Narrative Control should not be Monopolized

Narrative Control should not be Monopolized
by Tobie Abad

I will admit, I am not well read on the history of when allowing players to have narrative control began in role-playing games.  In the many years that I have been playing games, I must confess to having less of a willingness back then to explore other game lines.  Though I started with a wide variety (my first games were under the Dungeons and Dragons colored box sets, Red to Gold, followed by forays into Marvel Super Heroes FASERIP, Top Seceret, Star Frontiers and the like) by the later years prior to this blog's creation, I pretty much stuck to either the World of Darkness, d20, or a few other key lines.

But then I encountered John Wick's Houses of the Blooded, and trust me the idea of wagers that gave players narrative control blew me away.  While I have always been a supporter of letting players come up with their own ideas or details to add to the game, to out right hand them the freedom to co-create the story in a much more direct way was a new thing for me.  And one which I at first approached with apprehension.

How Can I Keep The Plot Intact?
That was admittedly my first fear.  Throughout my gaming history, I would spend days prior to the game session mapping out the possible plot threads to be explored.  I would map out the flow of stories, based on the theme, the motifs, the characters, based on the dreams and desires of the cast, the fates and destinies of those they will meet.  While I was raised on a steady diet of modules (or in the case of White Wolf, story books) to inspire me, I had roots in both theater and television/film production to know enough that characters can be the central roots of emerging stories.  One merely needed to answer "What does ___ want?"  "Why doesn't ____ have it?"  and "What will ____ be willing to do to get it?"

So my notes would have little cobwebs of interconnections, showing which characters would have desires and dreams that intercepted with others, and which ones would likely support one another, or try to stop one another.   The intricate web was flexible, yet delicate, and allowed me to adjust to players and react accordingly.

Narrative control, it seemed, told me NOT to do that.  And that idea at first seemed absolutely preposterous.  How can I run a game if I don't map out these webs of interconnecting plots?  How can I manage it if I don't know what happens next?

The Genius Moment
That's when it occurred to me:  Neither do the players.
And that;s where the fun can exist.  Since instead of just me thinking of what these characters might be up to, now even the players can do so.   And the way Houses of the Blooded did this was through the use of a system called wagers.  With good rolls, a player can declare facts that are to be deemed true for the game.   Yes, the system was not shielded from abuse.  Yes, a "smart" player can twist all facts to favor himself.  But that's just like playing a game of solitaire with all the cards spread out from the start.  If you're going to cheat, then you're ruining the game for yourself.  So, in a way, the game reminded us we are responsible of our own happiness.   We are responsible for making the game fun.

And that's a lesson I felt that was most invaluable and important that giving players narrative control accomplishes... the understanding of how we, all of us in the game, are working together to keep it fun.

Satisfactions Don't End
And trust me, the joys of narrative control have not ended from that day we first tried it.  If you as a game master once loved how the plots come together and a player goes, "I get it!"  You will realize how much more awesome a feeling it is when players themselves come up with awesome twists to add to your game.    I've had everything from a lowly female samurai fighting for her father's love, being revealed to actually be the real hidden daughter of a dead Emperor, or a deadly dramatic fight becoming one epic moment when the player was able to define facts which showed why that particular enemy would fail and these kinds of plot twists were purely player created!

In a way, there is also that joy of discovery for the game master!  That feeling you loved giving your players when the "Aha!" moment happened is now something you too receive in every game session.  And that joy of when players talk with you after the game, and at times end up suggesting ideas you like is now something that naturally unfolds during the session itself!

Then you have players who stop thinking of being "perfect" and instead start loving their character's concepts more because of how the flaws make them more interesting.   You have players who are less focused on "how many points I got" and more interested in "what plot lines we can thresh out and develop fully" without them ever stepping "out of character" during the session.

The urge to co-narrate is infectious and very compelling that even when we played other games (like Castle Falkenstein), your players will now sometimes ask, "Can it be that it happened because of...." instead of just being passive until the time comes for combat and rolls (or cards) come in.

