Thanks to Simon's recent threads on the topic of Theme (here's the most recent), I've been thinking about the place of Theme in my game, a game in which Theme doesn't necessarily get much of the spotlight.  Delve is a game where you learn about the supernatural by saving towns that are plagued by it, and then take your supernatural knowledge and use that to pursue your life goals.  For your typical player character, this looks something like, "I want to ascend from being a broke peasant to achieve great power, which I will use to influence the world (for good!) on a broader scale."

None of us players are seeking to better our stations in life that dramatically, so the broad strokes don't hit particularly close to home.  So I've asked myself, "What resonates most?  What part of the fictional narrative is most relevant to the narratives of our real lives?"

That's merely one definition of "Theme", but I think it's a fun question to ask.

My best answer is that play resonates with real life when a player is faced with a choice that strongly reminds them of a real-life choice that's not a given.  As best I can tell, in my play, "not a given" breaks down into two categories: Ethics and Risk.

Ethics

Throughout my ongoing playtest campaign, there have been few moments of ethical dilemma.  Almost all of them have asked, "What will you do to get what you want?"  The characters see some opportunity to gain knowledge by torturing someone, or to exact justice by executing someone, or to harness magical power by performing an evil-feeling ritual and possibly gaining some weird symptoms of personal contamination. 

The first example that comes to mind is when the players figured out that they could open the door to the most glorious mission on the map by performing a human sacrifice.  Despite having a bandit prisoner, and despite the fact that that prisoner was already facing execution by local government, the players surprised me.  John was considering it, but Dan said, "Fuck that.  This guy's a killer, but we have some respect for him, and we don't know what horrible fate might befall him, or how we might be contaminated.  And also, we're no saints, but we don't do demonic rituals."  And John was swayed.

Risk

In adventure fantasy, the most common way to ask "What will you do to get what you want?" is to put a monster between you and some treasure.  It's drooling acid!  Do you wanna risk fighting this thing now, or go find an easier task, and maybe come back later?

In order to get this "How much danger and uncertainty will you opt into?" dynamic, all you really need is for play to be fun either way.  Delve is still fun if you back off from the acid-drooler, so choices of this sort are quite common.

This resonates with real life somewhat, but the vast gulf between real-life and in-game caution levels dilutes that.

Role in Play

Ethical dilemma moments have been quite fun, but play has never relied on them or sought them out.  My perspective has been to shrug and say, "If they happen, cool; if not, that's fine too."  Making calls on danger and uncertainty is nearly constant, so I've found that shrug-worthy too.

Recently, however, I got some interesting feedback from a one-shot playtest.  Paul was describing to me how a mission in a finite block of play time got him focused on "complete the mission" above all else.  There wasn't much room to explore the ethical dilemma of helping the village outcast who was trying to make ammends for accidentally helping evil's progress, nor to leave a high-risk option in search of a lower-risk one.  There are all sorts of reasons why this isn't ideal, but Paul raised one I hadn't considered.

I mentioned Delve's "theme" of "What will you do for supernatural power, and what will you use it for?" 

Paul replied, "I would have enjoyed the game much more if I'd experienced that."

Huh?  I know Paul likes ethical dilemmas and has a knack for some Narrativist addressing of premise, but this wasn't about that.  It was about resonance.  I think.

I am now trying to figure out how best to make a one-shot resonate more.  I'm thinking of throwing in some ethical dilemmas and optional risks, and signalling that we do in fact have play tiem to spend on these choices.  I'm also thinking about deliberately crafting experiences to ask "What will you do for supernatural power, and what will you use it for?"  While I mull these, any thoughts on the issues of this post are welcome!

Hi David,

It seems like the theme in your game of people rising to power, of overcoming adversity, and of facing some difficult choices along that path is one that really only gets explored in long-term play. In a one-shot situation, you're not going to see a lot of the things that make that theme meaningful - things like changes in the scope and scale of the player characters' actions, the revisiting of old locations with newly powerful characters, and the building of intimacy and familiarity with characters that makes us care about the decisions they make and their implications for the world.

It's possible that this aspect of your game will just never translate well into one-shot play, but perhaps you can do some things with scenario design that bring it more to the fore.

What would happen if the one-shot scenario starts with the characters recieving some kind of supernatural power. Perhaps we get one or two scenes of the characters before this, but the majority of play focuses on the decisions they make after recieving this power. Maybe that would focus play more on making choices about what to do with power?

Hi,

Paul was describing to me how a mission in a finite block of play time got him focused on "complete the mission" above all else.

