| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What makes a successful gaming experience?
I have been pondering how to talk about this subject for a while now and I finally just decided to blurt my thesis out. Part of the difficulty with role playing games is that they use terminology from literature, but use them in slightly different ways, changing their true meaning. The reason for the variation is that they are games with several people involved, not a single person writing. This division of power and responsibility leads to the need to change the definition of the literary elements. There are three main elements to a game experience; the characters, the setting and the story.
The characters are created and controlled by the players. The creation of the characters is limited by the setting, but within the parameters of that setting the choices are entirely up to the players. The most important part of characters is their agency. The characters are the only part of the game that has agency, meaning they are the only ones that can take meaningful action. All action is only meaningful as it relates to or includes the characters. Anything outside of this is part of the setting.
The setting is everything else in the game that is not the characters. This includes rules, people, places, and things. From NPCs, to monsters, to the Gods, to different cultures, to locations on a map, to nuances of the monetary system everything outside of the characters is part of the setting. This includes the GM being the neutral arbiter of the game rules as the rules are the foundation and give rise to the setting. Events or things the GM plans to have happen are also part of the setting, they are not story elements.
The story is what happens when the agency of the characters interacts with the setting. The story is what happens when you and your friends sit down at a table and make interesting choices and roll some dice. The story is not told by any one person sitting at the table, it can only be told in retrospect when you and your friends reminisce about the time the Monk used stunning fist on the Spider lord and it rolled a 2 on its Fort save when it needed a 3. Or the time when the Barbarian told the assembled council of nobles "I'll marry the whore" when they tried to decide which character should marry one of their daughters to forge a new kingdom. The story is experienced, not told. It is in the memories of the shared experience that the story lives. It is the responsibility of all people involved to help create the best story they can by playing their role.
It is by these definitions that I present the formula Characters + Setting = Story. This formula has served me well in my 30 years of being a GM, and it has lead to a lifetime of great memories that my friends and I still share. Hopefully sharing this concept will give a new GM a good foundation so that they and their friends can create memories of their own to last their lifetime.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to add my thoughts on gaming experience, if I may.
Some of these thoughts will be about the gaming experience in a generalist term, and then I will tie them into Pathfinder specifically afterwards.
Firstly, I think it is important to recognize that a successful gaming experience isn't something that someone can quantify, and that the definition of what a successful gaming experience is will vary from person to person, based on what the player's goals are.
Let's take poker for instance. Poker is globally played and understood. Aside from the objectives of the rules, what could potentially be a player's reasons for playing poker?
Just off the top of my head (there might be more...)
-A player might be in it for the money. "Successful gaming experience" is directly proportional to the amount of financial winnings the player walks away with.
-A player might enjoy the feeling of winning. "Successful gaming experience" is related to the player's ability to be better and beat his opponents (regardless of financial payout.)
-A player might enjoy the intricacies of the game. "Successful gaming experience" might equate to being witness to the ebb & flow of how each hand plays out, regardless of whether that player wins the hand or not.
-A player might enjoy the social aspect of the game. "Successful gaming experience" equates to going out with the guys and playing some cards, regardless of skill or victory/defeat.
Chances are, most poker players are a combination of these four factors, and depending on the person, various levels of these factors all contribute to their specific "successful gaming experience." It's this variance in these factors; that's what adds up to make every player an individual.
So how does this translate to Pathfinder?
Again, we see that different players will have different recipes for success in their brains. (Side note: these varying recipes are also what causes most player/player conflicts.) There are many components to the Pathfinder game which all could potentially have their part in formulating each players' recipe for a successful gaming experience.
-Players trying out new builds (creative expression)
-Getting together every session with the same people (social aspect)
-GMs building worlds and stories to share (both social and creative)
-The thrill of combat simulation or the intrigue of character immersion (mechanical vs. roleplay game styles/elements)
There are others, to be sure.
The important thing is to recognize that each person will have different personal goals and expectations when they sit down at the table together. Successful gaming groups are groups that can work together to achieve these varied goals. There are no wrong ways to play, just complimentary or conflicting players and styles.
