darkbard
Legend
Which of these "modern APs" would you offer as examples of this kind of flexibility? I love to mine adventuresfor ideas but stopped reading APs about halfway through the 4E run exactly because they did not do this!
Compelling Storytelling
Which of these "modern APs" would you offer as examples of this kind of flexibility? I love to mine adventuresfor ideas but stopped reading APs about halfway through the 4E run exactly because they did not do this!
Definitely the two we've chosen for our current campaigns: War of the Burning Sky and Zeitgeist. Jason Bulmahn's upcoming Edge of Eventide seems to heavily implement choice as well, even if you have to choose between roghly pre-generated PC personae. I don't know too much about the Paizo APs though as I've tried to stick to the APs which were reviewd to be both epic and adaptable.
In my opinion, a creative/experienced GM can always change an AP depending on their player's actions, but some discourage too much choice because later adventures wouldn't make much sense (which was what happened to us when we were playing Way of the Wicked... great storyline but certain stuff just *has* to happen no matter what you're doing unless your GM wants to completely re-write certain adventures from scratch).
Neonchameleon
Legend
Alternatively it's a sign that someone knows that they are going to be playing an adventure path that is going to send them to the four corners of the world, and doesn't want to have to fight their character's motivation tooth and nail in order to try to follow the pre-set adventure path. One of my current PCs has some roots in his background in and around $hometown but we are on an adventure path. But we haven't been within 20 miles of $hometown since the second session after he was introduced in the second module.
Getting back on topic fundamentally a good story is based on two things:
- Relationships and conflict
- Transformation
- Choices
Relationships are why we watch. For a story without interesting relationships and tensions see The Phantom Menace. On paper Obi-Wan, Qui-Gonn, and Padme Amidala are all great characters played by very good actors, and Darth Maul is impressive. But there is so little on which Obi-Wan and Qui-Gonn disagree that you wonder why you need two of them, Amidala has her own issues this way and is also a Diplomatic Defender of the Status Quo, and Darth Maul barely interacts with anyone else meaning he has no personality. Compare with the near stock characters from Star Wars and we find that Luke, Leia, Han, and Obi-Wan all come in from different angles, and Vader is sold by the conference room scene where his angle is very different from Grand Moff Tarkin and Admiral Choked. And there's far more of a difference in approach and background between Han and Chewie ("Let the Wookie win") than there is between Obi-Wan and Qui-Gonn. While the two droids merrily bicker.
Now I'm not saying Star Wars is a great story. But I am saying the relationships, and the difference in motivation is what makes it a vastly more interesting story than The Phantom Menace despite a lot of similarities in terms of plot and story structure. I'm also saying that Dungeons and Dragons has nothing to encourage this.
If the characters are the same people at the end of the story as they are at the start either you're deliberately telling a story about the cyclical nature of things (see, for example The Killing Joke where the end panels mirror the opening panels) or you're not telling much of a story. Something on which there is a focus needs to change; Luke at the end of Star Wars is far from Luke at the start of Star Wars and Han's change is only slightly less radical.
In D&D a fighter at the end of an adventure is likely to approach the world in exactly the same way as at the start other than that they've got a sharper and more magical sword, an extra d10 hit points, and an extra +1 to hit from their level; that's not a change in character. (The only RPGs I can think of that are really good at this are Smallville where you explicitly change your values, and Apocalypse World (and hacks) where your playbook/class is your position within the world and if you give it up to do something else you change playbook).
And Choices matter. Possibly the pivotal moment in Star Wars is when Han flies off in the Millennium Falcon. Or something like that. The Joker in The Dark Knight is so compelling in part because he's a magnificent bastard, and in part because again and again he gives everyone else choices (even if his thumb would prevent the hammer coming down when he puts someone else's hand on the trigger). It's only with choices where we see who characters are when the rubber meets the road. What they not just want but are willing to exert themselves for. It's important to note that a choice isn't an intelligence test or puzzle; making Batman choose between the D.A. reforming Gotham and his girlfriend is a genuine choice. Making a choice between saving everyone and letting a stranger die but saving everyone else isn't for Batman although being a villain he says he doesn't have to save is Batman making a huge choice.
Most editions of D&D don't have much in the way of in-combat choices; fighters always do the same thing with the same chances of success. Meaning that their choices are about tactical positioning. If you have to make a choice about which consequences to suffer or whether to expend resources you might need later then that's a choice.