I mentioned Delve's "theme" of "What will you do for supernatural power, and what will you use it for?"

Paul replied, "I would have enjoyed the game much more if I'd experienced that."

Huh?  I know Paul likes ethical dilemmas and has a knack for some Narrativist addressing of premise, but this wasn't about that.  It was about resonance.  I think

Callan, yeah, I'm thinking side dish of theme.  It's possible that Paul wants it to be the main meal... but it's also possible that he doesn't, and that the missing side dish had something to do with the main meal not coming out quite right.  Hopefully he'll stop by and clarify.

Simon, that's a cool option.  Unfortunately, the decision of "What will we do with our new powers?" is the most groundless of all in a one-shot.  In a campaign, the answer is always, "Now we can do X thing we've wanted to do since the desire grew on us during play!" 

I take it you're not high on the idea that throwing in some risks and ethical dilemmas will greatly enrich a one-shot? 

I'd also be happy to hear your interpretation of the factors here under your own framework of "theme in RPGs" that you've been developing.

Hi David,

I guess the way I see it is that the issues here aren't super complicated. Your theme is something like "rise to power", so it's concerned chiefly with how the characters come to power, and what they do with that power.

I think you correctly identify two ways this theme can be developed in play: The question is either "Can the characters achieve power?" or "Should the characters achieve power?"

I don't think those two questions are incompatible, but I can see how they'd tend to draw focus away from each other. I think people maybe are less likely to question the value of things they've worked hard for. If you've spent three sessions working towards some goal, it's not much fun to then ask yourself if it is a worthwhile goal. Conversely, if you've made the decision to perform some morally questionable act in pursuit of power, it's disappointing to have that decision made moot by your character failing to achieve that goal.

Does that make sense to you?

I guess I see the biggest design challenge for you here as being scenario design - the situations the characters find themselves in. Elegant construction of these scenarios should be able to present your theme in ways that are complimentary, rather than contradicting. If you were a designing this game ten years ago, you'd just leave that to "a good GM". As it is, there are lots of tools you can give prospective GMs to help them design good scenarios. Look to Dogs town creation, Shock: pre-play, and the like, for examples of creating a loaded situation at the start of play that helps drive the games' themes.

What are features of the scenarios in really successful play of your game? Are there common factors?

Dave,

Great thread. I'll have to be relatively brief, but, basically, here's where I stand:

Your game Delve clearly isn't a Narrativist exercise (although a group could drift it that way, to a certain extent, after a lot of play, I'm sure, by focusing on those Ethical choices you're talking about here).

However, that "theme" of supernatural power and choices is what makes it different and interesting. So I think you need to bring that out in a one-shot. It doesn't need to be hit in full, but if the one-shot is intended as a demo for long-term play, then it has to show where we're coming from and where we're going. I want to walk away from the demo thinking about the options available to me, and what choices I might make. That would make it 200% more interesting to me.

Saving a village I really have no investment in, some village you just made up, is lightly entertaining but not all that gripping. Just like killing monsters in a D&D game might not be terribly interesting, but people want to do it because they know they'll get experience points and new powers. So, even if the process of rescuing the village is really really interesting, it can still be improved by putting some focus/spotlight on the questions you feel are important to the game.

From that perspective (which you may adopt or throw away, fine, I'm just putting out suggestions from my own personal angle):

1. "What will you do FOR supernatural power?"

Some knowledge that there is a source of power the characters can somehow achieve out there is a must for the one-shot. In a longer game, the game itself promises it's out there; we can wait. In a one-shot, it has to be there in real form.

So, in the one-shot the only supernatural knowledge I can remember learning/gaining was this rune that we inscribed on the door. But it was just... there. So there was nothing in the adventure that made us ever even consider this question ("What will you do for supernatural power?"). I think it would have been more interesting if we had to address it. For that we would need to:

a) Have some idea that supernatural power/knowledge is out there (e.g. that's one rune, but to learn what it does or how to use it, you must read a particular book or raid a particular noble's treasury or whatever, or, perhaps, there's a whole box of runes deeper in those catacombs, just out of reach). This must be communicated to the players during the adventure, in concrete terms. Maybe we know that the people who pay us use those runes to keep certain knowledge FROM us, for instance--that would make most players very happy to discover a new rune, you know?

and

b) There is some risk or heavy consequence to attaining that knowledge. Here your Risk/Ethics breakdown is probably perfect. Either that box of runes is in some very dangerous location (a collapsing underground structure, crawling with creepy bugs, as you had, works pretty well for this purpose!), or there is an interesting choice to make (a local steward has a book explaining how this rune works, but needs that book to keep his daughter alive).

