On The Value and Use of Narrative Structures in Play

[Litzen Tallister]

I rarely go into a game session without a degree of structure to what I do. Most recently, I was running a Dresden Files RPG campaign (FATE system). My prep work consisted of a number of events (scenes) written, with really only the beginning and the end being certain for inclusion. The rest were major plot points that could be inserted at varying points throughout the gaming session. My idea was that, in creating the story, I had a number of "joints" in the storyline that were most likely to occur, with all the other options being up to PC determination. So, there is both freedom to act and an over-arching narrative.

My view is that there are expectations about coming to the table as a GM, one of which is the creation of the story, in collaboration with the PCs. If I showed up and relied on the barest outline of what was going to happen, I could still end up creating an enjoyable session. However, I feel that I increase my odds of doing so when I've spent some time crafting the plot, adding and subtracting elements, until I have something that seems reasonably likely to fit with the PCs sense of enjoyment about the game.

 

[Reynard]

(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.)

It really isn't. "Plot" is defined as, "a literary term used to describe the events that make up a story or the main part of a story. These events relate to each other in a pattern or a sequence. The structure of a novel depends on the organization of events in the plot of the story." The Colonel hunting the A-Team is a motivating factor, an element of the setting. You could have an A-Team style sandbox with, for example, an evil Duke who just took over and the PCs are on his hit list. they have to be careful about staying in one place too long or revealing their true identities. But that is not the plot of the campaign. the campaign doesn't have an overall plot until it is over.

Now, i want to be clear that I am not saying that it is bad if story emerges through play. It should, IMO. Characters should have subplots because players make choices based on their preferences, character motivations, etc... A PC falling in love with a tavern owner NPC is subplot, for example, and if it happens the GM should take pains to helpt the player build that story and involve the NPC. Another PC might want to find hiis character's ancestral sword, once used to slay a demon lord or whatever. That is not a plot, that is a detail the player has added to the setting. The GM should decide where that sword is, who (if anyone) wields it now, and how its existence interacts with the larger sandbox. Once all that is laid out, though, the "plot" of the story of retrieving that sword is incumbent upon the player purposefully hunting down the clues, convincing the party to make the trek to its location, and facing the current owner, or whatever.

In other words, "no plot" does not mean a static world without any interesting things happening in it. it means that the GM does not prescribe any series of events. He sets up a setting and situation that are interesting to interact with and that interaction on part of the players creates the plot.

 

[DEFCON 1]

In other words, "no plot" does not mean a static world without any interesting things happening in it. it means that the GM does not prescribe any series of events. He sets up a setting and situation that are interesting to interact with and that interaction on part of the players creates the plot.

Okay. Well, in that case I still don't ascribe to your theory that it's the best way to play, because I am of the opinion that if the players can and should create backstory and history which can and will be engaged in through play... that the DM should be doing the exact same thing. The DM should (as part of designing the campaign) be creating backstory too to engage in. But I also don't believe that backstory should stop existing or progressing just because the players don't go running after it. It can and should always be there in the background, various NPCs running their own lives the same way the PCs are. Otherwise you do have a stasis wherein the world only advances as far as the PC's engagement in it. In your example, if there's an evil Duke and the PCs are on his hit list... that Duke doesn't stop his plans just because the PCs run away from him. At some point, I as the DM will drop hints to the party as to what happened in the duchy once they took off. The Duke's plans perhaps come to fruition even without any direct involvement by the PCs. That "story" continues on.

Now the players are still free to have little to no concern and completely ignore what the Duke is now doing... but that's on them. Or to put it in Adventure Path terms... the players are more than free to ignore the Cult of the Dragon's various events geared towards summoning Tiamat... but I'm not going to say those events just "don't happen" if they do ignore it. But more likely than not... the players WILL engage that story on some level, because I find in my experiences my players prefer having some "overarching" story to give meaning to the campaign. I've never been one to just have a campaign world that's existed for decades and various PC groups come in and out over the years just "doing stuff" in it. That's not how I roll. Not saying that doesn't work for some people... but I am saying there's nothing inherently BETTER about that style than the other. They both are equally valid and enjoyable and at the end of the day it comes down to how good the DM is and how good the players are to engage and run with whichever type they go with.