Edit: WoBS and Zeitgeist are the two ENPublishing adventure paths. And they are known to be good ones - but I've seen little evidence Paizo is following RangerWickett's lead.
Last edited:
I think that character is pretty important to story, and relationships are pretty important to characters.
In the fantasy genre one of my favourite films is Hero. Looked at through the lens of RPGing, it illustrates the extent to which external action, and what a character is willing to undergo, can express a character's innner conviction.
I think it is surprisingly easy for a RPG to allow the players to express their PCs' inner convictions through external action. Treat (say) social and combat approaches as equally viable (not more nor less - that turns the question into one of expedience, not value) - then by choosing one or the other, the players express something about their PCs' convictions.
If the PCs spare and ransom/parole their enemies, have those enemies keep their word. That way, the expression of inner conviction by the PCs becomes written into the gameworld.
I don't know if this is viable for adventure paths; but I know it is viable for some modules. Bastion of Broken Souls, as written, is full of injunctions that such-and-such a PC will only engage in combat. When I ran it, I ignore those bits of the text, and allowed the players to choose how to engage the module.
Instead of fighting the exiled god, they befriended him and he aided them. And to open the gate that led to his prison plane, instead of fighting the angel guarding it, one of the PCs persuaded her that the only way for her to truly fulfil her celestial mission was to allow him to kill her, so that the PCs could gain access to the plane of the exiled god and learn his secrets.
Persuading a guardian that to truly fulfil her mission she must relinquish her post, rather than stick to her instructions even if they are leading to ruin, tells us something about both characters. (As would an alternative outcome - say, that the angel can't be persuaded, and insists on upholding her duty even while recognising that justice requires that she fail in that endeavour.) It's something I still remember 10 or so years later.
Fetch quests, on the other hand; and MacGuffin-oriented plots where the opposition and their response is the same whether the PCs are trying to free the princess, collect the artefact or carry a message from NPC A to NPC B; where nothing changes based on the values and convictions the PCs bring to the situation; those are the enemies of story.
In the fantasy genre one of my favourite films is Hero. Looked at through the lens of RPGing, it illustrates the extent to which external action, and what a character is willing to undergo, can express a character's innner conviction.
I think it is surprisingly easy for a RPG to allow the players to express their PCs' inner convictions through external action. Treat (say) social and combat approaches as equally viable (not more nor less - that turns the question into one of expedience, not value) - then by choosing one or the other, the players express something about their PCs' convictions.
If the PCs spare and ransom/parole their enemies, have those enemies keep their word. That way, the expression of inner conviction by the PCs becomes written into the gameworld.
I don't know if this is viable for adventure paths; but I know it is viable for some modules. Bastion of Broken Souls, as written, is full of injunctions that such-and-such a PC will only engage in combat. When I ran it, I ignore those bits of the text, and allowed the players to choose how to engage the module.
Instead of fighting the exiled god, they befriended him and he aided them. And to open the gate that led to his prison plane, instead of fighting the angel guarding it, one of the PCs persuaded her that the only way for her to truly fulfil her celestial mission was to allow him to kill her, so that the PCs could gain access to the plane of the exiled god and learn his secrets.
Persuading a guardian that to truly fulfil her mission she must relinquish her post, rather than stick to her instructions even if they are leading to ruin, tells us something about both characters. (As would an alternative outcome - say, that the angel can't be persuaded, and insists on upholding her duty even while recognising that justice requires that she fail in that endeavour.) It's something I still remember 10 or so years later.
Fetch quests, on the other hand; and MacGuffin-oriented plots where the opposition and their response is the same whether the PCs are trying to free the princess, collect the artefact or carry a message from NPC A to NPC B; where nothing changes based on the values and convictions the PCs bring to the situation; those are the enemies of story.
Ideally, relationships are the core of a story. Everything else is meant to frame and challenge those relationships. The problem with RPG's is that your average player is totally incapable of actually roleplaying. They can react "in character" when prompted, or give a quip using a funny accent, but it's actually a rare thing to have players roleplay with each other in a way that allows character development to take place. It's why the 15th level fighter still acts and sounds the same as when he was 1st level.
To put it another way, compelling storytelling is about character development, and character development can't happen without relationships with other nouns. Take a tv show like Battlestar Galactica (the remake) and notice how characters all have arcs and challenges and actual developments take place outside of the immediate setting plot. Without character development, you have the RP equivalent to a sitcom where everything goes back the way it was after each episode (adventure) and only rarely does something of value actually change (someone gets married in season 5).
