Driving NARRATIVE in RPGs, not STORY

[Umbran]

I don't think being reminded is the issue.

Fair enough. In the post I was responding to, it read that way to me.

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.

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.

Now, surely, there are better forms of such mechanics - like Classic Deadlands, where typically the player gets some reward for having the flaw impact play, but then the player typically still has to remember and choose.

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.

Ah. You see, if it isn't my character, I don't see as what I think it should be like is a major consideration. And GM enforcement of PC personality and motivation is sometimes sketchy - that's the general direction of, "You cannot take that action, as you are lawful good!"

 

[Ratskinner]

hmmm....

That's a pretty narrow definition of "narrative", but here's my thoughts.

First, think of what that kind of reflection would look like at the table...presumably one player giving a soliloquy about that guy in line in front of him. Now, that can happen, but usually I think the kind of reflection the OP is talking about takes the form of discussion or argument about the nature of the situation or what the characters should do. To some extent, as [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] has hit upon, this is the kind of thing that alignment serves to highlight. The game-table social problems come about as the all-too-stark limits of the alignment view of the universe runs up against the mechanical need to "enforce" or "reflect" the coherence of character morality or intent with the alignment notation on the character sheet.

Secondly, D&D, as in the rest of the game, is not a good system for this if you want to make such things a big part of your playing agenda. However, there are some mechanics you can manipulate to this end:

• Capes has two mechanics that help encourage this kind of thing. Although it is a heavily Conflict-Resolution game with really really odd GM-less mechanics, so I'm not sure how well you'd translate these to D&D. I've never played another game that promoted this kind of thing better, though.
  • Heroes have Drives that they must use to get their powered abilities to function. So, if you want to use that Fireball, you've got to tell me which of your drives you are using it for.
  • Gameplay generates Inspirations which can later be burned for a bonus, but only when you narrate a connection to the source of the Inspiration. You can also increase the power of unused Inspirations by having a character soliloquize about them as you suggest.
• FATE aspects with FATE points, can be co-opted to do this, but requires some houserule enforcement from the GM. I would think you'd need to narrow their scope to moral/ethical stances and motivations.
• Alignment. No, really, throw out the tic-tac-toe version and instead use a bunch more descriptors of more narrow motivational nature. Come up with some mechanism to reward playing to that alignment (like earning an Action Point), as evidenced by your character's soliloquys.
• Simple XP carrot-and-stick. You get 50*Level XP whenever you monologue about your character's motivation and/or perception of the world. (You might want to cap this at once or twice a session.)

 

[Tonguez]

• Simple XP carrot-and-stick. You get 50*Level XP whenever you monologue about your character's motivation and/or perception of the world. (You might want to cap this at once or twice a session.)

For DnD I'd go with this, ask PCs to pick a motivation, personality trait and NPC "relationship" and then grant XP bonuses whenever these things come into play. Maybe look at Moderns Allegiances too. You could also consider using bonus dice instead of XP bonuses.

 

[Argyle King]

Ah. You see, if it isn't my character, I don't see as what I think it should be like is a major consideration. And GM enforcement of PC personality and motivation is sometimes sketchy - that's the general direction of, "You cannot take that action, as you are lawful good!"

The way I see it -in the games I'm thinking of- if the player is taking a disadvantage and getting points back for it (with which to purchase advantages,) the player is making a conscious decision about something which may impact his character. It's like a social contract between the player and the GM saying "because I'm giving you extra points for this, there may be times when your character's motivation might trump your motivation as a player." If the player doesn't want to have times when that happens, then don't take the trait.

That being said, I do somewhat disagree with the GM just simply saying no. Again -in the games I'm thinking of- there is usually some way for the player to attempt to ignore the disadvantage. This may take the form of a control roll (i.e. roll 3d6; if you roll lower than 9, you can resist the urge.) I also think that -to some extent- this requires more granularity than D&D's alignment system. While I have no problem with D&D alignment as a rough shorthand for the general motivations of a character, if I'm playing a game where character motivation is part of the system, I find that the process works more smoothly if there's a bit more granularity and traits such as honesty, lecherousness, code of honor, and various others are available.

 

[Random Bystander]

Why must people ruin perfectly good games?

 

[Umbran]

It's like a social contract between the player and the GM saying "because I'm giving you extra points for this, there may be times when your character's motivation might trump your motivation as a player." If the player doesn't want to have times when that happens, then don't take the trait.

All true. But the fact that it is justified by the agreed upon rules doesn't mean it is a good dynamic for the table. If he "cheats" he's rewarded, and he's punished if he plays by the rules? Sure, in reality the reward was front-loaded in build points, but it won't feel like that when it comes up in play.

While I have no problem with D&D alignment as a rough shorthand for the general motivations of a character, if I'm playing a game where character motivation is part of the system, I find that the process works more smoothly if there's a bit more granularity and traits such as honesty, lecherousness, code of honor, and various others are available.

