[Game Design] Will Wright on Story and Game

[RFisher]

I realize it is a little off topic, but this is also an issue when it comes to the mechanical aspects of character design. People complain a lot that 3e requires a huge time investment to create a character. I have found this to be only true when the person creating the character is doing so blindly. Of course it takes forever if all you're doing is flipping through the PHB hoping something catches your eye -- doubly so if you have more than the PHB at your disposal, and triply so if the character is starting at mid or high levels. One can hardly ask the players to have an idea of what kind of adventures they want if they don't have any idea what kind of adventurers they want, and vice versa.

My experience is just the opposite. When I come to 3e with no idea for a character, I simply step through the process making choices by whim. (When whim fails, by dice.) I end up sticking to the core books because nothing's driving me to check out supplements. Boom! Instant character.

When I have an idea, I start carefully considering each of my class options, multiclass options, feat chains, skills, how close to my concept will the rules allow me to get at 1st level, what compromises to my concept do I start with, how can I get enouch feat picks or skill points to get to my concept as quickly as possible, &c. Then I'm tempted to start looking at the supplements to try to find something that will help me get closer to my concept, but it just multiplies number of things I have to consider.

Which starts out fun, but often just ends in frustration & me going back to the "instant character" method. (^_^)

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Yeah. As a player, I have to admit that I appreciate at least relative freedom to have my character do as he or she wishes. I dislike extensive railroading and "epic plots" that my character is not really invested in. I do like there to be plot hooks, especially if they are custom tailored to my character. And I also like there to be an established setting that I can use as a jumping-off point for character creation.

Emphasis mine.

Why isn't your character invested in the plot? First off, most epic plots are rather hard not to have a stake in: unless you're a high-level caster, 'save the world' pretty much includes 'save yourself.' But more importantly, why would you go into a campaign with a character who WOULDN'T get invested in its core story? To me, that's the exact same problem as playing the brooding loner who always wants to have solo adventures or the CN halfling rogue who "plays his alignment" by killing and robbing everything he meets, probably including other PCs. By choosing a character who won't get invested in the plot, you're playing an anti-party or at least anti-fun PC.

I like there to be an established epic plot (or as epic as the game's going to get, which in fantasy supers ought to be pretty darn epic if the campaign's going to run to higher levels) to use as a jumping-off point in character creation. At the very least, I want thematic guidance from the GM.

If the GM says "this is a campaign focused on urban espionage in a city ruled by wizards" then I'll make a character who would either have a reason to want to get involved in that, or, perhaps more likely, a reason circumstances would logically force him to get involved (since I find the latter more compelling).

If the GM says "this is a high fantasy campaign where the PCs will have to defeat the epic evil and/or save the world," I'll create a character either intending to get involved or thrown into that maelstrom.

If the GM says "this is a campaign focused on challenging dungeon crawls," I'll make whatever I want and play old skool tournament module style.

If the GM can't/won't tell me what the core story of his campaign is, I'm probably going to find a different game.

 

[hong]

Yes, it is possible. Although, IMHO, it is ideally a balance. But exploring ground closer to the extremes--whether DM-active/PCs-reactive or PCs-active/DM-reactive--can be fun too. It helps, though, to talk about this before you start. When a DM expecting to be reactive meets players expecting to be reactive, you've got a recipe for frustration.

"What do you do?"
"I dunno. What needs to be done? Where's our quest?"​

Likewise with active DM & active PCs.

"You've each received a summons from the king. He explains how the kingdom needs your unique talents to retrieve the McGuffin of Destiny & save the realm."
"We say 'No, thanks. You're the king. Saving the kingdom is your duty.' Let's steal a ship, & go pirating!"​

RFisher is smart. S-M-A-R-T, as opposed to S-M-R-T even.

My experience is just the opposite. When I come to 3e with no idea for a character, I simply step through the process making choices by whim. (When whim fails, by dice.) I end up sticking to the core books because nothing's driving me to check out supplements. Boom! Instant character.