Personally, my primary focus is the social aspect. I love getting together with the same people every week, and our interaction is focused on the game. No worries about conversation topics getting to awkward or inappropriate; we're all there to have fun, and that fun has a structure to it. Secondly, I like having a vehicle to express my originality. Whether I'm GMing or PCing, I get the most fun presenting original ideas the the group that remain memorable after leaving the table.
To me, the "story" has always referred to what the motivation is for the PCs to go adventuring. Perhaps it is the tribe of goblins that has been causing trouble in the area, and the PCs eventually discover that the goblins were working for the necromancer. Tracking down the necromancer inevitably reveals that necromancer was actually a pawn of an evil ruler of some type, etc.
Players contribute to that story based on their characters decisions and actions. The GM should definitely make the player's decisions matter, and have different outcomes in mind based on those decisions.
I find this topic particularly interesting, as I've noticed a shift over the years in how people describe their games. In the past, it seemed to be a player would discuss the campaign world, the story, etc. More recently, it seems players describe their character's mechanics or class role when discussing their campaign.
As an example, in the past the conversation might have been: "I'm in a pretty cool campaign right now. Playing with soandso players, sosandso is the DM. Our group is on a quest to defeat the orc chieftain that raided our town and kidnapped one of our mentors. I'm playing soandso the fighter."
More recently it would be: "I'm in a pretty cool campaign right now. I'm the tank - level 6 fighter with an 18 constitution. I use a tower shield, so my AC's like 26."
As far as player agency, this seems to be taken to an extreme these days to suggest that a GM has no control over the player's character. This I disagree with strongly. The player creates a character, but the entire world that character lives in was created by the GM. As such, there will be times when a player thinks their character is one way, and that's not possible based on the environment. The GM has an obligation at that point to assist the player in adjusting his character to something more fitting.
As an example, if a player doesn't bother to read the provided campaign information or run his concept by the GM, he may create a barbarian character and dictate that his character left a tribe that wandered the northern areas. The GM knows that there aren't any barbarian tribes in the north, and so that concept won't work.
There are two main solutions to this type of situation. First, the GM can assist the player in finding a different area of the campaign world where such a tribe makes sense. The second option is to simply change the world so that a tribe does wander the northern areas.
I prefer option one, as it keeps the integrity of the campaign world in tact. While one change may not have any major affects on the campaign world, altering in many ways based on each player's desires can be detrimental to the long-term concept the GM has in mind.
This all assumes a typical setup where a GM does all of the work of designing the campaign world, drafting the adventures, etc. If you have a more free style world where all players can make additions, changes, updates as they like, then it will likely not be an issue.
When I say player agency what I am referring to is the characters ability to make meaningful choices which interact with the setting and create the story. I mention that the creation of characters is limited by the setting but within that limitation the power of the characters choice needs to be preserved. This does not mean the player gets to play whatever character he wants, it means that within the setting parameters the player needs to be able to choose the character he wants to play. The character is the only thing the player gets to control and preserving that control, that agency, is vital if you want that character to interact meaningfully with the setting.
It is important to realize that without the characters there is no story, only setting. This may seem like a minor point, but it has massive implications. What good is a setting with no characters in it, no one to experience it? Anything that is not interacting with the characters is just setting material. I am not saying that is a bad thing either, I love creating setting material, but it's true value and worth is only achieved when the characters interact with it. Crafting an interesting setting is a lot of fun, but it is nothing compared to experiencing the story created when character interact with that setting. The former is a fun creative exercise the later is a thing of legends.
To me, the "story" has always referred to what the motivation is for the PCs to go adventuring. Perhaps it is the tribe of goblins that has been causing trouble in the area, and the PCs eventually discover that the goblins were working for the necromancer. Tracking down the necromancer inevitably reveals that necromancer was actually a pawn of an evil ruler of some type, etc.
Players contribute to that story based on their characters decisions and actions. The GM should definitely make the player's decisions matter, and have different outcomes in mind based on those decisions.
I would classify these things as setting elements. They are people, places, things or events that the characters will interact with. By themselves they are not a story, they must have interaction with the characters before the story can be created.
Once the characters have interacted with them they become part of the story. However those encounters turned out once played out at the table they become part of the story. Another way to look at it is take any Adventure Path book. Every single word of those books are setting, they are not story.
