The Forge Archives

This was kind of inspired by Fang's  thread Psychotic (or is It Schizoid) Game Design. I'm not advocating what I'm saying here, just musing out loud and making observations. I'll also say that I'm not a comic book historian; it's possible I have one or two facts wrong, but I think the core of my argument is sound.

In the early 1940s, Bob Kane, creator of Batman, introduced a sidekick, Robin, to the comic book. The purpose of Robin was to give kids who read the book somebody to identify with. Kane believed that his readers couldn't empathize with Batman, but would be able to put themselves in the place of a young boy fighting alongside the Caped Crusader. In other words, Robin was designed as a Player Character. If you're willing to accept "let's pretend" as a form of roleplaying games, when kids imagined themselves in the Batman universe, they were supposed to play Robin.

Now, while Dick Grayson was a major character in the stories, he wasn't actually essential. Sure, Robin fought the bad guys alongside Batman, and even saved him a few times, but I don't think he was ever truly necessary. Alfred or Commissioner Gordon might have been equally useful in those scenes. Picture an image that you think is the platonic ideal of a Batman and Robin story. Mine would be a panel of the Dynamic Duo fighting the Joker. Now imagine the scene without the Boy Wonder. To me, it works just as well either way.

Does Robin even fit into the Batman genre? Most of the characters in it are madmen and thugs; what's a small child doing there? A few authors have omitted him entirely or made significant changes (e.g. Tim Burton's movies, Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns), and the story doesn't seem to suffer. On the other hand, he's not too disruptive. Everyone in Gotham accepts him as a fact of life, and his presence doesn't make the Joker any less dangerous.

Since Robin was designed as a PC, what are the ramifications for RPGs? Well, for one thing, it suggests that in a world based on an established work, (and this is what inspired me from that thread), PCs are designed like Robin. They can be important, but they shouldn't be the ones directing the work's story. I'm sure there's probably a term for this somewhere on The Forge -- illusionism? bad game design?

So in a Star Wars game (where I see the main stories as the rebel's battle against the empire, and the Jedi Knights vs. those on the dark side of the force) characters might play C3PO or Chewbacca, but not Luke. They could play a rebel fighter, but not Leia. They certainly can't be in a situation where they could take out Darth Vader.

It also implies that the RPG doesn't have to perfectly emulate the work; if you were writing [insert favorite novel here], it would look different than [author's name] did it. PCs don't need to conform to the exact same rules as the protagonists of the work which inspired them; they just can't disrupt it too much.

Looking back on this post, it seem that what I've said is "roleplaying games are a different medium than stories," but I think this points out one of the reasons why; PCs fulfill a different role than the protagonists.

To reiterate, I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just that I think it's a phenomenon out there.

Thoughts? Opinions? Counter-arguments?

Felix

Felix,

I think you'd be right in saying "that's what PCs are in a significant portion of role-playing games run." (Cripes, I don't want to point any fingers, but I do, but I shouldn't, but... cough*WoD*cough.)

I'll be blunt, though: the thought of playing Robin to some GM's Batman makes me ask, "What's the point?" I certainly couldn't do it again.

Quote from: Clinton R. NixonI'll be blunt, though: the thought of playing Robin to some GM's Batman makes me ask, "What's the point?" I certainly couldn't do it again.

To drop out of the comics paradigm (ye gods, how I dislike supers.. there, that's my bias!) does it work for you, Clinton, in the Ars Magica paradigm?  Grogs are always second-fiddle to the other characters (heck, even to other grogs).  

Is it the issue of spotlight (unsure of the Official Forge term for that concept) that bothers you?  That's my personal issue with it.. I hate watching the GM play their pet NPC.. *sigh*

-jeffrey "bitter? me?" miller-

Felix, I think you point out one of the reasons why published game settings always irk me - you can't be Luke, you can't be Superman.. you really can't effect the world, not as the setting is written.  Publishers have done a poor job of telegraphing that its ok to change their settings;  they could all do with a chapter on "here's places where you could break the world, and what ramifications might spiral out"

-j-

Jeffrey,

It's totally the idea of spotlight. I haven't played Ars Magica (I know! Horrors!), but I've played plenty of characters of lesser physical/magical/whatever's-important power compared to the other PCs and NPCs. Still, they were protagonists in their own right, and seeing them overcome their setbacks was good story material.

