WBG vs SBG
Mark C. Wallace
I'm enlightened by John Kim's expansion of my dichotomy (PBG vs WBG) to
a two dimensional classification. On one axis is Plot vs Setting, and
on the other axis is Unity of action vs disunity of action. My personal
preference is strongly for Plot based games with a strong unity of
action, but I admit that John's examples are excellent archetypes.
I'd however call John's STory based example plot based - there is a
clear climax (the final conflict with Melinden). I don't know why the
players are motivated to pursue the investigation, but I'm confient that
the players do, and that John merely didn't describe it in depth.
I think a thrid axis esists, but I resist the temptation to discuss it -
that's the distinction between good games and bad. ALl the games John
describes, with the exception of the "low Plot, l;ow Dramatic unity"
game are interesting. I'm confident that I could write and run good
games based on the outline presented by John.
John H Kim
in particular trying to distinguish between "good" games and "bad" games.
Mark C. Wallace <m...@clark.net> wrote:
>I'm enlightened by John Kim's expansion of my dichotomy (PBG vs WBG) to
>a two dimensional classification. On one axis is Plot vs Setting, and
>on the other axis is Unity of action vs disunity of action.
>
>I'd however call John's Story based example plot based - there is a
>clear climax (the final conflict with Melinden).
Well, enlightenment is always good. Watch out for the Secret
Masters, though... @-)
Re: the term "story-based"... There was a long and confusing
debate here over "plot-based" and "plots". I eventually decided to
leave the issue alone, and I used the term "story-based" to avoid
defining exactly what a "plot" means (since no one could seem to agree).
-*-*-*-
>
>I think a third axis esists, but I resist the temptation to discuss it -
>that's the distinction between good games and bad. All the games John
>describes, with the exception of the "low Plot, low Dramatic unity"
>game are interesting.
Well, I'm not sure the distinction is all that useful. I am
fully convinced that it is possible to screw up *any* game. No matter
how good the setup/premise/characters are, if you have a lousy players
and/or a lousy GM, then you can have a lousy game.
I would be more interested in looking at what makes a bad game
"bad" and what makes a good game "good". I am certain that there are
more axes here regarding game style.
-*-*-*-
BTW, I agree that "low Plot, low Dramatic Unity" is not interesting
in-and-of itself. OTOH, I do think that it can make for a good
campaign. In particular, if the GM is not very experienced, but he
has experienced and active players - he might set up a simple sort of
environment, and let the players invent conflicts, intrigue, etc.
Plots from inexperienced GM's I have found are often painfully
forced and awkward. I have found that it can be much more interesting
to give the players some freedom and let them get themselves into trouble.
To use Sarah's "Satan" analogy -- some players can damn themselves with
hardly any outside temptation.
It could also a nice environment for a GM who doesn't have much
time to work out plots for himself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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_
Bryan Maloney
possible axes?
I can have a "story" in which the outcome is not pre-set. It's called
improvisation.
Douglas L. Vandenburgh
: I'll start off the flamefest by stating, here and now, that
: the sort of game Alain describes on the "Diceless Resolution" thread
: -- the game in which events are not described in any in-game terms
: at all, but merely in mechanical constructs ("You take two hits of
: damage") -- is, to my mind, a Bad Game. A Good Game may be
: extremely mechanical, but it still has to have some degree of
: in-game definition and description to make it Good.
Hmm. I think I disagree on this one. If you're playing a game where
there is a lot of armed conflict, sometimes where you got hit is
a level of detail not necessary to the genre. You simply need to
know about how bumped and bruised you are. Does it matter where
Indy has been punched and pummelled? Not really, just how close
he is to collapse.
I personally find that description to that level would slow combat
even further, and pacing is my primary objective in my combats.
I want them to be whirling fast and brutal. I don't think the
characters know exactly where they've been hit and how hard. Yes,
they know how beat they are feeling, but I don't think they know
"I have a Vicious scrape on my knee, and a deep stab into my
shoulder, and a bump on my forehead...". That's something they'd
only have time to catalog after the fur stops flying.
- Doug
Andrew Finch
[Snip]
Flashing lights, sirens, general racket.
: Plot-based games are more likely to be interesting to
: outsiders, because they tend to revolve around external conflicts,
: rather than internal ones,
Do we really want to start the definition of Plot thread again? I am
willing. And the definition I've always argued for is that all plots have
a conflict which centers on the internal aspects of a character. The
external events are a reflection, a foil, for the internal conflict, to
create drama. When conflicts are extremely external, it's because the
characters are more 2-dimensional, and all they need to be hooked in is
the prime reason of survival. I have nothing against such games, and they
can be a lot of fun. But I also appreciate depth.
To me, world based games are more external because there's no guarantee
that what happens will have any interest to my character. I might go
along because all my buds want to, but that's not the same. Low plot, low
dramatic unity games are more scattered, and less character focused, in
my opinion.
I hope you heard me over that racket. I'll go turn off the alarms now.