As the GM you do not tell the story you control the setting and as it interacts with the characters who use their agency to make meaningful decisions within that setting you cooperatively create the story. Everything you do as the GM is setting material, your role does not allow you to tell the story. Some GMs lose sight of this and try to rig the setting and limit the players agency to tell the story, this is what railroading is.
Railroading is when the GM over steps his role and tries to force the story to fit his vision, instead of allowing it to develop naturally by letting the players fulfill their role. The story is an ephemeral thing, and trying to force it always diminishes it. It is never as satisfying or successful as when the GM focuses on his role of controlling the setting and lets the players focus on their role as characters who interact with the setting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would classify these things as setting elements. They are people, places, things or events that the characters will interact with. By themselves they are not a story, they must have interaction with the characters before the story can be created.
I would disagree with this. In many campaigns, the story elements, or what you're calling setting, have an even larger impact on the game world than the player characters do. If the campaign takes places in Cerilia, for example, that's going to have a massive impact on events and motivations of the characters.
Having a campaign where only things that players are directly involved in are important lends its self to players not paying attention to campaign details, not understanding the RP elements on the world. In my experience, this leads to a very hack and slash kind of game. If that's your thing, then that can work.
As the GM you do not tell the story you control the setting and as it interacts with the characters who use their agency to make meaningful decisions within that setting you cooperatively create the story. Everything you do as the GM is setting material, your role does not allow you to tell the story. Some GMs lose sight of this and try to rig the setting and limit the players agency to tell the story, this is what railroading is.
How much of the story that is up in the air is up to the GM. Some GM's (and even some players) like very linear games. The GM presents the adventure opportunity, the group takes it, the GM presents the next one, etc, similar to adventure paths.
Other groups like more of a sandbox style of a game where they can go where ever they want and take on any mission or explorations that they want. Neither is the right answer. It all depends on what the group is interested in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Torm, the problem is that you assume the adventure you the GM present is in fact what the characters will do. While this is of course a fine way to play, especially if the players generally like your plots, the players always have the option to do whatever they want to.
Many GMs (as it seems from listening to people who like posting complaints on the internet) have a preconceived notion of what the story will be. They know where they want the players to go, what they want the players to do, heck some even eschew experience and decide when in the pre-planned plot the players are going to level up. This sort of game, wherein you force the players to play out your story, and reward them with levels for doing what you want, and punish them with boredom or railroading if they try to do something else, leads to the necessary reminder that the "story" is what happens after characters interact with setting, and cannot be planned beforehand.
Another aspect of the story being a product of what happened, not what the GM wants to happen, thinks will happen, or will make happen no matter what, is the fudging of dice rolls. If the GM has a planned way the story needs to pan out to make the game "fun", then the players are not actually doing anything, because one way or another the GMs story will be told. If they accidentally would have discovered that the town fool is really the BBEG, then either the information is suppressed, or it is some other unassuming friendly NPC who gets changed into the bad guy. If some of the characters would be killed by a lucky goblin, then you fudge the attack roll. If the characters would luckily kill the BBEG before he can use his carefully staged escape plan, then the roll is fudged. It is these sorts of situations where it seems like the GM needs to remember that his job is not to write the story of the game, but is there to provide a setting with cool enough features that the players will like the story created simply by them picking things to do and doing it.
I would classify these things as setting elements. They are people, places, things or events that the characters will interact with. By themselves they are not a story, they must have interaction with the characters before the story can be created.
I would disagree with this. In many campaigns, the story elements, or what you're calling setting, have an even larger impact on the game world than the player characters do. If the campaign takes places in Cerilia, for example, that's going to have a massive impact on events and motivations of the characters.
Having a campaign where only things that players are directly involved in are important lends its self to players not paying attention to campaign details, not understanding the RP elements on the world. In my experience, this leads to a very hack and slash kind of game. If that's your thing, then that can work.
You are missing the point. The characters and the setting work together to create the story, one is not more important than the other. Within the setting sure there are things that are more important or have a larger impact on the setting, but if those things never interact with the characters they never become part of the story. Lets say you have a far off kingdom where something is happening, its really important and could effect the campaign setting. If the characters never learn of it, it is not part of the story it is just you behind the scenes changing the setting. Take Cerilia for example, the fact that the Magian is far off in the east doing whatever is not part of the story until the characters hear about it or become aware of it in game. Before that it is a setting detail, even if as the GM you have plans for it to become important later until the characters interact with it it is part of the setting.
