Compelling Storytelling

[Imaculata]

But regarding roleplay, on the contrary, MMOs have even helped me and my fellow players approach RPing from a different angle. If you ever seriously RPed in a MMO, you'd have soon realized that the engine does not really support your character's actions unless you only want to display awesome clothes and flashy effects.

Having role played the same character for over 10 years in Guild Wars, I know exactly what you mean.

You are dependent on your creativity, wit and the openness of your fellow players to interact with you. Also, because the "real main story" is handled by the engine in a predictable way, you have to focus more on relationships and little details.

Me and my fellow role players did manage to find a way around those limitations, and build our own story within the game. But yes, it takes a lot of creativity and also organization. On a few rare occasions the devs even helped us bring our story to life. Which resulted in a rally for the main villains in the game, turning into a giant slaughter where those enemies suddenly invaded an outpost (something that would normally not be possible).

From a personal perspective, it is from years of abusive GMs. And not just one or two GMs, but many over time. GMs who want to hammer you into their idea of how your character could work and get frustrated when you're not playing the way they think you should. GMs who want to keep you in a box so that they don't have to worry about you doing something that might upset the delicate balance, or just GMs saying "no" when you attempt to try something you think would be cool, unique and interesting. Or the worst of them all: DMs who will take advantage of you going outside your sheet to punish you. To twist what you want to do like they're some kind of demented genie so that they benefit and you do not.

I've experienced the last two with the same DM. A DM who not only does not allow his players to do anything cool/unique/interesting, but will also punish you for doing so. In one case this even resulted in the death of a PC.

"Oh, your character wants to go see a movie with another PC? I'll have none of that bonding nonsense! A random person throws a grenade in your lap during the movie, and you take a gazillion damage. Oh, you are dead now."

And then when it came to one player trying (and nearly succeeding) to murder my PC (because HIS PC was 'offended'), he didn't see any need to put a stop to that.

Yes, this was one DM that had his priorities completely backwards, and so we no longer play with him, or that other player.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I had a discussion with my friend about what makes stories compelling and interesting. His position boiled down to a single principle: relationships. He argued that the stories we enjoy the most are those that are inextricably tied to the relationships among the characters, whether they are former/current paramours, friends, rivals, etc.

Of course, I immediately considered how this applied to GMing tabletop roleplaying, and recalled that many of the most memorable games I've ever run or played had strong relationships among the characters. Some doubt lingers in my mind, though, as to whether relationships among characters are the whole of it, or just a part. I've had fun, too, playing a simple archer in a raid of a goblin lair who had no strong ties to the rest of the party.

So, to a community of storytellers, I ask...what do you think? What is the keystone of a compelling story?

In my experience, the most compelling stories are the ones the players instigate on side treks/adventures of their own making, as opposed to longer, pre-plotted adventures. Adventures of this kind have given me the most fun and best memories, as both a player and GM.

 

[Imaculata]

In my experience, the most compelling stories are the ones the players instigate on side treks/adventures of their own making, as opposed to longer, pre-plotted adventures. Adventures of this kind have given me the most fun and best memories, as both a player and GM.

In my opinion, it's a bit of both. As a DM, I try to set up the occasional conflict. A good example would be in the way I have some characters walk into other plot lines.

For example, I set up a side plot where my players had to help their npc crew member rummy, who had been challenged to a duel to the death by a snobbish nobleman. But this got intertwined with a main quest where the players had to help appoint a new ruler for a city.

Important characters:

Sophie - Love interest to one of the players, and of noble birth. Her father was recently assassinated, and now a new ruler must be appointed for the city.
The Great Ravelli Peletier - Renowned fencing instructor. Has taught many noblemen for many years.
Laura Ter Weel - Rummy's love interest.
Alfredo Poussin - Nobleman who has challenged Rummy to a duel. Wants to marry Laura for her money.
Ling Goda - The mysterious leader of a thieves guild, and part of a previous plot line.



Side plot:

-The players chastise Rummy for getting into this mess in the first place. They learn that it was all over a girl called Laura.
-One of the players tries to teach Rummy how to fence.
-One player learns from their love interest (Sophie), about a sword master in town.
-That player then takes Rummy to be taught by the sword master.
-One player meets with Alfredo Poussin, the nobleman, and tried to persuade him to call the whole thing off. Turns out, the guy is an *sshole. And now they are all firmly behind Rummy.
-One of the players meets with Laura (Rummy's love interest), and learns that her father does not want her to associate with a drunken pirate. He thinks the nobleman is a much better match for his daughter. But she cannot stand the guy.

