Skip to main content

Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
TagsGame Engines
(+4)

Levi, I appreciate that distinction at the end between "RPGs are good at creating narratives" and "RPGs are bad at conforming to plot structure." There are ways games encourage certain narratives but the games I've seen that try to get the plot to conform to a particular structure are usually too railroady for my tastes.

For example, I've played 15 sessions of a Blades in the Dark campaign and the narrative is building pretty naturally toward a massive climax very soon. The players have just wanted to live as illegal canal skiff racers who use their clout to advocate for better labor conditions for the Dockers. But trying to rise through the racing ranks while also avoiding the legal entanglements of that passion and also taking direct action against oppression has heaped a mighty pile of trouble on the crew's shoulders. 

It reminds me of Peaky Blinders: Tommy Shelby "just" wants his family to live well but there's always a better quality of life on the horizon, and each new plateau comes with new and unique problems. Tommy's method of overcoming those challenges means he's always sticking his neck out further and further. In the same way, this crew "just wants to live" but the interplay between Stress, Vice, Reputation, Heat, and Entanglement all push the narrative toward that increasingly fraught, difficult climax. The mechanics encourage a certain narrative without mandating a particular plot structure, and I think that's a sign of good design.

(2 edits) (+5)

I was waiting for "railroady" to appear.  :P

Okay, so, personally: 

1. I'm completely happy if a game loads me up with meaningful choices that do not particularly form into any given plot structure.  That's a good design, and Blades is good in that field.  

2. I'm also happy if a game pulls towards a given structure without forcing it (by enticement and having things like moves that all point that way) - it "pulls" instead of "pushing". 

3. And I'm happy if a game demands plot in a way that's deeply, deeply integrated rather than feeling like a tacked-on layer, so that "play the game" is "run the plot", straight up.   Fiasco, for example, IS a plot structure in gameable form, as is The Mountain Witch.  And for references right at hand, so is Atop A Lonely Tower, up there in the "Play" forum.

4. I'm not as happy when one layer of the game says "You're free to do as you like" and the other (or the GM) says "No you bloody aren't", unless I signed up for that exactly ("Want to play adventure module RB4?"). 

(+2)

Agreed all around! I had a tickle in my brain that there was a "run the plot" game or two out there but couldn't remember what they were. Thanks for the reminder! You could also add Tobie Abad's A Single Moment to that list, although you can string that game's scenes together more or less however you like.

I guess it wasn't all that accurate to say "run the plot" games are railroady. I think they can run that risk... but maybe not any more or less than any other system. That is to say: the difference between guided plot and railroad may have more to do with the GM than the system.

(+3)

I would hold up Fiasco as the (rare) example of a game that mechanically creates plot and does so from the improvisation of the players -- and consequently lacks rails. It creates a very reliable story structure without forcing the specific story.