Respect the Old School.
In the end,  I understand that games that give players narrative control is not for everyone.  Nor is it for every game.  I doubt I would ever give narrative control to players for a game such as Lacuna, for example.  It definitely will not work for a session of Psychosis.  And while I can imagine it working for Pathfinder and other Dungeons and Dragons type of games, the number-crunch laden approach of those games don't easily work well with giving players the ability to just declare the assassin to actually be a wizard, or a spy, instantly.  

Just as there will always be people who just won't like that kind of a game.  I hate basketball.  I know its a popular sport and I know its a very thriving business even, but I personally would rather sleep than play, watch, read about or even role-play anything related to basketball.  So likewise, I totally understand that for some people, they would probably rather not play at all than embrace a game that allows players narrative control.  That's just part of what makes us, the human race, interesting.

My Final Invite
But if you are curious about it, I do highly suggest you go for it.  With games like John Wick's Houses of the Blooded (which started with a FATE-like system),  Magpie Games' Our Last Best Hope, Bullypulpit Games' Fiasco, Ron Edward's Sorcerer, and other games like Dogs in the Vineyard and the like out there, you have very many games that offer a wide-variety of ranges of narrative control.  You might just like it.  And if not, then at least you can say you have an informed opinion about it.

Oh and Happy Table Top Day!

"The Right Way"

"The Right Way"
by Tobie Abad

All through the many years in my gaming life, I've seen people talk about how World of Darkness "should" be played in a certain way.  Or about how Dungeons and Dragons is intended to be played with a certain antagonism towards the players.  Or according to others, how it is intended to be played with the chances of player death meant to be very unlikely.  I've overheard some game masters talking about how certain games should have never allowed players to read the game master guides, or how other games were meant to have a certain mood and yet "everyone plays it the wrong way."

In the many years of my gaming life, one of the biggest lessons I have learned is the fact that there is only ONE TRUE WAY that constitutes as the right way a game is played.  And that is this:

The game has to be fun for all the people concerned.

It does not matter if this means the group is playing a Call of Cthulhu game as a comedic romp filled with slapstick antics and punchlines.  It does not matter if In Nomine is played as an emo-angsty dramafest.  It does not matter if hours of a Marvel Heroic Roleplaying Game are spent like some kind of dating game simulation.

If the group involved is having fun, then all is well.

But what if its against what the original game designer had in mind, you say?

That does not matter.  Really, it doesn't.  While a game designer definitely had a specific approach in mind for the game they designed, once the designer has written things down, proof-readed it and published the game, the baby is done and created.  A game designer's intentions have been signed, sealed and delivered, so to speak.  

How a gamer interprets that game, and runs it, is entirely outside the game designer's control.  Just like how they like it, or feel about it, is entirely their freedom to decide upon and express.    The creation of a game by a designer is no different from the creation of a chef of a unique new dish.  The creator has a desire to create something new or at least different from what's out there, and uses all of his or her own creative juices to come up with something cool.  But once he or she is done, and the dish is served out, anyone who opts to partake of the dish has every right to try it the way he wants, with every freedom to eat it completely, to take part of it home, to mix it up with other dishes, to season it, to throw it away.

So pardon me if I feel I can approach certain games differently from what is considered the popular way to approach them.  And sorry but I don't believe you can hold it against me if I choose to run certain games in ways that aren't quite how the creator planned it.  I don't really care if the creator feels I'm doing it wrong.

I just want to make sure that my friends and I are spending the next few hours having fun.

Because if we aren't, then the game is definitely not worth our time.

Meta-Gaming Isn't Always Bad

Meta-Gaming Isn't Always Bad
by Tobie Abad

I know I am going to get into trouble for this article.

Once upon a time, meta-gaming was a bad bad word when it came to role-playing games.  To meta-game meant to cheat and use knowledge you've learned from reading the books to your advantage.  Such as preparing wooden weapons since you know, once you step past that door in the dungeon, a rust monster is waiting.  Or you have your vampire anarch opt to attack a certain part of the city, even if its the first time you've gone there, because you were able to read that the Prince of the city sleeps there during the day.  Meta-gaming was about declaring actions that was completely inappropriate or unrealistic for your character to do to gain an advantage using knowledge the player knew.