 

[Reynard]

Okay. Well, in that case I still don't ascribe to your theory that it's the best way to play, because I am of the opinion that if the players can and should create backstory and history which can and will be engaged in through play... that the DM should be doing the exact same thing. The DM should (as part of designing the campaign) be creating backstory too to engage in. But I also don't believe that backstory should stop existing or progressing just because the players don't go running after it. It can and should always be there in the background, various NPCs running their own lives the same way the PCs are. Otherwise you do have a stasis wherein the world only advances as far as the PC's engagement in it. In your example, if there's an evil Duke and the PCs are on his hit list... that Duke doesn't stop his plans just because the PCs run away from him. At some point, I as the DM will drop hints to the party as to what happened in the duchy once they took off. The Duke's plans perhaps come to fruition even without any direct involvement by the PCs. That "story" continues on.

Now the players are still free to have little to no concern and completely ignore what the Duke is now doing... but that's on them. Or to put it in Adventure Path terms... the players are more than free to ignore the Cult of the Dragon's various events geared towards summoning Tiamat... but I'm not going to say those events just "don't happen" if they do ignore it. But more likely than not... the players WILL engage that story on some level, because I find in my experiences my players prefer having some "overarching" story to give meaning to the campaign. I've never been one to just have a campaign world that's existed for decades and various PC groups come in and out over the years just "doing stuff" in it. That's not how I roll. Not saying that doesn't work for some people... but I am saying there's nothing inherently BETTER about that style than the other. They both are equally valid and enjoyable and at the end of the day it comes down to how good the DM is and how good the players are to engage and run with whichever type they go with.

I agree with all of that. I certainly did not mean to give the impression that the world revolved around the PCs. In a sandbox, it is actually necessary for the world to move along. The GM should have a general plan of everything from the political situation to the weather. The component that can throw all that into a tizzy is the PC party. Otherwise you end up with what is referred to in video games as the "theme park" where there are a bunch of people standing around with exclamation points over their heads, doing nothing until the PCs show up. A little of that is fine, since you want to seed the world with interesting things to interact with, but it is better, IMO, to have places that are fun to explore and personalities that are fun to interact with rather than immediate situations that must be responded to right them. Too many instances of "ow, my dear husband left this morning and did not return" cried for help makes the world feel artifical, like it is built solely for the PCs.

As to an overarching plot all I can say is that over the years I have found that significantly less interesting than a wide world to explore. First of all, an overarching plot suggests that the campaign is over once that story is finished. I don't like that. I like to see how play evolves over time, how Conan goes from being a thief to a conqueror. I want to see the party kill the lich, but more I want to see what they do after that, when the world is no longer under the lich's shadow and with the vast wealth they have liberateds in the process. Do they go off on another adveture? Do they set themselves up as rulers in the lich's place? Do they try and rebuild the ravaged social order that existed before the lich took power. It is not that taking down the lich king isn't fun and interesting, it is that it isn't the only or even most fun and interesting thing. So, the way I run that game, is the lich is part of the setting, ruling over the land. The lich's guardians and secret police go on the random encounter charts, as do rebel phylactery hunters. I have stats for the lich and a map of his castle and at some point if the PCs decide they want to put the lich on their hit list, they can. But there is not plot to the campaign that ends with the lich's defeat.

 

[Remathilis]

The question to me becomes "Is having a metaplot for a campaign better or worse than having no metaplot?"

I tossed in a new term, so I'll define it. Metaplot is the overarching theme that ties all adventures to a campaign loosely or tightly together. It's a long term goal, a final boss, or an ultimate ender event. They bind the exploits of the adventurers into a more narrative whole. For two examples, let's take the literary granddaddies of D&D: The Hobbit and Conan.

In the Hobbit, Thorin's company goes on dozens of adventures encountering trolls, goblins, wood elves, giants, orcs, giant spiders, a shapeshifter, a dragon, and eventually the Five Armies. Each chapter of the Hobbit could be viewed as a game session, each event self-contained but still leading to a greater whole, a final goal. The DM pretty much spells out that at level 1, the group is going to reclaim their homeland, and every adventure connects to that main goal (either as a distraction or an advancement of the goal).

