Driving NARRATIVE in RPGs, not STORY

[Umbran]

Now, that said... games like the World of Darkness series, Firefly RPG... in fact, most skills-based RPGs are designed to accommodate this type of role-playing.

While systems like FATE do have mechanics for the player manipulating the Narrative, that's really in a different sense than is posited in the OP. I don't think just being "skills based" really makes a difference. The issue at hand is simply asking the question - *why* are you killing things and taking their stuff, and what does that really mean, to a sentient being? Exploring moral, ethical, and personal themes is a lot more about adventure and campaign content than about mechanics.

D&D *COULD* do it... but 30 years of "kill things and take their stuff" has burned itself into the heads of every D&D player.

Here's a really big hint - there are tens to hundreds of thousands of D&D players. Attempting to speak for all of them is just a tad much.

 

[Nagol]

While systems like FATE do have mechanics for the player manipulating the Narrative, that's really in a different sense than is posited in the OP. I don't think just being "skills based" really makes a difference. The issue at hand is simply asking the question - *why* are you killing things and taking their stuff, and what does that really mean, to a sentient being? Exploring moral, ethical, and personal themes is a lot more about adventure and campaign content than about mechanics.



Here's a really big hint - there are tens to hundreds of thousands of D&D players. Attempting to speak for all of them is just a tad much.

There are games other than D&D that descend into the motivations of the characters, or at least present tools for that introspection. Some of them, like FATE, offer the player narrative tools. Others, like CHAMPIONS and Pendragon, don't.

What seems more consistent is the character design offers deeper insight into character motivation with at least a basic mechanic for having those motivations affect character response.

 

[Umbran]

What seems more consistent is the character design offers deeper insight into character motivation with at least a basic mechanic for having those motivations affect character response.

The need for mechanical support for expression of character motivation is, IMHO, frequently overstated.

There are cases where it is relevant, I admit. For example, if you are playing in a game with players and a GM who are big on optimization, such that your character build choices need to be driven by average damage per round if you want to be effective in the party, then yes, it will be difficult to build a D&D character whose mechanical abilities reflect their inner motivations. But, I'm pretty sure that would be the same for pretty much any other system - it isn't specific to D&D, but to the optimization-driven play-style.

Or, if you're not into amateur theater (as in acting!) at the table, then you'll have some problems.

But D&D (at least 3e and 4e) has a wide spread of classes, and not-too-stringent multiclassing capabilities. Pick a personality, and you can build a character whose mechanical abilities are in-line with that personality, no? Is this somehow difficult?

 

[Nagol]

The need for mechanical support for expression of character motivation is, IMHO, frequently overstated.

There are cases where it is relevant, I admit. For example, if you are playing in a game with players and a GM who are big on optimization, such that your character build choices need to be driven by average damage per round if you want to be effective in the party, then yes, it will be difficult to build a D&D character whose mechanical abilities reflect their inner motivations. But, I'm pretty sure that would be the same for pretty much any other system - it isn't specific to D&D, but to the optimization-driven play-style.

Or, if you're not into amateur theater (as in acting!) at the table, then you'll have some problems.

But D&D (at least 3e and 4e) has a wide spread of classes, and not-too-stringent multiclassing capabilities. Pick a personality, and you can build a character whose mechanical abilities are in-line with that personality, no? Is this somehow difficult?

It may not be difficult, but I do see a difference from my player base when I'm running a Hero game compared to Runequest (which has even less personality mechanics than D&D) even when using the same campaign setting and material. In a game with limited or no mechanics, anything done with personality is optional and unprompted. In a system where there is some mechanical support even if it is only the possibility of an Aspect like FATE, there are more cues for the player to consider the personality during creation and then revisit those choices during play.

Can a player group achieve as much with a mechanic-less system? Sure. The mechanics just help keep the players mindful of the motivations and personalities.

 

[Cadence]

If you have characters with real personalities and back stories who are grounded in a campaign containing meaningful relationships and events and present them with difficult decisions which have consequences you provide the opportunity for narrative. Is this possible in D&D? Absolutely. Just don't expect it to happen much if your characters are the usual band of familyless sociopathic home invaders who have no motivation other than wealth and personal power - unless you want to explore the narrative of that of course!

<< wishing for the old XP system here >>

In all of the games I've been in where more than just one or two players tried to "do narrative" (as opposed to story), the DM/GM have tried to push what your saying and to set up the games asking everyone to come up with deep back stories like you mention. The times that have worked best (a few VtM, a few D&D, and one Shadowrun) they've almost all asked for the players to do things outside of session (add something more to your back story, answer a certain question, say what you're trying to do on down time) and have been ready to stock the world with (potentially) long-term NPCs when they worked towards giving the players consequences and goals.

Even in these cases there have always been a few players who just don't seem to "get it" and can't figure out how to go beyond a by-rote stereotype. Is it better to not require everyone to do the "narrative thing" as long as the two groups have fun together and don't mind that the other player is putting more/less effort into certain areas?

 

[Umbran]

Can a player group achieve as much with a mechanic-less system? Sure. The mechanics just help keep the players mindful of the motivations and personalities.

I admit I have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of a player who *wants* to be mindful of motivations and personality in their character, but is so forgetful that they need to be reminded by the mechanic.

Is it better to not require everyone to do the "narrative thing" as long as the two groups have fun together and don't mind that the other player is putting more/less effort into certain areas?

