Driving NARRATIVE in RPGs, not STORY

[Bedrockgames]

Well, if you're playing a game with real alignments, some of the "problem of evil" is certainly going to show up in game. It won't necessarily be a formal debate, or anything, but the topic and philosophy are gong to be present, regardless, as the GM applies alignment rules.

i think having good and evil characters in a game is very different fom the GZm or players using the game as a platform to explore the problem of evil or other philosophical concepts (or using it as a commentary on the issue). As long as we are drawing things from the real world, there will be traces of all this stuff. I just dont see that as the same as focusing on it (and I dont see there being traces of it, as a strong argument for "therefore we all explore these themes and concepts in a game of D&D".

Real world politics? Well, at the moment I'm running a Classic Deadlands game. While it is not the real world, the game-world political situation matters, seeing as to of the major forces involved are the alternate world's Union and Confederacy, in a state fo semi-cold semi-hot war. It isn't reasonable to expect that I'll really be able to scrub my own take on politics from this, is it? And so when the PCs discuss in-game politics, what, are they really talking about?

i am not a purist, demaning you eradicate all traces of yourself or real world politics in the game. But if I show up to a game and you put me through an adventure that is clearly a commentary on real world politics, with a visible political point of view, I would not be very interested. That is what I am talking about. As an example, I run lots of Counter Terrorism games. That is as political as you can get, but I keep my real world politics out of the game and I dont encourage the players to bring thir politics in either (largely because it is a volitile issue and I dont need converatives and liberals going at each other midgame). Someone could certinly look at one of my sessions and find material for political dscussion of they chose, but the point is we are not consiously mining the game for political subtext and I am not using it as a way to comment on politcs.

 

[Random Bystander]

I reject the implication that the two are somehow mutually exclusive. One activity can serve multiple purposes - "two birds with one stone" and all that.

While that is true, I do not believe a person can aim for two purposes to the same extent. If they come into conflict and cannot both be followed (theoretically speaking), one will take priority over the other. If one or the other is chosen based on which is more interesting that day, I propose that the theoretical subjects' purpose was not either of the activities, but to fulfill some other purpose, such as entertainment; the activities are among the selection, or perhaps the only selection, of methods under consideration.

But I might be completely wrong on the whole thing. Each of us has our own limited perspective, and from our own limited perspective, our actions, thoughts and beliefs generally make sense and are internally consistent with our own experiences. That's one reason why I sometimes post against the flow of a thread, or at an angle to it. Sometimes I've learned I'm wrong, and been better for it; sometimes I gain further confirmation that I'm right, or that I've not been proven wrong by the arguments at hand.

To follow on to your argument, sometimes there's multiple sets of reasons, purposes and methods in play; I alluded to this in the longpost. And sometimes one set is the reason, method or purpose for another. For example, "In gaming the debate, my reason is that it keeps me from becoming too involved, my purpose is to have fun and my method is to remain within the rules outlined." is also a method I've chosen for this debate.

So perhaps, now that I've had a chance to explore my own thoughts as well, my objection, more generally, is to turning "play" into "serious play", due to the vital role "play" has. So objecting to deep philosophy in games turns into something more nuanced.

 

[Janx]

But, sometimes, you don't realize you'll note the lack until it is rather late to fix it. For example, in a Star Wars game I currently play in, we've got three characters who wrote some backstory, with a couple NPCs and such. Those have gotten referenced and used as partial drivers of the game plot. The one person who made the "unconnected loner type" character, who we thought was just there to beat things up in combat, is now starting to feel left out.

Sucks to be him.

I'd say that's a different tangent for how you should deal with the guy who finally reads the memo that everybody else got. His punishment for NOT realizing the purpose of backstory is a lack of attention. No different than a guy who hyper-optimizes on something and then realizes that his one trick pony has a glaring vulnerability.

I have no doubt Umbran will solve it in a diplomatic way that re-involves the player. Given that its as simple as the player revealing his backstory that he'd actually kept hidden...