And yes, back then, any moment you have player and character knowledge mingle someone would most likely call you out on meta-gaming and cheating.

But nowadays, there are kinds of meta-gaming I personally feel are quite acceptable.  Gone are the days that all games follow the Meet in Tavern - Explore Dungeon - Return with Loot format.   Nowadays, there are approaches to game play that actually do require some level of metagaming to work properly.  Unthinkable? Not really if you look at gaming styles with a much more discerning eye.

Narrative Games, for instance, tend to follow what is known as the Hero's Journey.  At the most basic level, the Hero's Journey is what Joseph Campbell describes as a basic pattern followed or found in many stories through out history.  In brief, it is when a hero "ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won:  the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man."   Most game masters and storytellers nowadays use this as a framework in mapping out the flow of the chronicle, since the desire for many is to recreate the feeling and story development of popular works in fiction.

Without meta-gaming, the player in the game can conceivably ignore all the story points and charge forward without any care, crafting his own original narrative.  But as expected, most gamers would find that doing so upsets the narrative flow or simply ends up with the player feeling lost or uncertain where to go.  It is like if Harry Potter was a game you were playing in, and the moment Hagrid and Dumbledore show up, you decide as a player to absolutely never trust them.  While much more skilled game masters might still find a way to introduce a different wise old mentor, others might get flustered with the fact the player is not getting the hint.  Likewise, in a game where the player is an idealized superhero such as Superman or a Jedi Knight, when faced with an opponent, meta-gaming would call for the player to remember he is a "good character" and so simply defeating the opponent and having the authorities deal with him after is the "right thing."  But what if the player is more accustomed to being a vigilante anti-hero type of player with a love for the shades of gray in morality?  That player would then be forced to meta-game, that being to step out of what he's normally inclined to choose in playing his character the way he wants, and focus on the themes of the game and choose a more acceptable action for the sake of keeping things running smoother.

An already often practiced classic example of acceptable meta-gaming is not killing a player character outright, whether it be in player versus player conflict, or when facing enemies in a game that espouses heroism or pulp action.  Instead the player character is beaten, tortured, imprisoned, and anything else but just killed for the sake of being expedient.  How many times have we, as passive viewers in movies, found it stupid that the arch enemy does not just kill the hero once he has the upper hand?  Such choices are actually moments of acceptable meta-gaming, where decisions are made not because the character would actually do it (Seriously, how many super genius villains would not just outright kill the very man who always gets in their way?)  but because the theme and genre require it for the narrative to work.  And more importantly in a role-playing game, for it to be fun for the players involved.

Some would counter that the examples I showed were not moments of meta-gaming but instead were moments where the character's concept required the player to act in a certain way.   But realize unless you're talking about Dungeons and Dragons which espoused an Alignment system, or White Wolf's approach to Nature back during classic Changeling the Dreaming which had bans on how you should act, there really is no strict "rule" on how you should play your character save for how you want him to.  And again, common sense tends to dictate a player character's actions, which rarely go in-line with what the character concept would really opt to do.  Most people, in real life, would run away from conflicts and danger.  In role-playing games, characters rarely run away.  Why?  Because they have to be heroes.  Because they are the stars of the show.  Because if they act like every normal person, and not meta-game and act like the heroes or leads they are expected to be, the game would fall apart.  Players would have characters choose the paths that present less stress.  Less danger.   Less trouble.  If Lord of the Rings was a role-playing game and not a book, the player playing Frodo would have used the ring more often.  (Players love to get away with things, after all.)  Or maybe would have handed it over to the other player with the best stat for resisting temptation. But experienced players will tell you that Frodo (or character concepts similar to Frodo) would mean playing someone willing to sacrifice themselves for the betterment of others... when dramatically appropriate.

It is very rare that people would really choose the more complicated and difficult path.

But such is the requirement now for effective dramatic gaming.  The need to be aware of the narrative flow, its emotional high and lows, and time portraying the character's vices and virtues at the most appropriate points.  In other words, role-playing the character becomes a subtle use of meta-gaming to keep the game running smoother.  To give it a narrative cohesion that is rarely accomplished in table top role-playing games.  The player steps away from being just the character, and starts thinking as a co-author in the narrative aspect.

