What first in your TTRPGing - Story, Game or Character?

[niklinna]

I'm not sure how to separate story and character in a way that allows me to answer the question. Character is the engine of story. It provides the motion, the momentum for it.

I feel similarly. A good RPG for me has all three building on and reinforcing each other. I can enjoy a game that back-burners one or two of those things (especially one-shots at cons), but not on an ongoing basis.

 

[Umbran]

Boards games aren't an off-ramp for some kinds of play

To be clear, I didn't say it was an "off-ramp". I think non-RPG games are just generally better at being games, for me. They are a superior game experience.

 

[Pedantic]

To be clear, I didn't say it was an "off-ramp". I think non-RPG games are just generally better at being games, for me. They are a superior game experience.

Yeah, I just think that's largely design failure, not a feature of the form.

 

[hawkeyefan]

There have been some people answering in terms of chronological order and there have been some answering in terms of importance and at least one has answered in terms of something like structure. I agree that as someone else has said above story and character can be hard to entangle. I don't think any of these answers are exactly incompatible but the different viewpoints might well be hard to reconcile at one table.

I think it depends in the game and the goals and expectations for it.

So, I’m currently playing in two games. In one, I’d say character is not very important at all. It mostly amounts to choices of class options to help the team, a bit of flavor while portraying the character, and perhaps a sliver of motivation in certain instances. The game is very much story first. We’re playing D&D and going through the classic module Temple of Elemental Evil.

My other game is probably more about character in that if we changed the characters, the events of play would go differently. The story that emerges from play is the story of our characters specifically. They cannot be swapped out for others and have the game go the same. This game is Stonetop.

What makes these two games different is largely the rules and processes of play. Those rules highlight story or character in both active and passive ways.

 

[Voadam]

I think it depends in the game and the goals and expectations for it.

So, I’m currently playing in two games. In one, I’d say character is not very important at all. It mostly amounts to choices of class options to help the team, a bit of flavor while portraying the character, and perhaps a sliver of motivation in certain instances. The game is very much story first. We’re playing D&D and going through the classic module Temple of Elemental Evil.

My other game is probably more about character in that if we changed the characters, the events of play would go differently. The story that emerges from play is the story of our characters specifically. They cannot be swapped out for others and have the game go the same. This game is Stonetop.

What makes these two games different is largely the rules and processes of play. Those rules highlight story or character in both active and passive ways.

Isn't Stonetop an OSR [mega?]dungeon?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Isn't Stonetop an OSR [mega?]dungeon?

No, it’s a variant on Dungeon World. A PbtA game about the champions of a quasi-iron age village.

 

[Voadam]

No, it’s a variant on Dungeon World. A PbtA game about the champions of a quasi-iron age village.

Got it, thanks. That makes a lot more sense for the original statement context.

Looking in my files it was the Labyrinth Lord Stonehell Dungeon I was thinking of.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Interesting question; difficult question.

If I’m the GM, I’m pretty much “story first“ (as I understand it). As a player, I’m probably “character first.”

But in almost every case, “game” comes in a close second…or is a co-leader. What game I’m playing affects what stories I can/want to tell and how I can tell them.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I think the three dominate at one stage or another within a campaign, and depending on your participation (DM or Player) and the type of RPG you're playing, will help inform how often and hard you may lean towards any of the three during the life of the campaign.

So for instance,

• As a DM I have changed the story to highlight characters (for the benefit of the players);
• As a DM I have altered mechanics for the benefit of the story and characters; and
• Mechanics assist in shaping and limiting characters and story.

Think of it as an ever-changing triangle, from equilateral to isosceles to scalene to back again...

Having said all that, ultimately, as a DM (and likely a player, as that is what I enjoy), I lean heavier towards story. I care for the characters, but they ultimately are there to serve the story, as are the mechanics. IMO they are but the tools to be used for good storytelling in RPGs which is what I care for most, no matter where I sit at the table. But that is me.

 

[Argyle King]

For me, I prefer story and mechanics to have a coherent relationship.

If they do, I believe that story naturally emerges from mechanics whenever two collects of stays (character v character; character v world; etc) come into contact with each other. That's a reflection of what happens in real life; how a person interacts with other people and the world around them produces their story.

Coming from the other direction, I like WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) as a default. If there is a scene in which the heroes are pinned down by sniper fire, I expect that the sniper will have a rifle and ammo on their person.

I think this way even when fantasy and sci-fi elements are involved. In the example above, maybe the sniper was using a spirit-rifle and didn't need bullets because X-amount of shots are charged up by a ritual which converts soul-energy into ammo. I believe that how non-real things would work if they did hypothetically exist is something which can be extrapolated from things we know.

It doesn't necessarily need to be a perfect 1-to-1 relationship. I'm okay with handwaving that a dragon can fly -despite their wings likely not being able to carry them if they were real. But dragons should still have wings, unless there is some other explanation for how they can fly without them. A vague sense of plausibility is something I can live with, as long as gross violations of how I would expect a situation to play out aren't commonplace without explanation.

Story and character are both equally important to me. How much distance is between the two in a game will have an impact on how I feel about interacting with the game.

Additionally, what my expectations are for what that relationship is versus what the relationship turns out to be in actual play matters. I can (and do) enjoy more abstract games if I go into them expecting an abstract experience. (D&D hitpoints are an example.)