How Do You Create Story?

[JohnSnow]

<Excellent Post trimmed for conciseness>

The point here is that your players are more than capable of dragging any carefully prepared story that you have off to hell and gone. Almost every “how to GM” article or section in a rulebook that I’ve read has contained the “be prepared to have your adventure completely screwed up” admonition.

So, if they’re going to do it anyway, why not roll with it? It only takes a couple of things on your part: the ability to think on your feet, and the ability to keep a straight face when they assume that you’d planned it that way all along.

Okay, this is such a cool way to GM that I'm eager to be about it myself. It actually sounds like the perfect way to run a campaign. That said, IF this is the case, what "riffs" would be useful to make this easier for GMs? Thoughts?

Is this worth a new thread? I think it might be.

 

[Rel]

Fusangite, without quoting you, quoting me, I feel comfortable saying that I think I "get" where you're coming from in general. Two things strike me:

1) I think that odds are pretty good that you're smarter than I am.
2) It is unquestionable that you are a more well-read historian and philosopher than me.

I understand the points you make regarding how you try and inject a more "real" historical mindset into the cultures you portray in your games. And from your earlier cross-post, I also get how you attempt to get the players to understand the constraints of the setting as implied by the mindset you've attributed to the cultures therein. So my question then becomes, "How's that workin' out for ya?"

Please don't misunderstand this as ridicule. I know that you know I like you and hold you in the highest respect. But it seems to me that your gaming philosophy and world design choices are so sophisticated that you must have similarly sophisticated players or else they are scratching their heads a lot.

The guys I game with are all friends of mine and have been for many years. We love each other like brothers and do all kinds of stuff outside the game together. In spite of all that closeness, we have a wide array of gaming styles and I find myself defining things within the game very broadly and permissively in order to accomodate their styles as well as my own. I think that the sort of sublety and sophistication that you advocate (were I capable of injecting it into my own game) would not only be lost on them but might also frustrate them. We get a little testy with each other now and then without me attempting to reflect a historical mindset less polluted by modern, capitalistic society within the confines of my campaign cultures.

So, to put a bit of a finer point on my question (and render it less flippant), do your players really appreciate all of the careful historical and philosophical intricacies that you are crafting into the game? Or are those things done for your own benefit in such a way that the players can take them or leave them but you get your enjoyment either way?

For what it's worth, I'm running an Eberron campaign right now and the sensibilities built into the setting are far more in tune with modern society than any fantasy campaign I've ever run. In many ways it feels like I'm not swimming against the tide by trying to give a wink and a nod to historical accuracy with my head all laden with capitalism (and as a staunch capitalist, my head is REALLY laden ).

 

[fusangite]

1) I think that odds are pretty good that you're smarter than I am.
2) It is unquestionable that you are a more well-read historian and philosopher than me.

Gee thanks. I am smart but I have a separate skill in sounding smart. Stacked, they can make me scary but my personality is equal parts knowing and appearing to know. Still, whatever the answer to #1 turns out to be, the answer to #2 is probably correct given the racket in which I work.

So my question then becomes, "How's that workin' out for ya?"

Pretty well, actually.

Please don't misunderstand this as ridicule. I know that you know I like you and hold you in the highest respect. But it seems to me that your gaming philosophy and world design choices are so sophisticated that you must have similarly sophisticated players or else they are scratching their heads a lot.

Well, I deal with this in a few ways: first of all, I create game systems and campaigns in ways that allow people who are unaware of what I'm doing to participate without too much difficulty. I often achieve this by making their characters actual moderns. In my latest effort, I took a really popular historical period (the 13th century) and misleadingly told people I was running an historical game and they should make historical characters. I can also make a difference by generating high-quality background materials.

Sometimes, also, people who are really into simulationist styles of play tap into culturally different characters on that person, visceral level of player-character relationship that always eludes me. One player in my current gaming group (the only one playing a non-European) just seems to "know" how to play a member of a hunter-gatherer society. Many players escape thinking like moderns through other, non-academic ways of knowing that I don't have access to but love and celebrate in my games.

