Story Elements in RPGs...

[Barastrondo]

That's a good point on shows like that... I don't really watch them, so I don't know if there is a universal theme to them?

Not really (if you don't count things like Everything Is Terribly Dramatic or The Big Guy Who Is Popular With The Crowd Wins More), but they're about as close as anything to the kind of organic storytelling that is the bailiwick of RPGs. But that's an important thing, I think: RPG storytelling is organic.

I don't think that the threefold model of central characters and viewpoint presenters works very well, either, because there are few RPG groups out there that elect one person to be the decision-maker. To use an obvious example, many groups listen to the fighter (or similar martial character) on matters tactical or military, to the sorcerer on matters arcane, to the priest on matters divine and to the rogue on those cunning streetwise questions. The question of specialization within a party somewhat undercuts the concept that you have a central decision-maker.

The idea of the central guy who represents "humanity" is kind of a strange comparison in an RPG, because all the principals are specifically viewpoint characters. My wife's aasimar paladin is the moral center of the group in my friend's D&D game, but my tiefling warlock is my viewpoint character -- and neither of them, nor the dhampyr assassin, represent ideals as they come together in all of humanity. One represents the ideals of a chosen warrior who has faith in love and strength, another the ideals of a clever spiv who has a good heart but certain ethical flexibilities, and the third the moral code of a guy from a lifetime of hard decisions who still falls back on expediency though he respects the "higher ground" that's still new to him.

To my mind, having a central character who is supposed to be a viewpoint character for an imaginary audience would take a lot of the interest out of these three characters' interactions. Their arguments and decisions reflect them, their singular backgrounds and shared experiences. This probably makes a session's tale rather less relevant to someone outside our gaming group, but it's much more relevant to us.

 

[Scribble]

To my mind, having a central character who is supposed to be a viewpoint character for an imaginary audience would take a lot of the interest out of these three characters' interactions. Their arguments and decisions reflect them, their singular backgrounds and shared experiences. This probably makes a session's tale rather less relevant to someone outside our gaming group, but it's much more relevant to us.

Well, it wouldn't be for an imaginary audience, since in my mind the players and DM serve as sort of audience, and writers combined. So the audience would be the players and GM.

(Keep in mind here I'm just exploring the idea, so I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I want to play devils advocate... I do that a lot. )

 

[The Shaman]

I mean theme in the literary sense; the broad idea, or moral of the story. It exists along side of plot to create the whole of what the story is about.

Okay, well, what I dimly recall from lit classes way back when is that a story may be composed of multiple themes, as opposed to "THE theme," in which case I would say that many, if not most, roleplaying game campaigns already include them. Wealth, for example: to what lengths will someone go to get it, what do they do with it once they have it, how does acquiring wealth change someone, and so on. Or Ambition: how does someone get power, how does he keep it, what does he do with it, what is its effect on the people and environment around him.

In this case, themes emerge as a synergy of the system (particularly in whatever rewards system, express or impled, the game includes), the setting, and the adventurers.

You can make themes explicit for your players, if you're so inclined; I did this without really consciously thinking about it in the game I'm running right now, as part of explaining a genre conceit. In the wiki for my Flashing Blades campaign, I include a page in the players' guide titled, "The BIG Idea." Simply put, The BIG Idea is that swashbucklers are motivated by honor before all else; in literary terms, this might be considered the theme of Pride.

But Pride is only one of the themes, and it is by no means the only theme that emerges in play. Loyalty, Ambition, Social Status, Romance, Revenge: all of these come up in the game, which is no surprise as they are part-and-parcel of the cape-and-sword genre, but they arise out of the action, rather than being introduced explicitly.

For my part, I'm less inclined to try to lay out themes and much more focused on creating a genre-appropriate environment for the adventurers to explore and letting the themes reveal themselves through the choices the players and their characters make in actual play.

 

[Janx]

Well, it wouldn't be for an imaginary audience, since in my mind the players and DM serve as sort of audience, and writers combined. So the audience would be the players and GM.

(Keep in mind here I'm just exploring the idea, so I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I want to play devils advocate... I do that a lot. )

Players are most likely to be self-centered, that is viewing the story from their PC's perspective.