I wasn't actually suggesting having mechanical impact for acting against alignment. It was just an example of a known case where the GM took away player choice based on stated personality.

Why must people ruin perfectly good games?

Generally, they don't. There's just multiple ways to play good games, and nobody likes *all* the ways.

 

[Argyle King]

I wasn't actually suggesting having mechanical impact for acting against alignment. It was just an example of a known case where the GM took away player choice based on stated personality.

A viewpoint I understand. It's also something I agree with -to an extent- when it comes to D&D. However, I feel that is because D&D alignments are often too broad and too flexible in their interpretation to base specifics on them. I value them as a brief shorthand for what a character is likely to do. However, there are some weird (and often very arbitrary) things in D&D which decide alignment.

As for punishment... I'm not suggesting that it is punishment per se. That is going to depend on the situation. It's simply a matter of you wanting to go in a direction which is opposed to the narrative (a narrative you agreed upon for your particular character by virtue of taking disadvantages.) D&D does include this sort of thing; paladins fall under it to some extent. Unfortunately, I feel that things are too vaguely defined in a lot of D&D campaigns, and this leads to disagreements concerning what is good and what is evil.

However, if it does feel like punishment in play, then the player shouldn't take the trait. It's not a choice which is forced. Also, it's not a simple process of the DM just saying no; the player does have a chance to act against type, but -in choosing such a trait- the player also accepts the possibility that the character's in-game personality may trump the metagame concerns of the player. That's not a choice imposed by the GM; it is a choice the player chose to place upon his own character.

I'd like to believe such things aren't necessary. However, if I can touch back on D&D, I'll simply say that I remember some of the alignment discussions in the adult thread over on the WoTC forum; back when 3rd Edition was the current edition. There were gamers trying to argue ways in which it might be ok for a paladin to rape orphans -as long as it was for the "greater good." I wish I could say that I was exaggerating or that they were joking.

 

[innerdude]

Wow, some great responses here---I'm going through the last two pages.

I'm definitely in the camp that character backstory makes a difference. A character with a sense of "place" in the game world has a lot more opportunities for "narrative"-inspired play.

Ratskinner, I've never heard of Capes before; those are both interesting mechanics, but I don't know how easy they'd be to put into a D&D game. Inspirations might be easier to implement--I sort of see it as maybe a background element, an NPC from his or her backstory, or even an abstract ideal. The idea being that when the character plays up the inspiration as part of a scene, they get a mechanical bonus. In Savage Worlds (which I'm GM-ing right now), this could be a bennie as a reward, or a temporary static bonus to a particular type of trait check, as "tuning in" to the source of inspiration makes the character more focused, more determined, etc.

I don't know if driving narrative necessarily involves "soliloquizing," though that's certainly a valid way to pursue it. I think Umbran's also right, where the setting / plot / campaign hooks play a big role in this, because in a lot of cases, the stakes for the characters in the game world have to match up to a motivation beyond simply "becoming more uber and gaining phat lewtz." I saw this in a Pathfinder campaign I ran over a year ago; the group became very attached to a set of NPCs, to the point that their motivations in-game changed. Suddenly things they would have done without a second thought became more complicated as they wrestled with the implications.

I'm interested in hearing more, though, about how to manage the GM / player interface in setting up situations where you're trying to drive narrative. I think you have to have players that WANT to drive that narrative, especially because in many cases to sort of reach that narrative space, a GM has to let go of some of the in-game control. In this regard FATE probably provides some opportunities, because it's already assumed that the player does have some narrative control.

 

[chaochou]

Wow, some great responses here---I'm going through the last two pages.

I'm definitely in the camp that character backstory makes a difference. A character with a sense of "place" in the game world has a lot more opportunities for "narrative"-inspired play.

I'll try and chime in with my thoughts on the question.

My experience is that any drive for your defined 'narratavism' play has to come from the players. It doesn't come from GM-ing techniques, or game prep, or relationship maps - all those are enablers. The only driver is player desire to play that game. If it's not there, you're fighting against the tide and you'll lose.

Assuming the players want to explore moral questions, face ethical dilemmas, express judgements about the world through their characters I think there are some product neutral things you can do. Collective world-building is very good. Letting everyone build the entire setting gives everyone that sense of place, and an implicit knowledge about the world, which allows them to be proactive.
Coupled with collective character building it allows everyone to establish straight away their goals, interests, relationships and conflicts.

All that information is vital once you start GM-ing this kind of set-up. Many of the more 'narrativist' games write this in either procedurally (FATE) or as 'How to run this game' (Apocalypse World, Burning Wheel).

In my opinion, the biggest block D&D puts on 'narrativism' is that it assumes that every character's goal is to level up. Fundamentally, D&D is about levelling. In AD&D levelling was the benchmark of 'skilled play'. Skilled play was not portaying a man seeking revenge, and eventually redemption, after he failed to protect his sister from that troll. It was making it to Level 2 - and that hasn't changed much.