But by far the most important way is that I am good at finding clever people and talking them into gaming with me and, in stark contrast to how I function in the world of gender relations, have absolutely no problem with rejection (in this case represented in the form of people joining my campaigns and then quitting in disgust).

Where I used to live, I assembled a group who could enjoy my games gradually and haphazardly over a long period of my time, the composition of the group changing gradually as my GMing style became more sophisticated. Where I live now, I've had a fair bit of a revolving door of players. Since I started my campaign in December, five people have quit my campaign. But I know what I want in a player and where to look for one so that's not too much of a problem.

The guys I game with are all friends of mine and have been for many years. We love each other like brothers and do all kinds of stuff outside the game together. In spite of all that closeness, we have a wide array of gaming styles and I find myself defining things within the game very broadly and permissively in order to accomodate their styles as well as my own.

I like those games too. They scratch a different itch for me, though. I'm much happier as a player in those games than I am as a GM. Just because I've discovered new ways of gaming in a fulfilling way doesn't mean I get nothing out of other ways of having fun at RPGs I discovered earlier.

Also, I can design world puzzle games for audiences like this. But, then, the puzzle is just there to entertain and inspire me with no hope or intent of the players apprehending it.

I think that the sort of sublety and sophistication that you advocate (were I capable of injecting it into my own game) would not only be lost on them but might also frustrate them.

Well, the person I learned this style from had given up on anyone ever noticing what he was actually doing. To him, it was a big game of manipulating unwitting people through a maze so deftly constructed they hadn't realized it was a maze.

Demanding anthropological fidelity from players, that can annoy them. But most of the other stuff I like, the symbollic stuff, shouldn't be either noticeable or consequential for people who aren't into it.

So, to put a bit of a finer point on my question (and render it less flippant), do your players really appreciate all of the careful historical and philosophical intricacies that you are crafting into the game?

Well, if they appreciate 100% of them, then I'll know I'm doing something wrong because my game will have become too didactic. But, yes, my particular weird mixture of social skills lets me find players who can enjoy and appreciate whatever portion of my project they can perceive and be either unaware or accepting of those things beyond their ken.

Or are those things done for your own benefit in such a way that the players can take them or leave them but you get your enjoyment either way?

People shouldn't build my kind of world unless they are comfortable with the risk that they themselves will be the only ones to "get" what's going on.

For what it's worth, I'm running an Eberron campaign right now and the sensibilities built into the setting are far more in tune with modern society than any fantasy campaign I've ever run.In many ways it feels like I'm not swimming against the tide by trying to give a wink and a nod to historical accuracy with my head all laden with capitalism (and as a staunch capitalist, my head is REALLY laden ).

Now I really can't wait for the inevitable political discussion attached to our up coming beer at Gencon.

 

[Rel]

Now I really can't wait for the inevitable political discussion attached to our up coming beer at Gencon.

I suspect it will involve the use of a lot of long words as well as a considerable amount of yelling. Nothing a few extra beers can't fix though.

 

[barsoomcore]

Some great conversation here. Sigh.

Just to say that I work VERY similarly to GMSkarka -- I even use the same terminology of "riffs" as he does. I always have half-a-dozen statblocks sitting around "just in case" -- just last game session I really needed those, too.

I do, however, do a large amount of prep work before the campaign starts, because, like fusangite, I prefer campaigns that feature a "secret" or three in the world -- and because I like reasonably detailed worlds (one of the reasons I'm wrapping up Barsoom is that it doesn't have nearly enough detail to satisfy me and trying to bolt on more detail post-player interaction is going to offend my sensibilities more than starting up a new campaign).

I find that lots of prep and lots of improvising is exactly what I like.

When I was first making films a buddy who'd done a few short films of his own gave me a piece of advice I've found broadly applicable:

"You gotta have a plan. You're probably not going to get a chance to use it, but you gotta have one. It's easier to chuck a plan and start over than it is to start without one at all."

It has turned out very true for me. So I try and do a lot of prep, a lot of thinking about my campaign, but at the same time, I don't usually have any idea how things are going to turn out or what's going to be "really going on" behind the scenes...

