.
: Theme-based games (TBGs) revolve around a major plot hook in a
: designed world, but allow freedom of motion and continuity both.
: "You are near Bek, in the 17th century, and the war between
: Catholic and Protestant has inspired many atrocities. You are
: the survivors of a mercenary group which has been destroyed in a
: recent raid."
Ahhh. Now this is close to a plot-based game. Now the PCs have all sorts
of emotional connections to the events.
David
John H Kim
"plot-based" games. Mark descriptions of these is rather different
from the definition which Sarah and I use. Thus, I am reposting some
description which I have used previously.
Mark C. Wallace <m...@clark.net> wrote:
>Sarah has asked me to provide an example of where world based games
>strain my suspension of disbelief, but [?tightly plotted?] games do not.
[...]
>First, let me try to clarify the issue of terminology. I think the
>distinction between world based games (WBG) and plot based games (PBG)
>is clear in my mind. Plot based games are about a single event in
>history. There is a theme which organizes and unifies the central plot,
>and all the subplots.
>
>World based games have a consistent setting, but many plots. Generally
>there are many plots interwoven together. The subplots may eventually
>escalate into the plot of a later episode, may involve different
>characters, and may address different themes.
Aha! Well, the trouble is that we are talking about different
animals. I am including below a snippet of my description of the
distinction (which I have been assured that Sarah agrees with)...
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
John H Kim <jh...@columbia.edu> wrote:
: I would say that a "world-based" campaign/episode is that way
: if 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 design a
: single plotline - just plans which various NPC's have.
:
: A campaign/episode is "story-based" if the GM prepares 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.
:
: -*-*-*-
:
: 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.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
As I see it, the "world-based" games which you are talking about
are still "story-based" by the above definition -- they just have more
plotlines. Really, I would describe your characterization of "world-based"
games as being like episodic story-based games -- like TV series or
other serials.
I try to address what I think of such games in a later post.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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_
Mark C. Wallace
John Kim has defined "World Based Games" (WBG) differently than I have,
and has acquired the imprimatur of Sarah Kahn.
I recognize the fundamental folly of opposing two such voices, but I'll
make the following defense of my definition.
First, John is opposing WBG to Story Based Games(SBG) - rather than Plot
Based Games (PBG). [At this point I think we've crossed the boundary to
incomprehensible to the uninitiated - Someone write a FAQ!] I'm not
sure that the distinction between SBG and PBG is important, but I note
it for future reference.
John's definition of WBG is not terribly distant from mine - we both
agree that the fundamental element is a very strong setting, thouroughly
defined by the writer before the start of game. John implies that the GM
does not have a coherent plot - merely the plans of NPC's.
John's definition of story based games is close to the 'linear plot' or
'railroading' - a progression of scenes. However, since John cites
Theatrix as an example of the genre - indeed the archetype, I'll suggest
that we broaden his definition to include preparation by consideration
of hte elements which are necessary to build a conflict to a climax
(creationof a plot). I don't perceive a distinction between this
definition and my own.
John concludes by suggesting that WBG (my definition) are really SBG
(his definition). I'm not sure I follow his argument. Since I've had
bad luck of late in summarizing folks arguments, I'm going to pass on
this one.
I think it may be relevant to reintroduce my distinction between the
roles of game. I believe that even if the writer and director are the
same person, they're distinct roles - John's definiton of WBG and SBG
rely on the writers' preparation of the game. I prefer to concentrate
on the function of the director/GM.
I'll turn the podium back over to John, Sarah, and anyone else with two
cents to offer.
--
Mark C. Wallace, Future Dead White Male
There is no Burma - only Zool
John H Kim
worked up for this discussion. I'm not trying to be _too_ dictatorial
about this @-). I just want some sort of terminology which people can
use to talk intelligibly. (i.e. alternate suggestions are welcome).
