Story Elements in RPGs...

[Scribble]

Ok I'm not entirely sure what this post is about. I was just kind of thinking about stories and how they relate to the story being "told" in an RPG.

I know there are different thoughts about this- IE some start with a story for the campaign, and others see the evolving campaign as the story.

In other forms of storytelling, we often (always?) have a main character. Even in stories that involve a group, there is often one character that is the "main" character. We're supposed to emphasize with this character, and see how everything else going on effects this main character, and then we see the consequences of his choices.

Is this true in D&D? How do people handle it in the face of several players? Do players just have to agree on who is the main character? Does it evolve naturally? Is it ignored completely? If so, does this cheapen the story in any way?


Regarding the choices mentioned above... Often these choices involve some sort of sacrifice. Does the "hero" do what he needs to despite the pain/losses he will suffer?

Do we do this kind of thing in D&D and other games? Is this entirely in the hands of Role playing? To me it seems mechanics for this idea would cheapen it, but others might disagree?

It seems like it would involve both the players input into what their characters personal ideals and wants are for the DM to play on.

Is it something that should be in D&D? Is D&D setup to handle things like this? Are their other games people find that handle these ideas better? If so, why?

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.

 

[Janx]

great thread idea

before somebody sends the "I don't want my game to be a story" post, which if you feel that way, please just don't post...

disclaimer: nobody wants to play a bad railroad. having story elements in your game does not mean you have a railroad.

Personally, I'd like to see ideas here that a sandboxes would feel comfortable in using, that they don't intrinsically violate the sandbox-code, whatever that is.

for instance, in a story, when the hero screws up, there's usually a setback or complication or when some major task is a bit too easy. That concept can be applied to D&D. A non-lethal consequence of choosing badly, or just failing should be a setback or consequence.

Forex: if the party dawdles too long, then the villain moves onto the next step in his plan. Therefore, when the party arrives, things are harder/worse than had they arrived on time

In a story, just about everything that happens in the story revolves around the PC. The PC is somehow related and affected by the situation, thus the situation is inherently about the PCs. Sam Spade doesn't just choose to accept or decline the client, because the client showed up at his office, others are assuming he is involved and it is impacting Sam.

In D&D, this can be translated to, don't just have missions that the PC may/may not accept. Make things happen that intersect the PCs path that the PC would care about and get involved with (what side they choose is of course their choice).

the climax in a story is usually where the big confrontation is. If your plot has a big bad guy, set him up with a cool set where the big fight will probably happen ASSUMING the party confronts him there and UNLESS they come up with a different plan to catch him on the way to work.

A stereotypical story uses a 3 act model. Act 1 is where the game starts with the PCs doing their normal thing. Presumably being kick-butt against some minor problem. Towards the end of that act is when they cross paths with the real problem. The end of the act (and acceptance of the hook) is when they choose to go tackle that problem.

If they don't tackle the hook, have some other material prepared and at intervals reveal the consequences of not tackling that hook.

In act 2, the PCs are working towards the solution. Somewhere towards the end of Act 2 is the setback, that their basic plan was too simplistic or the BBEG was more prepared than they thought.

Act 3, the PCs regroup and get their real progress on to the climax. The climax happens in the big boss fight. The denoument is when the PCs get home, treasure is split up, and NPCs show their reactions to the players efforts.

In a sandbox, I suspect the GM is NOT scripting any of this. But if you follow the progress it may have parallels. Act 1 the party decided to explore the Dungeon of Disastrous Doom. Act 2, the party kills monsters, takes their stuff, and the bard dies in a Pit Trap. Act 3, the party raises the bard and gets their killer dungeon game face on to find the Lich and kill him and take his stuff. The denouement is the party bickering over treasure and XP.

 

[Umbran]

In other forms of storytelling, we often (always?) have a main character.

In TV, especially, there's the concept of an ensemble cast, where it is difficult or impossible to identify one true "main" character. I tend to aim for my games to play out like this.

Is this true in D&D? How do people handle it in the face of several players? Do players just have to agree on who is the main character? Does it evolve naturally? Is it ignored completely? If so, does this cheapen the story in any way?

As a GM, I approach it this way: each player should be able to view events as if he or she were the main character in their own story. I try to be sure to scatter around plot elements relevant to each character in roughly equal proportions. The spotlight isn't strictly evenly divided in each and every session, but over the course of several sessions, everyone gets roughly equal amount of time to be the main focus.

I find this strengthens the overall story, rather than weakens it, as everyone is equally invested, and failure of one character (like, say, death) doesn't derail the entire campaign.

 

[Scribble]

In TV, especially, there's the concept of an ensemble cast, where it is difficult or impossible to identify one true "main" character. I tend to aim for my games to play out like this.

I'm not sure I agree... I'm struggling to think of even an ensemble cast where there isn't a "main" character... Even if that main characterness is often somewhat hidden. (A lot of times in an ensemble style you have to wait until the series finale to really confirm who the show was about, but there is a somewhat that it ends up being about.)

Maybe this does then lead to an answer, and its application to RPGs... You don't often know who the main character is until the end of the campaign?

So how does this really apply to the ongoing game? In a TV series or such the writers obviously know somewhat of what the show is about.

So do we look at the DM as the reader or the writer?

 

[Jack7]

I think that sometimes a role playing team develops a main character. Or even a leadership team or pair (which could function as a team of main characters).

