Narrators vary in how much they like to plan out the details of plots in advance - the more you plan, the clearer and more organized your plot may be, but it is also possible to make it rigid or inflexible by overplanning, leaning to the dreaded "railroading." Regardless, though, I tend to suggest that narrators have at least some idea of where a story might go before the game starts up. I've written a bit about this before, advising that you have an idea of an ending from the start of a game - not a hyper-detailed, inflexible, definite ending, but a general idea for the story's eventual direction. I think that can help you make sure that your story always feels like it is pointing towards something, even though what exactly that something is can (and probably should) change as the player characters take action.
This week's topic is similar, but not quite the same. When you think of the story's likely ending as I've advised earlier, you're taking into account the actions of the player characters - basically, you're thinking of what will likely happen given the characters you selected for the game and the general thrust of the story. So what you're thinking of for a possible "ending" includes hero involvement. The possible ending for a tale about an angry wizard trying to take over the world, for instance, is probably going to be "the heroes fight their way to the wizard's tower and defeat him in combat." Based on your thoughts on the story and the likely actions and motivations of the player characters, you determine that most likely the story will point towards the player characters resisting the wizard's assaults on the world, beating back his forces, and taking him on personally. As I discussed in my earlier article on having an ending in mind, this might be something you re-evaluate as the story goes on: For instance, if the player characters turn out to value deception instead, you might change your idea of the ending to "the heroes play the wizard's allies against each other to bring him down." But this technique is always based around the actions of the player characters.
But it's helpful to often have another angle on the story too, and if you've read some advice articles from the tabletop form of roleplaying games, this is going to be quite familiar - I can't claim credit for this! It's an excellent technique for tabletop roleplaying and for writing in general, and it isn't surprising that I find it can be helpful for Storium games too.
When you're coming up with a plot, a great technique is to think about what would happen if the player characters didn't interfere.
If the player characters didn't become involved for some reason, what would happen? Let's take our conquering wizard plot, again. If the player characters don't get involved, what happens? Well, assuming the wizard is great and powerful and the player characters were the world's last best hope in your story idea, what probably happens is that his legions cut an increasingly devastating path across the world, lay waste to cities that oppose him, subjugate his enemies, and ultimately he gets what he wants, taking over the world.
Great!
So, where does he go first on his campaign? What kingdom is first to fall? What forces try and fail to stand against him? What plans are put into place that fail, because no one there is brave or strong or fast enough to do what is needed? What looks like it might work, only for the wizard to have the perfect spell for the occasion?
Just like with the "have an ending" suggestion, I don't mean that you have to plan things out in heavy detail. You can if you like - some narrators work well that way. But what I'm saying here is just to think about these things. If you know what sort of things happen when the player characters are not involved, you know more about your plot and any villains you've involved.
Which means that you know where you can insert the player characters, and what they're going to start out impacting. And from there, you can more easily determine the ripple effects of their actions on the plot.
Let's say that the wizard starts out with an assault on Carrus Kingdom, and barring interference, he'd defeat it. And, since the Carrus Kingdom was the strongest of the world's militaries, there'd be no other strong force to oppose him. He'd proceed to crush the separate militaries of the other kingdoms, and soon have his world.
Where do you start the plot? Well, that depends on the game you want. If you want a game about two powerful warring factions, maybe the heroes are part of Carrus Kingdom, and they fight back against the enemy. If they hold back the enemy lines, what happens next? What does the wizard do? Does Carrus Kingdom lead the charge against him now?
Or what if you start the game later? What if you start the game after the fall of Carrus? Now, you know that the wizard wins because there's no united fighting force to face him...so that gives you the goal for the player characters right there: forge a united front, and ally the nations despite their different interests and ancient enmities to face a stronger threat. But what was the wizard doing? Which nation did he go to after Carrus? And once he finds out what the heroes are trying to do, how will he interfere?
Just like the "have an ending" concept, I suggest taking periodic time to re-evaluate your thoughts on "what happens if the heroes don't interfere." It's a good thing to try to do every so often in your story - each time you're facing a new "plot" by the story's villain, or a new sequence of events, think about what would happen if the heroes weren't there or didn't act. That gives you a nice, strong basis to use for your thoughts about how the story reacts when the heroes do act. You know what they're working against.
I want to emphasize two points, though:
- This does not require a villain. You can absolutely have this be a question of events rather than plans. If a massive earthquake is about to happen, what will happen if the heroes don't act? Will anyone alert the city to danger, or will the earthquake hit unexpectedly? Think in terms of story events, of just...things that happen when time passes, if you don't have an actual villain plotting an evil plot.
- What happens without the player characters doesn't have to be worse than what happens with them.
I can point to more than one example of this from my own Storium games, but I'll take probably the most notable one: An End in Fire. What would've happened if the player characters weren't involved from the story's start?
Well, as pretty much spelled out in Chapter 2, Scene 2 and 3, what would've happened is pretty simple: Rory would've executed his plan and gotten his pendant back from Itzal Baines! The interference of the player characters prevents Rory from getting his pendant, because they steal the pendant first. Thus, for An End in Fire, the player characters at first work against a positive ending for the story, before ultimately turning things around and working towards a positive ending later.
At multiple points throughout An End in Fire, I was doing some thinking in the background about the question of "what happens if the heroes don't interfere?" At the start, it was "Rory gets his pendant back and defeats those who oppose him." After the heroes interfered and stole the pendant first, it ultimately became "Rory is captured by the mysterious third faction and his magical knowledge is ultimately in their control." As you can see, the initial interference of the heroes definitely made things worse for poor Rory.
Now, there's one more point to raise here, and that's that at a certain point, it becomes impossible to think of the story "without" the player characters, because the player characters are inextricably linked to the tale - the game's villains might be thinking about them specifically now, targeting them, or perhaps the game's events just revolve so heavily around them that it's impossible to think of them "not involved." But you can still think of them "not interfering," or perhaps of their interference being inconsequential, when you're using this strategy. Case in point, again from An End in Fire: Once the heroes rescue Rory, what will happen if they don't act? Now, it's "the man in the duster uses his servants to kill the heroes and retake Rory and the pendant."
The heroes are now specifically mentioned in the story's "non-interference" path, with specific consequences for them - but I'm still using the technique. I'm still identifying what will happen if the heroes don't act, or don't act sufficiently. For some stories, I must note, you might have to start with this version of the method! For some tales, things start out pretty personal for the heroes.
Overall, I think this technique is a really helpful way to think about stories, especially in context of Storium. Storium challenges are all about the players leaving their mark on the story, but for that to really be felt, I think you have to have an idea about what would've happened had they not left their mark. That can help give you focus, and help you understand how the characters could make the situation better...or worse. I encourage you to take the time when you're thinking about your Storium games and just...think this through a little. It doesn't need to be detailed, but having a basic understanding of what would happen without player character interference will make your story more alive, and that can only be a good thing.
0 Yorumlar