![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
davywavyGames are about conflict without injury. When faced with a challenge, people
learn fastest, and with the risk in injury removed, can go back and learn some
more without a lengthy stay in hospital.
Whatever you play, be it monopoly, football, anything, someone wins and
therefore someone loses. The objective is to win.
Roleplaying games are unique. Whilst with some games, like hopscotch, you play
against yourself, only in roleplaying games (and computer games) do you play
against an unreal opponent whose sole function is to provide an enjoyable
challenge then lose with an appropriate amount of grace, or lack thereof. Since
the game wouldn't be much fun if these victories were completely hollow,
sometimes, when the players are particularly undeserving of success, then the
opponents will win.
It's just exactly what the nature of these conflicts is, and how they are
resolved, that creates an enjoyable game.
Plot or Story?
A plot is what would happen if the players didn't interract with it. It's
normally a vision for future events which the players wish to interract in some
assertive manner, , as if they were happy with it they could just stand on the
touchline with pompoms shouting 'rah rah for elminster' In this case, an
adventure is what evolves when the players interract with the plot. Ideally, no-
one should know how this is going to evolve although in reality the dm will
probably have to plan for a few contingencies in order to maintain a credible
illusion of a 'real' world. It's important the dm maintains player involvement
with adventure progression because otherwise..
A story is a series of events which happen regardless of the actions of the
players. This shifts the nature of the conflict inherent to the game in an
undesireable way as it stops the dm moderated villains being the opponents and
the dm becomes the bad guy.
How?
For dm moderated villains to be valid opponents, their plots must be:
a. Something the players want to prevent (or promote!).
b. Something the player characters can prevent, but may also choose not to.
When the game is story driven, the dm steers action through the actions of near
omnipotent npcs, the forces of nature, and improbably circumstance, instead of
through the actions of suitable opponent powered npcs out to complete their
plot. In doing this the dm becomes the opponent and the players are faced with
a choice:
a. Shut up and go along with it. This isn't a game. Usually the players will
get bored and not really pay much attention to the story as they're denied
involvement. They won't bother putting their characters in positions of risk
when the outcome of the story is predetermined. They'll let the npcs do the
dirty work for them as they are certain to do. Often the bemused dm will
wonder 'why aren't they interested' - usually because they have no reason to
become engaged.
b. Treat the dm as opposition, and set out to dismantle the story or force the
dm to engage in increasingly desperate acts of improbable deus ex machina to
keep it on track. Whilst funny for a while, this usually ends with the dm
saying 'why do they just keep trying to spoil everything' - They don't, they
just want to be involved.
I forgot to qualify what I mean by conflict here, so I'll quickly slip this in.
Conflict is about difference motivating action, sometimes this is good,
sometimes bad: right now we hold conflicting opinions, which motivate us to
debate, or argue if you will. Conflict is what motivates people. They want to change things, because they find themselves in conflict with the status quo, or they want things to stay the same because they disagree with proposed changes. If they were perfectly happy with everything, they'd have no motivation to do anything, and if they knew their actions could have no predictable effect on anything (learned helplessness, one of pavlovs
less publicised experiments ) they'd once again do nothing. The level of
conflict in a game has to be sufficient to motivate the players.
learn fastest, and with the risk in injury removed, can go back and learn some
more without a lengthy stay in hospital.
Whatever you play, be it monopoly, football, anything, someone wins and
therefore someone loses. The objective is to win.
Roleplaying games are unique. Whilst with some games, like hopscotch, you play
against yourself, only in roleplaying games (and computer games) do you play
against an unreal opponent whose sole function is to provide an enjoyable
challenge then lose with an appropriate amount of grace, or lack thereof. Since
the game wouldn't be much fun if these victories were completely hollow,
sometimes, when the players are particularly undeserving of success, then the
opponents will win.
It's just exactly what the nature of these conflicts is, and how they are
resolved, that creates an enjoyable game.
Plot or Story?
A plot is what would happen if the players didn't interract with it. It's
normally a vision for future events which the players wish to interract in some
assertive manner, , as if they were happy with it they could just stand on the
touchline with pompoms shouting 'rah rah for elminster' In this case, an
adventure is what evolves when the players interract with the plot. Ideally, no-
one should know how this is going to evolve although in reality the dm will
probably have to plan for a few contingencies in order to maintain a credible
illusion of a 'real' world. It's important the dm maintains player involvement
with adventure progression because otherwise..
A story is a series of events which happen regardless of the actions of the
players. This shifts the nature of the conflict inherent to the game in an
undesireable way as it stops the dm moderated villains being the opponents and
the dm becomes the bad guy.
How?
For dm moderated villains to be valid opponents, their plots must be:
a. Something the players want to prevent (or promote!).
b. Something the player characters can prevent, but may also choose not to.
When the game is story driven, the dm steers action through the actions of near
omnipotent npcs, the forces of nature, and improbably circumstance, instead of
through the actions of suitable opponent powered npcs out to complete their
plot. In doing this the dm becomes the opponent and the players are faced with
a choice:
a. Shut up and go along with it. This isn't a game. Usually the players will
get bored and not really pay much attention to the story as they're denied
involvement. They won't bother putting their characters in positions of risk
when the outcome of the story is predetermined. They'll let the npcs do the
dirty work for them as they are certain to do. Often the bemused dm will
wonder 'why aren't they interested' - usually because they have no reason to
become engaged.
b. Treat the dm as opposition, and set out to dismantle the story or force the
dm to engage in increasingly desperate acts of improbable deus ex machina to
keep it on track. Whilst funny for a while, this usually ends with the dm
saying 'why do they just keep trying to spoil everything' - They don't, they
just want to be involved.
I forgot to qualify what I mean by conflict here, so I'll quickly slip this in.
Conflict is about difference motivating action, sometimes this is good,
sometimes bad: right now we hold conflicting opinions, which motivate us to
debate, or argue if you will. Conflict is what motivates people. They want to change things, because they find themselves in conflict with the status quo, or they want things to stay the same because they disagree with proposed changes. If they were perfectly happy with everything, they'd have no motivation to do anything, and if they knew their actions could have no predictable effect on anything (learned helplessness, one of pavlovs
less publicised experiments ) they'd once again do nothing. The level of
conflict in a game has to be sufficient to motivate the players.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2002-07-31 07:41 am (UTC)I think you can have enough conflict to engage people without the competitive aspect.
One way around the plot/story is to ensure that the characters themselves have mutually incompatible aims. That way the NPCs (if any) just bumble round doing what they do and the 'conflict' is between the characters. Makes life a lot more interesting. And GMing that sort of game is so much fun. Just sit back and watch the action!
Re:
Date: 2002-07-31 08:06 am (UTC)Thisis why I thought Andy R was an excellent ANST; everything he did was designed to create conflict, between PCs where possible. He understood that conflict is what keeps the game interesting and made sure it happened. It was astonishing how many people objected to that.
no subject
Date: 2002-07-31 08:34 am (UTC)Well, it seems to work fine round our house... Possibly due to the nature of those with whom we play.
no subject
Date: 2002-07-31 08:38 am (UTC)Of course, everyone and his brother will argue that their game is one where it isn't the case, but if that's true, why do so many games fold or suffer damage due to IC/OOC rivalries spilling across the barrier?
no subject
Date: 2002-07-31 08:47 am (UTC)Perhaps there's also a point to do with competitiveness. If you're competing, you're always tempted to use your own skills to the best of your ability. Even if they're not on the character sheet. This makes the IC/OOC confusions worse.
Plot is dead
Date: 2002-08-01 07:52 am (UTC)Re: Plot is dead
Date: 2002-08-01 08:09 am (UTC)