Mark C. Wallace <m...@clark.net> wrote:
>First, John is opposing WBG to Story Based Games(SBG) - rather than Plot
>Based Games (PBG). [At this point I think we've crossed the boundary to
>incomprehensible to the uninitiated - Someone write a FAQ!] I'm not
>sure that the distinction between SBG and PBG is important, but I note
>it for future reference.
Well, I preferred the term "story-based" because the word
"plot" here came to have very confused and debated meanings (mostly
thanks to David Berkman... "plot is conflict is character is theme
is tension" @-).
The start of a FAQ (the glossary) is included below.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
AN r.g.f.a GLOSSARY
===================
OK, there have been a couple of pleas here to come up with some
clear definitions to use in the "system vs. systemless" debate. This
is my attempt to introduce a concrete langauge to the things - and slip
in some of my own ideas on the sly.
-*-*-*-
A role-playing _system_ is any agreed-upon means of play. Thus, by this
definition, there is no such thing as "systemless play" - since there
will always be some sort of method to the madness - even if that system
is "Bob decides".
A _system_ generally has several pieces to it, namely:
(1) A Method of _Character Description_
(2) A Method of _Action Resolution_
(3) A _Background_ (optional)
Note that a published work could leave out some of these, and let
the players figure out how to handle it themselves. The background may or
may not be included, and it may or may not be an integral part of the rest
of the system. The method of Character Description could be a series of
descriptive hints and ideas - but it is still a _method_.
These pieces each have qualities associated with them.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
"Quantitative" versus "Qualitative"
A system can use various methods to describe its characters, as
well as its world and other background.
A system is at least partly _Quantitative_ if it invents a
system of numbers or explicit ranks to describe characters. For
example, FUDGE has a seven-tiered list of adjectives to describe
attributes: from "Terrible" to "Superb". FUDGE is thus a Quantitative
system.
A system is _Qualitative_ if it uses descriptions which are
"natural" to the game world. Thus, if you describe someone: "He's 6'2''
and broad-chested", that is still a qualitative description even though
it uses numbers. The point is that system did not invent any arbitrary
scales or categories of description.
Of course, systems can fall in between these two extremes. For
example, _Ars Magica_ has "aspected" traits - so you may set your
Dexterity at a +2, but it is described as "Nimble-fingered". Of course,
many games encourage qualitative description - the question is how
widely is it recognized as important in the system.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
"Mechanics" versus "Strategies"
There are many possible methods of action resolution, which
usually involve a mixture of _game mechanics_ and GM judgement calls
(which may use various _strategies_).
A _game mechanic_ is any method which has explicit operations
involving an explicit, quantified game construct, such as dice, cards,
stats, Plot Points, etc. As an example: In FUDGE, subjective combat
works by rolling dice and using the resulting number to modify your skill.
That is a mechanic. After that point, however, the only rule is that the
GM compare the resulting ranks, and use his judgement. The latter half
is "mechanicless".
The whole is very "low-mechanics", obviously, in comparison to
most published systems - which involve many more rolls, stats, and table
lookups. The more operations involved using game quantifications, the
more "mechanics-heavy" the system is.
_Theatrix_ also has a number of mechanics which feed into
GM judgement calls. I would say that the flowcharts are game construct,
and hence using them is a mechanic. Similarly, Plot Points are a
game mechanic which rely upon explicit Descriptors.
On the other hand, there are game _strategies_, which are
simply advice to the GM on how to resolve things. For example, the
_Amber_ RPG gives a series of sample combats done at different levels
of description and levels of opposition (that is, how tough the fight
is). These are models to follow or imitate - but doing so involves
no game mechanics.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Further distinctions and definitions:
"Diceless": any game which does not make use of randomizers (i.e.
cards, dice, computer functions, ...) in resolving actions.
"Dice-using": any game which makes use of randomizers to aid in
resolving actions.
