Story Elements in RPGs...

[Bedrockgames]

What are your thoughts overall on the idea of story in gaming?

I told you I'm not entirely sure what this thread is about.

Personally I am not interested in forcing a story out of a game. For me that leads to loss of player freedom and a less objective and open setting. What sets RPGs apart from books or movies, IMO, is you aren't on a rail. A story has the structure it has, and the features it has, largely because it is the product of a writer's imagination. He fits it to that mold. But characters in an RPG have free will.

What I look for in terms of story is that something emerge naturally during play between the interaction of characters, between characters and setting, etc. But I am not looking to have a story we can hold in our hands and call a "story". If it misses some of the structure of a story, that is fine. If it misses elements common to a story (like a clear protagonist or villain) that is cool too.

 

[the Jester]

With luck and a good group, everyone is the main character some of the time. The "ensemble cast" type of thing is a very good analogy.

The "story" of the game is what arises out of the events in play.

I prefer to let the players guide me as much as I guide them.

 

[Barastrondo]

If you want to look at ensemble casts, look not just at models like The Wire, but also at models like soap operas and professional wrestling -- serial entertainment designed to keep going week after week, with no clear end in sight, and with casts that rotate and evolve. Sure, some promotions have "main characters" -- but only a crazy person would say that every match at Wrestlemania is somehow about Hulk Hogan. (Like maybe a crazy person like Hulk Hogan.)

I am absolutely a strong believer in theme as guidance for a game; that's how I manage to still be interested in D&D all these years later. Theme can influence what people perceive as a story: it can recommend dramatic beats (an intrigue game needs betrayals), NPC motivations (adoration twisted to obsession is a strongly Gothic Horror element), visual set pieces (a swashbuckler without opera houses and sailing ships is bereft), and so on. It also, if you have player buy-in, gets all the players speaking the same language.

Organic themes can arise, yes. I think they'll reflect the chemistry of the group and what everyone can agree on. But organic themes are still by nature going to be a bit more patchwork than those of a game where you say from the beginning "this is going to be sword and sorcery in an untamed land dotted with fallen ruins," and everyone creates characters accordingly.

 

[Umbran]

If not, could the story have been better told with one?

"Could the story be told better?" is an odd bird of a question. What does it really mean? What makes a story good, or one telling better than another?

I would say that ultimately, the measure of how good a story is lies in the enjoyment of those who experience the story. The experience of reading a novel is different than the experience of playing a game. So, what makes a good story in a novel is not what makes a good story in a game.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and suggest that, in an RPG, most players probably don't get as much enjoyment out of the exercise if they don't get their fair share of spotlight time. Therefore, when playing an RPG, you usually won't get a better story if everyone feels they're playing second fiddle to the one central character.

I have seen successful games run with one main character, but they are the exception, rather than the rule.

Sure- but personified through Picard. (But we can just disagree. )

Simply put - TNG isn't an exploration of Picard as a person, or of his activities, in particular. The episodes are not generally, "what does Picard do." If anything, the exploration of what it is to be human is more done through Data or Worf than Picard, because they have specific points of difference from humans that can be used for highlighting.

 

[Scribble]

If Scribble is soliciting a range of opinions, then I don't think telling others to shut their yaps is really constructive.

My only caveat is to keep it civil.

It would help me to understand if you could give an example of what you mean by a theme.

I mean theme in the literary sense; the broad idea, or moral of the story. It exists along side of plot to create the whole of what the story is about.

The "story" of the game is what arises out of the events in play.

Do you ever start with any sort of "direction" before you begin?

Do you find the stories told if you think back tend to have similar ideas running through them?

I guess what this thread mainly boils down to is whether or not establishing a theme before you begin can benefit role playing?

"Could the story be told better?" is an odd bird of a question. What does it really mean? What makes a story good, or one telling better than another?

I guess I meant, if you were reading the events as a story could they have been told in a better way, one that would make more sense, or feel more cohesive.

Also, if someone not participating in the game were to read the events as a story, would they find the same enjoyment? (I don't ask this advocating that this needs to be the case for a good game.)

Simply put - TNG isn't an exploration of Picard as a person, or of his activities, in particular. The episodes are not generally, "what does Picard do." If anything, the exploration of what it is to be human is more done through Data or Worf than Picard, because they have specific points of difference from humans that can be used for highlighting.

I think again I did a bad job explaining what I meant when I said main character (maybe I wasn't sure myself?)

By main character I'm not saying this is the character that is the plot of the show-but instead this is the character that drives the main theme of the show.

Picard is the character that learns/experiences the main theme for us on the show.

Through his conversations with Data, Picard (and by extension the viewers) learns what it means to experience the world through emotion, and by extension the drawbacks of lacking emotion. Through Worf Picard learns kind of the opposite, and the benefits of reigning in emotion and passion.

It all comes to a head in the end where Picard embodies the human race in full showing us whether or not it passes Q's ongoing test.

Anyway I really don't want to continue down a debate about Picard.

So in RPGs it seems each player is exploring themes through his own character. Would the theme be explored further if there was a character who "ties it all together?"