David
David W Llewellyn
Sarah wrote:
> A game in which the players expect that their PCs' actions
>will have some effect on the in-game events, but in which, actually,
>character actions have no effect whatsoever -- in other words, a
>railroaded game -- is a Bad Game. This is a sub-category of the set
>of "Unfair" games: games in which the GM violates the agreements and
>expectations of the group. All unfair games are, to my mind, Bad
>Games.
When I was first GM-ing, the PCs found themselves at the whim of a
lunatic illusionist. They had a damned good inkling of this early on,
and they dealt with it accordingly. True, the situation was frustrating
for them (I repeat--I was new at this), but they had more of an impact on
what was going on than they realized. Specifically, he was testing their
loyalty to a certain group of NPCs. Most of them passed, and the one who
was being tested the most passed with flying colors.
Meta-game, I did it for a reason. There had been comments about how most
of the people who GM in my group don't give much opportunity for
straight, let-your-hair-down, roleplaying. There's an awful lot of
dedication to "kill big monster" or "listen to story" (remember my
mention of the one guy who had us listening to 150 NPCs argue with each
other?), and I just wanted to put them in a situation that was too weird
for them to do anything practial.
As frustrating as the plot was to them, they did have to admit that
their roleplaying was vastly improved over what they normally did. Now.
Let's see if I can get them to that level without driving them nuts.
I will also make sure that you know that they did have out clauses.
Specifically, they could have left. One of them (the one who failed the
test) decided that another was to blame, tried to kill him, then ran
away. Since they also knew it was illusory, there could have been demands
that their tester reveal himself to them and cut it out. They did not do
so until he tried to convince them they were in Hell. Instead, they allowed
the illusion to remain.
Not all of it was illusory, also. The alcohol and the wish-granting
potion were quite real, and those who drank of whichever had the
appropriate effects. :)
Musings of earlier times, that's all.
David Llewellyn
Charles M Seaton
: This article is about multi-axis classification of game styles,
Oh, dear, John. Are you trying to return this board to its
original purpose as the flame-licked hell of the hierarchy here?
Surely you must know that any discussion of what dinstinguishes a
"bad" game from a "good" one is going to quickly degenerate into
argument, offense, and flames?
Mark Wallace, a very smart man, wrote:
: >I think a third axis esists, but I resist the temptation to discuss it -
: >that's the distinction between good games and bad.
Wallace is no dummy. He knows full well what sort of row is
likely to erupt once we start labelling certain gaming styles as
"good" or "bad."
Oh, well. What the hell. I'm willing to bite, so long as
everyone understands that these are my *opinions,* capiche? If we
do manage to reach some consensus on some of these issues, that's
well and good, but I'm not holding my breath. So, although John
Morrow will probably never talk to me again for this, here goes.
I'll start off the flamefest by stating, here and now, that
the sort of game Alain describes on the "Diceless Resolution" thread
-- the game in which events are not described in any in-game terms
at all, but merely in mechanical constructs ("You take two hits of
damage") -- is, to my mind, a Bad Game. A Good Game may be
extremely mechanical, but it still has to have some degree of
in-game definition and description to make it Good.
A game in which the players expect that their PCs' actions
will have some effect on the in-game events, but in which, actually,
character actions have no effect whatsoever -- in other words, a
railroaded game -- is a Bad Game. This is a sub-category of the set
of "Unfair" games: games in which the GM violates the agreements and
expectations of the group. All unfair games are, to my mind, Bad
Games.
A game in which the players do not have sufficient
information about the game world to play their characters to their
satisfaction -- either because the game world is insufficiently
detailed or developed, or because the game world is highly
inconsistent -- is a Bad Game.
Any game that bores the players, for whatever reason, is a
Bad Game, no matter how interesting the game might have been for a
different group of people.
How's that for a start?
Oh, and on the subject of boring...
: >All the games John
: >describes, with the exception of the "low Plot, low Dramatic unity"
: >game are interesting.
Bah. Sez you. (You see what I mean about people taking
offense in these sorts of discussions?)
I happen to find the "low plot, low dramatic unity" sort of
game extremely interesting. If I understand the definitions
properly, this is the classification of my favorite type of game.
: BTW, I agree that "low Plot, low Dramatic Unity" is not interesting
: in-and-of itself. OTOH, I do think that it can make for a good
: campaign.
Nothing is interesting "in-and-of-itself." The
character-focused world-based game is interesting to people who are
interested in the characters and the world, which are the focus of
the game. This is the chief reason why they make truly *terrible*
stories when recounted to people who are not involved with the
game, and who therefore do not have the proper background to
appreciate the story.
Plot-based games are more likely to be interesting to
outsiders, because they tend to revolve around external conflicts,
rather than internal ones, and external conflicts are more readily
grasped by people who are not immersed in the fictional experience.
An action story is easier to tell than a psychological one.
: In particular, if the GM is not very experienced, but he
: has experienced and active players - he might set up a simple sort of
: environment, and let the players invent conflicts, intrigue, etc.
