On The Value and Use of Narrative Structures in Play

[Reynard]

Over in the 5E forum I accidentally got a thread focused on pacing off the track by equating pacing to plot. I thought I would move the ensuing discussion on story/narrative in RPGs over her, since it is far broader than 5E or even D&D.

To state my most basic thesis: in my opinion, tabletop roleplaying games are more enjoyable when there is as little predetermined plot or narrative and the majority of what would be called "story" is an emergent property of play. By plot, I mean the actual literary definition: the series of events that comprise a story. "the PCs go to dungeon X and uncover the key to Temple Y in order to defeat villain Z before whatever." In the modern era, these are usually built into "adventure paths" but that sort of plot based adventure or campaign has been around a long time.

By contrast, I prefer what are currently referred to as "sandbox" campaigns. By that I mean a location, perhaps a tract or wilderness or a deep dungeon or a city or some more diverse setting encompassing all those and more, that is seeded with people, places, things and situations with which to interact. Some of these might imply "plot" (especially if they involve NPC desires, as characters tend to have a way of framing the world as a series of stories) but ultimately whatever narrative comes about is driven by how the PCs choose to engage the setting elements (or not).

To use the example from the other thread as an illustration: the PCs come upon a village that is being preyed upon by a vampire that lives in the ruins a couple hours flight away. The vampire has a motivation (feed) and the NPCs in the village have a motivation (don't be fed upon) and eventually the village will be sucked dry. If the PCs are on a McGuffin hunt and pass through, ignoring clues or even outright pleas, that is likely what happens. That becomes the narrative. If they choose to go slay the vampire, that is the story. And if they decide to hide out, wait until the vampire has killed someone and then riufle through the victim's belongings, that is the story. No plot is needed in the hands of the GM, just enough details that whatever the PCs happen to do (or not) about the situation, the GM can adjudicate it.

So, that is my position. What I am interested in is discussing with folks who see it differently. If you prefer there to be an "adventure" written into this situation -- the PCs arrive in town and the alderman begs for help; the PCs make friends with a cute barmaid; when the vampire attacks the PCs scare him away but not before the barmaid gets bit and now they only have days to kill the vampire before she turns; and so on -- what are the benefits for a prescribed plot? In general, what makes a plotted, "story driven" game preferable to one that does not have a narrative sore.

In addition, how do other literary devices such as theme, mood and atmosphere interact with the presence or lack of a plot. In almost all cases, story elements such as setting and characters will be present, but do all adventures have themes? Do any? Is theme necessary? What about atmosphere and mood? Are these creations of the players or the DM, and if the latter what happens when the PCs or players' actions disrupt atmosphere and mood? For that matter, what happens when the players disrupt the plot?

 

[Remathilis]

In taking the Negative:

Unless you are engaging in random dungeons crawls, most DMs create adventures with a certain range of outcomes in mind. By doing this, he creates a basic skeletal plot for the adventure. There is practically no escaping this. Good DMs can anticipate their player's typical course of action and plan accordingly for it. This allows him to create richer adventures without resorting to constant improvisation.

In using the above example, a DM decides to terrorize a town with a vampire. He does so with the assumption that the players will do something about it. There is little point in creating a plot hook that he knows the player's will not bite for. By knowing his players will most likely go and slay the vampire (and complete the hook) he can then prepare his adventure accordingly. He might create a specific NPC who can give them important information, set up special items the group will need to find and retrieve to help them, and properly map and stock the lair of the vampire ahead of time. This creates a richer, more interesting scenario than a "winged" encounter with a vampire made up on the spot by the DM.

Now, it should be made clear this is not "railroading." The PCs do not have to fight the vampire; they can theoretically ignore it and move on. (Though a Good DM knows his players and their PCs well enough to anticipate their course of action; a group of mostly good PCs with a paladin in it is most likely NOT going to leave or join the vampire. Unless your group is literally Chaotic Neutral, it should be possible to gauge your player's expected reaction and plan accordingly). Nor is the events of the plot linear; A does not need to follow B, but A and B are both options a DM prepares for. The PCs may visit the plot points in any order, skip some, or even create new ones (all the planning in the world can't catch all potential actions; the goal is minimize the need for improv, not eliminate it entirely). In many ways, it resembles the events of a Choose your own Adventure story than a novel.