I appreciate fu's comments on how his players don't always perceive his efforts and their intention. I think, if I can characterize your position, that you're a lot more interested in anthropological issues than I am. As a long-time writer and student of writing, I'm much more interested in, let me say, moral issues.

Barsoom is in a lot of ways an exploration of power and the moral issues it raises. Is it ever acceptable to slaughter a bunch of people "for the greater good" -- especially in a world where you can get reliable answers to such a question? What sort of person can live with impact of such acts? Can you be good (or noble, or compassionate, or whatever) and seek power?

So I've structured the world, its history, the rules and the events of the campaign (or at least the efforts of the NPCs) to try and bring forth interesting points of view on those sorts of questions.

I don't know if any of my players pay the slightest bit of attention to that -- or are even aware that I'm doing it. But I think it ends up generating a campaign that is more fun, more engrossing, for all of us, because it's actually ABOUT something.

I just don't yet know what it's saying about it.

 

[fusangite]

I appreciate fu's comments on how his players don't always perceive his efforts and their intention. I think, if I can characterize your position, that you're a lot more interested in anthropological issues than I am. As a long-time writer and student of writing, I'm much more interested in, let me say, moral issues.

Well, for me there are twin preoccupations: physics and anthropology. While linked, they are separate preoccupations.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Barsoom is in a lot of ways an exploration of power and the moral issues it raises. Is it ever acceptable to slaughter a bunch of people "for the greater good" -- especially in a world where you can get reliable answers to such a question? What sort of person can live with impact of such acts? Can you be good (or noble, or compassionate, or whatever) and seek power?

So I've structured the world, its history, the rules and the events of the campaign (or at least the efforts of the NPCs) to try and bring forth interesting points of view on those sorts of questions.

I don't know if any of my players pay the slightest bit of attention to that -- or are even aware that I'm doing it. But I think it ends up generating a campaign that is more fun, more engrossing, for all of us, because it's actually ABOUT something.

I just don't yet know what it's saying about it.

Me too. Well, I've come clean with the group and these days I tell them the Premise before we start play, but I ran a campaign last year that asked "What lines will you cross to get what you want?" and while I didn't tell anybody what I was doing, I found it helped me shape the campaign to be pretty darn engrossing.

I'd like to point you to http://www.lumpley.com, especially the "Roleplaying Theory" bits. There's a lot of discussion about theme-conscious roleplaying that you might find interesting.

I think the fact that you don't know what the campaign's saying about the premise yet is a good thing. I'm finding it's far more interesting to let the player's decisions be what answers the premise and creates a theme. The way I do it is to keep those questions in mind when I come up with situations the players have to deal with, and make sure I leave "how they respond" to be open-ended. You can put questions about sacrifice for the greater good up front and center, and the answers players come up with through how their characters respond can sometimes surprise everybody.

 

[barsoomcore]

I think the fact that you don't know what the campaign's saying about the premise yet is a good thing. I'm finding it's far more interesting to let the player's decisions be what answers the premise and creates a theme. The way I do it is to keep those questions in mind when I come up with situations the players have to deal with, and make sure I leave "how they respond" to be open-ended. You can put questions about sacrifice for the greater good up front and center, and the answers players come up with through how their characters respond can sometimes surprise everybody.

If I knew how my campaign was going to turn out, I wouldn't need to run it.

Yeah, I pretty much do what you do. Mainly I think I came up with a palette of NPCs for whom power is a central concern, and who have differing methods of dealing with it, acquiring it, maintaining it, etc.

And I developed a magic system that strongly rewards paranoia and power-centric thinking. Which I think the D&D system does as well, only it's been so tremendously hand-waved over the years that it's hard to see it.

 

[Gold Roger]

I used to just create a story and try everything to get my players to run with it. I was basically doing a chaotic job of railroading and didn't realize it. My story development was mostly writing a story for a book and have the players fill in the blanks. Most of my players (7 out of 9) actually seem 100% ok with that, the notions of those other two, I dismised as unrealistic wishes. I took quite a brake from DMing, except for running a bit of City of the Spiderqueen, but that didn't have story creation on my part.
I'll be back to DMing soon and I decided to try and develope my own take on freer story creation. I want to try out two different, though similar, aproaches. The first will be used for an evil to vile PC's game that is thought as one-shot but will propably have some followups, the second is for my planned Iron Heroes Seafaring-Campaign.