You seem to be getting the impression that I am saying the setting is subordinate to the characters, I did not say that at all. The setting and the characters work together to tell the story. Your reference to hack n slash is a style of gaming and doesn't have anything to do with the elements being discussed, that is simply a preference some groups have. The issues we are talking about are much more general, they are above the point at which play style preference comes into play. These elements we are discussing are present in all games from the most hack n slash to games with lots of roleplay. The formula leads to much more investment by the players into their characters which in turn leads them to more interaction with the setting, this is immersion.
Immersion is when the players feel that their characters are part of a world and that their choices matter. Don't misconstrue the last sentence to mean the characters are in charge of the setting. Having their choices matter doesn't mean they dictate the setting, that is the GM's role, it means that when they choose to do something it affects the setting around them in some way. That is agency, the ability to make change, this can be as simple as a character ordering a beer at a bar and it being refreshing to as amazing as swinging their sword to end the reign of the dark lord.
You are using story in the literary sense, but this is not literature. The story is the action that happens at the table, the GM cannot tell it. The story can only be experienced and then those experiences can be recounted. That is the difference between literature and roleplaying games. In literature you have one voice, the author, who is telling you the reader everything. With roleplaying games everyone is the author and everyone is the reader, and the game rules dictate that the setting be assigned to the GM and the characters to the players. This is important because it forces everyone to be involved and engaged to tell the story together. It makes creative tension as the decisions the GM makes about the setting interact with the decisions the players make with their characters.
As the GM you do not tell the story you control the setting and as it interacts with the characters who use their agency to make meaningful decisions within that setting you cooperatively create the story. Everything you do as the GM is setting material, your role does not allow you to tell the story. Some GMs lose sight of this and try to rig the setting and limit the players agency to tell the story, this is what railroading is.How much of the story that is up in the air is up to the GM. Some GM's (and even some players) like very linear games. The GM presents the adventure opportunity, the group takes it, the GM presents the next one, etc, similar to adventure paths.
Other groups like more of a sandbox style of a game where they can go where ever they want and take on any mission or explorations that they want. Neither is the right answer. It all depends on what the group is interested in.
Style preferences vary from table to table and are all valid. The elements we are discussing affect all styles of games. Even if the players and the GM enjoy linear adventures that doesn't change the fact that the characters have agency which transforms the setting into story.
Take an adventure path for example they are pretty linear, but still fun. The book the adventure path is in is all setting details, there is no story in the book. The story comes about when the players using their characters interact with the setting details of the book. If there is something in the adventure path that the characters do not interact with it remains a setting detail and is not part of the story, even if it is a major setting detail. With linear adventures it is less likely that this will happen as their are very obvious paths the characters will want to take so its harder for them to miss important setting details, but it can still happen.
With a sandbox style of game it is more likely that setting details can be missed by the characters. If you design a dungeon with tons of history and maps, but the characters never go there it remains a setting detail. Regardless of the importance you as the GM place on a piece of the setting it has no meaning to the story until the characters interact with it. This does not mean it has no meaning or is worthless, it can still have meaning and worth to the setting it just isn't in respect to the story.
Remember the formula I have presented is based on the definitions I provided. The setting and the characters work together, neither is more important than the other, they each play their role in creating the story. Just as the characters interact and change the setting the setting also informs and shapes the characters. It is through this interaction that the story comes about and the story is the most important thing because it is the reason everyone is at the table. Being excited about your setting details is a good thing as a GM, I know I love to create settings and get very involved with them. But that setting does not become a story until I allow players to take their characters into it and affect it in some way. Without character agency to catalyze the setting I am left with just some words on a page, but with it my friends and I have something that will entertain us and give us a lifetime of memories.
I generally look at the whole as writing a collaborative story. You as the GM present the Setting, supporting characters, and plot(s)which are in some state of a beginning, but not by any means finished. You set up the <group A is putting into motion a plot to do objective A>, <group B is putting into motion a plot to do objective B>, but you don't have a finished solution. I generally try to work with 3-4 of these plot arcs at a time, which may or may not be intertwined. At first, this usually plays out fairly linearly as the PCs get their feet wet in what's going on in the world. You have to feed them information from your Setting a bit at a time. In most cases, this is going to lead to the PCs being behind the machinations of the Antagonist(s), because they are being reactive, rather than proactive. As you feed them more and more information, and expand their choices, they can work on these and become more proactive, and the story becomes more collaborative.
