Planescape and narrativist play

[I'm A Banana]

Dude, forcing people to be lawful good may or may not be lawful or good, but it definitely shifts alignment one step toward 'uncool'

Bah! Typical Chaotic arrogance! You think that because you have a unique perspective on the world that it somehow has value, so it's just "not cool" for someone to ignore that. Well, I got news for ya, berk, you're not a unique special snowflake in the world. Everyone's got s, and they all stink like a gehreleth bathouse. They all need wipin'. You've convinced yourself that you don't stink! There's hope o'course. You need to learn a bit of humility, is all. There's this place on Arcadia that can do wonders for your...mental sanitation...

are the parameters and possibilities for resolution of these conflicts already settled by the source material, or are they to be worked out in play as driven by the convictions and concerns of the participants in the game?

It is highly suggested that you work them out during play, at least for the characters involved in the adventuring party and the antagonists they confront. This may or may not reflect the player's own convictions and concerns, but should reflect the character's. The questions arise from the source material; the answers arise through your play, if, indeed, any definitive answers can be gained.

The source material is entirely silent on whether or not providing powerful weapons to demons and devils to encourage them to destroy each other (and occasionally catch an innocent town in the crossfire) is Good or not. It's seen as "questionable." Possibly good, possibly not. it's a mystery. It's up to the party, if they meet the angelic NPC responsible for that arms trade, to decide for themselves where they stand, and to act on that decision, whether that means watching another town get consumed by the Blood War, or whether that means putting an end to the existence of some angelic beings of light and goodness.

What the players decide is certainly right for their characters. The universe (e.g.: the DM) may have its own opinions, but ultimately the characters define the universe in PS, not the other way around. It is implied that alignments are pretty strong beliefs, but it's also implied that they aren't monolithic, and that Lawful Good (for instance) can mean a multitude of different things that just share two common points on an infinite scheme.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION]
You go to gehereleth bathhouses?

"All your rubber duckies are belong to us!"

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[I'm A Banana]

"All your rubber duckies are belong to us!"

Hahaha!

Bert & Ernie are pretty much my childhood experience with Law & Chaos, though!

 

[Quickleaf]

What you describe here is more like the opposite of metaplot - there's a significant but ill-defined background element, and you (as GM) fill in the details, a bit here and a bit there, some of it revealed to the players/PCs, some of it purely in the background being used to shape future reveals. (From your description, I'm not sure who had control over the timing of the final reveal - you or the players.)

So it's not whether there is a big reveal, but *how* that big reveal is reached that determines whether something is metaplot or not?

Btw The Great Modron March was by no means an exception to the metaplot heavy adventures from TSR and later WotC. And, to be fair, those planescape adventures heaviest in metaplot (as I'm understanding it) - Modron March, Dead Gods, Faction War, etc. - were all penned by Monte Cook. In my opinion a great example of an open-ended planescape adventure is Harbinger House by Bill Slavicsek.

Speakign more loosely, I think "metaplot" whenever the PCs end up being the pawns of some scheme that makes sense only to the GM in light of his/her big picture of the campaign - so that the real meaning of the events in the game come not from what the players contributed, but from this "secret" meaning that they have in light of what only the GM knows (at least at first, until the GM does the "big reveal" to the players).

It almost sounds like metaplot, as you're describing it, begins with mystery and narrows down to revelation.

Whereas narrativist play just keeps on getting more mysterious?

This sort of GM-driven "big reveal" play is at odds with narrativism, because it puts the meaning of things in the GM's hands rather than the players' hands. Conversely, keeping setting, NPC motivations, etc flexibile, and working them out in tandem with the players actuall playing the game, and in response to the choices of the players as a vehicle for building on those choices, I think reinforces the players' contribution to meaning in the game. The Burning Wheel Adventure Builder talks about the campaign setting, built up in this way, as being a sort-of "history" of the campaign as actually played.

Hmmm. In theory that kinda makes sense. But AFAIK I didnt experience these two things as being opposed during my Planescape campaign. Actually this really doesn't have to do with Planescape specifically.

I guess this is a new branch of discussion.

Anyhow, I *think* we agree that narrativist play is possible in Planescape, and my examples illustrate that it's not swimming upstream against the setting to do so. Right?

However it's less fair to say that I have metaplots than I like to have strong, passionate NPCs with their own goals, and they'll be working on them just as much as the PCs are working on their own.

To be clear, I don't think we're using metaplot as a dirty word, but as a descriptor for a style of play. But maybe you already got that.

