[Game Design] Will Wright on Story and Game

[Nifft]

Even in the D&D context, it's not like all characters are made from 1st level. If the game is at 15th, and your PC dies and you make a new one, most DMs will let you start at a level somewhere close to the others. In which case, it would be reasonable to treat the new PC as more than just a blank slate.

That's what we try to do.

Very few PCs die, but new ones are occasionally brought in (mostly to fulfill a player's desire to play a new class / race / PrC / whatever), temporarily or permanently.

Cheers, -- N

 

[pemerton]

Even in the D&D context, it's not like all characters are made from 1st level. If the game is at 15th, and your PC dies and you make a new one, most DMs will let you start at a level somewhere close to the others. In which case, it would be reasonable to treat the new PC as more than just a blank slate.

True.

But does this suggest that it is, or that it isn't, possible to have a meaningful game in which a signficiant degree of direction is provided by the players rather than the GM?

 

[FireLance]

But does this suggest that it is, or that it isn't, possible to have a meaningful game in which a signficiant degree of direction is provided by the players rather than the GM?

Of course it is. One important element that I think has been missing from the discussion so far is the DM perspective. What aspect of the game does the DM enjoy? What does he take pride in? What is his payoff?

For example, I'm a challenge-focused DM. I enjoy creating fights and puzzles that walk the fine line between difficult and impossible for the PCs to overcome. My standard adventure is a string of challenges linked together by the evil plot du jour. I don't emphasize PC backgrounds or motivations beyond "I want to fight the bad guys".

An exposition-focused DM will take a completely different approach to the game. He might want to create a rich and detailed world for the players to explore, and his payoff might be the sense of wonder the players experience when they interact with his world and discover its secrets and realize how complex and surprising it is.

On the other hand, an improvisation-focused DM might take pride in his ability to react to the players' inputs and weave different elements together into a cohesive story. Each game session might feel like something out of Iron DM, with each player suggesting explicitly out-of-game, or implicitly by his in-character choices, some element that he wants to introduce into the game, or some way in which he wants the plot to advance or his PC to develop.

Each type of DM probably works best with different types of players. I think I'm a pretty good fit with my gaming group of mostly tacticians, power gamers, and butt-kickers (to use Robin Laws terminology). An exposition-focused DM will probably fit best with players who want to experience a story, and an improvisation-focused DM is probably best suited for players who want to collaboratively tell one.

 

[buzz]

But does this suggest that it is, or that it isn't, possible to have a meaningful game in which a signficiant degree of direction is provided by the players rather than the GM?

There are a lot of other RPGs that do this as a matter of course.

 

[Raven Crowking]

What this new idea would seem to encourage is that *all* you are to do, as a DM, is add things that the players need, and add nothing else. If the players need a villain/plot, you insert it. If the players need a lighthearted dungeon crawl, you insert it. If the players need to play a PC beholder, you insert it.

I have no interest in this sort of game, no matter what side of the screen I would be on. IMHO, it is an inherently worse game than one which is created by preparation and a sense that things are going on outside the PCs (and hence, players) sphere of influence. Not a mildly worse game, either, but a vastly worse game. If this was the only type of game available, I would watch American Idol before I sat down to play....and my loathing of American Idol is legendary.

Of course,

(1) I suspect that you and I have different definitions of the word "need". I very much doubt anyone ever needs to play a PC beholder the way I define the word. I think what you mean is "want".

(2) What about when a player "needs" to play a 20th level character among other players who "need" to play 1st level characters?

(3) I agree quite a bit with Celebrim here -- and I would venture to say that the player who "needs" to play a PC beholder in my campaign world also needs (and as in my definition, not as in "wants") to mature a bit before playing in my game. There are some well-developed settings where that sort of character is appropriate, but they are few and far between.

(4) All that aside, if it floats your boat, go ahead and play. It's good that you're having fun. Just don't expect me to want to jump in, and don't expect me to agree that such a playstyle is great. I'd give up gaming first.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I continue to think that 'outside-gamer success' bolsters my points rather than detracts from them. The Sims are to me a wonderful example of why this approach doesn't work for RPG's - no story, no challenges, no real failure, no real success, and no broad appeal within the actual gaming community.

Like pachinko.