"Metagame": dealing with concerns of the players and GM, as opposed to the
characters in the gameworld. Examples of metagame concerns could
include "spotlight time", plot scripting, and who brought the munchies.
"Intra-game": dealing solely with matters within the gameworld - a
character's plans and actions, or the environment.
"Free-form": a term which can refer to a "low-mechanics" or even
"no-mechanics" system. Some people use "limited freeform" to mean
"low mechanics", and "freeform" to use "no mechanics". To be more
specific, you should probably explain more thoroughly.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
That's about it. I'm working on more stuff - maybe I'll put it
on my Web Page or something. More news later.
John H Kim
"plot/story-based" here.
Mark C. Wallace <m...@clark.net> wrote:
>John's definition of story based games is close to the 'linear plot' or
>'railroading' - a progression of scenes. However, since John cites
>Theatrix as an example of the genre - indeed the archetype, I'll suggest
>that we broaden his definition to include preparation by consideration
>of the elements which are necessary to build a conflict to a climax
>(creationof a plot). I don't perceive a distinction between this
>definition and my own.
Hmmm. OK - let me throw out some examples to illustrate my
distinctions. The first is an example of a plot-based adventure (taking
up 4-6 sessions).
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
STORY-BASED EXAMPLE
The setting was modern day, where the PC's were a group of people
with connections to the occult - who had been organized as an occult
research team by a recently-made millionaire.
As the campaign progressed and took direction, I prepared an
adventure which would bring them into conflict with Melinden - an
evil Algonquin spirit which was supplying occult-laden drugs to a
biker gang based in Canada, running the drugs across the border.
Melinden was the spirit of a place: a spiral of standing stones in a
Canadian forest, which in the Spirit World was a vortex to the other
side - deep realms where normally only the dead venture.
Now, I knew the setting and the characters well -- but I also
had several planned scenes. If the gang was alerted to their approach,
they would try to overtake them on the road. Now after some time, they
would encounter Melinden at the standing stones, and they would be drawn
into the other side. There, they would be tested by the spirits - and
if they passed they would be able to return, whereupon they would have
to have some sort of final confrontation with Melinden.
Now, this all seems fairly linear. OTOH, there are a lot of
free possibilities within this framework - and I was willing to overturn
the framework if things did not go as planned. The thing was - I set
things up based on a certain flow of events.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
WORLD-BASED EXAMPLE
In preparation for a Star Trek adventure, I worked out a situation
where a medieval leader took over a demilitarized Star Fleet base in the
Organian Neutral Zone by trickery.
I was obviously aware of the drama of the situation - but I did
not have a given storyline in mind. Everything depended on the PC's
reactions and plans for how to deal with the leader - and I intentionally
made the issue very grey and controversial. Should they negotiate with
him, or try to rescue the base by force?
What I did was work out detailed background and motivation for
the leader and his followers. Further, I outlined what their position
was and how the base was laid out.
This is loaded with dramatic potential, but I don't know what the
storyline is.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>John concludes by suggesting that WBG (my definition) are really SBG
>(his definition). I'm not sure I follow his argument.
OK: sorry for being unclear. I don't think that there is a
one-to-one correspondence -- a SBG by your definition could be either
a story-based game or a world-based game by my definition.
As I understand it, what you mean by a "plot-based" game is one
where there is a unity of action throughout the campaign -- where there
is a center to all the things which happen.
By my definitions, I see four possibilities (and I will use
examples of campaigns I have been in):
1) "Story-based" with a center of action:
This could be an `epic' campaign -- where there is a grand scheme
which the PC's are part of. The GM might plan for the PC's to start out
investigating the theft of a jade idol, and then slowly get drawn
into a web of intrigue which leads to the rising of an army of statues
from an evil emperor's grave.
2) "World-based" with a center of action:
This could be a `what if' campaign -- where the GM starts with a
pivotal event and then runs with whatever happens. For example, the
campaign might start with 12 people in the world gaining god-like
supernatural powers -- and seeing what they do with them and how they
interact.