Contrast with Conan, which has no metaplot. In each novel, Conan is doing some grand adventure often for the sake of doing it. He may have long-term goals (kingdom, wealth, love) but these goals are not the end of the game; he acquires all three and loses them equally fast, spurring him to more adventure. The adventure's themselves have little direct connection to one another (slaying false priests one time, fighting pirates the next) nor do they build to some grand finale (indeed, part of Conan's allure is that the stories are open ended and never ending; leading to Conan chronology being the ungodly mess it is). Conan's "story" from an in-world perspective will only end in his death; until that point he will wander endlessly in search of a new adventure to take in.

Neither style is "wrong", nor is one inherently better, in D&D or in Lit, than the other. Some people prefer the idea of building towards a final goal (stopping Tiamat's cult, banishing the Demon Lords back to the Abyss, saving the world from the Princes of Elemental Evil) and some don't (preferring to explore the Caves of Chaos one adventure, escape slavers the next, and crush Strahd's schemes the third).

 

[Imaro]

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.

I'm curious... at what point do you believe it moves from improv w/notes to pre-prepped or pre-authored?

 

[Nytmare]

I'm curious... at what point do you believe it moves from improv w/notes to pre-prepped or pre-authored?

That's kinda like asking where on the rainbow one color stops and the next one starts. It's easy enough to say where it's definitely 100% of one or the other, but all you can say is that the middle ground is a bit of both.

 

[Reynard]

I'm curious... at what point do you believe it moves from improv w/notes to pre-prepped or pre-authored?

It's like art. I know it when I see it.

I wish I could give a more specific answer but I really can't. What I consider to be a toolbox approach (the vampire is preying on the village) another hardcore sandbox DM might call out as railroading since there are hooks on which to hang a plot. I don't have a problem with the hooks. Like i said, it is important that the world the PCs inhabit be interesting to them. But I am a selfish DM. I like to be surprised, too. It is the same reason i roll out in the open and let the dice fall where they may. It is the same reason I let players keep secrets from me (this is a total aside but a neat trick is to let players write notes to you and put them in sealed envelopes to you only to be opened when the player says so; it makes for great PC strategy planning versus a big bad without letting the knowledge of it color your choices for said big bad).

The best answer I can give is if I get to a point in prepping when I find myself needing the PCs to do a specific thing to make what I am working on relevant or useful, I have gone too far. I am good enough at improv that if I detail my locations and villains and factions well enough, I should not have to prep their responses. What I need is their stats and motivations. If I need more than that, I am scripting and unless that is the kind of game we are playing (I like to use FATE for more story based games) I stop and pull back a little.

 

[Psikerlord#]

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?

I totally prefer the sandbox approach. The PCs hit the town, there's a bunch of things going on which they can interact with like the vampire or his victims or ignore totally and go do other things. The GM does some prep work, but not too much, coz who knows where things will lead. Random tables and so on are a big help, not a hindrance. Sometimes stuff is going to happen to the PCs no matter what, but other times theyre free to roam.

So I prefer adventures like the 5e starter box set, which a bunch of stuff to wander around and explore, rather than adventure paths. I feel like adventure paths arose due to systems becoming too complex, which made improv really really hard. Now, with simpler systems coming back into vogue, we can play sandbox style much more easily.

 

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

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

I think you are making a false assumption, namely that the only way to have plot in an RPG is to have a prescribed, pre-authored plot.

There is a whole raft of techniques (mostly but not exclusively GM-side), and a whole lot of RPGs that self-concsiously embrace and promote those techniques, which are intended to ensure that plot in the literary/narrative sense is generated by play, but without being pre-authored.

Some of the techniques include tight scene-framing; "fail forward" narration of failed checks, which includes the generation of new backstory by the GM to explain failures; no use of "secret backstory" to evaluate the outcomes of player action declarations for their PCs; players building PCs with clear, and clearly signalled, goals/commitments/relationships, etc, which the GM then uses as the focus for both framing scenes and narrating complications; etc.

Some of the games include HeroWars/Quest (Robin Laws), Burning Wheel (Luke Crane), the -World games (originating with Vincent Baker), a fairly common approach to Marvel Herioc RP, a fairly common approach to 4e, FATE, etc.

There is currently an active thread on this particular sub-forum (the "fail forward" thread) discussing some of these matters.