Main plot:

-The players meet with various nobles, and try to persuade them to choose Sophie (the love interest) as the new ruler of the city.
-The players find out that one of the nobles against this, is of course Alfredo Poussin, who challenged Rummy to a duel. Now they hate him even more!
-The players have to convince a bishop (who is in charge of appointing the new ruler), who happens to hate women and pirates. Now they hate him too, but they figure that it would be in their best interest to find a male candidate that the Bishop will approve of.
-The players discover that one of the noblemen has a wife who constantly influences his decisions. Unknown to them, this is actually Ling Goda, the leader of the thieves guild from a previous plot line, but under a secret identity. They currently still don't know this.
-The players use the opportunity of this formal occasion, to poison the nobleman, so he can't fight in the duel tomorrow.

Plot twist:

-On the day of the duel, the nobleman is unable to fight due to the poison, but he is allowed to appoint a second to fight in his place. He appoints the sword master, who cannot refuse.
-The players cheat to win. But Rummy still earns the respect of Laura's father, for standing up for his daughter, and being willing to risk his life for her. The nobleman is shown for the *sshole he really is, and is publicly humiliated.

So you can see how mixing and matching characters from different plot lines can add a lot of depth to the story. A character from one side plot, could serve a double role in another plot line. In this example, I used a side plot to set up a villain, and then had that villain wander into the main plot as well. And then some actions done by the players in the main plot, end up affecting the outcome of the side plot again.

 

[Ratskinner]

There seem to be two ways this might happen (I'm not sure if you have one, the other, or both in mind).

(1) The player is thinking of doing X, but X doesn't seem to be covered by the rules of the game. <snippage>

(2) The player is thinking of doing X, but the PC sucks at it - "My fighter has CHA 10! My wizard has STR 8!" <snippage>

Sometimes these actions fail. Sometimes the player (or another player) expends resources to turn what would have been a failure into a success. (More signs of investment.)

I see people complain a lot about (2). Rulebooks, too, often take for granted that (say) the bard PC will handle social situations. But to me this smacks of poor framing. Very few combats are designed and presented in such a way that only the fighter has to fight. The opponents engage the whole of the party, even the mage, and the onus falls on the players to use their resources to keep the mage from falling.

Both! I have seen (1) "in the wild", but I don't think it is nearly as common as (2). I do believe that it is generally because people aren't "trained" that way by other games and especially rule-dense rpgs often have a much higher wordcount dealing with combat (for that matter, there are plenty of rpgs that have little-to-no fiddly bits outside of combat). My small sample leads me to think that (2) is more prevalent among experienced gamers* and (1) amongst neophytes, but its a relatively small sample size. (1) can also occur in Old-School games when a corner-case or adventure/dungeon-specific rule isn't clear to the players, but that seems to be a different phenomenon. I do really like how Dungeon World lets you mark XP for failing a roll. That really seemed to open it up a lot for some of my players. Then again, I keep coming back to the idea that if you really want to see it in play, you have to incentivize it.

Social encounters can be designed the same way - not quite literally the same, insofar as they don't involve antagonists moving through space making literal attacks - but the NPCs can speak to the fighter, or commence doing things that go against the fighter's interests, and now the player of the fighter has to make the same choice the player of the mage does in combat - Do I just stand there and look stupid while they walk all over me? Or do I push back, even though - mechanically, and in the fiction - it's not quite what I'm built for?

hmm...I think that depends on two factors. First, the wordcount balance of the game in question. There's a lot to be said for players feeling confident that their action's results stand. Piles of combat rules add certainty, and a lack of OOC rules leads to uncertainty. This is especially true in games that don't make stakes-setting explicit. I've seen it many times where the fighter player in your example responds by starting a fight to make sure (IMO) that he has certainty in his success. It doesn't help that PCs often completely outclass everyone around them in the violence department. Secondly, the investment we've been talking about. Without investment in complex interests and motivations relevant to the gameworld, the PCs really don't have any good reason not to just kill all the talky people. (Especially, IME, players of "practical" or "alien" races like Dwarves or Elves.)

Along those lines, I would note that most combat encounters engage the rather blatant character interest of survival, even for the "mage". I've observed profound changes in "magey" characters' combat behavior (even my own) after they acquire the flight+invisibility combo that removes much of the risk they face in a typical combat. Non-combat encounters rarely seem to engage a similarly universal interests, because failure is more of an option. I suspect that if the player knew that failure in an OOC encounter meant death (or other character loss), you'd see more interest from the fighter. As it is, the fighter's player is more likely to know that the results of the OOC play will, at best, marginally alter the difficulty, sequence, or particulars of subsequent encounters that will come anyway.