 

[Janx]

IAs I'm defining it here, a "story" is nothing more than a sequence of chronological events, that when taken together, form a complete arc---a beginning, middle, and end. The players are put into situation X, perform actions Y, and the results of actions Y become a "story," i.e., "We did this, and here's what happened as a result." The "story" grows as each successive bits of action move forward in time.

I would disagree with your core definition of Story. that's a sequence of events. You pitch that to Hollywood for your next film, and you'll be laughed out.

Story is what would make a good story. yeah, that's recursive. Does it make a good book or movie? Or at least entertain the players in a more complex way than playing Chutes & Ladders of moving your pieces around the board.

Railroad Story is when the GM forces a story he wrote onto the players and expects the players to not only play the roles but follow the script.

Boring Sandbox is when the GM executes no story-telling talent and just makes what the PCs do be a sequence of events.

I posit that a Good Story in D&D is when the GM sets up some hooks of his own that appeal to the players or utilizes the hooks built into PC backstory and THEN makes whatever the PCs choose to do be more dramatic and Storyful than if he left it as a bland sequence of events.

This means that when the PC chooses to go to the bank, he doesn't just wait in line for a long time, cash his check, and then go home. Instead, the GM makes the going to the bank scene be interesting by making something dramatic happen. Maybe there's a bank robbery. Maybe the PC witnesses an argument that will have revealed a valuable clue.

This element of making whatever the PCs do be more complicated at times by introducing excitement and drama is what brings the PC into a Story and raises it from being a Sequence of Events.

 

[Janx]

Sure they do. In my experience, though, having the mechanic in place doesn't really discourage the behavior. Some systems are renowned for having flaws one can take in character generation that will give benefits in character build. The player then tries their best to ignore or dodge the effects of the flaws in play. The system is right there, telling them what should happen, but they still ignore the decision when it produces things they don't like.

I like quoting Umbran, because he's smart...

Here's the thing, in the couple of "traits" referenced in the discussion so far (up to page 3) of Klepto, Greedy and Vengeful, those are EXACTLY what Umbran is talking about. They inherently support and feed stereotypical bad PC behavior to justify grabbing all the gold and ganking any NPC that offends. the player isn't making a choice, he's playing his PC the way we see in KoDT and the "traits" he took support him saying "but I'm just playing my character..."

What I saw that was more impressive from the original post about the Greedy/Vengeful PC is that they found a way in-game to pursue the Trait in a non-disruptive way (that is to fit the meta-game behaviors of not screwing the party unity over).

If the PC had just ignored the trait when it conflicted, that would be crappy role-playing. if the PC finds a way to dialog about being "talked out of it" or stealthily pursue his trait without cratering the campaign, that's good thinking.

It's kind of like the stereotype of the dwarf PC who hates elves, and there's an Elf PC in the party (like a KKK member joining the Harlem Globetrotters). It will kill party unity if the 2 PCs go at it with lethal force. Just playing your PC would be used to justify being a problem player. Whereas, finding a way to portray the conflict in a non-harmful way to your fellow players fun could be considered good roleplaying. Perhaps the 2 PCs always bicker, and act distrustful. But eventually, the 2 are in a situation where they HAVE to rely on each other. And perhaps a bit of grudging respece is earned (which would be recognized as character GROWTH).

I'm a big fan of players portraying characters with non-extreme traits, that do cause conflict. But within the scope of a D&D game, the representation of that conflict must not come at the expense of other players fun or group cohesion simply because we're dealing with humans and real feelings.

I think that out of that framework of constraint, is where the player's challenge is to come up with a solution on how to portray his chosen trait in a believable way. If he does so successfully, that's good roleplaying (aka Narrative?). if he ignores his trait, that's bad roleplaying.

Also note, I said non-extreme trait. I get tired of game systems where the player chooses a trait and it's always this hyper-exagerated behavior that ought to be classified as mental illness and frankly would cause me to stay away from anybody with it if I could voluntarily do so (as in the case of an Adventuring Party). We don't need traits that more resemble aberrant behavior like Kleptomania. That does not make for good roleplaying or teamwork, anymore than it makes for good TV (note, reality TV does not make good TV, and they deliberately choose such conflict inducing human defectives).