If TNG was really an RPG session, Picard was one player who showed up to a lot of games, and thus got a lot of focus. But Worf never thought the game was about Picard.

 

[Barastrondo]

Well, it wouldn't be for an imaginary audience, since in my mind the players and DM serve as sort of audience, and writers combined. So the audience would be the players and GM.

Sure. I'm not saying we have no audience, but rather that with an audience of four, and three specific viewpoint characters, an "everyman viewpoint character" can be kind of a fifth wheel. Usually when you have one person representing "all of us," it's because you're trying to reach as wide an audience as possible, to say something relevant to all of humanity. But in an RPG, each character can say something relevant to the person playing him or her. Is a broad-strokes everyman necessary?

It's an interesting question because, if I'm reading this right, it argues for the players detaching themselves from their characters and attempting to look at the theme in the context of the average person, rather than from the specific contexts of their characters. I'm not certain there's a lot more to be gained from that. Certainly it would tend to skew more towards deconstruction in many themes.

For instance, take a Conan-like game, where the themes are defined as the innate decadence of civilization and the barbarity of human existence. If you explore those themes from a resident of the civilization you may grow more sympathetic to the viewpoint. But if you view them from the lens of an average modern person, you may start getting deconstructive. How much of "the innate decadence of civilization" and how much is a romanticized view? How does it stack up to the viewpoint of "Things were simpler back in my day," which is often tied to social structures where people with less power had it even worse? Is that admirable?

Deconstruction's a decent approach to stories. However, RPGs are frequently appealing because they're romantic, an opportunity to reconstruct ideas that have already been deconstructed. Making a new take on sword and sorcery that includes more female viewpoints right from the get-go, for instance. What does a swashbuckler look like with gaymers at the table? In cases like this I think personalized viewpoint characters are a lot more applicable than the generic "all of us" -- they cut rather quicker to the point. It's a luxury a TV show trying to reach high ratings can't afford, but we can.

(Keep in mind here I'm just exploring the idea, so I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I want to play devils advocate... I do that a lot. )

Oh, no problem. You have to check out multiple sides to explore something.

 

[Scribble]

Okay, well, what I dimly recall from lit classes way back when is that a story may be composed of multiple themes, as opposed to "THE theme," in which case I would say that many, if not most, roleplaying game campaigns already include them...

Eh... I would argue there is almost always a unifying theme that the other build towards. But I don't want to get into another Picard debate.

Aside from that- do they include them, do you think just by default? The "Organic" mode?

I guess I'm wondering what would happen if people focused on them from the start.

For my part, I'm less inclined to try to lay out themes and much more focused on creating a genre-appropriate environment for the adventurers to explore and letting the themes reveal themselves through the choices the players and their characters make in actual play.

Have you tried the other way?

Sure. I'm not saying we have no audience, but rather that with an audience of four, and three specific viewpoint characters, an "everyman viewpoint character" can be kind of a fifth wheel. Usually when you have one person representing "all of us," it's because you're trying to reach as wide an audience as possible, to say something relevant to all of humanity. But in an RPG, each character can say something relevant to the person playing him or her. Is a broad-strokes everyman necessary?

I don't know about necessary, but I'm curious about what would come of having one though.

I wonder if it would serve to guide the story towards the driving theme, and serve as a sort of, screen upon which the ramifications of the theme show up most clearly... if that makes sense?

It's an interesting question because, if I'm reading this right, it argues for the players detaching themselves from their characters and attempting to look at the theme in the context of the average person, rather than from the specific contexts of their characters. I'm not certain there's a lot more to be gained from that. Certainly it would tend to skew more towards deconstruction in many themes.

Hrmm, that's a good question? Do you think it would? I don't know if I'm arguing that there always be an "average person" but instead just one person carries the main question, while the others serve as exaggerated viewpoints?

Is it much different then the idea of say alignments? If we have a good player, an evil player and a neutral player, the Neutral player would serve sort of the same role wouldn't he?

