How Do You Create Story?

[barsoomcore]

In one of mythusmage's proclaim-y threads I posted the following:

It seems to me that everyone in this thread pretty much agrees that games where the player's choices have no influence on the outcome of the game are less fun for the players. The interesting bit comes in how the DM presents those choices, what the scope of the available choices is, and how much control the players have over the outcome of those choices (among other potential questions).

I favour a broad scope for players' choices -- not even limiting those to "things their character can do". I distribute swashbuckling cards each game session that allow players to do things such as gain attack bonuses or whatever -- some cards are much more far-reaching and cause an unexpected ally to suddenly appear, or cause some NPC to fall in love with the character, and other such "story-level" events that the character wouldn't have any control over.

It gets difficult for me at times, but for the most part it's pretty fun and lets the players engage at a "meta-game" level. Last night just as the PCs were about to bust in on the BBEG one of the players played the "You're Not A Guard" card which causes them to encounter someone who turns out to be an ally. So I have to come up with an ally on the spot, manage to do so, and then in the ensuing combat said ally turns out to serve a critical purpose in the battle.

I ended up (along with some of the players) a little uncomfortable with how significant an impact that sudden ally had on events -- it kind of took some of the significance away from the PCs. Which is part of expanding scope in that fashion -- you can't really predict how such choices will end up affecting everyone's enjoyment.

And sometimes such methodologies have worked brilliantly -- the "Love" card has turned Barsoom inside-out but made the story much more fascinating, and the unexpected ally card has allowed the PCs to accomplish things they could never have survived on their own.

What other techniques have people used that had surprising impacts on their games? I'm not super-familiar with the "Forge" stuff everyone's talking about, and it seems like both fu and Sweeney have a lot of familiarity with techniques I've never heard of, so I'd be interested in hearing people's ideas and experiences.

There was a bit of conversation after that, but fusangite suggested this might warrant a new thread, so I'm wondering if other folks have ideas or notes to share.

Come on in! The water's fine!

 

[reveal]

Usually, I have a few plot threads in mind but no BBEG or ending in site. After the first session or two, that's where I really start to create an over-arching plot and try to involve every character in it at a personal level.

For example, in one campaign, two things happened in the first session that created an ongoing plot and a BBEG.

1) A player opened the door at the inn and through a fish out, hitting a cleric smack dab in the chest. The player then slammed the door and ran back to his seat. Result: This cleric ended up working for the BBEG and held a deep seeded grudge for the PCs because of this "slander."

2) The players were asked to help find a woman who had left her carraige with one of the guards. They had run off in the night and hadn't been seen in a while. No one knew if she was kidnapped or went of her own volition. The PCs tracked the two down and it turned out the had eloped and were madly in love with one another, even though the woman was betrothed to another man (this, incidentally, was to whom the carraige was headed). The PCs let them go and told the carraige head that they didn't find them. Result: The woman was to be "married" to the BBEG, a vampire who just wanted to use her as food. The rest of the adventure saw the PCs dogged by the vampires lackeys with a final showdown with him in the end. The showdown included his new "bride."

I don't like having too much drawn plotwise ahead of time because I feel it doesn't allow me enough flexibility to weave the players lives/actions into the story, to make it more personal for them as a character and as a player.

 

[Desdichado]

I create an environment in which there are a bunch of competing power groups (or individuals) and give them an agenda. Set in motion their plans. Put the PCs in the same environment, describe what's going on around them, see how they react. Based on their actions, the competing power groups react in turn, which leads to further reactions by the PCs, which leads to further reactions by the NPCs, etc., etc. ad nauseum.

It's not completely ad hoc--once I get an idea of what the PCs have decided to do, I start trying to make some plans for the game based on that, but I'm a bit paranoid of railroading, so I really try to make sure that their decisions are driving the game, and what happens in the game is a direct result of their decisions.

I realize that doesn't make a story (especially not on the ridiculous sense that mythusmage was using the word) per se; a story is--naturally--the product of a game session. I've said that for years before the last thread came that brilliant revelation. But I do use a few tricks and techniques to try and make sure my stories are good--I'll modify NPCs and/or their agendas on the fly if the game is going in such a way that the modifications will obviously be more interesting. My games tend to be paced a bit like a movie; we skip over the details, fast forward to either action scenes, exploration scenes, or important "roleplaying (i.e., PC to NPC conversation) scenes.

 

[Psion]

And sometimes such methodologies have worked brilliantly -- the "Love" card has turned Barsoom inside-out but made the story much more fascinating, and the unexpected ally card has allowed the PCs to accomplish things they could never have survived on their own.

That sounds cool, but scary. I picture my game turning out like one of those comedy skits where the audience is supposedly offered up a phone number to phone on the outcome and there is one ridiculous choice, and the actors start yelling "oh, come on" at the screen.

