BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Games & Gameplay >

Players as Assistant Storytellers

  
 
rising and revolving
16:30 / 12.08.05
As a GM I do try and involve the players into the story as much as possible. There's always a fine line, and one I feel most players respect pretty well - on the other hand, you do get people saying "I reach for the machine gun strapped under the seat," when there isn't one there. Which is fine, unless such an element is detrimental to the storyline, in which case you should be able to defuse that quickly. The problem comes with players who consistently over-reach - most people can find where the border between player-storytelling and GM-Call comes in pretty easily, but sometimes this doesn't work as well.

I have run a game where that line was completely removed, however. The goal here was to enable the players complete control over the story to whatever degree they desired. The framework was heavily archetypical fantasy - basically the game began with me reciting a little lead in[1] and asking (without making eye contact with any of the players or giving any cues) "Bold Warrior, indulge an old man and tell me how you came to seek adventure," - and then waiting for someone to take up the torch. Follow this through with the rest of the classic archetypes, and from that point I was basically letting the players run the entire game.

It worked very well - at least partially because the archetypes of fantasy are so well known to roleplayers (this didn't work nearly as well when I tried to do a sci-fi version) and mainly because everyone had bought into the telling of a story as the primary goal. In the various sessions, it ran up and down the scales from high drama to epic tragedy, from broad comedy to poignant romance.

What I found especially surprising, though, was how many players ended in tragedy - inflicting trauma upon their characters because that was the way the story had to go ... by involving people in the story in a fashion they could influence, I was making them responsible for the good of the drama, rather than the usual sense of identification with the character.

Then there was a Cthulu game where every player took a turn at GM'ing a session on a rotation - that developed a similar vibe, but one that was very much about providing the support to the GM that they needed to take you on the ride they had planned for that session.

Anyone else had any similar experiences?

[1] In this time of heroes etc etc ... now we look back upon their first meeting.
 
 
charrellz
00:42 / 13.08.05
I think it depends on the GM as much as the players to let the players tell the story. For instance, my usual DM basically makes up everything as we go along anyway, so he is very open to suggestion from the crowd (he likes to let someone blurt something out like "It better not be more f*ing bugbears!" and ten minutes later we're toe-to-toe with bugbears). Meanwhile, I get very set in the storyline I've written up and get quite upset when players try to step outside the nice box I've made them (It's such a nice cozy, warm box. Won't you stay in the box please?).

Players should have near absolute freedom to tell their backstory though. I try to make little times that call for character interaction where the players must develop their own characters aswell as the relationships within the party. This sort of thing should be given very little limits from the DM, unless a player is claiming to be a god in disguise or somesuch nonsense.

There's my two cents.
 
 
Quantum
09:55 / 13.08.05
Players should have near absolute freedom to tell their backstory

Responsible players yes, just as good players should be given more responsibility for the story. Some people will happily say 'I grew up as an orphan in a school for Shaolin assassins then got abducted by aliens and implanted with intergalactic hyperweaponry then was given a magic wand and a dark destiny by Dream of the Endless...' or as you say claim Godhood. Often when in trouble, a player will be tempted to say 'didn't I mention the Shaolin assassin training?'.

I'm all for group (or troupe as White Wolf call it) storytelling, as long as players see beyond their own characters. One technique similar to the rotating GM is to shuffle characters, so players experience each other's perspectives, or to have a session where they all play alternate 'B' list characters.
For example, in a Mage game get the players to create consor or acolyte characters (sidekicks with minimal magic powers) for a one-off session where they investigate some aspect of the plot. Like in the movies when minor characters reveal things to the audience but not the heroes. It's especially satisfying if a few of them die, then next sesh the players revert to the main plotline playing characters who know nothing of what went down.
 
 
rising and revolving
13:16 / 13.08.05
"I'm all for group (or troupe as White Wolf call it) storytelling, as long as players see beyond their own characters. One technique similar to the rotating GM is to shuffle characters, so players experience each other's perspectives, or to have a session where they all play alternate 'B' list characters."

The B List characters thing sounds like Ars Magica - which (I'm working from memory here) basically gives each player an enourmously powerful magician and all of their henchmen and retainers as their characters. Because it's hard to make interesting stories from mages who stay in their towers and can change reality at a whim, most sessions are played with secondary characters chosen from the stable.

Really interesting way to do things, and runs two different story paths side by side - the top level "duel of mages" galactic power battle aside some really nice human struggle for the current objective. Would be fun to play, I think.
 
 
charrellz
13:38 / 13.08.05
One session we played everyone's character was a child of a character from the previous campaign (note: similar characters, different players). The players had to then emulate the personalities of the previous characters. For example, the pompous rogue is now played by the person who used to have a devout cleric. Makes for some funny sessions if nothing else.
 
 
invisible_al
13:23 / 14.08.05
Ars Magica was the first game to come up with the troupe concept, it's something I like a lot and really gives the idea of a small community based around these wizards in their tower. You get a Mage, Companion (noble, merchant, pries, someone important but not with magic) and a Grog.

Grogs are the servants and people under the stairs at your covenant (wizards tower/community). I always think of them as the low characters in Shakespeare, built with broad brush strokes and usually getting into trouble somewhere.

In one game I played there was an Alpha GM who also had a Mage character, other players were encouraged to run other games, dealing with specific bits of the setting which were 'theirs', as one offs, I would have run a grog-only game at one point if the game hadn't died.

I think with right group of players then it works, because you're no longer having to come up with all of the background and adventures, it becomes a much more collaborative effort and you can feed off each other for inspiration. It also avoids GM burn-out because they still get to play every so often.

The latest edition of Ars Magica encourages this further with the idea that you can buy 'flaws' for your covenant, such as 'menanced by magical beast' eg. a Dragon lairs under the covenant and needs placating. The players get to have a say in the kind of game they want to play, it certainly helps make sure everyone is playing in the same game.
 
 
Sekhmet
02:39 / 15.08.05
Our current gameworld has had a lot of input from the players. We've run several sets of characters in it now, and the DM really encourages people to create detailed character histories and backstories, which sometimes extends to creating towns, noble houses, historical events, etc. Quite frequently the DM uses this information in subsequent sessions. People's backstories come back to haunt them - it's not just window dressing - and the places we design become real parts of the gameworld. It's a fantastic system - the world keeps developing and growing and becoming more detailed and alive with each campaign, in a nice organic way, and the DM doesn't have to do all the work himself, and the players get to be involved to whatever degree they like. One player has designed an entire nation, with attendant language, culture, and geography; people have created new character classes, secret organizations, special units of the Imperial guard, detailed histories of their knightly or clerical orders, barbarian tribes, underground cities, and - at higher levels - their own lands and keeps.

It's great fun tohave a hand in the creative process, not to mention going back to your character's hometown. You get to show your party around this place that you know inside out - as if your character really did grow up there - because you, as a player, invented it. Like taking your friends on a tour of your imagination.
 
  
Add Your Reply