Where’s the Plot?
With my one-year anniversary with my current gaming group rapidly approaching, I’ve taken some time to reflect on all that has transpired. We’ve run a total of three separate campaigns, starting with the conclusion of a long-running D&D campaign set in the Forgotten Realms, to which I was (to my dismay) only party to a single adventure. Still, being able to participate in the conclusion of a massive campaign, and to aid in the destruction of several quasi-deities and the raising of one of my companions as a God in his own right was definitely memorable.
Our next campaign took place in the Star Wars galaxy, though far in the future of the setting most are familiar with. Playing a group of Jedi, where my own Kell Vaska took the role of mechanic and healer, we were responsible for revealing the location of the Jedi homeworld, nearly got ourselves killed on dozens of occasions, yet managed to eliminate a powerful Dark Side threat before it could be marshalled against the Federation (our era’s version of the Rebellion/Republic). In the process, though, Kell lost one of his closest friends to betrayal by one of their own.
I took the reigns of our next venture last August, and we’re almost to the point of completing the main story arc. Though we’ve had some difficulty in keeping players (we started with 5 players, and along the way we’ve lost 5 and gained 3, though the primary characters, Hero and Naomi, have both been around since the beginning), the campaign is still progressing quite nicely.
One oddity I’ve noticed, however, is that throughout all our sessions, the players (myself included) seldom seem to have any real initiative of their own. Every adventure is planned by the GM, and the players dutifully follow the hooks and clues laid out before them, and faithfully follow the trail to the adventure’s conclusion. While this makes my job as GM substantially less complicated, I can’t help but feel as if I’m “rail-roading”, or forcing the players to do as I choose. Given that I vastly prefer games where choices matter and the PCs have as many different choices as possible, I’m somewhat concerned. Is it something that I’m doing? Or is it merely that our group is remarkably compliant when it comes to following the proposed campaign?
April 29th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
This is a fair question, so here’s one player’s input: From my seat in the mighty wooden rocking chair, the gaming sessions and the immediate fallout are a structured part of the overall campaign that draws all of the otherwise disparate agendas together. Consider if Hero would have ever gleefully followed Naomi on adventure that began from her own self interest, or Naomi on one of his. I imagine that Maerin would go along with her, and she has no reason not to help him, so that pair of characters might be able to drag Hero along into something but it would certainly involve dragging.
The main reason is really a fundamental incompatibility between Hero and Naomi that has crept in over the last dozen levels. While he may change over time into something more likable, for now he must live with the opinion others have formed of him. This basic truth leaves the two original characters as unessential components of their respective lives and unlikely to be requested to join in on anything designed to fulfill a personal agenda. Also, consideration of this fact plays no small part in the volume of things that Naomi does during intersession activities.
It would be unfair for me to leave a submission here without a suggestion or two. First, many of the adventures so far present logical choices that make the clear path through the conclusion. Also, since the episodes tend to run like discrete missions, there is a clear meter of whether the mission was successful or not. This means that the adventuring they do has objective standards that the characters can easily separate from their “normal†lives. In order to mitigate this it may be good to consider situations which challenge the convictions and emotions of the characters. This approach weighs character growth as the outcome and tends to be rather open-ended, with the outcome of the adventure having a definite and permanent impact on the most fundamental components of the characters’ lives.
If the simply more spontaneity during adventures, then it is a simple matter of incorporating or prolonging events that will allow or encourage spontaneous action on the part of the characters. A trick here is to divorce the characters from their skills and all of the numeric mess that we call a character sheet. Encourage the players to see things as their character sees them, without the filter of game mechanics. In the case of spontaneity and character-based initiative, mechanics are a hindrance that allows players to hide and not fully engage the story, the environment, and their own characters.
April 30th, 2006 at 12:01 pm
Okay, I had posted a response last night but I see that it did not take for some reason. However, rather than attempt to reconstruct it as I did not save the response to a file, you get the (really) short version…
The nutshell is that the basic incompatibility that has developed between the main characters means that they are not really inclined to involve each other in their own agendas. This tends to reduce each adventure into a “mission†which has a definite beginning where they come together, and an end where they go about their own business again. Each mission tends to have a fairly logical way through it that allows the players who choose to absorb themselves in the mechanics in the absence of role playing their characters.