As for how I produce stories: I produce scenarios and challenges and situations, and the unleash the playes on the situation like bulls in a China shop.

 

[Crothian]

a story is something that we accidently stumble into on the way to having fun.

 

[GlassJaw]

Unfortunately I've only been running published stuff lately (Adventure Path) but I'm hoping to get a homebrew going again soon.

I think one of my faults in the path is to try to account for everything. In doing so, I ended up limiting the players' options (which can also end up bordering on railroading). I've also played in completely open campaigns and I have to say I'm not a fan of that either. It is up to the GM to offer the players choices. Asking the players "What do you want to do?" isn't really a choice.

Going forward, I think the best solution is a compromise of the two. The GM should have a basic outline of some potential timelines and then present options for the players who then decide where to take the story. If they don't want to help the old man find the McGuffin in Ye Olde Dungeon, the campaign shouldn't come to a screeching halt. At the same time, the GM should be prepared if that's what the players choose to do. A very simplified example but you get the idea.

I'm also very interested to hear about these event cards (What's Forge?). They sound fun but like Psion mentioned, they could be dangerous as well. My group was playing a pirate campaign for a short time and the GM let us use Drama Doubloons. They were essentially points that we could use on the fly for dramatic editing. I'd be a little nervous to allow extremely specific cards to my players because they could significantly change what I had planned. But some seat-of-your-pants story rewriting (in which the GM has the final say) is a little "safer".

Needless to say, I'll be watching this thread closely.

 

[fusangite]

My Players Stay Out

My players, if you don't want any spoilers, stay out.

In order to explain how story comes into being in my games, I sort of have to explain what the player-GM relationship is in my games. My roles is essentially as a puzzle designer. The worlds I make, in many respects, are experienced like mystery novels: the reader gradually figures out what is going on; sometimes ahead of him, sometimes behind him, so does the detective. The reader, equipped with a slightly different data set than the detective enjoys the process of solving the mystery, semi-independently of the protagonist. When my games work well, this is how they work. Essentially the entire world, campaign, etc. is a puzzle that both the players and characters ultimately decipher and solve, rectifying whatever flaw or evil act I have built into the system.

As a result, at the macro-level, my campaigns are formulaic. Every game involves the players and their characters discovering the true nature of their universe, discovering the thing disrupting it and then thwarting whatever that thing is. But below that top-level formula, there is near-limitless free will; yet, certain things inevitably happen because of the structure of the game world itself. In one sense, the players have complete control over what events take place but in another, they can only control the terms on which predestined events unfold.

One of the other fairly unique things about how my games interact with this thing called story is that they often can be read referentially and symbollically as well as at a more literal level. My worlds tend to be situated on alternate earths and often signify to the players by invoking certain common tropes and cross-cultural myths because these things are actually part of the structure of the world itself. For instance, in my current campaign, the characters will inevitably progres through seven cities which correspond to the seven forts of the original grail quest Spoils of Annwfn in the Book of Taliesin, the seven levels of sufic consciousness, the Seven Cities of Cibola and the Seven Cities of Antilla. This resonance is a cue to the players as to what is taking place in the game that the characters can never comprehend in quite the same way. The characters can do whatever they want and go wherever they want but, unless the campaign ends inconclusively, they will end up at the City of Glass. In what way will the City of Glass be the City of Glass? Where will it be? What will happen there? That's up for grabs. But it's certain that that is the end point. There are various other ways that the game is operating on this half-thematic, half-cryptographic level by tapping into allied symbol systems and cross-cultural myths that are just as predictive and less deterministic. (I'll save an example for any requests for clarification.)

The advantage of running games with a navigable and discoverable metatext is that there is an alternative predictive model available to the players in addition to the rules. This allows the players to guess at future events and, if they can arrive at in-game justifications for doing so, thwart or reshape events that they see looming in their future.

All for now.

 

[Hjorimir]

The way I see it:

DMs provide environment and plot (along with a little editing as needed).
Players are the ones writing the stories.

 

[Desdichado]

DMs provide environment and plot (along with a little editing as needed).
Players are the ones writing the stories.

Well, since plot and story are almost synonymous, I think you better explain that a little better.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

I vaguely get ideas and sort of weave them together.

Ultimate form of winging it. Story and all. My games truly run on the "Hey, what if they ran into this...?" principle. And when I come up with something like that, I don't usually plan ahead on how its connected to any larger plot...which is usually just as undefined. One thing I'm very guilty of is building up an encounter without having decided what's going to be involved until the PCs actually see it.

Of course, I somehow manage to make it work and connect pieces into a cohesive story as it goes along...no, I don't know how it works, either.