Too Much Plot Goin' Round

[SlurpeeMoney]

A couple of days ago, I had a chance to step down from the Comfy Chair and strap on my adventure boots; one of my regular players wanted to run a game of RIFTS, and I'm never one to forgo a game in which I don't have to be the Game Master. I'm not exactly the world's biggest RIFTS fan (far from it), but a few of us had gotten together to watch Tombstone the night before, and Tyson, the Game Master, told us the game was in the New West ( a wild-west re-make with high-technology and magic). So I wrote up a character, talked to the other players, made a character for a someone who had never played RIFTS before (she hated RIFTS before she ever played it, citing the strangely complex character creation rules), and we all sat down to play.

Now, in most of my games, there isn't a lot of in-party conversation going on. There is a lot of conversation between the party and the non-player characters, but for some reason my players have never really understood that they can occasionally speak to one another as well. I decided to change that a bit, and as I was on the other side of the screen, I was in a perfect spot to influence the other players. Within five minutes of the game, Tyson was dealing with Jessica (the one who had never played RIFTS before), and I was sitting around having an in-character conversation with Jeff around the fire. This worked out perfectly; when the Game Master came back to the two of us, the bug had been implanted and in-character conversations occurred through the next two sessions. Yay! I hope the trend continues.

Where the game started to fall apart was in the plot. Tyson had come up with an elaborate plot involoving factions of Coalition soldiers fighting for supremacy over a small town. We, being Coalition soldiers, were supposed to get involved in the conflict, and help one side or the other achieve domination. While we were making characters, though, we had come up with a different plot for our characters; we were on a mission to poison an enemy settlement with an experimental bio-agent that would kill creatures not native to earth, but would leave all earth-borne life alone. We were in the small town of Tyson's plot because we were hopelessly lost.

Tyson didn't tell us his plot before the game began.
We didn't tell Tyson our character plot until the game began.
Neither of us thought it would be an issue.

While Tyson was focusing on his plot, and we focused on character development, we found the two plots begining to diverge and become somewhat incompatable. Where Tyson would think a particular action or reward would entice us into doing something, we found ourselves motivated in different directions based on our own goals (goals that he wholeheartedly ignored and, in fact, seemed to distain). Occasionally, we would shelf our plot in favor of his, or take actions that would possibly keep both plots happy, but really the game began to fall apart at the seams. I even tried to completely retire our plot by sending off the character most responsible for it and bringing in a new one, but the damage was done. Even though my character went off, alone, to deliver his bio-agent (a bio-agent that was stolen from him by one of the GM's minions), the game was done, insalvagable. It had degraded into silliness, and it wasn't worth keeping alive.

As a Game Master, I'm going to try and avoid this as much as possible. I've said before I'm a big fan of Game Master Fiat, but I think in the case of plot, going with character goals is a much more reliable a plot device than creating constricting situations that must be solved before anything else can be done.

Anyway, that was my gaming session this week. I think next week I'll go back to being the Screen Monkey.

[Vaxalon]

If the players know ahead of time that you're going to be creating bangs, then it's not a problem.

[Callan S.]

While we were making characters, though, we had come up with a different plot for our characters;

Who initiated the idea and/or organised this plot for your characters? Was it you?

Is it the same sort of plot thing you would organise with the players, if you were GM'ing yourself?

[John Kim]

Where the game started to fall apart was in the plot. Tyson had come up with an elaborate plot involoving factions of Coalition soldiers fighting for supremacy over a small town. We, being Coalition soldiers, were supposed to get involved in the conflict, and help one side or the other achieve domination. While we were making characters, though, we had come up with a different plot for our characters; we were on a mission to poison an enemy settlement with an experimental bio-agent that would kill creatures not native to earth, but would leave all earth-borne life alone. We were in the small town of Tyson's plot because we were hopelessly lost.

Tyson didn't tell us his plot before the game began.
We didn't tell Tyson our character plot until the game began.
Neither of us thought it would be an issue.