 

[Umbran]

Sucks to be him.

Her, actually.

I'd say that's a different tangent for how you should deal with the guy who finally reads the memo that everybody else got. His punishment for NOT realizing the purpose of backstory is a lack of attention. No different than a guy who hyper-optimizes on something and then realizes that his one trick pony has a glaring vulnerability.

It is a bit of a tangent, but related enough for some parts of the discussion. But in either case, here's the main thing - "punishment" is not a particularly useful thing here. Punishment means the player doesn't have a good time at the table. And, generally speaking, when one player's having a crappy time, that drags down the whole table. So, I'm not interested in having the player feel punished for a poor choice like that.

I have no doubt Umbran will solve it in a diplomatic way that re-involves the player. Given that its as simple as the player revealing his backstory that he'd actually kept hidden...

Alas, I won't be solving it. I'm not the GM for the game. I am not convinced that it is as simple as all that, either. I mean, it isn't like this is a new player, who doesn't understand how these things work. Yet, the player apparently has a habit of doing such things. I have some surmises about what's going on, but not being the GM, I am not in a position to do anything about it.

 

[Janx]

Alas, I won't be solving it. I'm not the GM for the game. I am not convinced that it is as simple as all that, either. I mean, it isn't like this is a new player, who doesn't understand how these things work. Yet, the player apparently has a habit of doing such things. I have some surmises about what's going on, but not being the GM, I am not in a position to do anything about it.

Well aside from this not being your problem to solve (i.e. not the GM). The player may be experienced, but whatever gaming baggage she has is blocking her from connecting the dots to actually act on it. In effect, she still hasn't gotten the memo. She's going to keep hosing herself.

As an armchair PC psychologist, I would deduce one of the follow to explain her behavior:
she views backstory as a means for the GM to screw her character, and in effect views bad things happening to her relatives as the GM trying to make her do stuff.
she wants no entangling past so she can justify doing whatever she wants (the usual pattern for lone wolf types, who also favor Chaotic Neutral)

Obviously, those are stereotypes. But it's the usual pattern. I've got a friend who would play a Forsaker Monk with Vow of Poverty every time he could. His mentality is to have zero dependency on equipment, so the GM can't take it away or screw with him. You can bet a GM over-played the equipment yankage card on him.

I would think GM trust is the background problem. If the player doesn't trust that the GM is making "bad stuff happen" for a good or entertaining reason, then they'll resist it. Plus, there's the added factor that anybody with sense is going to actively resist bad stuff. So separating bad stuff happening to the PC must be resisted by the PC, but enjoyed as fiction by the player is a requirement for success.

 

[Umbran]

As an armchair PC psychologist, I would deduce one of the follow to explain her behavior:
she views backstory as a means for the GM to screw her character, and in effect views bad things happening to her relatives as the GM trying to make her do stuff.
she wants no entangling past so she can justify doing whatever she wants (the usual pattern for lone wolf types, who also favor Chaotic Neutral)

Yes, those would be classics, because they are common. I think we are working with different drivers in this case, though.

There's a touch of your second item - but instead of it being so she can justify doing what she wants, it is so she doesn't need help with anything. Her form of "strength" seems to be of the form, "other PCs need me, but I don't need the other PCs" - a superiority also common with "lone wolf" types. She is then surprised that, needing nobody, her character makes no connections with the other PCs, so that they don't actually like or trust her PC.

I don't think it is trust of the GM that's an issue here - she is old friends with the GM. I expect that there's a more general cynicism that I've found to be unfortunately common - some folks think it is cool to stay disengaged, so that you can complain about how things are, rather than commit and then have things going wrong be your own darned fault.

 

[innerdude]

I would disagree with your core definition of Story. that's a sequence of events. You pitch that to Hollywood for your next film, and you'll be laughed out.

Story is what would make a good story. yeah, that's recursive. Does it make a good book or movie? Or at least entertain the players in a more complex way than playing Chutes & Ladders of moving your pieces around the board.