If I'd had to sit back and watch their protagonism get overrun by an NPC, well, I'd not have played in that game any longer.

Quote from: Clinton R. NixonFelix,

I think you'd be right in saying "that's what PCs are in a significant portion of role-playing games run." (Cripes, I don't want to point any fingers, but I do, but I shouldn't, but... cough*WoD*cough.)

I'll be blunt, though: the thought of playing Robin to some GM's Batman makes me ask, "What's the point?" I certainly couldn't do it again.

You're right that it's only for a significant portion of RPGs run; I'm not talking about every game out there, and hope it didn't look like that.

Robin may not be an ideal example of what I'm after, because he's clearly a second-rate character. But would you be willing to play Han Solo? He's cool, but he really isn't needed for the story of the struggle against the empire or the dark side of the force. Still, he can have cool struggles against Jabba and Boba Fett. That's the sort of PC players might be forced to play in a well-designed RPG that uses these principals. (I'm sure some Star Wars fans would argue he's essential to the story; I don't see it that way. If you don't agree, fill in the name of a different character you find cool but not essential.)

Felix

Han Solo is different from Robin, I think, in that while he isn't the star, he has his own story. He makes the decision to come back and help Luke at the end of ANH.

Quote from: Jeffrey MillerPublishers have done a poor job of telegraphing that its ok to change their settings;  they could all do with a chapter on "here's places where you could break the world, and what ramifications might spiral out"

-j-

Me too!

Seriously, that would be a great way to address the problem. My guess is that it's not done since there are some people buying whatever RPG that take the setting or metaplot as gospel. Keeping the PCs from messing with this is important to them. RPGs are a different medium, and the rules of what's set in stone in the world should be different.

Felix

Hi Felix,

I think you've nailed it:

Quote....PCs fulfill a different role than the protagonists.

Although this isn't the only way to play, historically this has occured for one major reason:  In traditional media, the author controls the protagonists, the conflicts, and the outcomes. In roleplaying games, those things are divided up amongst the players and GM, and the mechanics.  When we're talking about sidekicks and "typical" PCs, they are united in that their decisions "don't matter", precisely because players are typically removed from having real control over all of the above 3 elements.

Consider two typical Batman stories with Robin:

A) Batman gets put into deathtrap, Robin saves him
B) Batman gets put into deathtrap, Robin gets captured trying to save him.  Batman pulls out miracle from utility belt, saves them both.

What's the deal?  Notice that no matter what Robin does, Batman lives(and so does Robin, but that's another point).  No matter what players do in the "typical" campaign, their actions don't matter.

Why does this happen?  Well, to put it simply, somewhere along the line, a common idea developed that GMs are supposed to "tell a story", be in full control, and always be prepared for what is going to happen.  While players come to a game, not knowing what's going to happen, and totally cool with it, the GMs came to games with stacks of "If-then" notes.  "If the players do this, then this has gotta happen..."  

With this, you have two different methods going on at the game table.  The players have a flexible tool, a character, adaptable to any situation("What would Batman do?"), the GMs have giant lists of inflexible, one time use situations.   Most of the gaming advice out there, is only about either better hiding the "walls"(Illusionism) or else better forcing people to stay within them(Railroading).  Many gamers worry about giving players "too much power" which is really more options that make it harder for those "walls" to work.

A few folks have decided to abandon the If-then walls altogether.  This has its advantages and disadvantages.  On the plus side, players now fully control their characters, and can be those protagonists, like Batman, who make decisions, and alter their world.  On the bad side, you need to have some way of keeping focus and drive(making interesting things happen).

Blowing out these walls can be a choice on the parts of the group(Narrativist D&D), or can be built into the system itself(octaNe, Trollbabe, Dust Devils).

Chris

Not to be, um, predictable, but I respectfully disagree (and it is an interesting and well posed question).