So, how to promote more initiative and spontaneous action? The most basic function is to format adventures so that the characters can feel that the “mission†has a bearing in the long-term progress toward their personal agendas. Don’t let the players filter things through the mechanics of their character sheets. I sense that the present mission is heading that way, but we shall see. However, one must be aware of the conflicting agendas that have been (are?) present in the group, and how those agendas will guide the actions of the characters in opposite directions.
May 2nd, 2006 at 11:55 am
First off, I apologize for not Moderating the first comment in time. The site currently gets about 98% of comments as Spam, so unless I’ve already approved a comment for a given name/IP, it goes into the queue for moderation. (Philip has automatic approval, but Philip (Naomi) does not, or rather, did not before today.)
As for the incompatibility, I’ll definitely agree that it has made planning adventures more difficult. If it weren’t for Naomi’s love of adventure and Hero’s love of money, I’d have a real task at coming up with something that would intrigue both characters. I’m not sure if I can structure an adventure that will bring the simmering Hero-Naomi conflict to a head, because it will be incredibly difficult to recover from the ensuing fallout. If the two come to blows, it’s highly likely that one or the other will end up dead, and both characters still have relatively major roles to play at the conclusion of this story arc. Hopefully the conflict can or will be resolved at the conclusion, but I can’t really be certain.
I’ll also admit that a lot of the recent adventures have fairly simple goals, and don’t really lend themselves well to complicated role-playing decisions in the pursuit of those goals. Part of that is definitely a fault of mine, as the future of the campaign is loosely dependent upon the PCs pursuing these goals (successfully or not). I’ve also been saving the more complex questions for out-of-session play, which has been extremely fruitful in Naomi’s case, but not so much with either Maerin or Hero. I’ve actually been repeatedly surprised at how adamant all the players were to keep the schemas and creation pattern out of Merrix d’Cannith’s hands, but are perfectly willing to deliver the various statues to Askin d’Kundarak, especially after his exhorbitant compensation.
I’ll also admit that the campaign has become more and more mechanically oriented, at least during the actual sessions. Part of this is my own residual min-max inclinations, but I believe that the primary reason is that both Maerin and Hero seem far more interested in the mechanics of head-bashing and skull-crushing than they are in the subtle intricacies of choice and decision-making. Evidence the Mathis assassination plot-line - Hero basically offered two-three one-line descriptions of what he wanted to happen, and left the rest to me. Hero also tends to avoid “plot material” like the plague, and I seriously believe that the primary reason for his occasionally irritating multiple-personality-wild-goose-chase antics are an attempt at avoiding even more. Maerin is even worse, in that to-date, the majority of his character’s history and story-interaction has been decided and written by me. I’m not even sure that, if presented with a compelling in-character decision, either player would seriously consider the possibilities, instead choosing to utilize their mechanics advantages to steam-roll over whatever opposition is present. The fact that they seem to prefer using their stats rather than their wits to succeed has led to a further preponderance of stat-based play, since I’m trying to make the game fun for all involved.
I also find it difficult, at times, to enforce the player’s interaction with the game-world, rather than utilitizing the mechanics of the character sheet. I suppose I could penalize Hero when his description of a subtle negotiation is more likely to result in open-combat, or I can give him the benefit of the doubt, take into account his 20 Charisma and decent Diplomacy skills, and assume that the character would succeed, even where the player might fail. Not doing so would basically penalize a character who has spent many of his resources on social interaction instead of combat, and if I were to do so consistently, it would strongly encourage all players to only invest in those mechanical aspects that actually have a bearing on the game (i.e. combat skills).
So the question becomes, where does one draw the line between social interaction and mechanics? And, if a suitable balance can be struck, what sort of plot interactions would you suggest to draw in the wayward stat-monsters?