3) "Story-based" without a center of action:
This is an `episodic' campaign, like many TV shows. The adventures
are by-and-large unrelated to each other - the PC's might be superheroes
who face a new villian every week. (Or they might be galactic explorers
who move on to a new world and leave the others behind).
4) "World-based" without a center of action:
This might be an `unguided tour' campaign -- which could be
utterly dull if the players are not active, or interesting if the
players are good at going out and making things happen.
The GM starts with a world and the PC's. He then populates his
world with a bunch of "interesting things", and lets the PC's wander
through them as they will.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Charles M Seaton
but it's all a bit confusing, so let's go slow. It seems to me that
the elements which you associate with "world-based games" are
actually elements found in what I would term "serial plot-based
games." This is indeed an impediment to communication.
I suspect that what has happened here is that you,
accustomed to a far more plot-oriented style of gaming than I, are
making certain assumptions about what happens in any RPG. It
certainly does seem to me that while your original definition of a
WBG seems acceptable, your further assumptions about how such games
are played are a bit off-the-mark -- or, at any rate, are inconsistent
with the sort of games that I have myself experienced within the
world-based paradigm.
Let's see...
Mark C. Wallace (m...@clark.net) wrote:
: In a general sense, I find that as I depart from the three Aristotelian
: unities (Space, Action, and Time), I find it more difficult to maintain
: suspension of disbelief.
Okay. It seems to me that this fact shows that in order for
you to maintain your suspension of disbelief, you must have your
RPGs resemble the stories found in other media, yes? They must be
structured like a book, or a play, or a movie.
World-based games do not necessarily aim for this structure.
They are a form of story-telling, but they are a far more
simulationist approach to narrative. In the world-based games I am
familiar with, the in-game events are structured more as history is
structured -- in retrospect, the mind imposing upon the events its
own narrative structure. The games I am familiar with are not
*completely* structured as history is, but this particular technique
of shaping the narrative is strongly represented. World-based games
represent a kind of blend between the narrative of history and the
narrative of story-telling. It is a form of narrative structure
peculiar to RPG, I think, but it is nonetheless, to my mind, an
exceptionally effective one.
It is possible, I suppose, that this type of narrative is
simply not your cup of tea. Personally, however, I find it to
provide exceptional buoyancy in the suspension of disbelief
department.
: The themes which organize the conflict become
: either cliche, careworn, tired, or empty.
Okay. Here, I think, the plot-based paradigm begins to show
through. In a plot-based game there is indeed a single set of
themes driving and organizing the conflict. In a world-based game
there need not be. Because world-based games are not about a single
event, a single point in time, their themes and conflicts evolve in
a fluid and natural progression over time. They do not become
cliche, careworn, tired, or empty because they do not exist in a
state of stasis, but one of flux.
My personal conflicts, my themes, so to speak, are not all
the same ones now as they were when I was thirteen years old. Some
of them have remained unresolved, others have ceased to be of
importance to me, new ones have arisen as my life has progressed.
Similarly, many of the conflicts and tensions of my world have
shifted in focus from those most compelling in 1979, when I was
thirteen years old.
In a world-based game, the characters and the world itself
follow this same natural process. Some of the conflicts and themes
remain in operation, others get resolved, still others rise to
prominence as time passes and events occur. In most of the
world-based campaigns I have seen, the events which lead to the
*important* resolutions or shifts of conflict are chosen to be
played out as games, but they do not make up the entirety of the
games played, nor does every game have to neatly resolve a conflict
or crisis. World-based campaigns may incorporate plot-based games
as a subset of their progression, but there is a vast difference in
feel, for me at least, between the two.
I personally find the world-based paradigm more conducive to
my suspension of disbelief. The immersion in the life of the
character, the life of the WORLD, that it offers the player
encourages a strong sense of fictional reality. I believe that this
is much of what makes these sorts of games so very addictive, but
also what makes them so very *powerful* as a fictive experience.