But this is key:
You don't need Narrativist D&D (or narrativist games) to break those walls Chris was talking about down. The standard stuff does it just fine. This is the Impossible Thing Myth (you can PM me if you disagree).

The PC's in tradtional games are, I think, far closer to Batman--than Robin (and--it will come as little surpise to those who've followed my posts on this stuff--my WoD game defly avoided the meta-plot stuff with but the slightest flex of imaginary muscles).

Yes, I agree, you *can* get trapped in thinking RPG's are like Chris described (where the PC's have no real power and the GM is inflexibly running an event tree)--but you can also get trapped in a bad job or relationship ... or keep reading a series after the author's magic spark has gone gone out three books back ...

None of this is about the medium.

Roleplaying Games fufill a different medium than standard-media-stories because they are dynamic and cooperative.

They are dynamic in that the end is unclear to everyone involved (in the traditional model). They are necessiarily and implicitly dynamic in that unforseen events can change things in unpredictable ways.

But mostly they are dynamic because their presentation is in real time. A story, film, drama, what have you is consumed after completion. RPG's are not.

Secondly they are cooperative. In the traditional model the PC's may be acting or reacting to events in the game-world, but there is still implict and important power-sharing in the cooperation that the RPG-environment requires.

Power is not taken, it's assigned. It's assigned by the group of players to a single GM (again, this is the traditional model). This is cooperative in a way traditional media is not.

Even co-written books, edited screen-plays, or committee designed sit-com episodes don't cooperate in the way that RPG's participants do.

That's why (IMO and IME) RPG's different from what is commonly meant by "stories". (and I believe this applies, axiomatically, even to strongly Narrativist play).

-Marco

Quote from: BankueiWell, to put it simply, somewhere along the line, a common idea developed that GMs are supposed to "tell a story", be in full control, and always be prepared for what is going to happen.  While players come to a game, not knowing what's going to happen, and totally cool with it, the GMs came to games with stacks of "If-then" notes.  "If the players do this, then this has gotta happen..."  

I partly agree with this, and I partly agree with Marko.  There was indeed a point in the history of RPGs when there arose the idea that the GM is supposed to direct a story, but I don't think that idea is entirely universal.  

The original modules were location-based.  The GM would lay out a dungeon, have a key for what was in each location, and the PCs could wander around it and do whatever they wanted.  This is very player-driven, actually.  The players can do whatever they want within that location.  It was regarded as at least borderline cheating if the GM changed around dungeon details during play.  The problem, of course, is that it can get pretty dull and aimless, especially over time.

Many had the idea of breaking out of wandering from keyed room to keyed room.  They wanted to have more of a coherent story to play.  Unfortunately, the most common solution was and is to have a linear sequence of scenes/locations.  The players come to the location, and there is some sort of challenge and/or clues leading them to the next scene.  A common device is a keyed event.  For example, as the party approaches the clearing, they hear a woman's scream (this regardless of how long it took the party to get there).  

There is usually advice given to the GM to be flexible -- but if your preparation is based on a sequence of scenes, there is an overwhelming tendency to stick to it.  However, to be fair, it is a tricky skill to come up with a good, structured story purely by improvisation.  I think there is very good reason why Baron Munchausen hasn't taken over the market.  It comes to your turn and you think "Er, damn.  I can't think of anything good."  There are definitely other approaches to aimlessness-vs-linearity, but I don't think any of them are a simple slam-dunk.  

Common approaches to the problem include:

[*] Many games emphasize the resolution over the plot.  For example, in classic Champions the plot is brief filler between fight scenes.  It also invented player power to determine subplots and themes via disadvantages like Dependent NPC and Hunted (A very limited power, but Champions was an early game).  Torg is also action-emphasized, and gives players power using Drama Deck cards.  
[*] Some games, like Call of Cthulhu and Paranoia, bite the bullet and incorporate as central themes the idea that the PCs are doomed pawns.  The fun for the players is in characterization and atmosphere.
[*] A few games encourage more spontaneous improvisation at the expense of continuity (or at least seriousness), such as Toon and to some degree Theatrix.   [/list:u]