The straightforward thing to do would be to tie these two together somehow.  Hows this -- the enemy town turns out to be relatively near, but you need help in order to get past their defenses to deliver the poison.  So they need to get support from one of the sides in the Coalition factions.  Both promise to help out, but can't spare the men while they've got this internal strife going on. 

[SlurpeeMoney]

Vaxalon:
A good point, and well made.

Callan
While I was involved in the creation of the plot, it was something that all three of us contributed in. No, it is not the sort of plot I would give to my players were I GMing, as I tend to be fairly reactive; I prefer a loose set of possible situations that revolve around a central theme than an actual pre-determined plot, allowing the characters' goals and actions to determine the flow of the story. I personally believe that characters make plot, which could have been the problem in itself (story ownership issues?).

John:
I agree in the fullest. I actually spoke to Tyson about this game earlier tonight, and he told me that he thought it was some sort of trap for him, that we were attempting to derail his game purposefully by having the bio-agent (which he thought, apparently, was meant to be some Power Weapon for my character, rather than a specific plot device). Perhaps the divergence came about from his forceful rejection of our plot (after having accepted it, though with a note that he would be using "bigger guns"),. or perhaps it was, as earlier stated, a problem with story ownership, or maybe it was just an "experiment gone wrong," as I've only seen a very few people pull off games in which two plots occur at the same time. I've never seen it work with two plots working on the same group of characters (I've seen it work only with two groups of characters with occasional overlaps; Star Trek style).

So some brainstorming points.
--How can a group of player characters build motivations or bangs (without input from the Game Master, who is keeping his plot a secret and leaving character creation to the players) without "setting traps" for the Game Master. The obvious answer is "talk to the Game Master," but let us assume that this is currently impossible. "Don't build motivations or bangs," is equally obvious, but even more of a cop-out.

--Story Ownership. Who owns the narrative of a game session in a traditional GM > Players game? Are players equal to the Game Master in the creation of plot? More important? Less important? Moot point? Up to the individual game/group, or is there some theoretical backing that says something to the effect of "Story Ownership is the sole domain of the Game Master?"

Just some thoughts.
Kris

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Kris,

Those are definitely my kind of questions, especially when we have a meaty bit of play to hang them on. As you can see, I won't handle them line-by-line, because most of the time that doesn't work well, but instead I'll try to stick with the spirit of the question-sets and the connections among the questions.

--How can a group of player characters build motivations or bangs (without input from the Game Master, who is keeping his plot a secret and leaving character creation to the players) without "setting traps" for the Game Master. The obvious answer is "talk to the Game Master," but let us assume that this is currently impossible. "Don't build motivations or bangs," is equally obvious, but even more of a cop-out.

Such motivations/bangs, as you describe, will set traps for such a Game Master. You've presented a dysfunctional situation: GM has a plot (which we will define here as pre-set, planned outcomes, not simply prep + contributions), players build motivations/bangs, and there is no way to communicate about these things, or managing them, at the real-human level.

This is the sucking void of the Impossible Thing Before Breakfast.

One solution which is less of a cop-out is for the players to present the bangs/motivations in clear form, so the GM can incorporate them into his planned scenes (which are planned to the point of "who wins" and so on). But you say "no communication." Oh well, there goes that solution.

--Story Ownership. Who owns the narrative of a game session in a traditional GM > Players game? Are players equal to the Game Master in the creation of plot? More important? Less important? Moot point? Up to the individual game/group, or is there some theoretical backing that says something to the effect of "Story Ownership is the sole domain of the Game Master?"

It's all a matter of Creative Agenda. This is one of the serious issues that Creative Agenda is about. I really want to stress that (for instance) Narrativist play is 100% possible using fairly traditional GM/player definitions. Check out Orkworld and Dust Devils for perfect examples, or if you want to be willing to drift a bit, The Riddle of Steel. (I do not imply that either the game authors or every application of these rules guarantees Narrativism, but boy is it there if that's what you want.) So the phrase "traditional GM > players" does not mean that the game will necessarily pose any difficulty to these desires ... unless by "traditional," you mean, "GM controls all significant outcomes."

Best,
Ron