Given the recent disagreements I thought I'd try to collect my own personal gaming theories and talk about what it is I do.  It'll save time, and I've been meaning to do this for awhile now, just to analyze my own thoughts.

First, what I mean by a gaming theory.  I mean a model by which I prepare and run roleplaying games.  This isn't a game design theory so much as a game playing theory, though it will help inform what mechanics would be useful.  I don't paticularly care about gaming trends or the industry or any of that.  Means nothing to me.  All I want is to create 100% awesome games, and I've developed a system that lets me do this.  Nor am I creating some universal field theory of gaming.  I don't intend to describe all gaming everywhere.  

Now let's start with stories.  Stories are nothing but a series of imaginary events.  All RPGs are thus stories, though some might not care about how good of a story that play creates.  Therefore, the structures and techniques that make for a good story can make for a good roleplaying game session.

The first and primary is the structure.  This means that the RPG session will have an introduction, exposition, climax, and coda.  Now every RPG session ever played has those features, as they're really just fancy words for start, beginning, middle, and end.  You don't have to pay any paticular attention to these parts or run them in any paticular way.  In a Story Creating game, though, attention is paid to each of these four parts.

The Introduction is very important, it's what gets the game started.  Games are social events, and a thrilling exciting intro really grabs everyone's attention.  This doesn't have to be a combat, but that's a fine way to go.  Just some kind of conflict, or revelation.  Or even a cut scene or joke.  The idea is to get everyone in character and get their minds on the game world and off cheetos and beer.

Exposition is when the game proper starts rolling.  This is where the conflict is introduced, or scenes are set to let the players deal with the conflict or subplots.  I make it a point to include at least one such scene for each player.  If they aren't involved in the introduction of the main plot, then they can explore one of their subplots.

After that, the characters start to explore the main conflict, whatever that may be for the session.  This could be some combat, investigation, research, or whatever is appropriate.  Then the conflict *must* be addressed to bring the game to a climax.  Once the bad guy's plan is averted, or the foe defeated, or the secret uncovered, whatever - everyone can breathe a sigh of relief.

The Coda of a game is the characters setting up the next game.  They'll describe what their characters are doing next, maybe do a scene or two or some further investigation.  The coda can be quite long, I've had it go over an hour before.  This is the time to wrap things up and set things up for next time.

Now keep in mind, this all has to happen within a single game session.  The start and end are not in the game world, they are in the real world.  It starts when everyone opens their books and ends when everyone picks up their dice.  That is the constraints you have to work in.

There are variations of course.  If a game isn't brought to a climax in one session, then you can turn it into a 'to be continued' episode.  (I think I've dipped from that well a couple too many times of late though )  And sometimes you don't always hit this structure - it's a goal, not a script.  And it's one that I've found to make for some great, memorable games.

That's interesting, mate. My approach is a little bit different. I present a dilemma, and a reason to care.

Things are happening in the game world. The PCs have some reason to care about the things happening. The things happening involve choices; the players get to make or influence the choices, and have a reason to care about the consequences.

It just sort of sprials from there.

In the best campaign I ever ran (going by best player feedback), I also structured it so that each player would have for their character a "season" of four sessions in which events turned on that character's decisions. Doesn't mean they had all the spotlight at that time, just that their decisions were the most important for influencing long-term events - think Londo Mollari in the second season of Babylon 5. His decisions to call in the Shadows to help him, and not to tell anyone about his conversations with Mr Morden, the consequences of those decisions went right through to the end. Doesn't mean he had all the action, just that his decisions were most important at that time.

Unfortunately this meant that the player who had the first season was a bit bored by the last season, but that was just the player. If you use seasons like this, then whichever player's the biggest attention junkie, put them in the middle, not at the beginning or end

Quote from: Nor am I creating some universal field theory of gaming. I don't intend to describe all gaming everywhere.

Good! Cause I wouldn't want to think you would make universal blanket statements when you're describing how you do things..like...uh...wait...what's this?

Quote from: The first and primary is the structure. This means that the RPG session will have an introduction, exposition, climax, and coda. Now every RPG session ever played has those features, as they're really just fancy words for start, beginning, middle, and end.

Really? I mean, really?

I played in plenty of very fun sessions that had no such thing. They didn't even have it across two or three sessions. Was there a "plot?" There was only in the sense that the GM had set up a world and we wondered around in it doing stuff we felt like doing (based loosely on what drove our characters). Unless you count showing up, playing, and leaving as the beginning, middle, and end, they were not present in these sessions.

So I think it's a bit ambitious to say "every RPG session ever played has those features."

Well, Maddman sure is a story-whore who can`t think outside of "Buffy" serials...

QuoteOnce the bad guy's plan is averted, or the foe defeated, or the secret uncovered, whatever - everyone can breathe a sigh of relief.

Failure not an option, I presume?

I'm no story fan, but the sigh-of-relief moment is nothing to discount as automatic success.

"Well, we finally stopped the woodchipper..."
"OH GOD WHERE ARE MY LEGS!?!?!"