If I were inclined to run a 'narrative' expirement with D&D I would make two simple changes.

a) Instead of XP for defeating monsters, disarming traps, looting treasure (see how those dictate to players what constitutes success?) I would have each player write 3 goals - one short term (can be done this session) one medium term (can be done in 3 or 4 sessions) and one long-term (can be done in 10 sessions). I'd give XP for, and only for, working towards and completing goals. Basically, the Burning Wheel advancement system simplified for D&D. Of course, writing goals requires already knowing something of the situation - hence the collective world-building.

b) Change the pass/fail mechanic. Player states intent. GM calls for a roll. Any roll that beats the target by, say, 3 and the player gets what they wanted. Any roll +/-3 and the player gets some of what they wanted but the GM can introduce a complication, dilemma or hard choice. Miss by more than 3 and you fail. So, instead of needing a 13 to grab the woman as she teeters on the balcony you need 10-16, but you might get offered the choice of grabbing the woman but dropping and smashing your potion of invisibility or not grabbing her. Hard choice. Which is worth more to your character right now, in this situation? You've put an ethical dilemma into play from a simple situation and which the character gets to use to help define their character. Over a period of time this allows vivid characterisation. This method comes from Apocalypse World (and so is in DungeonWorld too).

I can only repeat, the players have to want this game. If you've got the kind of players who mistakenly shout 'railroad' the moment you offer them a real decision (The girl or the potion?) then it's the wrong game for that group.

Hope that helps, or at least provokes some new ideas.

 

[Ratskinner]

Wow, some great responses here---I'm going through the last two pages.

I'm definitely in the camp that character backstory makes a difference. A character with a sense of "place" in the game world has a lot more opportunities for "narrative"-inspired play.

That's definitely true. Although, if a group is willing to wait a while, you can start out with just about no background, and eventually your first several adventures become the backstory. FATE has an interesting piece of character gen where the players go through three phases that represent previous entanglements between the PCs. For FATE, this generates an aspect for each phase. Aspects are one of the easiest things to add to D&D.

Ratskinner, I've never heard of Capes before; those are both interesting mechanics, but I don't know how easy they'd be to put into a D&D game. Inspirations might be easier to implement--I sort of see it as maybe a background element, an NPC from his or her backstory, or even an abstract ideal

They are pretty foreign to D&D. I agree that Inspirations would be easier than Drives, although I'm not sure how much they actually would help encourage the OP's definition of "narrative" in D&D. After typing that post, its been rolling around in my head. FWIW, here's how I think I'd try using Inspirations in 4e:

Inspirations
Players get an inspiration each time their character drops in combat, or each time the party fails at a skill challenge. The initial value of that Inspiration is d4, and has a tag associated with either what happened, or what you learned from what happened. So falling against some gnolls might earn you "Keep your shield up! d4". Failing the traditional "get the Duke to help" skill challenge might earn a "the Duke hates acrobats d4".

An inspiration can be spent at any time to add its die value to any roll your character makes or to increase one of your defenses for one scene. To do so, you must describe, in character, how it is that this inspiration is helping you.

Additionally, If you spend time during a scene discussing or talking about an Inspiration in character without using it, you may step up the value of its die (to a maximum d12).

I don't know if driving narrative necessarily involves "soliloquizing," though that's certainly a valid way to pursue it. I think Umbran's also right, where the setting / plot / campaign hooks play a big role in this, because in a lot of cases, the stakes for the characters in the game world have to match up to a motivation beyond simply "becoming more uber and gaining phat lewtz." I saw this in a Pathfinder campaign I ran over a year ago; the group became very attached to a set of NPCs, to the point that their motivations in-game changed. Suddenly things they would have done without a second thought became more complicated as they wrestled with the implications.

That's very true, but this is also why I think D&D isn't a good system for this. Its fundamental structure is all about "becoming more uber and gaining phat lewtz." Even if your campaign is striving mightily against the grave-robbing murder-hobo trope, the fact that it has to strive at all is going to give you grief. Characters with narrative traits (be they aspects or whatever) closer to the murder-hobo thing are going to find them much more useful than those without. So, to fix all that you go back under the hood to rework alignment, then Action points, then XP, maybe classes, back to alignment,...at some point, its just easier to play FATE, or MHRP, or something. D&D cannot be all things to everyone. Whether there is a smaller set of things that constitute "D&D" for its fractured audience is the big experiment of 5e.

I'm interested in hearing more, though, about how to manage the GM / player interface in setting up situations where you're trying to drive narrative. I think you have to have players that WANT to drive that narrative, especially because in many cases to sort of reach that narrative space, a GM has to let go of some of the in-game control. In this regard FATE probably provides some opportunities, because it's already assumed that the player does have some narrative control.

I will ponder this some more. I just wrote and deleted a long section that, in the end, I realized didn't actually respond you concern.