*Of particular interest to you might be that I know several players who thought the options provided by 4e's improvisation rules were all strictly inferior to the "pre-programmed" moves already on the sheet. "If the improv rules are so good, why do I have all these powers." Strangely, I've observed a few of these players who would complain of being "strangled" by 4e and pine for the "freedom" of OSR, then play older editions where their fighter literally does nothing other than basic attacks and movements to enable them! People, whaddya gonna do?

 

[pemerton]

There's a lot to be said for players feeling confident that their action's results stand. Piles of combat rules add certainty, and a lack of OOC rules leads to uncertainty.

Agreed. This is why I like systems that allow for mechanical "closure" in actions other than fighting.

At the moment, I'm GMing two 4e games, a MHRP game, a Cortex+ Fantasy hack game, and a BW game. One thing all these systems have in common is robust non-combat resolution (skill challenges; mental and emotional stress, complications; Duel of Wits, "let it ride").

Unsurprisingly (I would say) the 4e games are highest in the fisticuffs, then MHRP. But even the 4e games have crucial moments of non-combat resolution.

Secondly, the investment we've been talking about. Without investment in complex interests and motivations relevant to the gameworld, the PCs really don't have any good reason not to just kill all the talky people.

<snip>

most combat encounters engage the rather blatant character interest of survival, even for the "mage".

<snip>

Non-combat encounters rarely seem to engage a similarly universal interests, because failure is more of an option. I suspect that if the player knew that failure in an OOC encounter meant death (or other character loss), you'd see more interest from the fighter. As it is, the fighter's player is more likely to know that the results of the OOC play will, at best, marginally alter the difficulty, sequence, or particulars of subsequent encounters that will come anyway.

This seems to get to the core of the matter.

If the PCs are nothing more than "id" - survive, kill, grow in power - then the game will reflect that. But there's no good reason why that should be so.

Most RPGers read stories, watch movies, etc where the protagonists are not just "ids" - so they're familiar with the concept.

I think the issues arise from (i) a certain way of presenting the mechanics/structure of the game, and (ii) a certain way of handling the fiction of the game in play.

(i) is partly about how rules are presented, partly about how the GM frames things. For instance, RPG books often talk about PCs "getting stronger", but frequently this completely elides an in-fiction state of affairs (the PC, like Conan, progresses from street-thief to king) and a mechanical state of affairs (the numbers on the PC sheet get bigger). But the connection between these two ways of "getting stronger" is purely contingent. For instance, if the GM steps up the numbers on all the monters, but nothing else changes in the fiction - the PCs are still raiding dungeons looking for MacGuffins for strangers that approached them in a tavern - then in the fiction nothing has really changed at all. The flavour text is not really doing any more work than it does on M:tG cards.

Once the idea of "getting stronger" is given meaning in the fiction, then there is no reason why "getting stronger" - or, more generally, increasing my PC's actual and potential impact on the fiction - can't take on dimensions that include (say) plots, alliances, and caring what others, including NPCs, think of the PC. I've personally seen this emerge in play, among hardened wargame types, without the need to do anything other than make the fiction, and the capacity of the players to impact the fiction via their PCs, clear.

I think elements of classic D&D at least point to this (eg "Lords" who rule castles, etc) and I think 4e is getting at it pretty clearly in the description (in both PHB and DMG) of "tiers of play" - though the published modules don't really follow through.

An obstacle to resolving (i), though, can arise via (ii) - which is about how the GM frames and adjudicates the fiction. If the framing is completely indifferent to the way the players play their PCs - or if the only way the player can actually impact the fiction is eg by trying to pickpocket the king - because the GM is so busy "curating" it to ensure that it unfolds precisely as s/he has envisaged it, then no wonder players retreat to the "id" in their engagement of the gameworld. The GM has removed scope for anything else.

The "pickpocket the king" example is, I think, especially telling. It's not as if RPG players are inherently juvenile. (Some are, but I don't think it's universal.) At least on the fantasy side of things, they seem nearly all to revere LotR, and Gandalf doesn't try and pick Theoden's pocket. Rather, he asks him for - and receives - a gift (of a horse). There is an element of trickery in Gandalf getting Shadowfax as his horse, but it does not have the juvenile, "game disrupting" tone of trying to pick the king's pocket.