Many John Wick games actually embrace this to some degree.  In Houses of the Blooded, a player is invited to narrate his own success and failure, and is even reminded that one can narrate a successful roll as a failure, but one which still gives the acting character an advantage.    In Schauermarchen and The Shotgun Diaries, the players are reminded to meta-game and not just role-play, or else you'd have players who just "hide it out" rather than go forth and face the fear.  Playing a coward is a valid concept.  But playing a coward who does nothing but BE a coward in a game,  while true to the concept, is not a fun way to play.  Meta-gaming when to be a coward for dramatically appropriate moments, and still being active enough to have scenes that have narrative sense, would be meta-gaming in an acceptable way.  Maybe you don't always hide or run off, but you do keep one player always in front of you and the other behind you, so you feel safer.  Maybe you accidentally open fire at anyone who startles you, but never actually roll to hit them, since they're just meant to be dramatic moments to reflect your concept.

Meta-gaming.

I'm currently working on Muses, a role-playing game that embraces metagaming fully.  In fact, in that game, I do two unthinkable things:  I explicitly allow player and character knowledge to be mixed.    And I do not let the acting player roll the dice.

Unthinkable, eh?  Tell you more about it once I can.  For those who want a peek though, you can check out the old blog where I stored the concepts of the game.  Lots of system changes have happened, but you can see how crazy that game gets.

So yeah I admit, whenever I read online from people who automatically voice out that any form of meta-gaming is bad, I try not to correct them immediately.  I offer suggestions and opinions when asked, but I do realize that the stigma is still strong.  Meta-gaming had too often been used to merely "beat the system" but now, given the advent of games which allow everyone on the table to have a hand in crafting the narrative, players are starting to see as well that the responsibility in making a game fun and have a cohesive story is not in the hands of the game master or storyteller alone.  It took me some time to realize that, and mind you I started gaming in the early 1980s.  So I'm willing to let others have the time they need to realize that too.

Meta-gaming is not Powergaming.
And yes, I still abhor Powergaming.   Absolutely.

Storytelling Versus Gaming

By Tallent Show

Storytelling Versus Gaming
by tobie abad (http://surf.to/tobie)
Originally published December 2001.

Author note: This article is written with White-Wolf Gaming Studio's Vampire: The Masquerade in mind. But the ideas and concepts within can apply to any role-playing game.

No, this is not your typical Storytelling is Vampire the Masquerade, Gaming is Dungeons and Dragons statement.   Nor is this a Simulationist - Gamist debate.  After all, as many of you are probably loathe to admit (and yet deep inside realise its true) more than half the Vampire: The Masquerade games have approached a Gaming method than a Storytelling one.

Considering how people would most likely have their own interpretations on what constitutes as gaming and storytelling,  it would be easier if I defined the difference between the two before continuing with this article.

Storytelling = Playing the game to make a great story and have fun in the process.

Gaming = Playing the game to have FUN and creating a story in the process.

In as much as it seems trifle, there is a big difference between the two. And this becomes evident if you've played both types of games.

Gaming - Let's pretend that you're the storyteller. You wake up one night and think, "I'd love to hold a Vampire game focusing on the Camarilla and how the players try to gain political power and yet not fall into the Elder ennui trap." So you begin crafting your plot thread, setting up the major points of the game and work out the NPCs. Before you know it, you're talking to your players and they begin grabbing the character sheets and asking you if they can play this or that Clan. You moderate their characters to not only be "well-developed concepts" but to actually have a reason of existing in the game. Many real time months pass and the characters develop further, going through conflicts and trials, emotional barrages and release... and the game goes on.

Storytelling - Let's pretend that you're the storyteller. You wake up one night and think, "I'd love to hold a Vampire game focusing on the Camarilla and how the players try to gain political power and yet not fall into the Elder ennui trap." So you begin crafting your plot thread, setting up the major points of the game and work out the NPCs. Before you know it, you're talking to your players and they begin grabbing the character sheets and asking you if they can play this or that... HOLD IT, you're probably thinking, why am I reading the exact same thing? Well, that's because Storytelling and Gaming types of games are nearly 100% identical in their presentation.