They failed, yes. But they're probably glad that's over with.

Quote from: FeanorGood! Cause I wouldn't want to think you would make universal blanket statements when you're describing how you do things..like...uh...wait...what's this?


Really? I mean, really?

I played in plenty of very fun sessions that had no such thing. They didn't even have it across two or three sessions. Was there a "plot?" There was only in the sense that the GM had set up a world and we wondered around in it doing stuff we felt like doing (based loosely on what drove our characters). Unless you count showing up, playing, and leaving as the beginning, middle, and end, they were not present in these sessions.

So I think it's a bit ambitious to say "every RPG session ever played has those features."

I count showing up, playing, and leaving as beginning, middle, and end.  Part of my theory is to make those parts dramatically interesting.  You can certainly (and many do) game without paying them any paticular attention.  I did this myself for many years, starting where we left off last time, continuing the game for however long we had to play, and stopping when we ran out of time, to pick up there next time.  By putting forth an effort to make these parts more dramatically engaging my games have gotten a lot more fun.

QuoteWell, Maddman sure is a story-whore who can`t think outside of "Buffy" serials...

Guilty as charged.  Buffy was one of the biggest influences on how I look at gaming.  It literally took me from thinking about encounters and statblocks to scenes and characters.

QuoteFailure not an option, I presume?

Failure is always an option.  After all, that could make for some great story, couldn't it .  There's been some huge reprecussions of failed die rolls over the last season.

Quote from: MaddmanI count showing up, playing, and leaving as beginning, middle, and end.  Part of my theory is to make those parts dramatically interesting.

How, by offering door prizes for the player who shows up with the best Character Kicker?

This is a bit broad of a definition of story if you count showing up as the beginning of the story of the game. That must mean the ordering of pizza is the building tension towards...what...pepperoni climax?

I'll turn the snark off....there...that's better.

I understand what you're saying, I think (and please correct me if I'm wrong).  That by paying attention to what are traditionally considered literary techniques, such as framing and pacing and so forth, you can make the story created by the play more interesting for your group. Huzzah!

I have no doubt that many, if not most, sessions have a story with a beginning, middle, and end.  But it's not required. It's not necessary for these things to be considered beforehand. Will they make it better? In most cases the answer is yes.  I say "most," because I've actually played in games where it made it worse.

I like your approach, it has some good bits of advice.  I'm sure your players greatly appreciate your hard work and thoughtful effort.  All I'm saying is, you can't get away with saying you're not making a universal gaming thesis, and then make statements that include/cover the whole universe of gaming.

Particularly by broadening your definition of "story" to include "showing up" as "beginning."  IMHO, you're going to define it so broadly as to make it meaningless.  Be brave.  Make a stand.  You're right to say that a story has beginning, middle, and end (I wish my sisters-in-law would learn that!). But realize the next step is where you leap over the edge. Not every session has these things.  So be proud of your work, and realize it applies in specific cases.

I'll climb down off my soap box now...

Quote from: SettembriniFailure not an option, I presume?

It is for me. We've had TPKs doing stuff that sounds similar.

-Marco

Quote from: FeanorI understand what you're saying, I think (and please correct me if I'm wrong).  That by paying attention to what are traditionally considered literary techniques, such as framing and pacing and so forth, you can make the story created by the play more interesting for your group. Huzzah!

Yes, that's pretty accurate

QuoteI have no doubt that many, if not most, sessions have a story with a beginning, middle, and end.  But it's not required. It's not necessary for these things to be considered beforehand. Will they make it better? In most cases the answer is yes.  I say "most," because I've actually played in games where it made it worse.

Really - I'd like to hear about them.  It could give me insight into weaknesses of the technique or warn me of problem areas.  I'm aware that string scene framing can lead to unintentional railroading, and it's something I watch out for.

QuoteI like your approach, it has some good bits of advice.  I'm sure your players greatly appreciate your hard work and thoughtful effort.  All I'm saying is, you can't get away with saying you're not making a universal gaming thesis, and then make statements that include/cover the whole universe of gaming.

Particularly by broadening your definition of "story" to include "showing up" as "beginning."  IMHO, you're going to define it so broadly as to make it meaningless.  Be brave.  Make a stand.  You're right to say that a story has beginning, middle, and end (I wish my sisters-in-law would learn that!). But realize the next step is where you leap over the edge. Not every session has these things.  So be proud of your work, and realize it applies in specific cases.

The broad definitions are needed.  They point out that the games don't exist in some fictional game space, they exist in the real world played out by real people.  The perception of the game relies heavily on the real world constraints placed upon it.  Too many game theories focus on games as a thing in themselves, as if these imaginary events are totally unrelated to the players playing them out.  The way the players see events at the beginning of the game are different than that at the end.

That's why I say they are always there - I do take this to be self evident.  The theory comes in with how you deal with that, how you take those real life constrictions and make them work for you, rather than against you.  Let me describe how I got here.