If the framing and adjudication of the fiction makes it clear that the players can impact it, including eg by actually befriending NPCs, or successfully dealing with them, receiving gifts from them, etc - and this is all built into action resolution (eg one can easily imagine framing Gandalf, and then the whole Fellowship's, dealings with Theoden as a skill challenge or a Duel of Wits) - then I think that many players will step outside the limits of the "id".

I've observed profound changes in "magey" characters' combat behavior (even my own) after they acquire the flight+invisibility combo that removes much of the risk they face in a typical combat.

Can you elaborate?

EDIT: [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION] - I lost my quote tags in this post, so just letting you know I replied (at excessive length).

 

[Lylandra]

I think elements of classic D&D at least point to this (eg "Lords" who rule castles, etc) and I think 4e is getting at it pretty clearly in the description (in both PHB and DMG) of "tiers of play" - though the published modules don't really follow through.

I think you have identified a good part of the problem. When I saw 4e's "tier play" and all that neat explanation about what tiering and growing stronger AND more impactful means in both the DMG and the PG, I was more than happy. Because the guide books basically tell you to let your PCs grow in the game's world, therefore laying an official basis for non-number based character development.

However, the published modules, while going from heroic tier all the way towards epic, only increased the adversary's strength. And many GMs rely on published modules. How should they then even have a chance to understand what the original developer's intention was, or how real growth in terms of responsibility looks like, if even the official modules take the easy way out?

In my opinion, the 3e modules were even worse... most times you had a dungeon and a (very basic) reason to go there. Back then when I was GMing our epic level Planescape campaign from time to time (we did switch GMs every few adventures), I really had to search hard to find source material I could even remotely harvest (Thanks, "How the Mighty are fallen"!).

 

[Garthanos]

I found that presenting place in society as an design option even early on had an impact on my players. They could be Nobles and Councilors and Justiciars and Ambassadors and Preists and their Bonded Guards (all within various governments/nations and organizations that had some world presense), ie once they were aware that pocket change wasnt really an issue, the motivations became of a different stripe, and this started back in AD&D so it wasnt the game system that had the impact, ofcourse I have only ever used modules as something to extract out of and usually the story is set around player motivations (freeing slaves, uniting their people with the outside world, finding a new master -- the latter: for that I am still an apprentice in Harry Potter style storyline ). I think people with a larger society to be apart of that is part of their own character concept do not have as much id-driven story.

 

[Ratskinner]

This seems to get to the core of the matter.

If the PCs are nothing more than "id" - survive, kill, grow in power - then the game will reflect that. But there's no good reason why that should be so.

Most RPGers read stories, watch movies, etc where the protagonists are not just "ids" - so they're familiar with the concept.

Sure, but plenty of old-timers see "true D&D" as nothing but that. I mean, that's the whole murder-hobo thing, isn't it? "Why do we kill these monsters? To get treasure and XP. Why to we want treasure and XP? To level up so we can kill bigger monsters better."

I think the issues arise from (i) a certain way of presenting the mechanics/structure of the game, and (ii) a certain way of handling the fiction of the game in play.

(i) is partly about how rules are presented, partly about how the GM frames things. For instance, RPG books often talk about PCs "getting stronger", but frequently this completely elides an in-fiction state of affairs (the PC, like Conan, progresses from street-thief to king) and a mechanical state of affairs (the numbers on the PC sheet get bigger). But the connection between these two ways of "getting stronger" is purely contingent. For instance, if the GM steps up the numbers on all the monters, but nothing else changes in the fiction - the PCs are still raiding dungeons looking for MacGuffins for strangers that approached them in a tavern - then in the fiction nothing has really changed at all. The flavour text is not really doing any more work than it does on M:tG cards.

Absolutely. I'd add that I think that the "treadmill" of (especially classic) D&D plays directly against the idea of compelling story in a couple of ways: (a) virtually no mechanical support or detail regarding OOC "story" elements (especially lack of substantive reward mechanisms), (b) romanticization of the Awesome-campaign-that-took-30-levels (Good stories require tension and resolution.) (c) no real mechanical reflection of basic story structure(s) (b) may take on other forms as well, like pride in how long a player sticks with a certain character. There's nothing wrong with that, but the stories that result are more like accidental war stories or sitcoms, not strong fiction. For that matter, almost every table I've played OSR games at penalizes your XP earnings and progress, should you have the audacity to acquire allies.