: The characters escalate more and more towards the heroic.
Once again, I think that you are thinking more in terms of
serial plot-based games than world-based games. There is no
particular reason why characters ought become increasingly heroic in
a world-based game. It is the characters who Get Involved In Big
Heroic Plots over and over and over again who do this sort of thing,
in my experience. That's plot doing that. Not world.
: In my experience, characters world based
: games are rarely tragic. Usually they survive, and overcome their
: limitations. At this point, either the limitations escalate to be
: heroic, or the character loses something crucial to my appreication.
Limitations can be overcome, or they can become even more
severe, or they can lead to tragic death. I have seen tragic
characters in world-based games. When their doom strikes, it has
usually been thundering down towards them for some time. To my
mind, this enhances the feeling of tragedy, rather than diminishing
it.
Again, I can see a suspension of disbelief issue here, but I
draw opposite conclusions from your own. Because a world-based game
deals more with the passage of time, the game allows for a more
realistic approach to character and character limitations.
Sometimes they are resolved; sometimes they escalate; sometimes they
lead to tragedy; sometimes they simply fade away. I find this a
more compelling and believable approach then one in which, because
the game deals with a single crisis, a single point in time,
character limitations can only do one of two things: they can affect
the game dramatically, or they can remain latent throughout the
crisis.
: Although it is possible to imagine otherwise, in most of the World based
: games (WBG) I've played, the protagonist(s) wind up saving the (world ||
: country || princess || maguffin) over and over.
No. Those are serial plot-based games. World-based games
don't require BIG DRAMATIC CONFLICTS all the time. A little bit of
that sort of thing goes a long, *long* way, IMO. In a world-based
game, the characters may never do anything of earth-shattering
importance to the world. It just isn't necessary.
This is yet another of the reasons that I find plot-based
games a bit harder on my suspension of disbelief. It can be fun to
play out extraordinary occurrences and once-in-a-lifetime events,
but by their very nature, these events tend to throw the small
mundanities of life into the background. The characters show up to
take part in the BIG EVENT, and once they are caught up in it, their
real lives tend to fade into the background. Then the BIG EVENT is
resolved, and the characters are never seen or heard from again.
Somehow I find those characters much harder to believe in. There
are exceptions, naturally, but all too often plot-based games have a
distinct tinge of unreality about them. Who ARE these people? You
never really get to find out in any great depth. The existence of
the plot has a tendency to take over the game, reducing the amount
of time spent on the stuff that makes the characters in novels, for
example, really interesting. Not all plot-based games do this, no.
But most of the ones I have experienced do.
: In 'reality' (whatever
: that is), continued threats lead to the creation of institutions, which
: are rarely fun to roleplay.
They are a LOT of fun, I think, and they are part of what
makes a world-based game world-based. Again, tastes clearly differ.
The creation and evolution of institutions within the game world is
quite possibly my favorite part of the game.
: The villian(s) must come up with ever new
: inventive ways to threaten the maguffin. This can be done for a short
: time. Then it becomes implausible. It requires either the invention of
: insane, megalomaniac villians (ala Broccoli's James Bond), or of
: superhumanly clever villians, who can outwit and outmaneuver the
: institution charged with the protection of the maguffin.
I quite agree with you that this becomes implausible pretty
fast. Even for it to happen *once* requires a strong suspension of
disbelief sometimes. But, again, you're describing a series of
plot-based games happening to the same characters over and over
again. That's not my definition of a world-based game.
: Of course, it is possible to focus on a different combination of
: maguffin/villian/externals for each episode. Why then are these
: characters always involved?
You are referring to a very specific type of world-based
campaign here, in which the game follows a specific set of
characters about for long periods of time, yes? This is indeed a
very popular type of world-based gaming, and it is one that I happen
to enjoy a great deal.