When I have an idea, I start carefully considering each of my class options, multiclass options, feat chains, skills, how close to my concept will the rules allow me to get at 1st level, what compromises to my concept do I start with, how can I get enouch feat picks or skill points to get to my concept as quickly as possible, &c. Then I'm tempted to start looking at the supplements to try to find something that will help me get closer to my concept, but it just multiplies number of things I have to consider.

Which starts out fun, but often just ends in frustration & me going back to the "instant character" method. (^_^)

... aw mang, and you were on a roll too!

 

[buzz]

If the GM can't/won't tell me what the core story of his campaign is, I'm probably going to find a different game.

Ditto.

My point above, though, was simply that "GM can't/won't tell me" != "player-driven." Ideally, everyone sat down together and decided whether they wanted urban espionage, challenging dungeons, or whatever.

 

[LordVyreth]

Right.

In which case, why would you go to the trouble of separating yourself from your friends, doing all sorts of work, and dealing with all the grief that comes with being 'the DM' when you could just play along side your friends as a fellow player?

For one thing, I already have City of Heroes. How would this game be any different from a typical MMO?

For another, because I actually like DMing? It's the same reason I'm not satisfied in just playing video games and writing design documents for games I'd like to see exist. I want to tell stories, not just imagine them.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Ditto.

My point above, though, was simply that "GM can't/won't tell me" != "player-driven." Ideally, everyone sat down together and decided whether they wanted urban espionage, challenging dungeons, or whatever.

Good point. I'm definitely behind this concept. Give me input at the start of the game. Let me create a character who will be invested in the plot. In fact, I'm not at all averse to getting a group together, talking about what kind of game we'd like to play, and only then deciding who wants to GM that game. Thus avoiding the problem of a GM who's sort of 'meh' on the campaign the group wants to play.

To put it differently, make my input into the plot largely a 'metagame' function, something I lay out beforehand much as I would, say, decide to purchase a Valkyrie Profile game instead of a Wild ARMs game because I am, at the moment, more interested in pseudo-norse fantasy than pseudo-western fantasy. Then, we you as the GM are clear on what the players want, when you've seen who the PCs are, craft a plot, however "railroady," that will take the game to the specified destination in the most entertaining way you can imagine.

 

[Celebrim]

For one thing, I already have City of Heroes. How would this game be any different from a typical MMO?

For another, because I actually like DMing? It's the same reason I'm not satisfied in just playing video games and writing design documents for games I'd like to see exist. I want to tell stories, not just imagine them.

I think you are agreeing with me.

 

[Kestrel]

Ditto.

My point above, though, was simply that "GM can't/won't tell me" != "player-driven." Ideally, everyone sat down together and decided whether they wanted urban espionage, challenging dungeons, or whatever.

Even when I get them to tell me what they want, and I try to provide it, they still just wait for the train to come rolling. I wonder if I have trained them to do that over the years of playing? Or possibly, for all their talk of wanting to drive thier own destiny, they really don't want to. Or I'm not providing the right tools.

I agree with some posters...there's a balance to be found between player driven and gm driven, but I have yet to find it in my own game.

 

[buzz]

Then, we you as the GM are clear on what the players want, when you've seen who the PCs are, craft a plot, however "railroady," that will take the game to the specified destination in the most entertaining way you can imagine.

My only hesitation here is that, despite pre-campaign agreement, it still seems like you're describing the GM as an entertainer who's supposed to provide an experience for the players. Ideally, the GM and the players are entertaining each other, acting and reacting, rather than chugging along to a pre-defined (even if mutually agreed-upon) ending.

 

[buzz]

Even when I get them to tell me what they want, and I try to provide it, they still just wait for the train to come rolling.

I've been in the same boat. Part of it is that some systems for input more than others. Part of it is just getting your players used to having input, i.e., prodding them along. Mike Holmes gave me some good advice w/r/t this over on Story Games, if you're interested.

Then again, I'm sure there are people who prefer to ride the train, which is fine.