Uncommon solutions include:

[*] No-Myth-of-Reality/Genre Play.  This was touched on some by Theatrix, though incompletely -- I look forward to Scattershot's take.  The idea is to not prepare specific locations and scenes, but instead prepare the story logic you are trying for: i.e. pacing, twists, etc.  The players can go wherever they want in the world, but they are subject to the genre expectations.  
[*] Plotless Background-based Play.  Here you are weaving a story amidst a fixed set of locations.  There is a Scope of locations of interest, and actions take place as individuals and groups interacting within the space of that Scope.  [/list:u]

I think Felix may be saying something a bit different than what he's being made out to say; it's his thread, and will stomp me if I'm totally full of it.

My read is that he's saying something like this:

In games based upon fairly clearly delineated source material, e.g. Star Wars, you can't be the main protagonists and still retain the source itself.  That is, if it's Star Wars, the party can't be Luke and Ben and Leia and Han and Chewie and the droids, because then either (1) the players know the story and are just walking through it, or (2) you don't respect the story that got everyone into it in the first place.  If, by contrast, your PCs are somebody totally different, then they can't destroy the Death Star, or turn out to be Darth Vader's son, because those roles are already taken.

I think this is true, but there are ways around it.  For example, dredge backwards (as the recent films have done, poorly).  Who is Wedge, anyway?  Construct a story whose endpoint is known, in one detail (he's alive and a good pilot), and let the players fill in everything else.  It's not the films, sure, but it's a good start.

For myself, this is why I hate playing or running in such universes.  Everything is so pre-determined.  The most fun I ever had in a Star Wars universe was when we decided that it just made more sense to stick with our jobs as Imperials and trash the local rebellion.  The only person who had a problem with this was the GM, who was horrified.

As another example, and a weirder one, take CoC.  If you play the game as written, you hunt down the baddies and eventually get eaten, or you don't.  If you don't, you continue -- because you're insane, apparently, because nobody sane would continue with this.

Okay, so I was in a one-shot of CoC where I just kept pushing and pushing and pushing.  Eventually, it turned out that I was related to the bad guys, and so in a weird genetic sense it was all my fault.  For some reason, the GM thought this would encourage me to really go after the bad guys.  But I decided to sign on, and become High Priest (as I was clearly destined to do), and in the end was rambling about how I would go diving in the middle of the night, and swimming with the Deep Ones, and listening to the whippoorwills going "tekeli-li, tekeli-li," and generally being totally insane.  Very not CoC, but very Lovecraft.  General agreement was that when I ate the other character, and went off on a tear to become the bad guy, the game became totally Lovecraft and totally not CoC.

So is CoC not emulating Lovecraft?  Damn straight.  Is CoC not a playable game?  Hell, no -- it's a great game.  So is emulating source material the essential issue always?  No, not at all.  And if the mechanics get in the way (as they don't in CoC -- just throw out your defenses and be at one with darkness), burn them.

Why is this hard?

Quote from: clehrichI think Felix may be saying something a bit different than what he's being made out to say; it's his thread, and will stomp me if I'm totally full of it.

My read is that he's saying something like this:

In games based upon fairly clearly delineated source material, e.g. Star Wars, you can't be the main protagonists and still retain the source itself.  That is, if it's Star Wars, the party can't be Luke and Ben and Leia and Han and Chewie and the droids, because then either (1) the players know the story and are just walking through it, or (2) you don't respect the story that got everyone into it in the first place.  If, by contrast, your PCs are somebody totally different, then they can't destroy the Death Star, or turn out to be Darth Vader's son, because those roles are already taken.

You're right; that's pretty much what I meant.  The only clarification I'd like to make is how the situation has often been resolved. Players are given someone who looks like he belongs in that situation, but is just along for the ride. As Clinton pointed out, WoD does this a lot; the PC vampires seem to be involved in all the political intrigue, but it's all the work of the elders and they're along for the ride. (Or that was the case last time I took a look at the game.)

