Story Elements in RPGs...

[Janx]

I'll use an example I actually ran, an adaptation of Babylon5 to D&D.

I told my players that the campaign would be a naval military campaign from the human perspective. Humans had just recently discovered other islands and other races.

So every player had to make a PC that could serve on a human Navy ship as officers, marines, ship's mage, etc.

As a GM, this allowed me to do the following:
get the party moving toward basic D&D missions as an activity
explore working to get promoted
explore recieving orders, and disobeying them when it was the right thing to do
swashbuckling pirate action
a military court martial
a live-action interrogation
underground railroading of innocent fugitives
war, sacrifice and loss
honor and pride

By choosing the Setting, and the PC starting point, I emphasize the kind of themes we would be exploring without explicitely stating those themes.

I was reasonably certain I could get my merry band to the Battle of the Line (and I did). But they could have gone mutiny and that would then be a new theme (pirates!).

Had I chosen the setting as "you guys are a bunch of rogues in the same thieves guild" then this big Elf vs. Human navy battle would not have been a crucial theme in the game. let alone if I let the PCs just pick any random classes and races.

For the purposes of a campaign, I don't consider that we are going to explore just 1 theme (the Battle of the Line) or even a list. I just know that when I pick a certain starting environment, there's a number of obvious kinds of possible outcomes and stories that can come out of it.

 

[Scribble]

I think you might be confusing theme and plot?

 

[Ariosto]

Original D&D, along with its peers and immediate successors, was designed with prominent random factors and player inputs that can easily blow away any "plot line". The pioneering campaigns were massively multi-player affairs, in which the DM's role was much more that of a referee of player-initiated actions than of someone setting up sharply limited scenarios.

The era of Vampire the Masquerade and Second Edition AD&D saw a lot of DM "fudging" to bend old-style rules to a different kind of entertainment. I think a reaction against that helped accelerate development of more story oriented game systems (a pretty fertile field these days).

 

[Umbran]

I think you might be confusing theme and plot?

I think "theme" is a pretty broad word, and can include a lot of different things.

To expand on that: I don't think a theme has to be something highfalutin' and philosophical like "humanity" or "leadership" or the like. "PIRATES!" is a perfectly acceptable theme. If you wish, you can probably consider a lot of those more idealistic themes to be implied by the more practically presented form.

 

[Barastrondo]

Well- I definitely don't think it would be for everyone, just like things like Adventure Paths and heavy plot based campaigns aren't for everyone.

Oh, I agree.

To me, picking a central theme and building characters around it doesn't seem like it would impinge upon player freedom anymore then setting style would.

I agree here as well -- because that's what I do, for a certain definition of "theme." Last 4 D&D campaign-style games I ran were:

- a Nordic-flavored adventure in the frozen north
- a Italian-tinged swashbuckler, highly inspired by Assassin's Creed and Brust's Phoenix Guards
- a weird fusion inspired by Gormenghast, clockpunk and Miyazaki's Laputa
- a Ravenloft/Castlevania-style game in a Gothic Horror-themed land, albeit with some very competent monster-slayer heroes

Now, you might argue that these are really subgenres rather than themes, but themes did arise from them. No one true theme in each game, but you could argue that they emphasized:

- the value of glory; the nature of blood debts;the strength of kinship
- Panache; the demands of family ties; deciding one's fate
- isolation; reclaiming of a civilization that has forgotten what it once was; eccentricity and quirkiness
- Light versus darkness; supernatural intrigues

In each case the themes were typically suggested by the setting, but also many arose organically from play.

In fact sometimes I think giving players a starting point can unleash creativity as they put their own energies towards exploring whatever idea it is...

Absolutely true. To go back to my above examples, if you'll indulge me:

In the swashbuckler, panache was mandated as a theme. But the demands of family ties wound up being a theme for every character, as the players began to think about what mattered to them, and why they were adventurers. Right now it's so important to each character you'd almost think I planned it that way. But I didn't. I just provided them with a setting, and some cool Great Houses that they could be tied to if they wanted.

Structure gives players a foundation to build on, as long as it's something they find inspirational.

But like any other campaign, I would advocate the DM thunking down a main theme and demanding players make characters based on it... Just like I wouldn't recommend a DM thunking down the Darksun books and saying make characters, without any input from the players...

Yes, absolutely. This is why I let my players vote on campaigns. I present a list of games I would be excited to run, and let them tick off the ones that sound interesting to them as individuals. I can usually build a "top five" out of this, and then I flesh out each proposal and ask them to pick their favorites. (Specifically, rank them in order: every "first pick" counts as five votes, every "second pick" counts as four, etc. The one with the most points wins.)

It's honestly how I plan to do things from now on. Each time it's delivered me a campaign setting that all the players are excited to participate in, and that I knew I wanted to run when I suggested it in the first place. I don't really cede open control to the players, but they get so much say in the campaign that everyone's invested in the most apparent themes from the moment of character creation. The ones that arise organically later on -- well, they get pretty invested in those, too.