Yeah I'm sure you have dozens of voices inside your head waiting to break out. I mean that in a good way.

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] seems to be pointing toward the transparency of those NPC motives and actions, and that metaplot is associated with a lack of transparency while narrativist play is about transparency.

Feels like this is sliding away from Planescape and into RPG theory, and I'd like to dovetail back into Planescape and actual play (or the juncture of actual play and theory in Planescape) at some point.

Your yugoloth politics example reminds me if alpha layers/masks in Photoshop. It's Shemeska, oh wait if I clear up all this white space it looks like it's actually the Oinoloth in the background, oh wait...

As much as possible, I want to provide meaningful PC interaction with and/or disruption or co-option of anything other major NPCs are up to in the world at large within the general focus of the campaign.

Of course any campaign can have this, but I feel Planescape does this with a very interesting style. The PCs are expected to disrupt the plans of NPCs who are vastly more powerful - gods, demon princes, those sorts of planar powers. In other campaigns such entities may be unknowable (eg. the gods in Eberron). Part of what makes Planescape unique is the ability to interact and (hopefully) gain the upper hand over such powers.

The next campaign the PCs ran a few things off the rails of where I had in my mind things likely to be going (and in the process they legitimately toppled Bel the Lord of the 1st layer of Hell, and politically brought down Dagos of the Dark 8). I adore that sort of unexpected ramifications of PC actions and motivation while I'm working on what's going on within the larger sphere of the campaign world. Define as metaplot or not as you wish.

I don't know about your game's rails, but those are some huuuuge changes your players made! Especially without you expecting it.

If it were me I'd have had 30 seconds of brainlock.

 

[Imaro]

Of course any campaign can have this, but I feel Planescape does this with a very interesting style. The PCs are expected to disrupt the plans of NPCs who are vastly more powerful - gods, demon princes, those sorts of planar powers. In other campaigns such entities may be unknowable (eg. the gods in Eberron). Part of what makes Planescape unique is the ability to interact and (hopefully) gain the upper hand over such powers.

First let me say that even though I don't have time to post much, I think you did a great job in showing narrativist play in Planescape and I just wanted to quickly comment on the above paragraph.

This is one of those tropes that I think made the Planescape setting feel more S&S to me. In many of those stories the hero or heroes face gods, demons, and other beings that are both tangible (In the Elric stories their is no question as to whether the Chaos Lords, Lords of Law, Beastlords, etc exist and can interact with mortals) and, usually, beyond their means to directly challenge. They however find other ways, such as manipulation, powerful mcguffins that allow them to become more equal, trickery, aid from other beings, and sometimes luck to foil the plans of these powerful beings and defeat them.

However, thinking more on this now I also wonder if these tropes don't just as easily harken back to classical mythology as well. Often times in mythology the heroes cannot hope to match the beings they facee (with the possible exception of demi-god heroes like Hercules) by relying on martial prowess or brute strength alone. Often they must resort to the same methods that the S&S heroes use. Now granted I could see someone becoming so hung up on Planescape's more modern-esque trappings, but honestly I feel like Planescape could support a more mythical style of play... just as easily as it can a more Moorcockian S&S style of play.

 

[Shemeska]

I don't know about your game's rails, but those are some huuuuge changes your players made! Especially without you expecting it.

If it were me I'd have had 30 seconds of brainlock.

It was a case of *pause* "I'm going downstairs to get a drink, and consider the ramifications of what you just did. A 'drink' drink."

 

[Quickleaf]

It was a case of *pause* "I'm going downstairs to get a drink, and consider the ramifications of what you just did. A 'drink' drink."

You are clearly a more experienced DM than me. I would have that blank confused expression even *after* the drink!

 

[pemerton]

pemerton seems to be pointing toward the transparency of those NPC motives and actions, and that metaplot is associated with a lack of transparency while narrativist play is about transparency.

I think I've got more to say in reply to your post, but I wanted to quickly pick up on just this.

I don't think transparency of NPC motivations/actions is essential to narrativism - there can be plots, hidden machinations etc. But I think a certain transparency of theme is important. How that is achieved in any given game and scenario might be very variable - it would depend on a lot else going on at the table, for example - but my basic thought is that if the players invest themselves (via their PCs) into a situation then it undermines that investment if the thematic meaning of the situation is radically changed by the GM exercising force in the background.

 

[TanithT]

@Kamikaze Midget
You go to gehereleth bathhouses?

What, exactly, do you do in a gehereleth bathhouse?

Never mind, I suspect that mortal minds were not meant to know.

*but there's probably Rule 34 of it on the Internet.