Once the idea of "getting stronger" is given meaning in the fiction, then there is no reason why "getting stronger" - or, more generally, increasing my PC's actual and potential impact on the fiction - can't take on dimensions that include (say) plots, alliances, and caring what others, including NPCs, think of the PC. I've personally seen this emerge in play, among hardened wargame types, without the need to do anything other than make the fiction, and the capacity of the players to impact the fiction via their PCs, clear.

I think elements of classic D&D at least point to this (eg "Lords" who rule castles, etc) and I think 4e is getting at it pretty clearly in the description (in both PHB and DMG) of "tiers of play" - though the published modules don't really follow through.

I generally don't disagree much. Although I think classic D&D is such a hodge-podge of mechanics and systems that discerning a motivation or design goal is a tenuous affair. Not to mention that some of the mechanics are...*ahem* less successful than others... at achieving what their apparent goal is. (IMO, anyway.) As far as players go: IME, lacking mechanics to encourage or enforce motivations, all you can do is throw down the gauntlet and hope they pick it up.

An obstacle to resolving (i), though, can arise via (ii) - which is about how the GM frames and adjudicates the fiction. If the framing is completely indifferent to the way the players play their PCs - or if the only way the player can actually impact the fiction is eg by trying to pickpocket the king - because the GM is so busy "curating" it to ensure that it unfolds precisely as s/he has envisaged it, then no wonder players retreat to the "id" in their engagement of the gameworld. The GM has removed scope for anything else.

The "pickpocket the king" example is, I think, especially telling. It's not as if RPG players are inherently juvenile. (Some are, but I don't think it's universal.) At least on the fantasy side of things, they seem nearly all to revere LotR, and Gandalf doesn't try and pick Theoden's pocket. Rather, he asks him for - and receives - a gift (of a horse). There is an element of trickery in Gandalf getting Shadowfax as his horse, but it does not have the juvenile, "game disrupting" tone of trying to pick the king's pocket.

I suppose the juvenile nature of TTRPGers would depend on one's opinion of sitting around a table pretending to be elves. I would also note that Merry and Pippin are characters also from the mind of JRR Tolkien, and that RPGers tend to revere many other properties as well including The Princess Bride and Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

If the framing and adjudication of the fiction makes it clear that the players can impact it, including eg by actually befriending NPCs, or successfully dealing with them, receiving gifts from them, etc - and this is all built into action resolution (eg one can easily imagine framing Gandalf, and then the whole Fellowship's, dealings with Theoden as a skill challenge or a Duel of Wits) - then I think that many players will step outside the limits of the "id".

No doubt. However, once the characters are solidly powerful in a personal capacity, it only takes one dissenting Dwarf Fighter or Human Barbarian to derail such progress and get back to the business of proving that the numbers on your sheet are bigger than the numbers on mine.

Can you elaborate?

In a recent AD&D campaign, I had a (half?-)elf wizard/cleric. A wish had granted him the ability to continue leveling in wizard, but he was doomed by the goofy rules to remain badly behind the rest of the party. Once he had access to reliable invisibility and flight...well, many fights went start to finish without much, if any, input from that PC.

That's not the only character I've seen who ends up in that position, rogues can be the same way with an invisibility ring. "See, if I actually attack the Ettin busily clubbing you to death, then I become visible. Best of luck, though! I have every confidence in your ability to fight him off." From my perspective, my character's interests in survival had been removed from most fights. He was perfectly capable of watching them from a safe, invisible, height or corner of the room. For him/me, a combat encounter could usually be viewed in the much the same way that the fighter (in our examples above) viewed a social encounter. "I can safely ignore the details of this as being irrelevant or tangential-at-best to actual progress in the game." I think this was exacerbated by the fact that most of the "heavies in the party were rather....unconcerned by the mysteries we were trying to solve. That left all the "understanding" and "figuring out" to the two or three of the PCs who would.

 

[Brandegoris]

Good NPC's can be very meaningful If the players Love certain NPC's you can gain a lot of emotion from killing one, or imprisoning once etc

 

[Grogg of the North]

Family members can be tricky. They can make excellent opportunities to roleplay for the players. But ... if every adventure turns into "Save Bob's Mother and Father ... again" then the players may begin to resent Bob. Or the Players will turn all of the future PCs into misanthropic orphans to cut off such an avenue of attack. On the other side of the coin, if the villains DON'T go after Bob's dad, then they're purposely avoiding an easy method attack.

So, yea, family members can be tricky.