All the World's a Stage: What's a good story?

Let's say you're playing with a moderated troupe. They're rare nowadays, but I do see them from time to time. A moderated troupe is when you trust one or more players to be Gamemasters, basically guiding the story along, portraying NPCs, and helping to decide what happens in the game. In the old pen-and-paper days, this person would have been called a game master.
During the course of your gnome's busy career, he found himself forced to help an undead warrior cross a river. Nothing big or fancy, but it was still something the gnome had to do. (I don't know how this situation could come about, but stay with me here.) Later, the gnome finds himself summoned before Varian Wrynn. Of course, the new king of Stormwind has more than a little angst about the horde, and decides your gnome should be executed. Is that a good story? Let's set up some criteria to determine it.
Does it relate to your character?
For better or for worse, we all play the game for our own enjoyment. Very few roleplayers are struggling through the game expressly for the benefit of someone else. (If you are, you might want to reevaluate how you're spending your time.) That means that your character and his story is the reason you're roleplaying.
If the episode or event in question is out of the blue ("rocks fall, everyone dies") and isn't intrinsically involved with your character's story, I'd argue that it is not a "good story." At least, not for you. Might be a great story for someone else. But for you, that's random, lame, and not much fun. I am not arguing here that the death or tragedy of your character is necessarily unfair; it could be completely within the rules determined by your game master. But fair isn't the same thing as good, and a "good story" that affects your character must actually involve and relate to your character in some way.
Was it relatively fair?
Like I said, "good story" is sometimes trotted out as an excuse when your character is negatively affected by something. You very rarely hear someone say "I gave you 30,000 gold pieces. It was a good story." It's always something like "I betrayed you to the Lich King; it was a great story!" So, for all intents and purposes, your character just got hit by an anvil. If we're talking about whether something is a "good story," then we need to evaluate how that anvil fell.
Again, since you're playing the game for your own enjoyment, then it sucks to simply have your character penalized or yoinked away without some mitigation. There should be a reason for it to happen, and one that makes sense in the realm of the story. When you're roleplaying through choices and actions, those actions must have consequences. And sometimes those consequences end up with penalties to your character. They should, however, be "fair."
"Fair" doesn't mean "you always win." However, when your character received that penalty, was it from a logical, non-arbitrary series of events? Is there something you did that led events to this conclusion? Could you have somehow escaped this fate? (And, if you could have escaped this terminal end, was that escape predictable, clear, and obvious?)
I know many folks think of "fair" as being "facing theoretically surmountable odds." In a player-versus-player roleplay environment, such as tabletop or LARP, I can see that being a feasible argument. However, this kind of definition doesn't really apply to online roleplay. You shouldn't really be capable of taking on the Lich King all by yourself - if you try, and you die, well then, that's your own darn fault.
Did you have any choice?
I'm a huge fan of choice in roleplay. (I blame Ghostcrawler's ongoing crusade to bring more choice into the game.) I often think of roleplay as being a series of choices. As I step up to each conflict ("Do I kiss her, or let her walk out of the bar?") , then I get to roll through my character's thoughts. The choice I make, therefore, expresses the story of my character.
When you consider a "good story," evaluate whether your character had any choices to be made. Waking up in the morning to find Sindragosa has swallowed you whole ... isn't really a choice. (I suppose "Do I scream or not?" is a sort of choice, but I think by the time you're being digested by an undead dragon, self-determination is no longer a factor.)
Again, admittedly, I'm talking mostly in terms of termination of a character. But when I hear of a character who's died, I try and figure out if the player had any choices to make. If not, then it's probably not a good story.
Did you get to experience it?
I used the example of a spontaneous dragon eating as a bad story. Why? Because there's not much chance for someone to actually roleplay that. You wake up, you're in a dragon. You... ponder the relative viscosity of dragon stomach acid. (Or perhaps, you ponder how something that appears to be nothing but bone could actually digest something in the first place... but maybe I'm thinking too much here.)
At least in part, roleplay is about going through the motions. Anyone can wake up and decide their character's married, has had a rough time, and is missing an eye. A roleplayer, by comparison,. will want to experience falling in love, getting married, seeing their homeland destroyed, and then having their eye poked out by the long-lost enemy of their dead father. Or whatever. It's kind of what we do.
So logging in one night and seeing a message from your Gamemaster saying "Your character's been eaten - sorry, dude," is about the worst thing that could happen - because you didn't get to experience it happening.
In conclusion
So, let's go back and reevaluate the death of the gnome. Did the execution relate to the gnome? Absolutely! It's the direct result of actions the gnome had taken. Did the character have choice? Again, yes. The gnome chose to help the forsaken character to start with, but the gnome also had the choice to ignore Varian's summons. Azeroth is a big place with entire continents in which to hide. The gnome walked into that trap. Did the gnome's player get to experience his death? I imagine so, since it'd be kind of lame to just tell him "Your character chose to show up in Wrynn's living room and got killed."