To put it another way, compelling storytelling is about character development, and character development can't happen without relationships with other nouns. Take a tv show like Battlestar Galactica (the remake) and notice how characters all have arcs and challenges and actual developments take place outside of the immediate setting plot. Without character development, you have the RP equivalent to a sitcom where everything goes back the way it was after each episode (adventure) and only rarely does something of value actually change (someone gets married in season 5).
Ratskinner
Adventurer
I think that this is a tough question because "compelling" and "story" aren't necessarily in the same boat. That is, you can have plenty of compelling goings-on in the campaign without a spectacular story actually forming. Sci-fi and Fantasy stories are particularly vulnerable to this because they can have a very enticing setting or even premise that the reader is excited to just explore, characters and their development can sometimes take a backseat. Consider the differences between the original Battlestar Galactica and the recent "Darker and Edgier" version. You watch(ed) the old one for the spaceships and the aliens and the laser and the pew-pew, you watch the new one to see how Adama and Roslyn are progressing in their relationship. Of course, some of this is a matter of opinion and context. I'm sure somebody out there thought the whole "starchild" business in the old show was masterful storytelling, and the new one is almost better without the finale. Contextually, the sci-fi audience nowadays may not be as starved for material to consume as they were in the late seventies.
So, we all look at media like Firefly and think "Yeah, I want that in my game." Unfortunately, I don't think there's much you can do to ensure that you have the in your game. That's simply because shows are written by writers and they can take days to spice up the dialogue and keep these compelling conflicts going as long as necessary. Players are not often a) as clever about impromptu dialogue* b) as engaged by the same premises as the viewing public or c) as willing to play another PCs love interest/sidekick/life companion. That doesn't mean that you can't have that kinda thing in your game, but it may be less "compelling" than on screen.
I've had the most success with games/subsystems that drive/reward the players for addressing such conflicts and relationships during play. Fate does it with aspects and the fate-point economy (although the potential there for "compelling story" depends greatly on the aspects chosen.) For d20 games there are things like the Sweet 20 Experience System, and even the (rather weak, IMO) Inspiration system in 5e. I've seen several games (particularly supers games) that have some kind of "Drives" system. I'm sure there are plenty of other systems out there as well. One of the best little nuggets I gleaned was from a game called "Capes", wherein your drives are all framed as "I really want or need to [x], but I can't because [Y]." or something similar. So: "I want to uphold the law and our traditions, but I can't let Baltar win the election." or "I really want to retire and be with my family, but the king would have us all killed." A Fate character with aspects like that will find a good deal of story whirling about them at my table.
Barring the use of such systems (and some people dislike them for various reasons like so-called "metagame" currencies....although if HP aren't a metagame currency I don't know what is...but I digress) you are left with doing it freestyle. Its not impossible, but most games (especially D&D) don't give you any real help. Notice that compelling stories often involve two conflicting interests (Interests tend to fall into three categories: A Value that the character wishes to uphold, or Goal the character wishes to see occur, or a Fear that the character wishes to prevent.) The classic D&D example would be to put a LG character in the position of having to obey an evil lord. You are then putting two of the character's values in conflict. Unfortunately most D&D characters don't come with obvious hooks, and alignment is a fairly slippery beast so even plenty of LG characters would weasel away from that conflict above without noticing it.
Finding or creating those interests is (IME) the hardest part of the deal. I figure your choices are:
a) Before the adventure starts, have a "session 0" wherein you get player input on the world, particularly NPCs and politics. "Okay guys, the Rustbelt Dwarves are scattered about the country as an angry minority, why?"
b) Be patient and set up play so that you can provide them plenty of opportunities to show you their interests.
Once you have those interests, just put them into conflict somehow. Villains that can create these conflicts are particularly memorable. I would even advise against having a "resolution" to the conflict in mind, just have ways to crank up the pressure as you go. Eventually, something snaps and you have your climactic moment. This kind of thing is easier to work in a "sandboxey" type of game. Which (I suspect) is why some people like that style of play so much.
*Probably a good reason why every gaming group I have ever been a part of recycles quotes from the relevant media all. the. time.
Anyway, that's my take on it, I hope it helps.
D'OH BSG ninja'd while writing this.
So, we all look at media like Firefly and think "Yeah, I want that in my game." Unfortunately, I don't think there's much you can do to ensure that you have the in your game. That's simply because shows are written by writers and they can take days to spice up the dialogue and keep these compelling conflicts going as long as necessary. Players are not often a) as clever about impromptu dialogue* b) as engaged by the same premises as the viewing public or c) as willing to play another PCs love interest/sidekick/life companion. That doesn't mean that you can't have that kinda thing in your game, but it may be less "compelling" than on screen.