When I was a teenage lad, I spend lots of time gaming.  Entire summers sweating in a friend's garage, or cramped in a bedroom, playing out imaginary adventures.  It was a grand time, and we didn't pay much attention to dramatic structure.  After all we were gaming almost every day, so if things came to a head tomorrow or a few days away that was fine.

As I grew older, my free time grows shorter.  But I was trying to game the same way, with no attention to dramatic structure.  It was not successful at all.  The games got further and further apart, and when we'd get together no one could really remember where we were or who the villians were or any of that - it had likely been a month or more between sessions.  Just continuing on was no longer working.

So I started experimenting with more dramatic structure.  It works on a couple of levels.  First of all the games are more self contained, like an episode from a TV show.  Sure, there might be a recurring villian or subplot, but the majority of the action is introduced, explored, and resolved all in a single sessions.  There's no 'what were we doing', more like an excitable 'hey, I remember that guy, he was the one that XXXX'.  The other factor was that the games were so much more fun that we ended up gaming more often.  People were willing to make sacrifices to get together and game, it was important to them.  Heck, two of my players were considering moving but insisted they'd rather drive 3 hours than give up the game!

Buffy was a big influence, and what largely gave me the idea, but I'd ran many games like this - D&D was the first actually, then Star Wars, Exalted, and then finally got a group willing to give Buffy a try.  It tends to work better for cinematic, action-filled games.  I've not had as much luck with darker stuff to be honest - both World of Darkness and several All Flesh attempts have fizzled on me.

There's really more to it that what I've written, this is really just the core.  I'll expand on conflicts and social aspects to the game when I get a chance to really collect my thoughts on the subject.

QuoteSo I started experimenting with more dramatic structure. It works on a couple of levels. First of all the games are more self contained, like an episode from a TV show. Sure, there might be a recurring villian or subplot, but the majority of the action is introduced, explored, and resolved all in a single sessions.

Just to show again: This is a huge move away from freedom on the Axis. It works for you, great. But sacrifices were made, big ones even.

I just want to say I'm really enjoying how this thread is working out. Maddman is talking about how his game works, his techniques as a GM, what works for him. That's infinitely more useful than the common "theory" attempts to fit how other people play into various boxes.

Boxes are over-simplistic. People always settle for parameters on many a different scale and axis. Freedom vs Structure is only one tiny one, albeit discussed right now.

Quote from: SettembriniJust to show again: This is a huge move away from freedom on the Axis. It works for you, great. But sacrifices were made, big ones even.

The structure is on the GM's side.  The players are perfectly free to do whatever they like.  I'm not limiting player freedom at all, and honestly I'm not sure why you think I am.

I agree that there are many different components of a game, but if there are axis (implying that emphasizing one thing will always lessen another) I disagree that dramatic structure and player freedom are such an axis.  I would rate my game pretty high on the player freedom scale.

Quote from: MaddmanI agree that there are many different components of a game, but if there are axis (implying that emphasizing one thing will always lessen another) I disagree that dramatic structure and player freedom are such an axis.  I would rate my game pretty high on the player freedom scale.

Very true. Up thread, you commented that you learnt a lot from Buffy (rpg). Could you explain what exactly it is you learnt, and have you applied them to other games/systems.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RVery true. Up thread, you commented that you learnt a lot from Buffy (rpg). Could you explain what exactly it is you learnt, and have you applied them to other games/systems.

Well, first the ideas of dramatic structure are mostly spelled out there.  Not just in the introduction and plot arcs, but in the sense that Buffy does not pretend to be realistic.  The concern 'would this happen in the real world?' never seemed to cross the author's mind.  The concern is 'would this happen on the Buffy TV show?'  

It also brought the relevence of scenes to me.  Previously, with my D&D heavy background I would set up encounters.  Here's a monster, what's around, and its abilities.  Buffy sets up scenes, both in the advice chapter and the sample adventure.  The difference is that the scene is there for the PCs to play out an interesting conflict, rather than an obstacle to overcome.  This distinction led me to focus more on conflict, and the more I did the better the games got.

When I first applied this was during a D&D game, with some new players.  I was still driving plot pretty heavily at that point, but was setting up the games with the start of the structure.  I made an effort to bring each game to a climax, and it went well.  (Until we had a TPK.  Oops)

The next game was a Star Wars game.  I kept the episodic structure, and being Star Wars I decided to start off each session with a quick fight.  This really got everyone into the game and such.  After that I did Exalted with a group, and kept the structure but added scene setting, focusing on the characters doing cool stuff in cool places.  That ended when two of the players moved.

Then we started Buffy, the game that got me on all this stuff in the first place.  I did the same as before, but this time gave a focus on pushing conflict at the characters.  Figuring out what would push their buttons by their character sheets, how the acted in play, and talking to them out of game and putting that in front of them.  I take show, don't tell to heart.  If a player makes a claim about their character I'll make them prove it.  "My guy is honest"?  Okay, here's a situation where you can greatly benefit by lying, what do you do?  Putting these moral dilemmas in is in-genre for Buffy and makes for some good stories.  It's working out well.