That being said, I'm also very good at improv, and rolling with things on the fly. I tend to put big overall goals in place, and keep in mind what the Antagonist(s) need, but plan out my weekly adventures as episodic in nature, so my prep time is fairly minimal, and much of what I do prep doesn't get used, it's still there to go back to at another time.
I tend to not really look at my games as a "book", but more as a TV or movie series. Look at recent "superhero" movies, and you can see what people call "easter eggs" within them, that point to a broader scope, while the goal of the movie was completed. The Avengers is a great example, and Captain America I. In the Avengers, Loki's Staff was never recovered, the cube was given to the "Collector" to keep safe, we're teased with Thanatos, even though he has little or nothing direct in the movie. The Avengers eliminated the direct threat, but there are still many pieces out there. In Capt America, we meet Arnim Zola, Hydra is introduced, Bucky is killed in mysterious circumstances (no body), Cap eliminates the immediate threat, but the other pieces are still there. That's how I look at the story.
So for me the equation looks more like Characters + Setting + Plot threads = Story
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Torm, the problem is that you assume the adventure you the GM present is in fact what the characters will do. While this is of course a fine way to play, especially if the players generally like your plots, the players always have the option to do whatever they want to.
No, I assume that what ever the characters do will be one of the adventures I have created. I don't present an adventure to them and tell them they must do it, but whatever adventure or lead they follow up on, I will have designed something for it.
If they decide to go in a completely different direction then I have anticipated or accounted for, then I let them know we'll have to call the session early so that I can create content for the area they've decided to go to.
I think there's a big difference between railroading, which in my mind means nothing the players do matters at all, step 1 will happen, and then step 2 will happen, etc, and having things occur off screen that affect the game world.
You seem to be getting the impression that I am saying the setting is subordinate to the characters, I did not say that at all.
Yes, I am definitely getting that impression. For example when you said:
All action is only meaningful as it relates to or includes the characters. Anything outside of this is part of the setting.
That text clearly places "setting" as less important.
Remember the formula I have presented is based on the definitions I provided.
Right - which was why I was saying I disagreed with your definitions. I think the setting & story are critically important, and in my experience, the campaigns where setting and story are not important tend to be hack and slash style games.
While your experience may tell you that there is no relationship between level of importance that the group places on setting/story and style of game, mine tells me otherwise.
Torm, the problem is that you assume the adventure you the GM present is in fact what the characters will do. While this is of course a fine way to play, especially if the players generally like your plots, the players always have the option to do whatever they want to.
No, I assume that what ever the characters do will be one of the adventures I have created. I don't present an adventure to them and tell them they must do it, but whatever adventure or lead they follow up on, I will have designed something for it.
If they decide to go in a completely different direction then I have anticipated or accounted for, then I let them know we'll have to call the session early so that I can create content for the area they've decided to go to.
I think there's a big difference between railroading, which in my mind means nothing the players do matters at all, step 1 will happen, and then step 2 will happen, etc, and having things occur off screen that affect the game world.
You seem to be getting the impression that I am saying the setting is subordinate to the characters, I did not say that at all.Yes, I am definitely getting that impression. For example when you said:
All action is only meaningful as it relates to or includes the characters. Anything outside of this is part of the setting.That text clearly places "setting" as less important.
Remember the formula I have presented is based on the definitions I provided.Right - which was why I was saying I disagreed with your definitions. I think the setting & story are critically important, and in my experience, the campaigns where setting and story are not important tend to be hack and slash style games.
While your experience may tell you that there is no relationship between level of importance that the group places on setting/story and style of game, mine tells me otherwise.
Nothing I said puts the setting as less important. The setting is a vital part of the formula. The formula I presented is characters + setting = story. At no point do I put the characters above the setting, they just have different roles to play. The quote you linked about all action is only meaningful as it relates to the characters does not make the setting less important, because the characters must have something to act in and on. The setting itself does not take action as it relates to the story, only the characters can take action because they are the only actors in the game. Everything outside of that is part of the setting and if the setting changes away from the characters without their interaction or knowledge then it is just a change in the setting not a story. Things may happen in the setting, but if they are not in response to the characters taking action or involving them in some way then that is just the GM deciding to change something in the setting, it is not the story. The fact that these things are part of the setting does not make them bad or lesser, it is just about realizing the role they fill.