1# THE MISSION STYLE:
This style brakes down the Story of every Session into three parts:
a) The Introduction
b) The Obstacles and the Setting
c) The Conclusion
This approach works only under the assumption that the PC's have a definite goal to fullfill every Session. In said one shot and maybe mini campaign, this is true because the PC's agents of an evil organization, that will have them eliminated if they fail at theyr missions.
In this style part a) and b) are more or less scripted events on the beginning and end of the session. The Intro describes the PC's, states their mission and propably starts the session with an inevadable fight with one of the groups from b). The Conclusion is, more or less some kind of Boss fight, an event that has to occur to acomplish the mission and also triggers the end of the session, with a read out text bringing thinks to a satisfiing end. the main part of the session is defined by two thinks: The Obstacles and Setting and how the PC's react to it.
For example the planned one-shot adventure:
a) The Pc's never met before, every players already knows the mission: To kidnap the Princess of a small kingdom. The adventure starts out with one PC viewing the Setting, the kingdoms capital, with the kings castle, from an elevated position (a roof or hilltop). The Setting's and PC's appearance are described. One after another the other five PC's arrive and are discribed. Between every new arival there's some time for the PC's that are allready there to interact. When everyone's there, robbers and zombies led by a nekromancer and an undead monstrosity attack the PC's, servants of the Council of Bones, the kingdoms prime criminal organization. A new obstacle and possible subplot is introduced, the PC's can show of their abilities.
b) The Setting is the kingdoms capital, it's general strukture is described, nothing more is definite and will be improvised.
The Obstacles are those parts of the Setting that oppose the PC's mission or their organization in generel. Most of these are the Settings power groups. Each has some generic NPC's and some more important NPC's prepared. These Obstacles are:
The city watch: It will make it hard for the PC's to enter and leave the city and do as they like.
The Royal guard and agents: protect the castle and Hunt down the kingdoms enemys.
The Sisterhood: order of monk/sorceresses that serve the kingdoms patron godess, protect holy sites and provide the princesses bodyguard
The patron godnesses Priestresses: protect holy sites
The Council of Bones: kingdoms primary criminal organization. The PC's may want to take revenge or meet more members if they try to enter the castle through the severs
The castle: Prevents the players from easily reaching the Princess
c) The battle vs the Princesses bodyguard, taking the princess prisoner or charming her, casting of a shadowwalk scroll, for as many PC's as possible to escape with the princess. Epiloque.
This aproach has very narrow uses, but should work out allright. It#s still very railroady, but has a reason to be. The missions accopmlishment defines the next missions goal. How the players reacted to the setting and obstacles, will define how it looks in the next mission that takes place there (in my example the PC's should be able to wipe out either the Council of Bones, the Sisterhood or the Priestresses and kill important royal agents)

2# THE FREE ADVENTURERS STYLE:
In this style the Players gain a primer for the campaign, that tells them the generel style expected of the PC's, the settings flavor and some major hooks of the setting, the players may use in charakter generation (for example there are 9 ancient worldwonders in my next setting, one of which hasn't been found yet, the PC's could be explorers that want to find the 9th wonder or see all wonders in their life). After characters are created and the campaign begann, I'll continually plant small plot hooks every session, some improvised some planned, in the form of mini adventures, rumors and NPC's. I'll continuall develope some of these, others will disappear again, depending on player interest and ideas, as well as my own. The major plot hooks will be developed as well of course and some of the small hooks may grow into new major hooks. I have no idea if and how this aproach will work out, but it will be interesting to see anyway.

Few, long post and propably not that interesting, but I hope you bear with me anyway. If you've got tips or comments on this, they would be welcome. PM me, to not hike this thread. If there really is interest, or something to diskuss, I'll make a thread.

 

[WayneLigon]

And dead characters come back to life for the flimsiest of reasons.

Indeed, I once brought someone back by having them step out of the shower.