Was it fair? That's a tough call, and it's going to be something the gnome's player and his gamemaster would likely debate. I tend to think that it's relatively fair, since it's beyond a reasonable expectation that a single PC could take on and win against Varian and his guards. Additionally, it was completely reasonable for the gnome to never show up to the king's summons. Even with that being the case, it sucks to lose a character to an NPC. There's just no getting around that.
The point here is that I want to encourage folks to put some thought behind what's a "good story." We use the phrase all the time, and very rarely with any real evaluation. Considering how important it is to roleplayers to create a good story, you'd think we could agree about what even makes such a thing.
What are your thoughts? What criteria do you use to judge a good story?
Filed under: All the World's a Stage (Roleplaying)






Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Grokmar Jul 11th 2010 4:29PM
Any event that ends with a gnome dying is a great story in my book!
Eddy Jul 11th 2010 4:34PM
It is funny because a gnome gets dead.
Ves Jul 11th 2010 5:53PM
The only way it could have been improved is if after killing the Gnome, Wrynn slipped on the entrails and accidentally decapitated himself.
Tuhljin Jul 19th 2010 12:24AM
I'm not really one for all the gnome-hate jokes, but kudos to Eddy for that reference! I LOL'd, literally.
sccorp.sc Jul 11th 2010 4:43PM
I'm not particularly active in RP in WoW, but reading this article immediately made me think about the DK starting zone finishing quest at the end of the quest chain. Whether you're toon was with the Horde or the Alliance, that last quest that has you return to what used to be your capital city, now as an unhinged, undead knight that used to fight directly under Arthas's command--there was so much emphasis on that long walk, like climbing out of darkness, back into the light of honor and respect of your characters, once again, home city.
A situation that puts your character right into the chaos, smack dab in the middle of things--either way, no matter how the story plays out, you're bound to have a great time. That's what I look for--how key a role your character plays in the story. From the looks of things on the beta, Blizzard is really emphasizing that, and even moreso in Cataclysm.
P.S. - Epic dragon of death makes for a good storyline. Now if only they could make a name for the bad guy involving 'death' and some awesome physical aspect that the dragon would have...
...wait.
DeathPaladin Jul 11th 2010 4:51PM
Since I still do a fair amount of tabletop gaming, I tend to like character-driven stories, so the growth of the participating characters is a major part of judging how good the story is for me.
Static characters are not interesting to me, so I like to see how the plot changes the personalities, behaviors, desires, and goals of the players involved. How does the Forsaken or the Death Knight character respond to the death of Arthas and the sudden completion of the goal they had so single-mindedly pursued? How does the Paladin character change when they look at everything that was sacrificed? What do Humans, Dwarves, and Gnomes do with their new-found knowledge of their races' origins? If one character's story ends (through, say, death or exile), how does that ending affect the other characters in the story?
It's definitely one of those situations where one might say, "I can't tell you what makes a good story, but I'd know one if I saw one." An event that makes one story impressive would make another feel contrived. An action that is compelling when done by one person would seem bizarre and out of character when done by another. There isn't really a set formula.
prenden2 Jul 11th 2010 5:31PM
Sounds like someone needs some inspiration for their fan fiction entry!
Amaxe-1 Jul 11th 2010 5:44PM
My thought would be, any RP moderator who makes a "you died" decision is abusing his authority by essentially godmodding, and I'd be looking for a new guild. I come from the school of thought that the player decides how he wants to handle a situation, and also how the story should affect him.
Now of course this needs cooperation from all the players, to make sure there is no godmodding and no Mary Sue-ism. The chain is no stronger than the weakest link.
moirafae Jul 12th 2010 12:32AM
This. So much. Godmodding is not cool. I'm sure - in fact, I KNOW people pull this stuff on others, especially if they're in positions of given power, and such abuse just is not right. If your character's going to die, then it should be a decision made and discussed by you and the people leading the storyline or modding the RP. Only you should be able to agree to your character's ultimate demise.
For instance, if the character in the article above did indeed die due to walking into Wrynn's throne room and getting charged with treason, then it would be more than likely the player is good with it, because he helped to make or at least agreed to the decision. He might find it emotionally difficult, but sometimes death is what makes a good story, and the best storytellers know when to kill a character off. If he didn't get to make the decision that his character would be walking to his doom, then -I- would consider that Godmodding, and there would be ... Discussions.
bughunter Jul 11th 2010 10:34PM
"In the old pen-and-paper days, this person would have been called a game master."
Two things:
1) "The old pen-and-paper days" aren't so old. Geez, you make it sound like nobody plays AD&D anymore, or something.
2) Most players use pencils.
Wow and other MMORPGs still can't hold a LED Keychain Flashlight to a good Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk campaign with an experienced DM and honest-to-goodness First or Second Edition rules.
Zandilar Jul 12th 2010 1:38AM
Role Playing is not as dependent on the system as most people seem to think. It is entirely possible to RP without a rules system. Having said that, my favorite rules system is 3.5e Dungeons and Dragons, house ruled to my liking of course.