I've had the most success with games/subsystems that drive/reward the players for addressing such conflicts and relationships during play. Fate does it with aspects and the fate-point economy (although the potential there for "compelling story" depends greatly on the aspects chosen.) For d20 games there are things like the Sweet 20 Experience System, and even the (rather weak, IMO) Inspiration system in 5e. I've seen several games (particularly supers games) that have some kind of "Drives" system. I'm sure there are plenty of other systems out there as well. One of the best little nuggets I gleaned was from a game called "Capes", wherein your drives are all framed as "I really want or need to [x], but I can't because [Y]." or something similar. So: "I want to uphold the law and our traditions, but I can't let Baltar win the election." or "I really want to retire and be with my family, but the king would have us all killed." A Fate character with aspects like that will find a good deal of story whirling about them at my table.
Barring the use of such systems (and some people dislike them for various reasons like so-called "metagame" currencies....although if HP aren't a metagame currency I don't know what is...but I digress) you are left with doing it freestyle. Its not impossible, but most games (especially D&D) don't give you any real help. Notice that compelling stories often involve two conflicting interests (Interests tend to fall into three categories: A Value that the character wishes to uphold, or Goal the character wishes to see occur, or a Fear that the character wishes to prevent.) The classic D&D example would be to put a LG character in the position of having to obey an evil lord. You are then putting two of the character's values in conflict. Unfortunately most D&D characters don't come with obvious hooks, and alignment is a fairly slippery beast so even plenty of LG characters would weasel away from that conflict above without noticing it.
Finding or creating those interests is (IME) the hardest part of the deal. I figure your choices are:
a) Before the adventure starts, have a "session 0" wherein you get player input on the world, particularly NPCs and politics. "Okay guys, the Rustbelt Dwarves are scattered about the country as an angry minority, why?"
b) Be patient and set up play so that you can provide them plenty of opportunities to show you their interests.
Once you have those interests, just put them into conflict somehow. Villains that can create these conflicts are particularly memorable. I would even advise against having a "resolution" to the conflict in mind, just have ways to crank up the pressure as you go. Eventually, something snaps and you have your climactic moment. This kind of thing is easier to work in a "sandboxey" type of game. Which (I suspect) is why some people like that style of play so much.
*Probably a good reason why every gaming group I have ever been a part of recycles quotes from the relevant media all. the. time.
Anyway, that's my take on it, I hope it helps.
D'OH BSG ninja'd while writing this.
Imaculata
Hero
So far my current campaign is probably the best I've ever run. That seems to be mostly due to the strong theme and world building, but also due to the memorable characters that the players have embraced, and how they choose to interact with them.
One of the characters that my players love the most, is their npc crew mate rummy. This guy always gets into hilarious trouble, mostly due to his heavy drinking. But he also has his moments, where he surprises everyone.
During our last session, the party returned from an expedition through a jungle. They were informed that rummy had made a bit of a scene while he was drunk, which had raised emotions high with some of their allies. This was a deliberate misdirection on my part, to prepare the players for a disaster, while the opposite had occurred. As it turned out, rummy had made a loud speech while drunk, that had rallied their allies in support of their greater cause. And in true rummy-style, he didn't remember anything he said, and had swaggered off the side of the docks afterwards.
Comedy can be a great addition to storytelling. It allows the DM to mix up the serious and the dark, with some lighthearted fun. I think a healthy mix of all of that benefits the story, and it helps endear some of the characters to the players.
It also helps if the villains have some depth to them. One of the more exciting scenes that we recently had, was between one of the players and an evil pirate captain called Karagoz, whom they had captured. Karagoz made some compelling arguments that the player kind of had to agree with, despite disproving of the villain's methods. He told the player that the freedom of all pirates would last only as long as the two countries were at war with each other. The letters of Marque passed out by the Marquis, would become void as soon as the kingdom no longer needed the pirates for their war efforts.
I love it when the players find some common ground with the villain, and yet hate him all the same. The players decided that they would not kill Karagoz, but deliver him to a countess (another npc they like) whose arm he had cut off when she was merely a child. They wanted this countess to get her revenge on Karagoz, which is fantastic roleplaying on the part of the players, and makes the story so good.