May 2nd, 2006 at 3:19 pm
Funny thing about the schemas is that I am planning to take the schema-making feat “Etch Schema” (or replace her as-yet-unused “Maximize Spell” feat) so that she could copy the schemas before Hero runs away with them. (Mayhap she’ll have to take an improved version later, but she has to start somewhere.) She has simply gone along with his paranoia for the sake of keeping the schemas around to study, but does not share it. Her only concern was that Hero check out Lady E, specifically from the mention of Merirx at her first Tain Gala. But, I imagine, he never did as he never told Naomi of any results of checking.
Anyhow, as for the line between social interaction and mechanics is certainly a product of the scene. In situations where a definite “success” or “failure” can be determined, I hesitate to divorce the mechanics as the inputs and outputs to the interrelation are very quantifiable. In this case, and when appropriate, I would use in-character RP in combination with mechanics that are used to enhance but not wholly determine the outcome. However, when the scene is one that involves a more personal turn of phrase and understanding of the cycle of the exchange, such as Naomi speaking to Kayli, or Hero speaking to the Riedran Ambassador, or any other exchange where the outcome is not a simple pass/fail relation, mechanical determinations should probably be avoided completely. Additionally, no morality issues should ever be decided using mechanics, or those that can be classified as “relationship buildingâ€. A general rule that I often go by is: If the interaction is going to occur in more than a few seconds, then it is a non-mechanical social situation (maybe using mechanical results to enhance the result where required). Also, if the same person is going to be met more than once, consider a non-mechanical approach.
Now, I am fairly vocal in my desire to see Hero (and Maerin) make decisions that expose his (their) morality. I sense that this sort of conflict would probably be dodged by Hero, but even the dodge itself should require non-mechanical play. Also, as Maerin seems somewhat inclined to do with the Lyrandar chicky, building relationships should have some role and should require “normal†conversations to get moving. For example, should Hero run afoul of the law, he should have to talk his way out of it for the most part, not rely on some roll to get by; he never “feels†the impact of such activity if he doesn’t have to work at it a little. If he gets caught in a lie, he shouldn’t be able to bluff his way out of it using a roll if the person he is trying to dissuade actually knows the truth. For Maerin, any interaction with members of his own order should be played as opposed to rolled. I think Naomi does well in this area, but I can always come up with ideas for her if you need them.
May 2nd, 2006 at 9:01 pm
Oh, an idea about personal initiative with respect to this topic: The endgame of providing opportunities for personal initiative is to move forward in areas of character growth through living with consequences. It is not so important that the consequences are realized through the larger story arc, merely that the outcome is something that the character(s) must deal with on their own terms. In a situation where the character will bite into these nuggets with vigor, which I hope is how Naomi is perceived, then a character blossoms, the plot becomes more vibrant, and even the NPCs may grow some in the process. Character(s) who dodge these hooks can prove to be a real PITA, and the promise behind such nuggets quickly fades into the tedium of filling the lack of participation with an endless stream of lusterless filler material. As a GM who likes the story and character development, it is a challenge to keep he balance of attention across the characters without an equal return. I sincerely feel for the dilemma, I really do, for I have been there many times, and I hope I am never the source of such frustrations.
May 4th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
First, let me say that I have no real concerns with Naomi, in that she has always been an involved and well-developed character. She actively seeks out interactions with other characters and the world around her (sometimes more than I can handle), and is “real” enough that I feel as if she were a normal person, whose reactions I can anticipate and incorporate into the advancing story-line. She is the embodiment of a plot-device, in that not only does she accept (often eagerly) those plot-hooks that I offer, she also generates and pursues many on her own. If I had more time to devote to the game, I’m certain that we could easily double Naomi’s development. This also leads to some difficulty, in that I feel most interested in Naomi’s development and progression, and sometimes feel as though I’m slighting the other characters by not devoting as much time and energy to their pursuits.
