[Game Design] Will Wright on Story and Game

[Kestrel]

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.

Read the advice, and I think it would work pretty well for the player/GMs, the others would wonder why they aren't rolling initiative. I've got a pretty mixed group. For now, I've tried to channel plot discussion and player input to a forums that we have set up, but its been slow going.

That's one thing Ive noticed with a lot of the indie games (we've been trying them, Universalis was this past Sunday)...they really appeal to the GM types, but some players just want to kill things and roll dice. (I waffle between the two myself as a player)

 

[pemerton]

A very interesting thread about the connections between GMing, player expectations, and resulting play experience. Some thoughts in response:

Some people - and in this I would include at least 50% of all RPG players I've known and easily 90% of all people in general - are just looking to go along for the ride, TO BE ENTERTAINED. When they play and RPG they may want to contribute their character, or they may want to hang out with friends, but they don't come to tell a story. They come to experience one. I see nothing wrong with the experience these people are seeking, and am usually one of them.

For these sort of players, a well-developed campaign world seems to be a necessity.

The proper way of correlating the campaign to the players depends crucially on what everyone at the table wants. To wit,

Give me the DMs setting and let me use the races, cultures, history etc to give me a sense of an existing world and then let the DM and I work together to ensure I develop a background that grounds the character into the setting.

<snip>

However, the players should not be surprised if ignoring certain hooks has consequences as the world does not stop just because they choose not to get involved. Not getting involved in certain events may mean that the plans of the BBEG (if there is one) continue and possibly reach fruition. Not getting involved may mean large scale changes to regional trade, politics, etc. Non-involvement may mean that other heroes may thwart the BBEG and, it is their names, that the PCs here in small talk and tavern tales with the events become news of things going on in the world around the PCs.

This can be the case, but it doesn't have to be. If the agreed aim of both GM and players is to produce some sort of thematic payoff for all involved, and if the campaign elements the GM has come up with are intended to contribute to that, then presumably when the players ignore one such element ("hook"), they are in the meantime pursuing some other one or more of those elements that resonate with them at present. In such circumstances, it seems quite reasonable for the GM to put the ignored elements "on hold" until the time is right for the players to be confronted with them. After all, why squander the opportunity for the payoff that those elements were intended to deliver.

See, it would strike me that this is a breakdown of Wright's system: when someone just plays the game because it's there, not because they want to frolick around in a fictional world. Someone who asks that doesn't really want to go on the quest (or they'd be LOOKING for what to do), they're just along for the ride, it would seem.

There is a big difference between a player who wants "to frolick around in a fictional world", and a player who wants to engage with the campaign elements in order to experience some sort of dramatic or thematic payoff. For the latter player, simply being asked "what do you do" may not work, if no material has been handed to them (by the GM, in the typical game) to work with.

Again, what counts as good GMing and good campaing management depends on what everyone is looking for in play.

There is a reason that there is one DM and many players. The problem with giving the players more story control than they already have - and they already have alot - is that no two players are necessarily going to agree over what the story should be. Only one player can really have the veto. Only one player of the game can really have full creative control. At the very least, someone has to break the ties.

<snip>

But my experience with PC's that take the active role is that they generally don't make very good choices. For example, stealing a ship and going pirating is a fine choice for generating adventures, but since they are more or less declaring thier intention to take on the whole world single handedly, it might not be the best choice for generating sustained campaigns especially if the players plans turn out to be not the most well thought out. When players do that, its almost like they are insisting I allow them to succeed at anything no matter what they choose to do.

Are we talking here about the players success, or their PCs'? If the aim of the players is to take part in a story that yields dramatic/thematic payoff, then the aim should be for them to succeed in that goal. Otherwise, why both playing? Whether this payoff depends upon their PCs succeeding is a different matter. Maybe one player's goal is to become a great pirate, another wants to play out a tragedy. The GM's role is to try and integrate these narrative goals into a coherent game session.

There are systems that do this better, primarily by shifting narrative control to the players via actual mechanical reinforcement. The cost of this is a great deal of deprotagonization; if you control the world to some extent, you're LESS in tune with your character-as-avatar. Either in spite or because of this, I've enjoyed some of those games.

However, D&D doesn't do this by the book and if I sign on to a D&D game and find it's a complete sandbox in which I'm supposed to user-create my content, I'll walk away and GM a game of my own. If I'm going to sandbox, I may as well create a sand castle others can play with.