 

[Raven Crowking]

And, finally, I'd like to point out that, IMO, the "story" in an RPG comes after the game is done and the last die is rolled. you tell the "story" of Sir Nobwood the Paladin because he died at the end of scorpion tipped kobold spear or because he killed the dragon, married the princess and became king od the land. Deciding that either of those things is the "story" before they happen kills the Game in RPG and turns it into a very poor version of improvisational theater.

This is a good point too, and part of a very good post (kudos! )

I would argue that the very best D&D games occur where:

#1. There is a well-detailed, well-thought-out setting that can be used to tell numerous stories (i.e., tomb raiders, complex politics, what-have-you).

#2. This setting includes numerous thematic "pay off" points, where these points can be any number of things, including foiling villians, finding a big haul, discovering secrets, etc.

#3. The players make characters that make sense within the context of the setting.

#4. The players are encouraged to make choices in the setting. This means that, on any given day, there are a number of adventure locations and/or threads that the PCs can follow up on. It also means, within the context of the setting, that they can choose threads that the DM didn't necessarily realize were threads ahead of time.

#5. Their choices have real consequences in the setting. This can, and should, go so far as to change the nature of the setting if the PC actions are momentous enough. It should also include real consequences for the things they decide to ignore -- the world should move even when the PCs aren't pushing it.

This means that both the "illusion of freedom" mentioned upthread and the "PCs determine all" are both extremes that detract from rather than add to a fun game.

At least, IMHO.

RC

 

[pemerton]

There are a lot of other RPGs that do this as a matter of course.

I know. I was just wondering which side of the debate Hong was intending to support.

 

[RFisher]

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

I have to seem to slip up now & again or people will come to expect too much of me. (^_^)

What counts as a good game depends on what the players want. Some groups are happy to play Dragonlance [...snip...]

Other groups want player input into the plot. [...snip...]

Yet other groups of players want to be able to determine the thematic resolution of the game.

I'm sure we all know this, but I think it bears stating (or repeating): Groups often want a mix of these & enjoy the mix varying from campaign to campaign. We have to be careful to not carry these kinds of divisions too far.

For example, I'm a challenge-focused DM. [...snip...]

An exposition-focused DM... [...snip...]

On the other hand, an improvisation-focused DM...

That's a good take on the roles of the DM. Like above, I think all DMs need to cultivate their skills in all these areas while trying to find the right mix for the game, the group, & the context.

#3. The players make characters that make sense within the context of the setting.

One of the best campaigns I've ever had the privilege to play in, we were given no setting information & were allowed to create our own races for our PCs.

It might have been just a fluke, but I've long suspected that the more the players are allowed to share in shaping the world--beyond the mere actions of their characters--the better the RPG experience. It's something I always find a bit hard for some reason, but it has always been great when I've seen (or let) it happen. YMMV, of course.

 

[Raven Crowking]

One of the best campaigns I've ever had the privilege to play in, we were given no setting information & were allowed to create our own races for our PCs.

Did they make sense within the context of the setting?

EDIT: I ran a game once (2e) where the PCs were created at 4th level, using material from whichever world or sourcebook they cared to. Then, on day one of the campaign, they woke in stone coffins in a wizard's labyrinth. Basically, this group of spellcasters was kidnapping "gladiators" from various planes to "compete" so that they could bet on the outcome. "Competing" meant surviving and escaping the labyrinth. When they had done so, they ended up on a new world. An inn near the output point was created, owned, and staffed by some others who had survived the labyrinth. It worked very well, and the backstory made the characters fit the setting, no matter who (or what) they were.

It might have been just a fluke, but I've long suspected that the more the players are allowed to share in shaping the world--beyond the mere actions of their characters--the better the RPG experience. It's something I always find a bit hard for some reason, but it has always been great when I've seen (or let) it happen. YMMV, of course.

This is what I introduced a Legacy mechanic to do. Of course, in this case, I am really trying to overcome one of my own limitations -- if I design the way that the setting moves and grows, then its liable to become distressingly redundant based upon my own preferences and defaults. The Legacy mechanic is designed to allow players more input into the world, and thus make the world "breath" a little more than it otherwise would.

Basically, at 1st level and at every 5th level, a player is given the option to add something to his character or change something about the world.