A word for "what do the PC's do?"

[Vaxalon]

http://www.livejournal.com/users/mearls/97347.html#cutid1

"Core Story"

What's the core story of YOUR game?

[pete_darby]

I take issue with "story", for more reasons than I care to go into*, in this phrase.

"Core process" seems better, but fails to indicate that it's the process in the SiS we're talking about (mainly? Exclusively?).

"Core imaginary process?"
"Core character process?"
"Core fictional process?"

*I lie, of course: 1. the "story" tar baby 2. the probably mistaken synonism with nar 3. "Man joins group, group kill monsters, take stuff, get tougher, wash, rinse, repeat" barely qualifies as a story under any recognizable description... etc etc

[Victor Gijsbers]

"Core narrative structure"?
"Archetypal narrative structure"?

It's not a process we're talking about, after all, but a structural feature of the narrative.

[Andrew Cooper]

Why not just call it Core Plot?  That's what it is, in a nutshell.

[Vaxalon]

Cheese and rice.  Everything has to be jargon around here.

Core Plot works.  The rest of them are WAY too hifalutin'.

[Ron Edwards]

Cheese and rice yourself, Fred. You specifically ask for a new jargon term, then you get one you like, and then you complain about jargon?

Your proper response, and I'm speaking as moderator, is "Thank you."

Best,
Ron

[Vaxalon]

Actually, I *didn't* ask for one, I proposed one.  

Personally, I see nothing wrong with "core story" but the word "story" has some baggage that seems to rub some people the wrong way.  To me, there's a big stylistic difference between "core story" and "archetypal narrative structure".

If someone comes to the Forge with their nifty new game, and you ask them, "What's the core story?" they're a lot more likely to understand what you're saying without needing to consult the lexicon than "What's the archetypal narrative structure?"

I don't want to get into an argument over all that, though, so as thread originator, I'd like to steer the discussion in a different direction.

Has Mike Mearls (in the article linked above) caught the concept of "What do the players DO?" properly?  It seems to me that he has nailed it, but I'm interested in what the Forge thinks of his article.

[TonyLB]

He captures the concept of "What do the characters do?" properly.

[contracycle]

An excellent article.  

I'm inclined to agree with "core plot" over story but I won't fight anyone for it.

One of the things this reminded me of was my dislike for representative in-game fiction, such as that in L5R and 7th Sea.  I absolutely hate this stuff, and one of the reasons I hate it is very similar to the observation that novelisations of game world pre-empt the actual play of this implied Core, and IMO the in-game fiction does the same.

I completely agree with Mearls that simply by establishing the elements of setting you are creating an implied plot.  I think this happens because, erm, well one might say that they distort the imaginary space like mass does to real space, and kinda create implicit linkages between elements.  

Its this sort of point of view that makes me think that certain setting elements are tantamount to system.   If introducing elements into setting implies or compels, overtly or covertly, a certain pattern of play, then it governs behaviour just as much as a rule does.

[Brendan]

It's a formula.

The name of what we are talking about is "formula."

[pete_darby]

Well, dodging the sauce and going to the meat and potatoes, it's not just setting, it's mechanics and especially, the reward system that really define the core story/process/narrative. In D&D, what do players do to get rewarded? Kill things and take their stuff. What are they rewarded with? Better abilities to kill things.

With all respect, I don't think asking "What's the core story?" is any less opaque than "What's the standard process? What's the median experience of a character?" or any one of a number of alternatives. What designer should understand and address in plain english are the questions "Who are the characters? What do they do?", with the corrolary, "What do the players do?"

PS cross post: formula is good, as long as it's understood. Genre conventions have some cross over too.

[mearls]

Its this sort of point of view that makes me think that certain setting elements are tantamount to system.   If introducing elements into setting implies or compels, overtly or covertly, a certain pattern of play, then it governs behaviour just as much as a rule does.

Precisely. The mainstream RPG publishing world is neck deep in the corpses of games created by designers who failed to understand this.

[Vaxalon]

I think part of the problem in the industry is that the leader (DnD) doesn't OVERTLY do this... you have to infer it from the rules and gamer culture at large... so people don't think they have to do it for THEIR game, even though they aren't using the same core story.

And you DO have to do it.

[xenopulse]

I think another part of the problem in the industry is when the core plot/formula supported by the mechanics is different from the one supported by the setting.  I guess that's what mearsl is talking about with regards to Eberron in the article. The mechanics, which support adventuring (killing, looting, selling), are the same DnD mechanics, but the setting differs and does not really mesh with the mechanics.

World of Darkness has always rubbed me the wrong way exactly because of this (I admittedly only know and played V and W). The setting strongly implies a certain core plot/formula, but the mechanics are just not supporting it.

[Mike Holmes]

Good concept, Mike. Excellent. And I do think that whatever term comes out of this will serve well for "What do you do?" in future discussions.

I will note, however, that I think there are two phenomena here, subtly different from each other. There's the "fleshed out story" version where you have an idea of what happens that includes details, and then there's the "generic template" version. A good example of the latter version is that the Paranioa books tell you that an adventure is typically structured so:

1. Briefing Alert
2. Mission Briefing
3. Equipment
4. Visit R&D
5. Mission
6. Mission Debriefing

This answers "what you do?" with great clarity while not actually giving all of the stereotypical answers. Like when you can't find the briefing room. Or the red tape that is involved in the trip to equip and PLDC. And how R&D gives you the weapon more likely to malfunction than to work. Etc.

Put another way, you'll always experience the generic version, or something pretty close to it. You're actual experience may be very far from the stereotypical story, however. They both inform about what sorts of things can happen. But they do so in subtly different ways, IMO.

This is somewhat like similies and metaphors, actually. With the specific version, you say X will happen. With the generic version you say, something like X will happen. Gareth's aformentioned game fiction is, of course, a precise metaphor for play.

Mike