In such a game (and it's so obvious that I don't even know
how to begin, here) the same characters are always involved because
the story is about those characters. This is tautological.
The games involve a set of characters as protagonists
because those characters ARE the protagonists. And *because* they
are the protagonists, they do not have to save the world all the
time. They have their own conflicts and themes to worry about, and
it is with these that the world-based game concerns itself. If they
are always getting involved in big plots, then you are probably
dealing with a serial plot-based game.
: Why is it that the externals change, but the protagonnist is always
: the same?
Again, the protagonists stay the same because they are the
focus of the game. The externals change because people change, the
conflicts driving them change, and the world surrounding them
changes.
I do think that the problem here is that you are trying to
look at world-based games from an extremely plot-oriented
perspective. The character-focused RPG is not modelled on a
traditional story-telling narrative, but on a narrative composed of
a blend of story-telling and historical narratives. The game does
not focus on the character because the character is at the center of
interesting events. Rather, the events surrounding the character
are interesting because both the character himself and the world he
lives in are interesting.
: Without Unity of action, space, or
: time, why are these characters always involved - and always the only
: ones to act dramatically. Isn't anyone else capable of solving the
: problem?
Again, you are describing a plot-based game. Why do you
assume that the characters are always at the center of highly
dramatic and earth-shattering events? That's a plot approach, not a
world approach. If you want to cover an important historical event
in a world-based game, you focus on the characters who are in the
right place and time to be involved in that event. You don't move
the event somewhere else. Instead, you move the focus of the game
to those characters who *will* fulfill those roles -- in other
words, you include a plot-based episode in your world campaign.
If you want to stick to the character-focussed type of
world-based campaign, then chances are that your characters are NOT
going to be at the center of such events. They will certainly be
*affected* by them in one way or another, but they aren't going to
be smack dab in the middle of them. The point of this sort of
campaign is not to play the characters who are of extreme historical
importance to the world, but rather, to play characters who are
living IN the world. They will undoubtably have problems to solve
because people DO. If they are "the only ones to solve the
problems," it is because they are THEIR problems. You can't always
count on other people to solve all of your problems for you. Other
people usually don't care all that much about your problems.
: It is possible that the reasons these characters are always involved is
: that they're limited in space - e.g. they're all bound together in a
: travelling group.
I prefer stationary space myself. The history of a village,
or a covenant, or a shared student house in a college town, or a
family mansion make, to my mind, better venues for the world-based
game than the travelling party does. But that's a matter of
personal preference.
: In which case, in order to create a rising line of
: tension, I prefer that the group's actions be organized around a
: consistent plot and theme.
Yes. You prefer plot-based games. What I still fail to
understand is why you find world-based games crippling to your
suspension of disbelief. You have given me a lot of reasons why you
find plot-based campaigns difficult to believe in, but you haven't
seemed to me to touch upon the question of world-based games at all.
: Let me finish with an analogy. How many books or movies have you seen
: which have had more than 4 parts, and still maintained the tension?
: The drama? even Tolkien is organized into a trilogy and a standalone
: novel, each of which deals with different conflicts.
The purpose of a world-based RPG is not to simulate a novel
or a movie. The closest you might get to its appeal is a soap
opera, but even that analogy is deeply flawed, as soap operas are
really serially plot-based -- hence the "why is this sort of thing
always happening to US" phenomenon.
World-based RPGs use a very different type of narrative
structure than that utilized by other story-telling media. This is
one of the many reasons that the novel/cinema/TV show analogies get
on the nerves of many of the world-based fans on this board,
particularly Alexander Williams (correct me if I am misrepresenting
you, Alex). World-based RPGs are just not predicated on the same
sort of narrative structure, and there is no reason why they should
be. The peculiar narrative structure they DO use is a powerful and
effective one for many people, and its absence in other media is not
necessarily an indictment against it as a useful and compelling
artistic form.