Hero, on the other hand, seems bound and determined to follow his own erratic and sometimes illogical course. He actively avoids any sort of plot or NPC entanglements unless he is the purely dominant force in the relationship, and I find that I’m forced to resort to “bribery” in order to include him more than tangentially in any given story. It’s frustrating to take a step back and realize that Hero could be replaced with a completely different character and have little effect on the continuity of the story. I tend to blame myself, as it is my failing in fully understanding Hero’s goals that undoubtedly leads to his disdain for the proferred plot-hooks, but sometimes it feels as though Hero (the character) doesn’t have any real goals. This makes it impossible for me to anticipate his actions in a given situation, which in turn makes it difficult to adequately plan and prepare any sort of morality-based adventure.
I’m also consciously avoiding adventures which would exacerbate the already tenuous ties between Naomi and Hero. I vividly recall my own reactions to the Naomi-Hero rift that occurred after the Grasp of the Emerald Claw adventure, and despite the fact that I could understand and empathize with both sides of the argument, it sapped a lot of my creative energy. It was exceedingly frustrating to have planned hooks and stories that focused on each character, and being faced with the extremely likely possibility of watching the characters part ways or even come to blows was disheartening to say the least. I’d wager that without the benefit of the holiday break and the half-hearted reconciliation of the characters, I might have lost interest in the campaign and let it end prematurely. I know I would have been disappointed had it ended, but I also think it would have been incredibly stressful and difficult to run a campaign for two near-diametrically opposed characters, so I’m currently treading a “safe” path that will hopefully avoid too much intra-party conflict before it becomes dramatically appropriate and/or necessary.
There’s also the question of whether Hero and/or Maerin really want to be involved with the story. I keep getting affirmations to that effect during in-game play, but little-to-no actual effort on their part. I sometimes feel like I’ve been employed to tell them the story of their characters, and they only want to be involved with the crunchy-bits of combat or minor decision-making. While I don’t necessarily mind the role, because I do enjoy developing characters even when they aren’t my own, I would definitely prefer they make the effort and decisions to involve themselves more with the plot. Of course, if the players aren’t interested in the plot, and see involving themselves in it as work rather than fun, doesn’t that defeat the whole purpose of the game? We (Phil and I) may revel in character development and exposition, but if they (Ben and Joel) do not, is it really right to force it upon them?
May 4th, 2006 at 8:03 pm
I am inclined to believe that Maerin simply requires a jump-start as far as story buy-in is concerned. It seems to be the ol’ available time handicap (excuse?) that has kept Joel from reading sufficient setting information to construct a background and dive into it. However, he may become more involved if Maerin feels that he has something at stake. I had considered that an episode devoted to bringing Maerin’s background into present focus, even if not part of the original plan, may work and may serve to attach him emotionally to the main arc. It could serve the additional purpose of securing his rather unique role in the party and mayhap commit him in the context of good and evil (or, more to the point, self sacrifice versus self interest).
Mayhap a similar thing could be used for Ben, but I am no so convinced it would help as there have been several situations that seemed custom-made for him but did not achieve the desired result. No, I think most of the difficulty with Hero is his perception of the world. He sees it in very black and white terms in spite of his assistances to the contrary; not in terms of good and evil, but in terms of power and weakness. To him, dedication to anyone or anything is seen as a weakness that can be exploited so he avoids it like the plague. I hold this observation from every game we have played over the last few years, with the biggest clue being that exploiting attachments is a favorite tactic of his favorite NPC that we have discussed in the past.
I suppose that the question of whether or not the other characters are even interested in substantive character development could also be answered more directly by the players. I have to say that, when I run a game, I am rather unabashedly biased in favor of those who provide consistently interesting characters. I also don’t feel bad about telling players to either be involved or be left behind as far as the story is concerned. Those who are not interested in the story will always have a part in combat and such, but everyone knows the score so nobody can cry foul if they get little or no story time. I’m rather Draconian like that as what prep time I dedicate is for the story and its participants, not for those who wish to be dragged along. After all, being a GM does not mean that one must forgo the enjoyment of the game and fun just because one takes on a role on the other side of the table.