The main advantages to this style are:

* Richer narratives thanks to preplanning.
* Less need to improv.
* A wider array of adventure types
* Genre Emulation

It can also be said that they are certainly a popular genre of adventure, as many well-loved modules (Ravenloft, Red Hand of Doom, Lost Mines of Phandelver, and nearly all APs) revolve around the concept of "story".

 

[Reynard]

This allows him to create richer adventures without resorting to constant improvisation.

I find it interesting that you seem to consider improvisation a negative. I am curious why you think so. Do you think it is harder than running a pre-scripted adventure? Do you think that many or most DMs do not do it well? Do you think that improvisation on the part of the DM is unfair to the players in some way?

I am not being accusatory, by the way, I am simply curious. Improvisation (armed with plenty of information to draw from, mind you) is, to me, both more fun for me as a DM and provides a more interesting game for the players.

 

[Nytmare]

I was taking it that he was listing advantages to that style more to play devil's advocate.

I don't know if I can really say that I have a preferred style of play. I'd guess that it would be somewhere in the realm of "sandbox play interspersed with overarching, emergent story bits, that were mostly maneuvered into place by the players." At the same time, I'm not only up for almost anything, but I frequently get an urge to run something that's just different than what we played the last time.

All that being said, the last half dozen or so games I ran were decidedly non sandboxey because of a distinct time limitation. The need to wrap up a game in one or two, four hour sessions makes for a pretty good reason to just cut to the chase and bang your way through a story arc.

 

[Gilladian]

I'm a terrible improviser. I've been DMing for 30 years and I know my limits. I need at least a rough outline of a place, npc's and some clear motivations/hooks. In your example, I'd need to have a regional map, a castle map, a rough description of the village and some npcs or at least a list of random names, locales and gossip. I'd prefer that the vampire and his minions be fully statted out, and notes on the lair given. From there, let the pcs do as they will and I can handle it. If they want to befriend a barmaid, they can. She will be their source of gossip. If, instead, they seek out the aldermen, we can use them as info sources. Et cetera...

 

[Reynard]

I'm a terrible improviser. I've been DMing for 30 years and I know my limits. I need at least a rough outline of a place, npc's and some clear motivations/hooks. In your example, I'd need to have a regional map, a castle map, a rough description of the village and some npcs or at least a list of random names, locales and gossip. I'd prefer that the vampire and his minions be fully statted out, and notes on the lair given. From there, let the pcs do as they will and I can handle it. If they want to befriend a barmaid, they can. She will be their source of gossip. If, instead, they seek out the aldermen, we can use them as info sources. Et cetera...

I prefer to have that stuff, too. That does not make it non-improvisational. Remember, improv theater folks still practice. They have a toolbox of ideas, characters and bits to work with. DMs need a similar toolbox. I happen to be able to come up with lots of things on the fly but I still keep a collection of small dungeon/ruin maps with me and some pre statted encounters.

In the vampire example, I think it becomes an "adventure" when that is all you have. If it is either the PCs engage the vampire or roll on random encounter charts until the session ends, that isn't really a sandbox. That village with the vampire bothering it should exist in a larger place. it doesn't have to be expansive -- a few hundred square miles with a few dungeons and a few dragons will usually do the trick for quite a while. The point is, the PCs need options if it is to be a sandbox.