: I think I've succeeded in addressing your questions Sarah, without
: resorting to specific examples. Let me know if I'm wrong.
I hope you understand my objections. I have tried to make
myself clear.
Just to further clarify my own position, I have nothing
particularly against plot-based games. My group plays both sorts of
games, and we enjoy both types. I do prefer plot-based games to be
episodes within the context of a strongly world-oriented approach
myself, but this is really just an expression of a more general
overall preference -- a lack of tolerance for undetailed and
underdeveloped game worlds.
That said, though, there is a certain appeal to the
character-focussed world-based campaign that I have not found
available anywhere else. While I enjoy plot-based games
well-enough, it is the world-based games which are my true love, and
which I do tend to think of as my preferred staple diet in RPGs.
-- Sarah
John H Kim
"story-based". Maybe later I'll get brave enough to tackle the
term "plot".
John Novak <j...@cegt201.bradley.edu> wrote:
>Wth that word present, I think we might perhaps agree on a third
>category of campaign settings.
>
>Plot-based games (PBGs) revolve around a specific plot. "You are elite
>advisors to the family of the Graf of Bek. Here is what happens."
>
>World-based games (WBGs) revolve around the richness of the world in
>which they are set. "You, motley crew, have all been born to various
>stations in the City of Bek."
>
>Theme-based games (TBGs) revolve around a major plot hook in a designed
>world, but allow freedom of motion and continuity both. "You are near
>Bek, in the 17th century, and the war between Catholic and Protestant
>has inspired many atrocities. You are the survivors of a mercenary
>group which has been destroyed in a recent raid."
Agh! Hrrrm. These are interesting definitions, but the trouble
is that they are (IMO) different from the definitions I gave for the
styles of "world-based gaming" and "story-based gaming".
These distinctions are about what thing is at the _center_ of
the campaign. Hence, I would suggest terms like "plot-centered",
"world-centered", or "theme centered". Hmmm. Those are ugly, I
agree, but it is a start.
-*-*-*-
For example, you could have a "plot-centered" game which is
world-based, or a "plot-centered" game which is story-based.
Plot-centered, World-based --
The PC's are elite advisors to the family of the Graf of Bek. The
GM works out the members of the family and their enemies and their
plans. There is a traitor in the family who intends to assassinate
the patriarch, but the PC's may not have a predefined role in the
action. They might fail to stop the assassination, but make other
gains for the family. They might simply make it too risky to
attempt the assassination, at which point the traitor reacts and
forms new goals. Etc.
Plot-centered, Story-based --
The PC's are elite advisors to the family of the Graf of Bek. The
GM works out a story which draws the PC's into a conflict with
a traitor in the family. He works out the clues that will be dropped
in their initial meetings with the traitor which lead them to the
final confrontation just prior to his attempted assassination of
the patriarch.
-*-*-*-
I think it would be interesting to work out a more sophisticated
scheme for what campaigns are centered on. Situation, background,
setting, etc.
For example, I have run two highly related Gothic Horror campaigns
(inspired in part by _Ravenloft_). The first was theme/story centered,
as well as story-based. In it, the PC's were the scattered members of a
family drawn home by the death of their father. They were all jaded and
amoral -- but the father had prepared a fate which was designed to
teach them a lesson. There was a steady build to the lesson which he
had intended.
The second was a more episodic campaign, in the style of
_Dark Shadows_. It again involved family members after the death of
the Duke. However, this one revolved around the interlocked dark secrets
which each of them had. The center of this was the Emsworth Manor and
the twisted history behind it and all who lived there. In the successive
adventures, more and more of these dark secrets came to light.
These had subtlely different centers. The first was intended
to center more on the personalities and relationships of the PC's;
it drifted from location to location with a growing dreamlike mood and
theme. The second centered more on the PC backgrounds (i.e. dark secrets),
on the history of the House of Emsworth, and on the cosmology of the
world and magic.