 

[Scribble]

Personally I am not interested in forcing a story out of a game. For me that leads to loss of player freedom and a less objective and open setting. What sets RPGs apart from books or movies, IMO, is you aren't on a rail. A story has the structure it has, and the features it has, largely because it is the product of a writer's imagination. He fits it to that mold. But characters in an RPG have free will.

What I look for in terms of story is that something emerge naturally during play between the interaction of characters, between characters and setting, etc. But I am not looking to have a story we can hold in our hands and call a "story". If it misses some of the structure of a story, that is fine. If it misses elements common to a story (like a clear protagonist or villain) that is cool too.

I don't think having story structure elements like a main theme implies a railroad (at least anymore then giving your character an alignment does.)

If you want to look at ensemble casts, look not just at models like The Wire, but also at models like soap operas and professional wrestling -- serial entertainment designed to keep going week after week, with no clear end in sight, and with casts that rotate and evolve. Sure, some promotions have "main characters" -- but only a crazy person would say that every match at Wrestlemania is somehow about Hulk Hogan. (Like maybe a crazy person like Hulk Hogan.)

That's a good point on shows like that... I don't really watch them, so I don't know if there is a universal theme to them?

 

[Umbran]

I guess I meant, if you were reading the events as a story could they have been told in a better way, one that would make more sense, or feel more cohesive.

Okay. Well, my response is then as above. But let me be more complete...

Consider that there are many mediums for stories. There are novels, movies, TV, comic books, spoken-word pieces, and so on. We can consider RPGs one more medium for stories.

But what works for a story in one medium doesn't necessarily work in another medium. Some things that make for a great novel work lousy on the silver screen. Some things in movies don't work on TV. We talk endlessly about how comic books get adapted to movies, right? And Justin Wilson, master verbal story-teller, used different techniques than JMS, master TV story-teller.

I am not trying to create a standard written narrative at my table, or when I play. If I wanted to create a written story, I'd... write a story! If I focus on what makes that novel-narrative, I miss out on techniques and effects that are peculiar to the tabletop RPG.

Anyway I really don't want to continue down a debate about Picard.

Fair enough, though I think the example is illustrative - Picard isn't the one who experiences and learns most in the show.

So in RPGs it seems each player is exploring themes through his own character. Would the theme be explored further if there was a character who "ties it all together?"

Generally speaking, I think that if there's one character whose viewpoint is somehow more central, the other players would then be less engaged with the theme - meaning that we'd usually be doing a less complete job of exploring the theme.

There can be specific examples where this is not the case, with particular setups and groups for some particular themes, but those are exceptional cases.

 

[Scribble]

I am not trying to create a standard written narrative at my table, or when I play. If I wanted to create a written story, I'd... write a story! If I focus on what makes that novel-narrative, I miss out on techniques and effects that are peculiar to the tabletop RPG.

That's I think what I'm looking for- Where people think the overlap is , where are the divides, etc...

Generally speaking, I think that if there's one character whose viewpoint is somehow more central, the other players would then be less engaged with the theme - meaning that we'd usually be doing a less complete job of exploring the theme.

But is this confusing more "central" with more important? (Main character was probably a bad term?)

Lets say for the sake of argument our theme is exploring human nature.

One character represents extreme logic and rationality. He or she explores the theme of human nature through this lens. Decisions made come from a place of logic and reason only.

Another makes decisions and explores the theme through unbridled passion- logic and reason fall before emotion.

The third character is the "central" character. He or she represents these ideals coming together as they do in all of us. He must choose when to weigh in in favor of logic, or when to side with emotion. Through this we get an exaggerated view of what we as humans do everyday when we make choices.

Without all three there isn't a full story, so no character is more "important" then the other. One simply represents the question itself, and the others represent viewpoints.

 

[GSHamster]

I think I see what Scribble is trying to get at. Picard may not be the main character as normally defined, but he is the "central" character. All the other signficant characters connect to him. There are Star Treks that don't do this. For example, not all the characters in DS9 do not connect to Sisko in the same fashion (Quark, in particular).

A better example than Start Trek might be Seinfield. Four main characters in a true ensemble. And yet Jerry is the central character.

 

[Cor Azer]

I really enjoy story elements in my games, but I tend to limit them to character description and motivation and world-building. Those three, when well executed, really help the sense of immersion that I get from stories, without the restrictions of a railroad plot. They show where the campaign begins, and with the playets' actions, describe all the inputs on where the campaign goes.

Story tropes meant to be directed at the audience don't seem to work as well in my opinion (ie, the moral of the story is...) because people are there to play, not watch an afterschool special.

The only game system I've seen that has a reasonable (?) differentiation between main and support characters when both are player-driven is the Buffy Unisystem; Heroes (main characters) get more skills, but fewer drama points; White Hats (secondary characters) get fewer skills, and way more drama points. Drama points let characters pull off wildly lucky stuff, or add/remove elements from a scene like a convenient convertible with keys left in the ignition when an escape is needed...

Although well hashed so far, in my mind the best example of an ensemble show is Friends - everyone equally important in driving the plot forward.