I think historically this has been a big problem, predating D&D. A lot of people, when reading a novel, think "what would I or my literary creation do in this situation?" I do something like that. But it doesn't matter, because when you turn the page, the novel's characters are doing something else, and then people think "What would I do now?"  A certain type of PC (and certain sympathetic characters in those works) was created to handle this, and let the characters take part and empathise with the situation, without ulimately affecting it.

In roleplaying games,  as has been mentioned, the situation is really unsatisfactory due to the fact players do influence a story. I do like the examples you've provided of ways around it though:

Quote
For myself, this is why I hate playing or running in such universes.  Everything is so pre-determined.  The most fun I ever had in a Star Wars universe was when we decided that it just made more sense to stick with our jobs as Imperials and trash the local rebellion.  The only person who had a problem with this was the GM, who was horrified.

As another example, and a weirder one, take CoC.  If you play the game as written, you hunt down the baddies and eventually get eaten, or you don't.  If you don't, you continue -- because you're insane, apparently, because nobody sane would continue with this.

Okay, so I was in a one-shot of CoC where I just kept pushing and pushing and pushing.  Eventually, it turned out that I was related to the bad guys, and so in a weird genetic sense it was all my fault.  For some reason, the GM thought this would encourage me to really go after the bad guys.  But I decided to sign on, and become High Priest (as I was clearly destined to do), and in the end was rambling about how I would go diving in the middle of the night, and swimming with the Deep Ones, and listening to the whippoorwills going "tekeli-li, tekeli-li," and generally being totally insane.  Very not CoC, but very Lovecraft.  General agreement was that when I ate the other character, and went off on a tear to become the bad guy, the game became totally Lovecraft and totally not CoC.

So is CoC not emulating Lovecraft?  Damn straight.  Is CoC not a playable game?  Hell, no -- it's a great game.  So is emulating source material the essential issue always?  No, not at all.  And if the mechanics get in the way (as they don't in CoC -- just throw out your defenses and be at one with darkness), burn them.

Why is this hard?

I think the reaction of your Star Wars GM explains why it's hard. Doing this makes sense, but it's looked at as a form of cheating, or breaking the unwritten rules. I've heard stories of a D&D group that consisted mostly of bards and rogues. They went from town to town entertaining the villagers. When the DM tried to drop adventure ideas ("Kobolds have been raiding the farms nearby."), the players ignored it ("The villagers should really hire some mercenaries then. Can we perform in the tavern tonight, or is it booked?"). They were perfectly within the rules of the game, but it's not expected behavior in a D&D world. The player who told me about it said the DM wasn't happy. I imagine in a lot of games based on a source, there are plenty of similar situations.

I dug up a couple old threads on a similar topic
Metaplot and Story Creation
Meta-plots, Railroading and Settings
Open/Closed Setting(Pyron's Woe's Take 165)
I want to draw special attention to the Open/Closed Stting thread in which Ron describes what he called "underbelly" tactic.

Marco my friend, you never cease to amaze me and kill me at the same time.

The biggest disconnect between you and I on matters like this, I think are summed up neatly in microcosm in your first post here above.

You start by saying "I disagree" and then go one to say pretty much what everybody else is already agreeing on.  You're coming from a different perspective, but you aren't disagreeing with anything.

To summarize:

Felix suggests many RPGs are like Batman and Robin where the PCs are like Robin and just along for the ride while the worlds NPCs are like Batman and the story is really about them.

Clinton says yup, many RPGs are like that, and picks on WoD as the obvious (and all too easy) target example.  And Chris gives a nice summary as to why this often is.

You then come in and essentially...to boil down what your post is saying say "Yes, I agree, that is often the way things are, but there are various techniques you can use to try an avoid having that happen"

But instead, for some reason you start out by saying "I disagree".  Nope, you're not disagreeing at all.  You're saying exactly the same thing as everyone else. Which is why its so easy for John to come in and agree with both of you.  Cause you're not saying anything contradictory.

I'm thinking its just because you've for some reason decided to not accept the possibility that you've already been playing Vanilla Narrativism for years ;-)...that's a joke............but only partially.