The GM cannot control the story and all attempts to do so will decrease the quality of the gaming experience. The GM should focus on the setting and make it the best and most interesting place it can be. Then let the characters use their agency to act within the setting. This will create the best experiences and the most enjoyment for all. No one wants to sit around and listen to what the GM thinks should happen, and I know I as the GM don't want to tell the characters what to think and do. I want to create an interesting place for the characters to make interesting choices that will create a memorable experience. If the GM wants to tell a story they are better off trying to write a novel than trying to force people to play it. This is a game about telling an interactive story, and everyone has their part in telling it. No one person is responsible for the story, it is told through the collective actions of the GM and the players.
I generally look at the whole as writing a collaborative story. You as the GM present the Setting, supporting characters, and plot(s)which are in some state of a beginning, but not by any means finished. You set up the <group A is putting into motion a plot to do objective A>, <group B is putting into motion a plot to do objective B>, but you don't have a finished solution. I generally try to work with 3-4 of these plot arcs at a time, which may or may not be intertwined. At first, this usually plays out fairly linearly as the PCs get their feet wet in what's going on in the world. You have to feed them information from your Setting a bit at a time. In most cases, this is going to lead to the PCs being behind the machinations of the Antagonist(s), because they are being reactive, rather than proactive. As you feed them more and more information, and expand their choices, they can work on these and become more proactive, and the story becomes more collaborative.
That being said, I'm also very good at improv, and rolling with things on the fly. I tend to put big overall goals in place, and keep in mind what the Antagonist(s) need, but plan out my weekly adventures as episodic in nature, so my prep time is fairly minimal, and much of what I do prep doesn't get used, it's still there to go back to at another time.
I tend to not really look at my games as a "book", but more as a TV or movie series. Look at recent "superhero" movies, and you can see what people call "easter eggs" within them, that point to a broader scope, while the goal of the movie was completed. The Avengers is a great example, and Captain America I. In the Avengers, Loki's Staff was never recovered, the cube was given to the "Collector" to keep safe, we're teased with Thanatos, even though he has little or nothing direct in the movie. The Avengers eliminated the direct threat, but there are still many pieces out there. In Capt America, we meet Arnim Zola, Hydra is introduced, Bucky is killed in mysterious circumstances (no...
I agree with almost everything that you wrote, except that I would include plot elements as a subset of the setting. In literature plot is the plan for the action of the novel, it lays out how the story goes from one place to the next. In an RPG plot has a different meaning, it is that in the setting there are some interesting places or people that the characters could act upon and make into a great story. Plot hooks are just pieces of the setting that you have designed to be enticing to characters seeking to have adventure. They are places the characters will want to go and people that they will want to meet and interact with, but the require the characters to interact with them to become part of the story.
The necromancer who is secretly gathering an army of undead by robbing the graves of the three towns and trying to get the towns to think each other is doing it is a part of the setting. It is a plot hook, but without the characters acting upon it and creating a story from it, it remains part of the setting. Even if you have a timetable and events to keep advancing the plans of the necromancer, if the characters never interact with it then it remains a setting detail that you are changing over time. Which is not a bad thing, having a world where things happen away from the characters is good, it helps to add depth to the setting but it is not part of the story until the characters interact with it.
The setting is a vital part of the formula, and including great plot hooks is an important part of making a great setting. The examples that you gave from movies like the Avengers or Captain America are great ideas for setting elements to include in a game. Adding flavor and depth like that will engage your players and get them to want to have their characters interact with those setting elements which will make for some great stories.
Thanks to all who have replied so far, I am enjoying the discussion.
BiggDawg, I think we're using plot and setting in equal measures. I tend to look at the plot as the overarching story taking place in the setting. Honestly, they're two legs on a stool, neither can hold anything up without the other ;).
No plot means that the PCs will have no vested interest in what's happening in the setting. No good setting means that any kind of plot you have would be drab, and uninteresting.