Railroad Story is when the GM forces a story he wrote onto the players and expects the players to not only play the roles but follow the script.

Boring Sandbox is when the GM executes no story-telling talent and just makes what the PCs do be a sequence of events.

I posit that a Good Story in D&D is when the GM sets up some hooks of his own that appeal to the players or utilizes the hooks built into PC backstory and THEN makes whatever the PCs choose to do be more dramatic and Storyful than if he left it as a bland sequence of events.

This means that when the PC chooses to go to the bank, he doesn't just wait in line for a long time, cash his check, and then go home. Instead, the GM makes the going to the bank scene be interesting by making something dramatic happen. Maybe there's a bank robbery. Maybe the PC witnesses an argument that will have revealed a valuable clue.

This element of making whatever the PCs do be more complicated at times by introducing excitement and drama is what brings the PC into a Story and raises it from being a Sequence of Events.

I don't completely disagree with you here--there's definitely certain sequences of events that lend themselves to more "human interest" than others. I think what I'm getting at is that any story only has meaning to us in the real world when framed in and evaluated in terms of ethics and morals. Otherwise, every story is either, "Yeah, cool story!" or "Meh, boring." We tell stories because we want to evoke agreement or argument; we want to elicit sympathetic nods of "Yes, that was very bad!" or "Wow, that showed me something about my own life."

I think I bring it up here because I think RPGs become a more potentially powerful medium when these "narrative" elements enter into the equation.

Does every group want this to happen? Not remotely. "Beer and Pretzels" groups are just looking for an excuse to hang out, roll some dice, and get some enjoyment out of overcoming challenges.

But I know for me, all of the best RPG experiences I've ever had were able to tap in to this sort of narrative-telling, to create situations and opportunities for characters (and their players) to make choices that caused them to pause and think, even for just a second, about what the real implications of that choice were.

 

[innerdude]

While that is true, I do not believe a person can aim for two purposes to the same extent. If they come into conflict and cannot both be followed (theoretically speaking), one will take priority over the other. If one or the other is chosen based on which is more interesting that day, I propose that the theoretical subjects' purpose was not either of the activities, but to fulfill some other purpose, such as entertainment; the activities are among the selection, or perhaps the only selection, of methods under consideration.

But I might be completely wrong on the whole thing. Each of us has our own limited perspective, and from our own limited perspective, our actions, thoughts and beliefs generally make sense and are internally consistent with our own experiences. That's one reason why I sometimes post against the flow of a thread, or at an angle to it. Sometimes I've learned I'm wrong, and been better for it; sometimes I gain further confirmation that I'm right, or that I've not been proven wrong by the arguments at hand.

To follow on to your argument, sometimes there's multiple sets of reasons, purposes and methods in play; I alluded to this in the longpost. And sometimes one set is the reason, method or purpose for another. For example, "In gaming the debate, my reason is that it keeps me from becoming too involved, my purpose is to have fun and my method is to remain within the rules outlined." is also a method I've chosen for this debate.

So perhaps, now that I've had a chance to explore my own thoughts as well, my objection, more generally, is to turning "play" into "serious play", due to the vital role "play" has. So objecting to deep philosophy in games turns into something more nuanced.

Hmmm, this is interesting too. I don't know how far down the "serious play" end of the spectrum one needs to go to evoke more "narrative" elements as I've defined them. Having been involved in theater and improv in the past, I've done several "character building" exercises with directors where the whole point was to take the participants into an area of emotional pain, because the director thought it would build some "fertile ground" for creating better characters on stage. Frankly, I was annoyed and angry any time this happened, because it always felt manipulative. I would never want to use force on a player / character that insisted that specific "narrative themes" were required.

I think, though, that getting characters connected to the game world, to people in the world, is a way of getting characters to do some mild "emotional synthesis." This requires, however, trust between the GM and players in such a way that character actions have real consequences in the game world without swinging too far into either the "psychopath" or "listless, boring character" spectrum.