The majority of the content on this site is for people who approach tabletop games from the perspective of storytelling. What stories can the GM concoct for their players? What stories will the players tell about their characters? The drive to find out what shapes these stories take is what pushes many of us on, always craving that next session of narrative discovery. But there's an issue here: what we often call "plot" in a tabletop game is story from the GM, and what the players and their characters do is thought of in separate terms. (I've addressed this idea about the role of the GM versus the player and more in detail before.) I call what the players add to the narrative "exploration," at least for the sake of this conversation. So how do we balance between plot and exploration?
To some extent, balancing this equation will involve considering social dynamics. Who are the dominant voices as humans outside of the game? When you play, are there people who tend to jump in to speak more often? How confident is the GM about controlling the game? How do people respond to the GM's control of the game? It can feel complicated, but you can figure most of this out by just paying attention to who spends the most time talking. If it's the GM, that's pretty common, and we'll address that more later. If it's the party leader, that's also pretty common. But if you've got someone who is demanding game time, you're going to need to deal with that issue. The important thing is that you feel that you as GM are the one who is primarily deciding the breakdown of time in your game.
Now comes the important question that decides how you balance things. That question is, what experience do you want your players to have? My favorite way to answer this question is to directly ask my players, "What experience do you want to have?" I describe different variations of style:
- Open world sandbox
- Story-driven major quest
- A series of connected quests
- A main story with some exploration
- A series of quests with some exploration
- Open world with a main story
These options represent six fairly different positions on the spectrum of how much the players drive the story. Readers of my campaigns will likely agree that the Eastweald campaign was basically a sandbox with a series of connected quests; similarly, the mystery campaign was a main story with some exploration. These were two campaigns with the same players, and they had elected to have a more closed story the second time around. You could do your best to guess what your players want from previous experience, but who's to say that their tastes haven't changed, or they want to try something new? Just ask them, and go from there.
Let's define what the playstyles on the opposite ends of the spectrum look like, and then we'll address how to blend them together if that's what your players want.
Plot - The GM's Focus
The advantage of relying on a GM's work in a game is that the GM is the one controlling the world, therefore allowing them maximum potential to tell their story as they have prepared or improvised it. If you want your best shot at a story that is cohesive and dramatic, you want a focus on plot.
So how do we balance our desire for a focused story with exploration? After all, if the players are always following the GM's plot and never doing anything of their own volition, they have been railroaded, and that means they're not going to feel empowered. So how do we do it?
I say that you should strive for a 50% share of the game's time at most. Remember that you're one person at the table, and your 50% could mean that your five players are only getting 10% each. Use your time to establish the world and the narrative as you need to for your story, and take your time. If we're here for your story, give us the best story you can. But also make sure that the players are interacting with that world. Give them time to poke around, to do a little table talk, to have unnecessary conversations with your NPCs. And then, when you feel the pacing is beginning to slacken, pick things back up with the next part of your plot. Think about it as allowing your story to breathe.
When I say you should be aiming for no more than 50%, I'm not telling you to measure your speaking time and restrict or add accordingly. I simply mean that when it comes to running the game, you shouldn't be a louder voice than the whole party combined. (Note: In combat scenarios, this does not hold true. Most GMs are going to be talking for more than half of any combat.)
But let's not forget the strengths that led us to the GM's focus in the first place: an emphasis on plot. Consider the fact that most player character reaction in game is in response to plot events or other players. As a GM, your ability to affect the experience of your players is in plot, so remember that one of the greatest tools you have available to you is the ability to tell a story.
Exploration - The Players' Focus
The advantage of relying on the players to guide things is that the players are given more agency in the story, and agency is often what people are chasing when they play tabletop games--they want to feel like they're in charge of their own fate within the game. This allows the game to be more organic, allowing story to develop out of player actions rather than something predetermined that might undermine the players. If you want your best shot at a game that maximizes player agency, you want a focus on exploration.
How can we balance our exploration with a measure of plot? We don't want things to be rudderless, and a basic framework of plot gives the players something to improvise based on. So what's the middle ground?
I say that as GM, you should be trying to get just a little more than all of your players, who are hopefully spending roughly equal time as the center of attention. You can improve your chances as good equal dynamics with careful party building. Once you're already playing, you want to give the players a setup for a scene and then get out of the way except to play NPCs. You will need to employ some improvisation skills here of course, but you are essentially providing them a suggestion for a dramatic situation--"You're at a tavern" or "This person wants something from you" or "You're traveling," for instance--and then you let them play the scene. I like to drop in and add a new element to consider--someone joins them or the plot advances a bit or even just a detail about the scene such as "as you keep walking, you notice that no one is going your way, and many are walking the other way"--every few minutes, especially if they lose momentum. But when I'm GMing for a player-focused game, I try to speak only when I must.
One big exception to this rule is with NPC conversations. Sometimes, players just get a kick out of a particular character you've made, and they just want to hang out with that character. If that's the case, and you can tell the whole party is really enjoying this character, ham it up. Let them have it. My National Treasure-inspired campaign party met a silly orc named York who made pies, but for unexplained reasons (I suggested it was rigorous quality control of ingredients), it took him one month to make one pie. However, his pies were the tastiest pies they had ever encountered. (I often drop in very silly characters when the game is casual like that one was, especially to make up for stressful encounters.) They loved York. They stopped their efforts toward the main quest and set out to make a chain of pie restaurants called "FlavorTowne." We spent months of sessions setting up businesses and getting pie ingredients. None of this would have been possible if I'd restricted myself with York--the players wanted him, so I gave him to them. So think of this as being something you must do; if the players are talking to an NPC, take your time to express yourself correctly.
 |
| I never regret learning Photoshop. |
And don't forget that what makes this approach so appealing is that it's tailored to the characters, so try to model your additions to the story directly to them. You can add to the game's feeling of agency by giving characters challenges that are personalized to them.
Final Thoughts
The whole point of playing tabletop games for the narrative, scripted by the GM or improvised by the players, is the ability to intuitively make meaningful decisions. Whether you want to be wrapped up in a story that you're a part of or share in creating am emergent story, you're coming to the game to be involved in the experience of it. What does this have to do with balancing plot and exploration?
Mainly this: losing track of why people are playing is never good. So we must structure our games around that thing that pulls people in. We must grab onto agency and stitch it into our role as GM. In practical terms, I mean deciding what to say and how to say it based on how it will be received by the player.
When your players need more information, give it to them.
When your players ask you a question, answer it.
When you need to change the direction or pace of the story, do so.
Aside from that, kick back. You and your players might be surprised by how much fun they have going off without lots of direction.
And above all, trust your gut. If you're playing, and your instincts say you need to tell the players more about something or add something to a scene, trust that. If you feel like the players need to just direct themselves for a minute, especially if their characters are under stress, trust that. No one knows your game better than you, and you should always trust that you can make this decision well so long as you keep your players in mind.
That's all for now. Coming soon: how to use dreams and hallucinations for story, a profile on famous people in my homebrew setting, and a list of more campaign ideas. Until next time, happy gaming!
Back to the homepage (where you can find everything!)
No comments:
Post a Comment