Huh. An intriguing concept, I suppose. It seems to me,
though, that a "simple sort of environment" is fairly incompatible
with this style of play. To my mind, the environment really has to
be very detailed and complex for these games to be enjoyable.
: To use Sarah's "Satan" analogy -- some players can damn themselves with
: hardly any outside temptation.
Hee hee hee...
You did that on purpose, surely. The Satan analogy is the
intellectual property of Nancy, my Evil Twin.
PLEASE tell me that you did that on purpose...
-- Sarah
Charles M Seaton
: Hmm. I think I disagree on this one. If you're playing a game where
: there is a lot of armed conflict, sometimes where you got hit is
: a level of detail not necessary to the genre. You simply need to
: know about how bumped and bruised you are. Does it matter where
: Indy has been punched and pummelled? Not really, just how close
: he is to collapse.
Well, this is highly subjective, naturally, but it DOES
matter to me. If I'm playing a character in a fictional universe, I
have to know what is *happening* to him. I have to be given
something to go OFF of. Otherwise, I might as well stay at home and
merely make it all up myself.
A lack of descriptive detail is, to my mind, a Bad Thing in
an RPG. Lack of descriptive detail in combat is just a sub-set of
this. Injuries that are merely "abstract" injuries affect me the
same way it would if my character was walking down a road and the GM
refused to tell me whether the landscape was farmland, or plains, or
mountains, or whatever.
GM: You're on this road.
ME: Where am I? What sort of a road? What's the
landscape like? What's the weather like?
GM: It doesn't matter. Anyway...
No. I'm sorry, but I would call that a Bad Game. I need to
know these things. I don't need *perfect* detail -- I do have an
imagination -- but I need *some* detail. Otherwise, it just doesn't
work for me.
: I personally find that description to that level would slow combat
: even further, and pacing is my primary objective in my combats.
: I want them to be whirling fast and brutal. I don't think the
: characters know exactly where they've been hit and how hard. Yes,
: they know how beat they are feeling, but I don't think they know
: "I have a Vicious scrape on my knee, and a deep stab into my
: shoulder, and a bump on my forehead...". That's something they'd
: only have time to catalog after the fur stops flying.
Oh, well, that's fine. I have no problems with that. I
don't really expect to know what's happening in the heat of combat
either.
But if, after the fur stops flying, I am denied the
masochistic pleasure of knowing what has *happened* to my character,
that's a different story. I need a certain level of detail in order
to maintain my suspension of disbelief and to make me feel as if
there is some point to having a GM in the first place.
I can even provide details myself. I can improvise. But if
I have to do it ALL myself, then it isn't nearly as satisfying for
me. I end up feeling a bit like I'm trapped in Erol Bayburt's
conception of a d-b game.
-- Sarah
Charles M Seaton
: Charles M Seaton (ENN...@frost.oit.umass.edu) wrote:
: [Snip]
: Flashing lights, sirens, general racket.
Do I have to roll if I want to clap my hands over my ears
and scream, cringing?
: : Plot-based games are more likely to be interesting to
: : outsiders, because they tend to revolve around external conflicts,
: : rather than internal ones,
: Do we really want to start the definition of Plot thread again? I am
: willing.
Hmmm. I'll think about it. But first...
: To me, world based games are more external because there's no guarantee
: that what happens will have any interest to my character.
David, I hate to use your line here, but you just aren't
getting it.
The "guarantee that what happens will have any interest to
your character" in a character-focused world-based game is that the
game is FOCUSED on your character. It is ABOUT your character. If
your character isn't interested, there is no game. The game follows
your character around, and therefore the only events covered are
those which your character takes an interest in. If your character
isn't interested, then the "on-screen" of the game is just not
THERE.
I think that what you are thinking about is a story-based
game with very poor plotting. That's not the same thing at all.
In the sort of games I am describing, YOU decide what is
"happening." If your character is interested in flirting with the
flower shop employee, then that is what is happening in the game.
The game simply CAN'T be about events that do not interest your
character, because the game IS about what interests your character.
Of course, if your character is interested in staying in bed
and sleeping, then you don't need to play out that part. You play out
the events which seem to promise some interesting play -- the events
which are meaningful and important to the character's life. But you
don't throw events at the character under the assumption that they
will be meaningful or important. That's a story-based game.
: I might go
: along because all my buds want to, but that's not the same. Low plot, low
: dramatic unity games are more scattered, and less character focused, in
: my opinion.
I'm a bit curious now, David. What do you imagine a low
plot, low dramatic unity game to look like? Are you envisioning a
dungeon crawl, or a wandering "adventure party" game, or what? I'm
really not quite sure what you think these games are LIKE.
: I hope you heard me over that racket. I'll go turn off the alarms now.
I'm hearing you. I hope that you can hear me, because I
really do think that you have either misunderstood what I mean when
I talk about "character-focused, world-based," or are perhaps
unfamiliar with this style of play.
-- Sarah