2. "What will you do WITH supernatural power?"

Now this gets even more interesting. Again, in the one-shot, we wrote this rune on the door, but there was absolutely no implication that this was something learned or something useful, or something that offered us interesting new options down the road. So, it doesn't stick in the memory in any way. It doesn't register as a significant piece of information. We only cared about opening the door; once that's done, the rune is forgotten.

What we needed was the knowledge that there was something further we could do--that the rune wasn't a gimmick for a door puzzle, which is done and done, but something that opens up possibilities for future play. So, if in those catacombs (or in that pond), we had come across a dead villager who had that rune written in blood on his forehead, and no other apparent cause of death, now that's interesting! Now I want to know if writing the rune on someone's forehead will kill them. Or maybe someone has the rune written on their forehead, and they're turned in a wild frenzied beast, strong and fast and killing other villagers. Will I try writing the rune on my own forehead? Or find a "victim" first? All this gives me something to think about, even if it's as I walk from the game--I want to play again to explore further, to learn more. That's the point of Delve, isn't it?

It's about options and choices, and consequences. The only supernatural thing we really got to play with in the one-shot were our sensory powers. And those are neat, yeah, but not terribly interesting in the end. Why? Because there were no interesting choices to make, no options to ponder, and no significant consequences. There was never any reason NOT to use them, so we did, all the time, except when we forgot to or felt like it would be an unnecessary drain on game time. That's not enough to "hook" a player, you know what I mean? I curious sidepoint, a cute little detail, but that's it. No further ramifications.

I hope that clarifies my position! I *think* it lines up with your idea of Risks and Ethics, but I'm not sure if it's 100% overlap or 10% overlap...

It may be that I'm entirely missing the point of Delve, in which case feel free to disregard this advice (although I'd be curious to hear why and/or how!).

I'm thinking ouch? The thing that makes it interesting? David, I'm sure you find something engaging and interesting when you look toward what you've written so far with the design. Maybe I'm missplaced and don't need to say 'Make sure you keep your own vision in mind', but sometimes I've had people look at my stuff and they decided it needed a right angle to what I was aiming for, and a right angle was the only thing it should have. Ignore if missplaced :)

I'm still pondering whether I care about theme in Delve.  I'm leaning toward "yes" for two reasons:

1) One of Delve's priorities is immersion in character POV.  This is not for the sake of moral weightiness; this is for the sake of the emotional and intellectual experience created by an ignorant and vulnerable relationship to the gameworld and its creepy bits.  That said, I think in the case of moral choices that resonate with the players' real lives, that resonance can often help players "really get into character".

2) Including stuff like what Paul and Simon have suggested doesn't seem to have any downsides for play.  So, like, why not pump up the thematic volume?  Two minor worries: giving the poor GM more scenario design work to do (Simon, I agree that this is about situation creation), and giving players who don't get the game a way to play it wrong (so they have no incentive to learn to play it right).

Overall, my reaction to Paul's (1a), (1b), and (2) is, "Yeah, that does sound like it'd make a one-shot more fun!"

P.S. "Should the characters achieve power?" is kind of a theme without ever being an issue.  The answer to that question doesn't change anyone's behavior, it just impacts the way they feel about it.  "Am I headed toward being a just and noble badass or a creepy, scary badass?" is what's really up in the air.  (Although a game where the PCs achieve vast power and then look in the mirror one day and repent would be cool too...)

Dave,

I totally think that an emotional connection to the content of the fiction helps immersion happen. For some (like me), it might be the main factor, even. That's what people who write fiction are always concerned about, anyway. (Although I'd love to hear from you if you think this type of immersion is at odds with what you're going for with Delve!)

It works whether it's weighty ("Wow, these orphaned children remind me of my own childhood!") or not ("The description of this monster grosses me out because I really really hate bugs").

I suppose if you fear some kind of moral thematic angle creeping into the game you could try to steer clearly of the former and focus on the latter, but I'm not sure what there is to lose by including the former. (And I mean I'm honestly not sure--in other words, there might be, I don't know!)

Agreed 100% on emotional connection!  My questions are just about the most effective and efficient ways to make that happen.

It's kind of incidental, but does immersion, as the word is commonly used, have anything to do with theme or morals? Last time you were doing the washing up, how much were you thinking in terms of morals or theme? Or the last time you heard a fender bender happen, how much were you thinking morals or theme? Not at all, I'd imagine. I'd swear it's not immersion your talking about, but the gripping nature of nararativism/soap opera.