In D&D, the main way that players can assert narrative control is via character development - hence the signficance of discussions of backstory, etc. Once the game gets going, the players have little mechanical control over the campaign's evolution. But if the GM responds to those backstories in establishing the in-game situation, it need not be a sand castle created by the GM alone. It may be one that the players have contributed to, as the sand castle that they see as contributing to their dramatic/thematic goals.

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.

There is a difference between the players telling the GM what sort of story they want told to them, and the players telling the GM (either expressly, or via backstory etc) what sort of dramatic/thematic payoff they want to help generate in play. Either of these approaches to play can begin with the players talking to the GM, establishing character backstories, etc; but if the group isn't clear on which sort of play experience is desired, it may all end in tears as different participants find their expectations thwarted.

I don't think any of the really good story-focused play I've ever experienced has been as a result of, "Okay, you're in a big sandbox. Go nuts." Being given free-reign in a vast simulation isn't story-gaming. It's aimless wandering that can possibly result in fun, but isn't guaranteed to.

It's not an issue of it either being the DM's story or the players' story. It's the group's story. And if everyone truly has input, at the end of the night, no matter where you started out, you should come away from the table thinking, "Wow, I had no idea we were going to end up there." The key is simply that you all know where it is you're starting out.

Agreed. This is a good description of what is involved in setting up a situation which the players will then resolve in game - something quite different from the GM dictating the solution with the players just along for the experience.

What I'd add is that, in different circumstances, "where we start out" may be a particular situation, or a setting, or some other element of the campaign world. The balance between what the GM provides as the common demoninator, and what the players provide as their contribution, may be different for different groups looking for different sorts of play. D&D mechanics don't actively support this sort of activity, but they don't completely dictate which campaign elements be given priority.

 

[Reynard]

That's one thing Ive noticed with a lot of the indie games ...they really appeal to the GM types, but some players just want to kill things and roll dice.

I think this is because most designers, indie or otherwise, are frustrated GMs. I know that's the case with myself.

 

[buzz]

I think this is because most designers, indie or otherwise, are frustrated GMs. I know that's the case with myself.

Frustrated how?

 

[I'm A Banana]

There is a big difference between a player who wants "to frolick around in a fictional world", and a player who wants to engage with the campaign elements in order to experience some sort of dramatic or thematic payoff. For the latter player, simply being asked "what do you do" may not work, if no material has been handed to them (by the GM, in the typical game) to work with.

What I'm saying (and what Will Wright seems to be saying) is that the players who want a big dramatic or thematic payoff will work for that end if you give them a fictional world in which that can happen.

If I, as a DM, identify your need and cater to it by giving you villains and plots to foil, I've done my job as a reactive game engine: I've seen what you want to do, and I've responded to it, giving you what you want.

But I didn't have it in place before, so I'm not leading you by the nose in this plot. I'm making you work for it, making you tell me what you want. And because of that, I can change as you change: if you decide some villain is your great nemesis, I don't have to MAKE that villain you nemesis. If you decide some plot is worth pursuing, I don't have to worry about motivating your character to pursue the plot. I don't have to say "make a character with interests X, Y, and Z," I don't have to limit you in that fashion.

Rather than go along for the ride, you can play the game, giving you a true agency over what your character does, rather than just giving you a limited sphere of possible action that is permissible.

 

[Celebrim]

What I'm saying (and what Will Wright seems to be saying) is that the players who want a big dramatic or thematic payoff will work for that end if you give them a fictional world in which that can happen.

If I, as a DM, identify your need and cater to it by giving you villains and plots to foil, I've done my job as a reactive game engine: I've seen what you want to do, and I've responded to it, giving you what you want.

But I didn't have it in place before, so I'm not leading you by the nose in this plot. I'm making you work for it, making you tell me what you want. And because of that, I can change as you change: if you decide some villain is your great nemesis, I don't have to MAKE that villain you nemesis. If you decide some plot is worth pursuing, I don't have to worry about motivating your character to pursue the plot. I don't have to say "make a character with interests X, Y, and Z," I don't have to limit you in that fashion.

Rather than go along for the ride, you can play the game, giving you a true agency over what your character does, rather than just giving you a limited sphere of possible action that is permissible.