For instance, take a Conan-like game, where the themes are defined as the innate decadence of civilization and the barbarity of human existence. If you explore those themes from a resident of the civilization you may grow more sympathetic to the viewpoint. But if you view them from the lens of an average modern person, you may start getting deconstructive. How much of "the innate decadence of civilization" and how much is a romanticized view? How does it stack up to the viewpoint of "Things were simpler back in my day," which is often tied to social structures where people with less power had it even worse? Is that admirable?

That's an interesting question- because I think that would depend on the viewpoint of the DM mostly wouldn't it? Since he controls the surroundings and the adventures, and NPCs et al...

 

[Umbran]

If TNG was really an RPG session, Picard was one player who showed up to a lot of games, and thus got a lot of focus. But Worf never thought the game was about Picard.

Agreed. In your typical RPG, each member of the audience has their own viewpoint character, for which they are also the author.

 

[Scribble]

Players are most likely to be self-centered, that is viewing the story from their PC's perspective.

If TNG was really an RPG session, Picard was one player who showed up to a lot of games, and thus got a lot of focus. But Worf never thought the game was about Picard.

Agreed. In your typical RPG, each member of the audience has their own viewpoint character, for which they are also the author.

So moving past Picard and his merry band of space freaks- what are your thoughts on the idea of a central theme in the campaign from the start, with characters being built with an emphasis on exploring this theme? (Whether or not there is a central character.)

I often see Plot as a starting point for campaigns, but I can't remember having seen themes?

What would it do, do you think, if you explored the interaction of characters that were all unified by their connection to the common theme. Each player would build his character's ideals based on how he views said theme, and the DM would be responsible for presenting situations where these traits would interact...

 

[Barastrondo]

I don't know about necessary, but I'm curious about what would come of having one though.

I wonder if it would serve to guide the story towards the driving theme, and serve as a sort of, screen upon which the ramifications of the theme show up most clearly... if that makes sense?

It might, but here's the thing -- if it did, it would guide the story away from the players' choices and interpretations of the them by necessity. It makes the players' selections of characters and activities secondary to some Greater Work, and I think that's usually a mistake where RPGs are concerned. I think it's better gaming to have a theme that the GM stresses by including appropriate opportunities for thematic choices, and then sees how the players and characters react. That'll also teach you something, and I think the responses will be more genuine and heartfelt if the players aren't answering for someone else.

Hrmm, that's a good question? Do you think it would? I don't know if I'm arguing that there always be an "average person" but instead just one person carries the main question, while the others serve as exaggerated viewpoints?

Is that determined at character creation? Or is it mandated by the GM at a given point? Do the players pick who carries the main question at any point?

Is it much different then the idea of say alignments? If we have a good player, an evil player and a neutral player, the Neutral player would serve sort of the same role wouldn't he?

In a broad sense, but do you think it's a good idea to say "we have a good and a neutral character already, you should play an evil character to embody temptation" to a player? To go back to the previous example, all our characters are good, but in very different ways (none of which are formally stamped with an alignment). Imposing these roles is clearly an artificial act on the GM's part, be it alignment-based or anything else where you ask someone to play the role of a questioner based on the abstract idea of "what questions we should ask" instead of the specific "what questions would my character ask".

That's an interesting question- because I think that would depend on the viewpoint of the DM mostly wouldn't it? Since he controls the surroundings and the adventures, and NPCs et al...

I think that's mainly true if the game is running as a dictation: this is the theme, this is what you would be concerned with, this is what your characters need to do. I'm not sure that's a valuable approach.

 

[Scribble]

Good Stuff...

Well- I definitely don't think it would be for everyone, just like things like Adventure Paths and heavy plot based campaigns aren't for everyone.

To me, picking a central theme and building characters around it doesn't seem like it would impinge upon player freedom anymore then setting style would.

IE Darksun doesn't have clerics as a stylistic choice, so players can't make clerics.

In fact sometimes I think giving players a starting point can unleash creativity as they put their own energies towards exploring whatever idea it is...

But like any other campaign, I would advocate the DM thunking down a main theme and demanding players make characters based on it... Just like I wouldn't recommend a DM thunking down the Darksun books and saying make characters, without any input from the players...