This post has been a while coming. Not because it’s especially profound, but because writing jobs for the Kapcon 20 LARP have been eating my time (in a good way).
Today’s subject is campaigns. It’s been something I’ve been musing for a while now – the difference between the one-off or short run games versus the longer term campaign. Part of what made me want to consider this was this topic on the Canberra Roleplaying Meet-Up boards. Partially it was because my long-running D&D campaign GM said to me the other day that his entire aim in running a campaign; all he wanted – was to create enough mystery and interest in his players that they came back for more. Particular session-to-session enjoyment was not the driving consideration. Partially it was this very flattering post by Mash where I’m referred to as ‘the GMing Stig’ which is exactly the kind of thing that’ll make me entirely insufferable. And finally, it was because I’ve really been enjoying my Kingsport Call of Cthulhu campaign, which is now going on one year old.
So, my question out of this jumble of thoughts is; what do we, the GM’s want to get out of a campaign?
I think we can all agree that campaigns are a huge investment of time and energy, and that like all relationships they have their ups and downs. Sometimes the downs are so severe that we just want to quit. In the WFRP campaign that Mash recollects with such kindness, I suspended the game for almost a month and came very close to calling it off. Why? Because the game that I wanted to run wasn't the game that the players wanted to play. They didn’t want to have their characters snared by the (often fairly woeful) plot hooks set up by the Paths of the Damned campaign. They wanted to adventure in the Old World, and they wanted the story to come to them. If they were to investigate leads, they wanted some compelling reasons – in character – to do so. I had never had players refuse to investigate a plot before, and I felt that the rug had been pulled out from under me.
Ultimately I decided that my WFRP players were right, and I was wrong. The story should come to them. They should have compelling reasons to act, and if this wasn't within the scope of the scenario then it was down to me to create and introduce these elements. This provided me with ample opportunity to level in-game consequences and trials to really develop the character beyond the mere scope of the scenario. When I did that, I found that the more we learned about these characters, the more complex and real they were, the richer they became, and the more meaningful the action was when it came.
It may sound straightforward, but it was a watershed moment for me. And it works well in every setting I’ve tried it. I used the same technique to run an 18 month Mutants and Masterminds campaign in Canberra, and it’s the same technique I’m using for my Kingsport Tales campaign. One year on in Kingsport we know that Professor Bishop is so timid that he’d rather sleep outside on a park bench, than risk a confrontation with his landlady for coming home after hours. We know that Dr. Holden will allow himself be set up on dates with women in which he has no interest, to keep up appearances and not excite the Kingsport grapevine. We know that Karl the fisherman is so haunted by his escape from Innsmouth that he sold his fishing boat and lives in a filthy squat. And we know a whole lot more besides…
So, back to the question – what do we GM’s want to get out of a campaign? I’m not sure I’m satisfied with just eliciting a sense of mystery and trying to lure the players back to find out more. I’m not sure that simply allowing players to explore my game-world, and marvel at it’s complexity is enough either. I’m not even sure that telling stories, solving mysteries and completing scenarios cuts it any more either. I want more*. I want to actually share a story with my players. I want them to own it, and I’m willing to let them shape events and have enough control to do that justice, because I know the story will be so much stronger, so much richer, if we have collaborated to tell compelling tales about characters we all care about.
*Intended more as a general statement of intent, or manifesto, rather than a literal plea for more.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
You should try some explicit narration sharing tools and RPGs. You may not end up liking them (which is totally valid) but I found that they really helped explore this further and work out ways of getting to the result I wanted.
ReplyDeleteTo start with Zombie CInema, Agon and MouseGuard are pretty cool. If you want to jump into the deep end, there's Capes or Burning Empires.
Done a fair bit of indy-gaming over the last 3 years, so while I appreciate the suggestions, I'm not really feeling the need at the moment. My style is still evolving, and I'm comfortable with my current develoments - but I'd be interested in your thoughts on how these systems have impacted on your long-term campaigns...
ReplyDeleteMy real focus at the moment is on the short form of the game, trying to get EPOCH written up in the New Year and seeking feedback.
FWIW I am not suggesting "indie gaming" wholesale. Just specific RPGs with shared narrative (yes there is a big overlap but it is not 100%).
