Rondeau's Ramblings: Integrity of the Game

One of the constant questions I get is discussing the integrity of tabletop gaming. My understanding of the question is based on the improvisational nature of the game. In other words, how much should a player prep of their story prior to session and what should be left as a surprise. I don’t get the question. I think people are looking for a hard-set rule on how to play the game and it really depends on the table. I’ll do my best to discuss my thoughts on the topic.

There are two different scenarios. A private game and a public one. In a private game where I am running for a group of players, I tend to be flexible. My main priority is the story and I aim to weave the narrative for the specific characters. However, I don’t have hard and strict rules for what the player brings to the table. I’m not trying to create a huge philosophical theme for players who just want to experience a heroic adventure. I do usually put out some rules though. My players do not need a long backstory, but I expect a three-dimensional character. In other words, the characters need to have goals. Or rather, a player needs to have goals for their character. I use the abstract and concrete goals to simplify this process. Your character must have something obtainable, like an item/revenge/power but the character must also have an abstract goal. Abstract goals are something like, “Higher self-esteem" or “world peace”. This allows me to create natural obstacles for the characters and create a relevant narrative.

I usually like characters who don’t know what they want right away. Sometimes you have the go with the flow guy. It allows with an abstract goal of “finding purpose” and usually the player has several ideas on how to accomplish that. Presenting a scenario that spurs a character into action creates some of my favorite moments. These small actions are incredibly impactful. Hell, I can remember moments where I decided to be a better person or learned a valuable lesson. They don’t change my actions before or after the moment, but they were the catalyst for them.

In public streams or podcast, I require my players to work much harder. Players are required to be proactive rather than reactive. Think of it like World of Warcraft. Players are reacting to the quest giver and scenario and it forces the villains to have a much more dynamic persona then your silent protagonist. For me, World of Warcraft is a game where the setting and the world is much more interesting than the player character. Then take a game like the Witcher. Geralt is actively hunting monsters and accomplishing goals. While the setting of the Witcher is deep and rich, the protagonist makes the game interesting.

Players are challenged with being a protagonist. They take this abstract and concrete goal and actively try to solve it while also existing in the overall narrative. In between sessions, players are expected to come up with a plan and figure out what they want to do. I actively try to write out information on towns and locations and send to the PCs so they can figure out what they want to do. The worst show is seeing people sit around for 10 minutes doing nothing.

The problem with this method is that people are not trained to be proactive. In fact, it is rather hard. They don’t create their character like Disney’s Mulan that actively puts herself into the war camp to save her father but rather the henchmen who simply follow their orders. On top of that, there is this expectation that the storyteller should push the narrative for them. Sometimes I have a town that simply has NPCs to talk to. A diverse cast of side characters that have their own trials and tribulations. They don’t even expect the PCs to help, it is up to the players to get involved if they choose too. At times, the party waits for something to happen. Not every town is going to have centaurs attacking the city that the heroes need to react to save. Some towns are just there for them to learn something about the culture, catch up on rumors, and intervene if they want too. Or if they really don’t care about the smaller interactions. They can simply leave and move on.

I’ve had poor success early on. In one of my first stream projects, I changed my style from having reactive players then suddenly pushed them for proactive actions. Effectively, I created a living world where players actions and inactions affected how things happened. If they went left rather than right, things still happened on the right. I’m saddened the group fell apart, as it was a stream with friends rather than actors. But my new style I was developing did not match what they wanted to play or were used to playing. And that is okay. I do wish I was more articulate with what I was trying to do though.

So yeah, to answer the question. Strict improvisation doesn’t make a good game. The “integrity” comes from a player's willingness to work with the party's style rather than the game needing to be played a certain way. I use a heavy hands-off game normally. I create the overarching plot and the setting and let my players simply exist. If your table uses other gaming philosophies, then let it happen! Don’t let my personal thoughts affect how your table runs.