People won't mind others putting more work into an area. What they'll mind is the attention they get from the GM for doing so, and what they get out of doing so. There will be a strong tendency for the game's resulting plot to revolve around the narrative-types, and their themes and motivations will tend to drive the decision processes in game. Simply put, there will be more focus on the narrative players. Now maybe your non-narrative types would not mind this - for example, if they get most of their fun out of the out-of-game social aspects, rolilgn dice and kicking butt, and they really and honestly don't care about whose butt they kick, well, then you're fine.

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.

 

[am181d]

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.

This. In one of the games I'm currently running, I had everyone choose a motivation and some unique background elements that I could use for plot hooks during the game. Certain players put more thought into this than others and came up with more fleshed out, story-rich background elements. Now that the game's started, it's easy for me to introduce focused subplots around those characters and much harder around the others. (This has been a learning experience for me, and next time I start up a similar game, I'll guide the background elements even more to ensure that each player has some really meaty story hooks to follow up on in play.)

 

[amerigoV]

I admit I have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of a player who *wants* to be mindful of motivations and personality in their character, but is so forgetful that they need to be reminded by the mechanic.

That statement is rather extreme. These types of mechanics help guild players to keep their PC personalities on track. I saw this play out last night in my Savage Worlds 50 Fathoms game. In SW, PCs can select Hindrances as part of the character build. One of the PCs has Greedy (minor - so will swabble over treasure - they are nearly pirates after all) and Vengeful (major - is willing to go outside the law to "get even"). A new Beneficator sent the group out to a shipwreck with a another group. This other group eventually tried to kill the PCs and take the booty (Spanish gold). The player/PC was pissed at the Benefactor for "setting them up". The only problem is the Beneficator was the only one that would touch this type of haul.

It was fantastic to watch this player work out how to respond to this. Its a new campaign so the PC personalities are not fully developed/fleshed out. She had a back story with these hindrance incorporated but this was a true challenge on how to respond to a situation that touched on both at the same time. She went back and forth trying to reason between Greed and demand for Vengence. In the end, the Benefactor had used this as a test to see if the PCs were worthy of more opportunities (another player reasoned it out nicely). It set up a nice scene at the end of the session where the goods were exchanged and more opportunity was offered, but the PC got the point across (heck, just watch any Firefly episode and you get the type of exchange that occurred).

The exchange was deep and meaningful and advanced the depth of several PCs' personality. In my experience that was more significant than I have gotten out of systems that did not have some form of Hindrances/Drawback. And I believe the reason is this is in systems like Savage Worlds you are rewarded for making the tough choices that your character would make wheres as that decision tends to be tempered by metagaming in other systems. In essense, I have permission from the system and the other players to fully explore those key personality traits whereas in (say) D&D players tend to make those decisions that are best for the group or the situation.

That does not mean there are not D&D roleplayers that play their PCs to the hilt or Savage Worlds players that do not metagame decisions, but I personally have noticed "the line shifts" to the better when those mechanics are available to the average player. Like anything in life, incentive tends to bear results.

 

[Argyle King]

Maybe I'm the odd man out here, but I find it difficult to have one without the other.

Ideally -for me- story is what happens on the macro level. The story might be that the adventuring group is on a quest to defeat The Dark Lord Murgle, he who mumbles in shadows.

At the same time, narrative is what happens when zoomed in to a smaller level; as if putting a magnifying glass on part of the story. The story might still be that the adventuring group is on a quest to defeat The Dark Lord Murgle, he who mumbles in shadows; simultaneously, the narrative might also be that Sir Tide, Knight Commander of the White Nights of Law & Order SVU, had his wife slain by Lord Murgle, and now he struggles with a personal conflict between the code he is sworn to uphold by lawfully apprehending Lord Murgle and the emotional impulse he feels to slay him on sight.

Personally, I find that D&D can do this well at certain levels. The exact levels are going to vary depending upon edition. However, if I want to get more in depth with both narrative and story, I believe I am better served by games which aren't D&D. I say that because I believe metagame concerns such as level, expected items/wealth by level, XP budgets, and various other things are sometimes at odds with story and narrative concerns. I might think the narratively cool magic item or power is awesome, but, if I'm forced to choose between that and a magic sword which I need to have for my character to be able to function, I -unfortunately- feel compelled to go with the second option. I also find that other games have views on morality and ways to illustrate personality quirks which are far more satisfying and lend themselves far better to story and narrative than the concept of D&D alignment does.

Though, there is also a different meaning to 'narrative play' that I've seen in other discussions, and it involves doing what is "right" considering the normal tropes of the genre. For that particular style, it has been put forward by others that D&D 4E is especially good. I'm not sure that I'm convinced one way or the other, but I would say it (4E) leans more easily toward that than the style that I tend to gravitate toward. Though, that's not meant to suggest I don't enjoy it; I do, it simply has a different focus than I would by default.

 

[Argyle King]

I admit I have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of a player who *wants* to be mindful of motivations and personality in their character, but is so forgetful that they need to be reminded by the mechanic.

I don't think being reminded is the issue. In games where I feel such mechanics are done well, they usually serve as a fair way to balance player motivation against character motivation. I've seen a lot of players make a decision about the personality of their character only to ignore that decision whenever it produces situations they don't like. Character personalities can and do change; the evolution of a character is something which adds to narrative; however, I think it should be something which feels more organic and perhaps like a struggle in some situations rather than being something which is decided on a whim.

For example, let's say I'm playing a character who has a severe case of kleptomania. I also have an overwhelming fondness for diamonds. The party is hired as armed guards to transport the crown jewels of Queen DeBeers from her current home in Oldham to her newly constructed castle in Newburgh. As a player, I might want to ignore my character's personality because it would cause complications in the mission. However, I believe there should be a chance that my character's motivations win out and I end up stealing the jewels.