 

[steeldragons]

First, let me say, kudos for a great thread and intelligent discussion on things versus an argue-fest.

That said, I think there is an overwhelming...not "bias"...but "misleading", maybe is a better word (?), slant to the bulk of questions being handled in this thread. Not just this thread, but a great many threads...which to a point is understandable...everyone has their preferences, but...well, let me get to it...

There is no "should." There is no "better." There is no "could handling the game this way versus that way make it [be "it" the plot, the theme, the story, what have you] more enjoyable."

There is no "right way" to have a great game.

What makes a game/a story/a theme/a plot/ even a "main" character great, imho, is the group of people at the table.

And yes, maybe some would benefit from a "theme" here or a an "overarching plot" or "story element" there. Some might benefit from a railroad, some from a sandbox.

But there is no way to tell or chart or anticipate who benefits from what.

There is no definitive "formula", if you will, for "better" or "should be" or "could be" for an enjoyable RPG experience.

It is the people at the table and what they (players and GMs) like and is important to them and how they interact with each other and the elements presented in the game that makes for a good "story" or (more broadly) an enjoyable RPGing experience.

Just my coppers. Take 'em fer what they're worth.
As always, have fun (however that is defined for you) and happy gaming.
--Steel Dragons

 

[Ariosto]

Years ago, Iron Crown Enterprises put out a Mythic Greece book (by Aaron Allston, IIRC) that featured the scheme of one central demigod with "supporting cast" companions. I don't recall there being a whole lot of advice about this, but it might be worth a look.

Allston's Strike Force book for Champions did have a lot of advice about various techniques for weaving in story lines of different sorts.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

For instance, take a Conan-like game, where the themes are defined as the innate decadence of civilization and the barbarity of human existence. If you explore those themes from a resident of the civilization you may grow more sympathetic to the viewpoint. But if you view them from the lens of an average modern person, you may start getting deconstructive. How much of "the innate decadence of civilization" and how much is a romanticized view? How does it stack up to the viewpoint of "Things were simpler back in my day," which is often tied to social structures where people with less power had it even worse? Is that admirable?

Maybe I'm being too cynical, but I think if someone tried this, the most likely result would be a descent into pastiche, maybe even self-parody. And if someone worked really hard to avoid that trap, they'd probably go too far the other way into the kind of analysis that would make some other, more appropriately Conan-ish character, murder the first character.

No jury in the world would convict. It would be like having a mime center-stage in a Broadway musical, and the front row arose as one to drag him off the stage--to a thunderous ovation from audience, cast and crew.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Most of the campaigns I've been in the past decade or so have had a PC whose background formed a major portion of the campaign's plot structure (at least for a major story arc within the campaign), but the PC in question didn't really seem to be the focus...at least, not to the point where other PCs were eclipsed.

Instead, that PC & background were like a catalyst to get things going, but each and every PC in the party became crucial to the story in some way, shape or form.

For instance, in our 3.5Ed game (currently on hiatus), one player's PC was thought to be the "Chosen One" of an evil cult. Well, they found this to be wrong as, along the way, other PCs in the party poked (BIG) holes in the prophesy...even though the "Chosen One" kept seeming to conform to it. It didn't hurt that another "Chosen One" from a good-aligned faith was in the party as well. Essentially, the evil oracle was dead wrong...then dead. Since then, the game's focus has shifted elsewhere. The "Chosen One" and his actions are no longer full of import.

Our current 4Ed campaign features a Dwarven PC whose family honor is somewhat in disarray due to the actions of his bro, and he's charged with redeeming that honor. Its a major plot point. But the party's makeup as a whole makes it interesting- my Dwarf's Clan isn't exactly held in high favor (we deal in unsavory knowledge as a mission), and we're surrounded by a bunch of humans & pointy-eared tree-huggers. And the thing is, its clear that the situation could not be resolved merely by him alone or by those like him: his "outsider" allies must act to save his insular Dwarven family and their honor. Maybe more. Its kind of like the "Whorf's Family Honor" story arc from Next Gen...except with Whorf getting his ass kicked more often than not.

 

[Ariosto]

I think you might be confusing theme and plot?

I think the kind of general situational-background theme Janx emphasized works better for an RPG than pushing a "moral of the story" literary theme.

How would you ensure a story with such a particular message? How would that add to, rather than detract from the fun of the game?

In my experience, such forcing can take place with luck over the course of a limited scenario -- but even when one succeeds in so maneuvering the players, it's not as satisfying as things that emerge organically.

As the players' characters and their world get richer in relationships, "themes" rear their heads just as they do in real life. Art is imitating life to an extent in its themes, skewing for emphasis the frequency with which some things we like to believe actually come about.