I just want to say that this post has rather serendipitous timing. I was just sharing a story about a game of Cthulhu I once played with my friends, with whom I role play pencil and paper style once a month. The situation was this - my character had managed to seduce another PC. She got pregnant, and so the PC in question did the gentlemanly thing and married her. Of course, she was very happy with this development because she loved the PC in question. Unfortunately for me (the player), the player of the other PC decided that a wife and child was too much of a weakness for him, and so at their reception, he laced the fruit punch with arsenic or something, and planted a cultist symbol in the bowl. Since she was pregnant, he insisted she drink the punch. She died. I was furious, and even to this day I am still angry about it.
There were three problem-
1. If my foggy memory is correct, I insisted that my PC probably wouldn't just drink the punch, since back then they didn't have doctors telling prospective mothers not to drink alcohol during pregnancy, not to mention that she was French, and accustomed to drinking wine/champagne regularly. The Game Master overruled me, and my character's PC husband insisted she drink the punch.
2. No one else died from drinking the punch.
3. I was given no indication by either the player or the Game Master this was coming. I was completely blindsided, and lost a character I had liked a lot.
I had no chance to avoid character death, and that really hurt - especially since I considered (and still do, actually) both the GM and the player friends. The fun of the game kind of vanished for me, my next character was designed specifically to get revenge - and because the player of the murderous husband PC, and his PC, were the GM's favorites, I was never able to win. Eventually his PC did die, but only because of several botched first aid rolls in a row which the GM could not just fudge away because they were rolled publicly by another player. I never regained my enjoyment of the game. Which is quite possibly why I don't play Call of Cthulhu anymore.
For me, this was not a good story. For the murderous PC and the GM, it obviously was.
Zandilar Jul 12th 2010 1:39AM
Oops, I forgot to mention the Cthulhu game concerned above was set in the 1920s.
Noyou Jul 11th 2010 11:19PM
D&D! Those were some good times. I remember rolling on my friends front porch acting out a fight involving Storm Giants :) Yes, I am a nerd. No it wasn't last week. Anyone out there remember Ravenloft? My personal favorite module. This whole Worgen thing (and maybe my love for Duskwood) reminds me of that :)
Noyou Jul 11th 2010 11:24PM
Not to get nit picky but it was Dungeon Master (DM) not game master :) And it was an art. My friend was a damn good one who would spin the story and throw in lots of extra stuffs.
moirafae Jul 12th 2010 12:25AM
Actually, I have heard people running/leading a tabletop game being called Game Master (GM), Dungeon Master (DM), Storyteller (ST) and more. It often depends on what game you are running - DM is usually D&D, ST is often White Wolf and so forth. But frankly, I'm of the opinion you can call them whatever, as long as it doesn't make them angry enough to kill everyone.
For instance, don't mock the sudden appearance of pirates in his game so much that you start calling him Pirate Master (PM?) and he literally pulls the 'Rocks fall, everyone dies' scenario on your party ... Not that I'm speaking from experience or anything. >.
G-stan Jul 12th 2010 1:03AM
One of my favourite D&D experiences was 'watching on' as my party ventured into a dragon's lair to steal some loot. Upon being disturbed, the dragon turned to look at an Elf in the group and greeted them in a 'sinister' fashion. Whilst the Elf was dumbly responding to the greeting, the dragon roasted their face off. Happy times.
Qing Guang Jul 12th 2010 2:07AM
Of course it's about the story.
D&D example: let's face it, the game's ultimately about going out and killing monsters. But which of the following is more fun?
1: The party goes out, kills some lizardmen, finds plenty of quality loot, and heads home safely.
2: The party is heading home from an expedition when it is set upon by a black dragon. One of the characters just happens to have a ring of Charm Black Dragon that they've been saving for ages and successfully uses it. The characters can't possibly kill it, so they eventually sell it as a pet to some powerful NPC and head home without any additional loot (aside from what they were paid). (true story, btw)
The second adventure, while a bit more time-consuming and not particularly rich in material rewards, is much more interesting (and therefore much more fun to mostly everyone except the munchkins).
Also, this Warlock player laughs at all you AD&D players with your canned dungeons and all-powerful DMs. Try having your DM write his/her own world from scratch sometime... and then living in it with the rest of the players.
Zandilar Jul 12th 2010 4:38AM
Umm... While I have enjoyed running and playing in game worlds designed by others, I have at least three Dungeons and Dragons campaign settings that I designed from scratch. All have had fairly long running campaigns set in them. In fact, I am running a campaign at the moment with (now epic level) characters that has been running for about three years.
A DM is FAR MORE powerful in a world she has designed herself. She gets to set the rules, after all. ;)
(And it's not just DnD with pre-designed worlds - try the Storyteller Vampire series of games. They are pre-made for a particular campaign world and need serious tinkering to use for home brewed game settings. While 3rd Edition DnD was not designed with any particular game world in mind, just vague references to Greyhawk deities.)