And what I'm saying is that allowing a player to script the rails that his train runs on is no more interesting than a DM scripting the rails that a train runs on. In the later case, the players end up wondering why they are their since nothing that they do can change the predetermined outcome, and in the former case the DM (and maybe even the other players) wonder why they are there since some player no matter how he steers the wheel is allowed to get where he's going anyway.

The default assumption of any D&D setting I'm aware of is if you work for it, a big thematic or dramatic payoff is available. It's not like adding that as a possibility adds anything new.

Likewise, its a pretty bizarre DM that needs to identify a players needs for a players to have villains and plots to foil. I thought we all already did that. It's not like I've ever once been in the middle of DMing and thought to myself, "You know, these players seem to have a need to face down villains and foil thier diabolical plots. Perhaps I should add villains and diabolical plots to my game setting, since they didn't exist thier before." I mean, seriously, do I need to be a "reactive game engine" in order to have a setting with villains and diabolical schemes? And why the heck would I want to be a "reactive game engine" in the first place? I'm not a computer. I'm another person setting down to the table who wants to be entertained by the game, and as I've expressed before, I believe being the game master gives one a reasonable expectation of game ownership since of all the players playing the game, the game master by far invested the most time and effort in its preperation.

As for motivating a character, I once started a campaign in which I'd allowed players to create characters. Once I started playing I realized that all of them had created radical introverts that had no internal motivation to actually go out and have adventures, and whose personal preferences gave them no reason to actually associate with each other (and actually reasons to actively dislike each other). Do not assume that if you give players the choice of what to do that they'll necessarily choose to do anything that is even interesting to the player himself, much less interesting to the DM. I don't know how many times a player has created a character that requires me to bludgeon that character into doing anything at all. Quite often, a player has no really good idea what he wants to happen, or else has a good idea only of an end goal but no idea whatsoever how to get there. Not pulling players along with a hook has some serious drawbacks to it as well, and not pulling players along with a hook does not necessarily gaurantee that the players will have a good time.

Most of all, no game does not have restrictions on player action. It's the restrictions on player action that make a game interesting and meanful. If players could actually do anything, then thier wouldn't be a game. It's a game because the players have to make choices within the limited sphere of possible action that is permitted. That means that players can't just walk through walls just because they want to (unless that ability gets explicitly added to thier list of permissable actions), or can't instantly arrive hundreds of miles away (unless that ability gets explicitly added to thier list of permissable actions), and so forth. It also means that a character who has an end goal state in mind, "I want to be the most feared pirate lord in the nine seas!", must get thier one step at a time and if they take thier first step as, "I go down to the naval yards and steal the biggest man-o'-war in the port." they are likely to have very short careers if they insist on that course of action.

There are additional restrictions that we must take into account in practice. The story being told is by necessity an ensemble one. The players don't have to be all on the screen at the same time all the time, but it helps if they are all on the screen at the same time a goodly portion of the time. The game world cannot be painted at infinite speed by even the most creative and extemporaneously talented DM without something being sacrificed. This 'game engine' you are talking about is a talented one, but its still only human. Player choice has to be constrained by what the DM can manage to create. About this time some player will pop in about how they had this one session that was completely unscipted and it was the best session that they ever had, but in 20+ years of gaming with multiple DM's I can tell you that sessions like that are the exception rather than the norm. For every completely unscripted session or event that goes really well, 5 or 10 or 20 end up being various degrees of disaster that lead to player deaths, TPK's, or just plain boredom. All the best times I've ever had as a player were in sessions where the DM had heavily invested in perparation because thier is a certain depth and interconnectivity and mystery and surprise that only comes with that, and if all of your sessions that you enjoyed were completely spontaneous I'm inclined to think that its because you've had alot of boring campaigns and something 'wierd' was needed to shake them up (I know I've been there, "My character goes over and pulls down the villages sacred statue...").

What I find particularly interesting about this is that Will Wright games don't actually have big dramatic payoffs. In fact, the average Will Wright game features artificial awards (say monuments in Sim City) just to demarcate that you've actually made some progress. Otherwise they are just one small incremental change after the other which have no goals except for arbitrary ones that the player may (or may not) set for themselves. But I've never once had dramatic payoffs from one the way I've had from games that had a better blend of scripting and player choice - like say Half-Life, Grim Fandango, Homeworld, Fallout, Planescape: Torment, etc.