I have already thought out what the countess wants to do with Karagoz, and what she will say to him. It will be fantastic, and will earn the players a new and powerful ally.
I don't think that's true. In my campaign I set up such conflicts between npc's, and I put the players in a position to be involved with it. I have seen my players come up with inspiring dialogue on the spot, and awesome one-liners. All the DM needs to do, is put the players in the position to be the main character and shine. I will have my npc's turn to the players when they are afraid, or sad, and ask them for advise or comfort. Those are the moments when the players will often surprise you, and those can often turn into fantastic roleplaying moments. As a DM you simply need to put the players in a good position to be awesome.
For example, the players recently attended a funeral of a dear ally of theirs that had died during the battle. I asked my players, "Is there anything your character wants to say at the funeral?"
And yes, yes they did. Of course they want to say something. They knew this npc very well, and of course they want to share some words about him. And that can lead to fantastic speeches, if you have the right group of players.
One of the characters that my players love the most, is their npc crew mate rummy. This guy always gets into hilarious trouble, mostly due to his heavy drinking. But he also has his moments, where he surprises everyone.
During our last session, the party returned from an expedition through a jungle. They were informed that rummy had made a bit of a scene while he was drunk, which had raised emotions high with some of their allies. This was a deliberate misdirection on my part, to prepare the players for a disaster, while the opposite had occurred. As it turned out, rummy had made a loud speech while drunk, that had rallied their allies in support of their greater cause. And in true rummy-style, he didn't remember anything he said, and had swaggered off the side of the docks afterwards.
Comedy can be a great addition to storytelling. It allows the DM to mix up the serious and the dark, with some lighthearted fun. I think a healthy mix of all of that benefits the story, and it helps endear some of the characters to the players.
It also helps if the villains have some depth to them. One of the more exciting scenes that we recently had, was between one of the players and an evil pirate captain called Karagoz, whom they had captured. Karagoz made some compelling arguments that the player kind of had to agree with, despite disproving of the villain's methods. He told the player that the freedom of all pirates would last only as long as the two countries were at war with each other. The letters of Marque passed out by the Marquis, would become void as soon as the kingdom no longer needed the pirates for their war efforts.
I love it when the players find some common ground with the villain, and yet hate him all the same. The players decided that they would not kill Karagoz, but deliver him to a countess (another npc they like) whose arm he had cut off when she was merely a child. They wanted this countess to get her revenge on Karagoz, which is fantastic roleplaying on the part of the players, and makes the story so good.
I have already thought out what the countess wants to do with Karagoz, and what she will say to him. It will be fantastic, and will earn the players a new and powerful ally.
I don't think that's true. In my campaign I set up such conflicts between npc's, and I put the players in a position to be involved with it. I have seen my players come up with inspiring dialogue on the spot, and awesome one-liners. All the DM needs to do, is put the players in the position to be the main character and shine. I will have my npc's turn to the players when they are afraid, or sad, and ask them for advise or comfort. Those are the moments when the players will often surprise you, and those can often turn into fantastic roleplaying moments. As a DM you simply need to put the players in a good position to be awesome.
For example, the players recently attended a funeral of a dear ally of theirs that had died during the battle. I asked my players, "Is there anything your character wants to say at the funeral?"
And yes, yes they did. Of course they want to say something. They knew this npc very well, and of course they want to share some words about him. And that can lead to fantastic speeches, if you have the right group of players.
Last edited:
Campbell
Relaxed Intensity
You can't ever control player behavior, nor really should you. You can incentivize certain behaviors both socially and mechanically. You can offer opportunities for players to act. That sounds exactly what you are doing here. As a GM you have to bring it. It's up to the other players to bring it too. I kind of feel these introspective moments are best when they don't feel forced. Even choosing not to speak at the funeral could tell us something about these characters.
But character development doesn't have to be about roleplaying in any theatrical sense. It's about character motivations, goals etc.
These can be fairly easily put into play, provided that (i) the players provide some hooks, and (ii) the GM manages the framing properly.
I think the bigger obstacles tend to be a sense that player/PC focused "story" is a "sidequest" that should be secondary to the GM's "main plot", which is often set up to be independent of any player/PC hooks. (This is the converse of [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION]'s point about sandboxes.)
EDIT: You're probably not going to get great literature out of RPGing. But presumably that's not the goal. In the same way the pretty crappy music is still enjoyable when you're playing it yourself; or that less than cordon bleu food can be enjoyable when you've prepared it yourself; so I think the same is true of stories and RPGing.
Similar Threads