ReplyDeleteMy exploration into shared narrative RPGs helped me alot to understand what I considered to be the best role for the GM, the best role for the player and how to help those two roles interact and build on each other. I think this strikes at the heart of what you want to explore here.
I don't know if I have many hard and fast rules as that is perhaps the most profound conclusion of where I got too. :)
I don't claim to be any kind of expert, but my experiences with some shared narrative games like 'Burning Wheel', 'Penny for Your Thoughts' 'In A Wicked Age' etc. seemed to create an almost adverserial environment between players, and while we all worked together to build a story, I found that the need for players to create some level meaning out of every scene felt unnecessarily taxing when compared with the kinds of games I like to run.
ReplyDeleteThe settings for Mouse Guard and Agon don't really appeal to me, but I'll keep an ear out for zombie cinema openings...
Also; you seem to be implying that your exploration is complete?
ReplyDeleteIn general, I found explicit shared narrative to be intrusive and restrictive. However, the underlying concept is invaluable as I think you have pointed out.
ReplyDeleteFWIW I think you might be conflating conflict resolution with shared narrative from your comment about creating some level of meaning in every scene. Some shared narrative such as Mouse Guard simply rewards players introducing PC complication with player created scenes. These allow players to shape events and story in a controlled manner.
Another example along these lines is FATE which allows players to create Aspects for things that surround and define their PC (outside of their immediate capabilities) which have a strong mechanical impact, both in terms of players and GMs. This means that a player can embed story elements into gameplay from the get go.
As for my development, its "complete" for this cycle. I tend to find that I operate best cycling between periods of learning and testing and periods of putting all that I learnt to use. I am still exploring where I got to a few years back and don't feel much need to push the boundaries at the moment :)
Zombie Cinema is good fun by the way but it does rely heavily on the Conflict Resolution mechanics which you mention, so that may not be the best choice.
ReplyDeleteReign's Company mechanics might interest you. They have an almost accidental shared narrative effect by allowing players to define and control the corona of setting around their PCs.
Well, I understand that there is a difference between conflict resolution and shared narration if that's what you mean?
ReplyDeleteBut my experience is that when a player uses shared narration, there is an expectation from the other players that the narration offered will be both meaningful and relevant to the plot directly, or indirectly, manifested through the character. I don't find the same pressure when the narration is led by a GM. That said I've never tried shared narration in a long-term campaign, so I'd be interested to hear how it works over the span of a year or more...
I have Reign, Capes and others on my reading list and plan to review them before the next 'Day of Games'.
I look forward to reading about your next learning 'cycle'...
Interesting observation on pressure. I think there may be something in that.
ReplyDeleteAlso FWIW the DMG2 has some very good discussion on this topic i.e. about how a GM might utilse player contributions directly and often in building the collective story. The material can be found elsewhere but it was consolidated and well written
ReplyDeleteI take it all back. ;)
ReplyDeleteI know that game was a struggle for you - I hadn't in any way forgotten the short but pointed string of e-mails. I think we also came at least part of the way towards your way of thinking too. I've remembered one comment you made about it along the lines of "if you don't want to play, what are you doing here?" WRT plots and the aesthetic of the game. I have certainly experienced the flip-side of that in campaign play too.
It's been interesting recently, because Mat Grit and I have been having a lot of discussions along these lines with Marcus - Marcus basically being in touch with the old school of plot-driven games for which the players are necessary but secondary. After my Deadlands game which was extremely plot lite*, the comment was made that there could be games with a bit more thrust.
*In that classic GM-scripted narrative sense. Plenty of stuff happened that was developmental and interesting to me, I just didn't plot it out in advance.
WRT to Luke's comments about shared narration... I've played around with that stuff probably only a little less than him, and I really don't think that it touches on why games work or don't work. I've played in a couple of semi-shared games that were disastrous - ask Sophie about the Elizabethan game sometime... the "shared narration" tools were there, but not an engagement outside the game on the whole point of the exercise. Shared narration, IME, doesn't help with any of those problematic meta-game constructs.
I think that it was at the meta-game where the WFRP game nearly derailed - but once those issues were addressed, we didn't need shared narration to have a shared game.
FWIW I am not suggesting that RPGs that use shared narrative are the solution here. I recommend them only as I found them interesting in how they explore this issue and that experience was ultimately insightful for me. By pushing beyond my normal boundaries, I got a better sense of why I did what I did and what to avoid.
ReplyDelete