Look To Hollywood Blockbusters For Adventure Design Guidance

Let's talk about a valuable lesson game masters can take from The Force Awakens and 2009's Star Trek, both directed by J.J. Abrams. Maybe you've heard of them.

Let's talk about a valuable lesson game masters can take from The Force Awakens and 2009's Star Trek, both directed by J.J. Abrams. Maybe you've heard of them.


Those movies often polarize fans of the respective franchises, but game masters can take some lessons from how Abrams mixes character development into intense action scenes. The technique results in deeper characters without slowing the pace of the films, and I've found that attempting something similar in the games I run often enhances them by making the big moments feel as satisfying as the payoff in a well-crafted blockbuster.

Remember that scene from The Force Awakens where Finn and Rey run for cover as a TIE Fighter strafes the Jakku village? That's a prime example of what I'm talking about. Throughout the frenetic action scene, Finn repeatedly attempts to take Rey's hand, either as a means of protecting her or leading her to safety, but Rey protests each time. The exchange tells us something about both characters, even as explosions and blaster bolts detonate around them.

Something similar happens in Star Trek during the opening sequence. George Kirk shares a heartbreaking moment with his wife as they debate what to name their newborn son, even as George Kirk fights a hopeless space battle to hold off the time-displaced Narada to buy time for his crewmates to abandon ship. Both sequences give us a feel for the characters while simultaneously dazzling us with big-budget action and special effects.

Making an effort to replicate that in a tabletop rpg creates deeper PCs while also keeping the plot moving forward. Reflecting on my own games, I've noticed a tendency to partition action and character development into separate tracks. In the worst cases, I've intentionally injected character scenes into sessions just to pad them out and fill time. That's not always a bad decision, but it runs the risk of derailing the pace of a session by introducing scenes that feel like dead ends. So nowadays I try to hardwire opportunities for character moments directly into the most exciting and consequential scenes.

The simplest, most direct means of accomplishing this to ask the players to reflect on the big moments of a campaign through the eyes of their characters in real time. When a particularly fantastic or dramatic moment unfolds, ask the players what their characters think of this new development. Have the characters encountered something like this before? If a player responds in a way that creates interesting new layers for their character, consider granting an in-game reward such as an inspiration point or a bump in initiative.

Game masters can tie action sequences directly to the backgrounds of the characters. Raise the stakes by putting beloved NPCs or familiars in danger. Introduce magic items or tomes of lore with connections to a character's family or hometown, then give the players a moment to reflect when they finally get their hands on those precious artifacts or lose them forever. When characters have a personal stake in the action, the result of the scene naturally will provide opportunities for character growth.

Character development doesn't have to disappear when initiative is rolled, as recent entries in the Star Wars and Star Trek franchises demonstrate. If you've seen neither of the films mentioned here and have no idea what I'm talking about, I'm sorry this column missed the mark for you. But something tells me that won't be a widespread phenomenon around these parts.

contributed by Fred Love
 

log in or register to remove this ad

MarkB

Legend
Is that really the most direct means of having an action scene yield character development - by asking a player what his/her PC is thinking?

What about the choices the player makes for his/her PC in the scene? These seem more fundamental to RPGing, less epiphenomenal/"meta", and to go to the heart of who the character is.

The problem is that those choices are often dictated more by tactical considerations and characters' game-mechanical capabilities than by their personality. Indeed, players can feel pressured to prioritise those considerations in order not to let down the group. Giving them the opportunity to express their reactions allows them to show concerns that don't show through in their actions, and may let them feel more comfortable to react in-character instead of making the most mechanically optimal choice.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

S

Sunseeker

Guest
That is different than having the villain/heel/npc make the finishing "move", aka Deus Ex Machina such as the Darth Vader scene you reference.

To be fair, this scene could be read both ways. Luke had already interacted with Vader on several occasions before, Vader was aware Luke was his son, Luke claimed there was conflict within Vader about turning Luke over to the Emperor. While the Emperor was torturing Luke, Luke was calling out for his "father" to help him.

So it's not really Deus-Ex-Machina if you read Vader turning on the Emperor as a slowly developing character trait, and a response to Luke's cries for help under the Emperor's torture.
 

pemerton

Legend
To be fair, this scene could be read both ways. Luke had already interacted with Vader on several occasions before, Vader was aware Luke was his son, Luke claimed there was conflict within Vader about turning Luke over to the Emperor. While the Emperor was torturing Luke, Luke was calling out for his "father" to help him.

So it's not really Deus-Ex-Machina if you read Vader turning on the Emperor as a slowly developing character trait, and a response to Luke's cries for help under the Emperor's torture.
I agree with this as an analysis of the story. In RPGing terms, I think it becomes most interesting if it's Luke's player making some sort of action declaration to bring Vader over to Luke's side.

The problem is that those choices are often dictated more by tactical considerations and characters' game-mechanical capabilities than by their personality. Indeed, players can feel pressured to prioritise those considerations in order not to let down the group. Giving them the opportunity to express their reactions allows them to show concerns that don't show through in their actions, and may let them feel more comfortable to react in-character instead of making the most mechanically optimal choice.
I think that if the "mechanically optimal" choice is at odds with the character's character, and the player always makes that choice, then it casts doubt on that really being the character's character, doesn't it?

But many games have mechanics that permit some sort of squaring of this circle - eg in 5e, the Inspiration mechanics seem relevant.
 

S

Sunseeker

Guest
I agree with this as an analysis of the story. In RPGing terms, I think it becomes most interesting if it's Luke's player making some sort of action declaration to bring Vader over to Luke's side.

Well yes, it's always more interesting when NPCs react believably to PCs. But it is similarly more interesting if PCs act believably towards NPCs. The former tends to be fairly easy even with two-dimensional NPCs, the latter is somewhat harder to accomplish, especially in combat where PC actions tend to edge towards "optimal" decisions rather than character-befitting ones.
 

pemerton

Legend
Well yes, it's always more interesting when NPCs react believably to PCs. But it is similarly more interesting if PCs act believably towards NPCs.
I think "believably" can be a bit of a trap if a GM is not careful, though. Is it believable that Vader would redeem himself? Does its believability depend upon the GM coming up with the idea?
 

MrZeddaPiras

[insert something clever]
I'd rather be inspired by good movies. Star Trek was infuriatingly dumb. The Force Awakens boring and derivative.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top