Seeing as how I seem to have found a way to use blogspot despite the wobbly giant's best efforts to stop me, I will use it while it is available.
Somewhere on a disk that I haven't found since the move I started writing a post about where the responsibility for developing the narrative in a role playing game lies. Seeing as how I can't find it I will deliver the essence now and maybe add the details later.
Most games squarely hand narrative responsibility to the GM/narrator who in many cases is almost solely responsible for what happens as the story unfolds. Sure, the players (through their PCs) affect the story and can to a degree determine the outcome of individual situations, but it is really the GM that decides the direction of the story as a whole. This is not necessarily a problem as someone has to have a vision of where things are going, but if the GM has also done all the world creation (or taken it from a book) then where do the players have input?
I want to move away from supreme GM control to a more collaborative narrative building experience. I want the players to do more than just tell me about their character background at the start of the game. I want them to tell me about important people in the world. I want them to come up with influential organisations, famed artifacts and great legends that can ll be part of the game.
In game, while I will still hold the reins, I want the players to be having more input than just directing their characters. I want them to describe things that are important to them or their character. If a player is playing a holy knight on a quest, then when they reach the city he (the player) describes the church, inventing details as necessary. In character he can also tell us about the cardinal as the characters are on their way, giving me (the GM) clues to play the Cardinal when the group meets him.
That's it for now. I am going to expect my players in future to have more invested in the game than just a character. Is this reasonable? Well I know it is, but I am really just asking for opinions. Derek's Balance of Powers game (done with Mutants and Masterminds) had lots of these elements. I was just a player, but I invented the main antagonist for the whole first story arc. I felt very connected to the game.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't think the reasonableness is an "of course" answer.
ReplyDeleteI think it's reasonable for you to put forward that this is what you are wanting from the game.
And it's also reasonable for a player to want to come along, hang out with friends and smack some orcs in the head to chill out, then this is also reasonable.
However, as you have made no secret of your intentions in regards to this, people that don't want to play this style of game should know not to game with you, and play something that they would prefer.
Then, there's always the culture shock of changing play styles dramatically like this.
While I am interested in this idea, I'm also used to "here's two sentences of background, what now?" style of play, and so if you just turn around and tell me to write up a history of my homeland for the last 300 years, and include the breeding habits of the royal family before we start a game I'm going to be confronted, uncomfortable, and likely will just skip the game (probably to my regret later)
If, however, after a few games you say to me "So, the Don is a noble of some sort. Can you tell me more of his family, and where they sit in the power structure of your homeland" and then, a few games later "So, the royal family of your land, how do they deal with their neighbours?" and continue to work it up like that, it's far more manageable, and again less confronting.
I'm not saying that this isn't your plan in the first place, just that what you're throwing at us initially is coming across much more confrontational (change playstyles or die!) than what I'm initially comfortable with.
(I hope this makes sense, and obviously, no offence is meant)
I think a shorter version of this post is more along the lines of:
I'm glad that your playstyle has changed and evolved because of your travels, however we're still stuck in the our gaming style rut over here because we haven't had the varied groups, and it's what we're used to.
Most of us would like to meet you on this, however you need to take your foot off the throttle and allow us to catch up at our own pace.
Wow, that's possibly the longest post I've written in about 15 years. Sorry for the wordage, I should have stuck to the short version, but I think it comes across as condescending without the prior bits.
ReplyDeleteYou speak the truth there thanos. Dropping someone in the deep end and expecting them to learn how to swim is not going to make learning to swim a popular choice, especially with people who are very busy and have to choose their leisure time with some degree of care.
ReplyDeleteI know that my post seems possibly harsher than my intent. I'm not going to try and impose my will on the group and expect everyone to do as I say at the drop of a hat. I want to help implement change in our group and I know that if I bludgeon it in, backs will get up and I will be on my own. However some people may not want to come with me on this journey and unfortunately some might get left behind…but only in my games.
So I will go with a zero session before the first play session where the players have a chance to develop everything they need together for a few hours on a day prior to the game starting. I think that collaborating on developing characters is a good way of creating the world and also avoids that famous first line of many (fantasy) rpgs:
"So you have all met at the local pub, when suddenly the door flies open and..."
I also like the idea of collaborating on the development of other players characters. Giving (not forcing) them ideas and helping them flesh out a real person, rather than an archetype.
Also I am not going to try too hard to get other GMs to run their games this way. I might make suggestions, but at the end of the day I won't get upset if people want their games to be in a more traditional style…I don’t believe I have that right. I might not play in every game -I have had enough of high powered fantasy quests to save the universe. I loved them in their time, but I have done it enough times now- but I am not going to automatically rule out something because of the way the GM wants to run it.
I liked your post and I am copying your many paragraph style because mine has started to grow lengthy as well.
While narrative responsibility being shared with the players can work out very well, as I think it did with elements of that game, I also think there's a need to explicitly state that there is that share, and what its parameters are. How much input is too much, for example?
ReplyDeleteI do think things worked out well in terms of shared narrative in that first arc. In last night's session, I tried to continue that with some more moments when people could give me things: Bartek had to describe the center where he's a social worker, and Mike had to describe the new Damage Inc headquarters. Alexander is still very reluctant to take control though.
I certainly appreciated being given so much input into the life of the Winter people in Mike's Beyond the Breach game, because I actually feel like I know my own history.
I definitely think that the gaming time we get these days is more valuable than when we were teenagers and students, because there's a lot less of it, and that means we need to spend it more wisely. Not getting involved in a game where the style doesn't suit you is important, and planning the start of the game together with transparency is a big part of that.