 

[buzz]

Likewise, its a pretty bizarre DM that needs to identify a players needs for a players to have villains and plots to foil.

I thought KM meant identifying what kinds of villains and plots the players want to foil. I didn't think he meant identifying that they want to face challenges at all, which seems equivalent to identifying whether they want to roleplay, period.

As for motivating a character, I once started a campaign in which I'd allowed players to create characters.

You don't normally allow players to create characters?

Once I started playing I realized that all of them had created radical introverts that had no internal motivation to actually go out and have adventures, and whose personal preferences gave them no reason to actually associate with each other (and actually reasons to actively dislike each other).

This seems a natural outcome of sending players off to make PCs in isolation from each other with no idea what the campaign is going to be about. I don't think it really speaks to the issue of player input. I've played campaigns using published modules where this was just as disastrous.

To be clear here, is anyone really advocating games where everyone comes to the table totally cold, starting from zero, and not having talked at all about what kind of game the group wants to play? And the GM provides no other input than, "Okay, go do something"? I'm not sure this is what Will was talking about, nor what KM is talking about.

 

[pemerton]

To be clear here, is anyone really advocating games where everyone comes to the table totally cold, starting from zero, and not having talked at all about what kind of game the group wants to play? And the GM provides no other input than, "Okay, go do something"? I'm not sure this is what Will was talking about, nor what KM is talking about.

Agreed.

D&D has no mechanics to handle the way in which players assign "thematic hooks" to their characters. But nor does it have any other group co-ordination mechanics - and thus is prone to misfire when one character builds a Paladin and another a Chaotic Neutral Bard.

What counts as a good game depends on what the players want. Some groups are happy to play Dragonlance, where the play experience is mostly one of acting out someone else's story, with the thematic issues already largely resolved by the adventure's author. Such a game would preclude a character exploring the issue of treachery, for example, because any attempt to roleplay betrayal in a fundamental fashion would completely derail the game.

Other groups want player input into the plot. This can be done via backstory (as KM suggests in his post). Some d20 games have mechanics to facilitate this during play (eg Fate Points in Mongoose's Conan).

Yet other groups of players want to be able to determine the thematic resolution of the game. Such a group do not want their adventure scripted at all, whether by the GM or by the players. They want the story to be determined by the choices actually made by the players during play.

Most of all, no game does not have restrictions on player action. It's the restrictions on player action that make a game interesting and meanful. If players could actually do anything, then thier wouldn't be a game. It's a game because the players have to make choices within the limited sphere of possible action that is permitted. That means that players can't just walk through walls just because they want to (unless that ability gets explicitly added to thier list of permissable actions), or can't instantly arrive hundreds of miles away (unless that ability gets explicitly added to thier list of permissable actions), and so forth.

You are running together the players (who cannot walk through walls, I imagine) and their characters. The game's character development and action resolution mechanics place constraints on the PCs. The question under discussion in this thread, I think, is what role the players have in determining the content and action of the game.

 

[Gold Roger]

I think this generally hits the nail on the head for D&D except that in D&D, the role of the computer is taken by another player. The DM shouldn't give up the control of the game, just share it.

 

[Kestrel]

Celebrim's post does illuminate some of the problems Ive had. If the GM and the players are sharing an ultimate goal in what they want the story to accomplish, then the game can run pretty smoothly. The GM has an idea where the players want to go, and he can prepare without totally scripting the action. But starting cold is just going to lead to a boring night. The GM doesnt know what the PCs want to do, and the PCs have no idea what can be done. So everyone just stares at each other.

DnD, at least in my opinion, lends itself to scripted play. The stats for pc and npc are so detailed that it requires a lot of leadtime to create. If you are going for unscripted play, whats a GM to do to prepare for the players to have more control of the story? If they figure out everything thats supposed to happen beforehand, then its just another railroad. What the best method in DnD 3.5 to "prep" for something that is supposed to be more on the fly?

For another twist, I like to have fully statted npcs for combat challenges. Anything less is not quite as satisfying for running. If I just wing stats on the fly, those encounters will not be nearly as fun and if the players get wind that Im doing it, thier enjoyment is lessened as well.

So far, Ive been designing encounters and less plots. What I mean is that I come up with a tactical challenge i.e. "Assassin's ambush 2a" and stat out those npcs and thier tactics. When a story appropriate point comes up, I'll throw that in. So far thats worked, but any ideas others have would be welcome.