Notice I mentioned nearly.

Storytelling types of games have an ENDING.

"All good things come to and end," is a quote which many of us have heard and sadly, I cannot recall who deserves the credit for such a wonderfully meaningful line. A story, i believe all would agree, would be one of the "good things." Thus, a story deserves an ending.

In a Gaming Type of game, the story is second of importance. So in the said example above, the characters would eventually reach a peak in the game... say, each player is now portraying a Prince of a City, or maybe they have all decided the Camarilla is not worth it and join the anarchs with the knowledge of the whereabouts of the City officials, or perhaps something in between the two threads... but the game keeps going on and on and on.

Why?
Because its fun.

In a Gaming Type of game, FUN is what is of primary importance. Yep, stop any Gaming Type of game for a brief moment and try to describe your character in a sentence and you'll find yourself in trouble. "He's a Gangrel who began as a woodman, embraced out of spite, struggled to learn the ropes of Vampiric existence, eventually became a Prince, fought the Sabbat, endured a Justicar's wrath, seiged against the Independents, awakened the beast, etc, etc..." But so what? He's still FUN to play right? And I'm not even speaking in the "powerful vampire" manner of fun. Imagine the emotional ranges you can have access to with everything he had gone through. Or perhaps try and see what new political ideas would actually form in his head to bring a unity and oneness in the Camarilla. Again, I say, it is FUN.

But it falls into the eternal trap:
"When does the Storyteller know its time to END the Chronicle?"

Gaming Type of games tend to go past the Storyteller's "Chronicle End" point. After all, they had fun and why should the fun end there?

High profile comic books such as Spiderman, Superman, X - men, Avengers, WildC.A.T.S are of this type. Notice that now, loking back at their histories, you find yourself going, "These characters when through WHAT???"  Somehow I suspect that was in a large part why DC Comics recently threw away a HUGE chunk of their backstories (and fans) with the new DC Universe reboot.

Sadly, this tends to lead to many wonderful games either turning sour and becoming absolutely distorted and multi-complexed due to the Storyteller's attempts to "keep the game going." A state which can even be detrimental to the Storyteller himself ("Did i give a good game? In the end, it sucked so bad...")

Storytelling Types of games have a definite end.
They are structured towards that end in mind. Just like movies. Or novels. Hence, they tend to have the more spectacular and memoreable endings.

"But don't Storytelling games sacrifice the player's freedom in the game?"

No. Because in a Storytelling game, BOTH the players and the Storyteller CRAFT the story as they move along. And as an added benefit, both the Storyteller and the players have a hint when to go for the more "heroic" moments for their characters. It may seem like cheating since you know that the story is nearing its end point, but come on, how many stories have the characters faltering every move and being afraid to finally give it their all in the end?

Take for example books such as Sandman, Enigma, Gen 13:Ordinary Heroes, Age of Apocalypse line of Marvel Comics. Notice how they have definite endings and their stories were more structured and yet they were still FUN to read and even interesting to imagine being in.

Even this movie had an ENDING.

So which is better?

Neither. Everyone of course has their own game type of interest. Some like things to focus on the story. Others like the game to simply be a moment where we can explore the character's experiences on and on. Some like a mix of both.

But KNOWING that these two approaches exist is helpful to BOTH the Storyteller and the player as a whole. When I told my players about these two types of games and asked then which one they wanted more, they all replied that it depends on what they feel like playing on certain days.

Thus we have a Vampire game set in the Dark Ages, played Storytelling Type, which has a definite end: Year of Revelations date.

And we have an Aberrant to Trinity game, played Gaming Type, where we see if they can avert history for taking its course.. and struggling to make the world a better place to live in.

Try having your gaming circle read this article. Then discuss what you want to achieve. Try one or the other at least once and you'll see how much better games can become with a clear understanding of what Type of game you are truly to play.