Although I'm not sure this is true in the same sense as is true in literature. To me the "team" is often far more like a military unit (than a cast of characters), with "main characters" being those who can best respond to or lead (although some really good players and characters might eschew a formal leadership or even main character role) in any given situation.

So to me both leadership roles and main character status is usually fluid in a role play situation, and sometimes almost circumstantial, rather than being fixed and static. I think that one of the fundamental problems with later editions of D&D, for example, is that it tried to more or less fix or emplace leadership roles, rather than let them evolve either naturally or situation, and this is probably due to the emphasis on combat leadership, rather than stressing the leadership principle in general.

To me the players will affix leadership roles and situational "status" positions through role play, and that these positions need not, and often are bets not, fixed ahead of time by some artificial class relationship, or some idea that certain classes (or similar constructs) make better leaders, followers, etc. Role assignments in any team of co-equal volunteers is not about rank, or privilege, or even theoretical supposition (or maybe especially not about theoretical supposition), but about actual performance in the field in any given situation. Players determine such standings and relationships by how they play, and to what end, and how they react to any given circumstance. Rather than predetermined role assignments can still be used, if desired, after one sees how the actual, on the ground relationships evolve and develop.

I could go on and on about heroism, how it relates to leadership, how it is similar to and different from leadership, and how it ultimately involves self-sacrifice, as well as how it affects others (say within the same party). So I won't do that. But I will say that heroism is a particular kind of role, and involves a particular kind of leadership, that may very well be entirely different from more standard leadership roles. Although ideally all leaders should be at least capable of, if not actual exemplars of heroism.

As for me, and my ideas about storytelling in role play games. To me storytelling in role play games should be 50% preparation. That is to say the DM creates and prepares the skeleton of the story, or the framework and foundation if you will. And role play storytelling should be 50% inspiration, that is to say it is the job of the characters to "grow flesh upon the frame" by their personal actions and deeds and manner of acting in the created world.

Or put another way the DM develops the Macro-World of the milieu, and the players develop the Micro-World of the Milieu. Both are extremely important and complimentary and mutually reliant ventures and this is one of the things that makes role play games unique, in the sense that they are truly interactive. Psychologically as well as imaginatively interactive. The best stories are a collaborative effort between DM (Story-Creator) and Players (Story-Developers).

 

[Umbran]

I'm not sure I agree... I'm struggling to think of even an ensemble cast where there isn't a "main" character...

The Muppet Show. Kermit may get the most screen time, but the show isn't "about Kermit".

Edit: As Janx noted below - Star Trek: The Next Generation.

So do we look at the DM as the reader or the writer?

My games don't have a single writer. I write the antagonists, side characters, and so on, and the players write the protagonists. I have some things in my game that I'd refer to as "plots", but they are not well-defined pre-written sequences of events.

 

[Janx]

In TV, especially, there's the concept of an ensemble cast, where it is difficult or impossible to identify one true "main" character. I tend to aim for my games to play out like this.



As a GM, I approach it this way: each player should be able to view events as if he or she were the main character in their own story. I try to be sure to scatter around plot elements relevant to each character in roughly equal proportions. The spotlight isn't strictly evenly divided in each and every session, but over the course of several sessions, everyone gets roughly equal amount of time to be the main focus.

I find this strengthens the overall story, rather than weakens it, as everyone is equally invested, and failure of one character (like, say, death) doesn't derail the entire campaign.

I can agree with this principle. Star Trek:TNG was not about Captain Picard. Sure Patrick Stewart got top billing, but he wan't the focus in every episode.

In any event, in D&D, the GM is better advised to treat the players as a true Ensemble Cast than to pick a single PC and make him the focal point on which all plots hang.

 

[Scribble]

The Muppet Show. Kermit may get the most screen time, but the show isn't "about Kermit".

Unfortunately since I haven't seen the muppet show in over 20 years I can't remember what the overriding theme of the show was... So I can't really comment.

Wasn't the Muppet Show more of a SNL type thing? In which case there isn't really an over arching story, so you're saying you try to make your game a collection of short stories sort of?

So in the case each player at times can potentially be a "main" character?

A good way to go, but what if you want to do an over arching idea?

Do you just avoid them? Because you feel RPGs don't handle them well?

My games don't have a single writer. I write the antagonists, side characters, and so on, and the players write the protagonists. I have some things in my game that I'd refer to as "plots", but they are not well-defined pre-written sequences of events.

I guess I wasn't clear, I didn't mean the DM as the sole writer of the game. Just a writer. The same question can be asked about the players to.

Are they readers, or writers, or some combo, of reading while writing?

I can agree with this principle. Star Trek:TNG was not about Captain Picard. Sure Patrick Stewart got top billing, but he wan't the focus in every episode.

Disagree. A character doesn't have to have sole focus in every episode to be the main character- ultimately I'd say TNG was in fact about Picard.

 

[Jack7]

I write the antagonists, side characters, and so on, and the players write the protagonists.

Well spoken.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm not sure I agree... I'm struggling to think of even an ensemble cast where there isn't a "main" character... Even if that main characterness is often somewhat hidden. (A lot of times in an ensemble style you have to wait until the series finale to really confirm who the show was about, but there is a somewhat that it ends up being about.)

In some ensemble casts, the "main character" may shift from story arc to story arc, season to season. In others, there may be a focal character for the series, but in certain ways, he is written as a character we don't necessarily identify with.