On the subject of narrative structures in game play: techniques that break linear time such as foreshadowing and flashbacks have always eluded me as a DM. Foreshadowing is difficult if I am not certain which way the PCs are going to go. I don't mean hints about the vampire. That is not foreshadowing. The PCs coming across a rat devouring a dove, foreshadowing the vampire's attack on the kindly priestess, is impossible because that may never happen in an unscripted game. Flashbacks are tough because I like to roll the dice in the open and stick to the results. How do you build an interesting flashback encounter if you have to fudge just in case there are a couple lucky crits. I like the idea of the technique for use in more story oriented games. I would use it, for example, to determine whether the PCs have a special weapon to fight the bad guy with. "remember two years ago, your delve into The Ghoul Kingdom, and your quest for the Sword of Sorrows!" You run the fight/mini-dungeon and if the PCs win, they have the sword and if they don't, they don't.

 

[Remathilis]

I find it interesting that you seem to consider improvisation a negative. I am curious why you think so. Do you think it is harder than running a pre-scripted adventure? Do you think that many or most DMs do not do it well? Do you think that improvisation on the part of the DM is unfair to the players in some way?

I am not being accusatory, by the way, I am simply curious. Improvisation (armed with plenty of information to draw from, mind you) is, to me, both more fun for me as a DM and provides a more interesting game for the players.

In my experience, most DMs who rely heavily on Improv do it poorly. They fall into certain traps when relying on top-of-head for the majority of their ideas. Some of the Improv traps I've seen DMs fall into:

* Overreliance on the Familiar. They tend to fall back on things that they know well or are well accustomed to and recycle ideas liberally. For example, he might go to favorite types of monsters (undead, demons, orcs, drow) or stock locations and plots. That can get repetitive quickly. ("Another Demon Cult?")
* Overreliance on the Random. Else, without a clear focus, he relies on the dice to determine everything. Every encounter, every NPC reaction, every bit of treasure, randomly generated. This slows down the pace as the DM is constantly dropping dice to determine stuff.
* Linear Dungeons. Ironically, most DMs who improv through a dungeon (such as the mine complex the PCs opted to check out on the hunch drow were there) tend to create linear dungeons with the illusion of choice. The PCs reach a hall where they can turn left or right; no matter what choice they make, the next idea the DM had will be in that room, regardless of which direction they actually went. Ergo, the dungeon turns out to be 10 rooms, one after another, with the illusion turning left and right. Additionally, the DM can only keep so much backlog of material running, so they tend to be devoid of window dressing (false turns, magical tricks, secret doors, etc).
* Stock. Improv DMs (especially in 3e/PF) are usually forced to use stock monsters, treasure, and NPCs because of the difficulty of creating new stats on the fly. (Less a problem in 4e, 5e, and AD&D, but one that does pop up). This can occasionally get repetitive as cool ideas are jettisoned for "what's at hand."
* Wild Balance Swings. Especially in later editions of D&D, DMs who build encounters on the fly don't bother to balance the encounter. As such, fights can range from cakewalk to TPK very quickly from using too few/many monsters, monsters who are deceptive for their Challenge Rating, or pulling a monster whom you're not familiar with and missing important information when trying to run it on the fly. ("Oh, I missed that. Everyone make a Wisdom save vs. Fear, which you should have done in round 1". or "Ah, I didn't realize that this thing had Spell Resistance. I'll roll it from here on out. You got a few free spells there.")

Those are some of the many problems I've encountered with DMs who run "on the fly". Not every improv DM runs into these problems, but I find that many of the DMs I've known who run "sans prep" fall into one or more of these traps. Its acceptable when the PCs left-field you and you make some mistakes trying to deal in an area you didn't prep for on occasion, but steady diets of this gets repetitive and boring quickly.

 

[Reynard]

In my experience, most DMs who rely heavily on Improv do it poorly. They fall into certain traps when relying on top-of-head for the majority of their ideas. Some of the Improv traps I've seen DMs fall into:

* Overreliance on the Familiar. They tend to fall back on things that they know well or are well accustomed to and recycle ideas liberally. For example, he might go to favorite types of monsters (undead, demons, orcs, drow) or stock locations and plots. That can get repetitive quickly. ("Another Demon Cult?")
* Overreliance on the Random. Else, without a clear focus, he relies on the dice to determine everything. Every encounter, every NPC reaction, every bit of treasure, randomly generated. This slows down the pace as the DM is constantly dropping dice to determine stuff.
* Linear Dungeons. Ironically, most DMs who improv through a dungeon (such as the mine complex the PCs opted to check out on the hunch drow were there) tend to create linear dungeons with the illusion of choice. The PCs reach a hall where they can turn left or right; no matter what choice they make, the next idea the DM had will be in that room, regardless of which direction they actually went. Ergo, the dungeon turns out to be 10 rooms, one after another, with the illusion turning left and right. Additionally, the DM can only keep so much backlog of material running, so they tend to be devoid of window dressing (false turns, magical tricks, secret doors, etc).
* Stock. Improv DMs (especially in 3e/PF) are usually forced to use stock monsters, treasure, and NPCs because of the difficulty of creating new stats on the fly. (Less a problem in 4e, 5e, and AD&D, but one that does pop up). This can occasionally get repetitive as cool ideas are jettisoned for "what's at hand."
* Wild Balance Swings. Especially in later editions of D&D, DMs who build encounters on the fly don't bother to balance the encounter. As such, fights can range from cakewalk to TPK very quickly from using too few/many monsters, monsters who are deceptive for their Challenge Rating, or pulling a monster whom you're not familiar with and missing important information when trying to run it on the fly. ("Oh, I missed that. Everyone make a Wisdom save vs. Fear, which you should have done in round 1". or "Ah, I didn't realize that this thing had Spell Resistance. I'll roll it from here on out. You got a few free spells there.")

Those are some of the many problems I've encountered with DMs who run "on the fly". Not every improv DM runs into these problems, but I find that many of the DMs I've known who run "sans prep" fall into one or more of these traps. Its acceptable when the PCs left-field you and you make some mistakes trying to deal in an area you didn't prep for on occasion, but steady diets of this gets repetitive and boring quickly.

I agree that a lot of these can be probelms. But that is why I say that improvisation is something you still prepare for. You do the creative work to avoid stock NPCs and rote encounters while you are filling your sandbox. As I stated above, improv theater without practice is painful to watch.

By way of example: relying on random encounter charts as a method of improv is not a bad thing, but it still requires preparation. The best thing you can do is build your encounter charts from the ground up yourself. Not only do you know what's on them, you have the opportunity to make sure you aren't falling back on the same old stuff and make sure that the encounter chart actually reflects the area. You don't want a chart for "Forest, Temperate" you want a chart for "The Woods of Woe."

That said, I do love the at the table inspiration that a random roll can create. I perform very well on my feet (if I can say that without sounding arrogant) and I managed to turn a random encounter with a couple specters into a memorable, tragic love story on the Isle of Dread. My players turned a random encounter roll with some pixies and a unicorn into an equally memorable one for me (the bastards).

 

[Big J Money]

[MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION]

Improv during play certainly doesn't imply "sans prep".

 

[DEFCON 1]

I am usually not a huge fan of strictly sandbox play for the simple reason that going from one event at a town to another event in another town to a third event in a third location ad nauseum does not usually result in an interesting overall story to the campaign as a whole for me. In cases like this... our group really just feels like mercenaries, going from place to place solving problems for people (probably for a reward). But once a problem is solved, there's no story involved for moving on or looking for another problem, we just do. Because sandbox. The party basically becomes like the A-Team... but an A-Team that doesn't have the Colonel constantly chasing after them giving them reason to keep moving (because the Colonel trying to find and arrest them for a crime they didn't commit is by definition a "plot" that pushes the campaign forward, which as you say, you don't think is as good.)

To me... having an overarching story in the background for the players to engage in beyond just what they "find" in any location actually helps define the campaign, and gives a more interesting backdrop for what they are doing. Now how much or how often they engage in that background story is usually up to them and I wouldn't "force" them to engage in it... but if them choose not to, they do hear about what is going on in the world outside of their focus and which continues to progress even if they choose not to get involved. (Although more often than not, they DO choose to get involved because just doing independent "side missions" all the time can just get old after a while.)