Showing posts with label writing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label writing. Show all posts

Saturday, 10 October 2020

"What are you willing to sacrifice?" A hollow question... - Planning RPG stories

Last year I've watched through Exaltwitch, an Exalted actual play (you can read my review of it here). One of the big plot points of that campaign was the quest to cleanse the party's ancient ally, Three Fates Shadow, from being an Abyssal under the influence of a Deathlord (an ancient spectre that rules the underworld and is generally evil). The culmination of that arc, after it's been built up for the majority of the actual play was the party going to the highest authority in heaven, The Unconquered Sun, and demanding his help. He agreed to do it under one condition - he asked each member of the party "what are you willing to sacrifice?" and then one of them would have to make that sacrifice.


That question, at that moment, rang very hollow. In Exalted, the player characters are capital H Heroes of legends in the vein of Gilgamesh or Sun Wukong. They are the once-kings of the world who can move mountains with their bare hands and who have saved the world from tyrannical titans of old. The question being about some thing they'd have to give up in the future, rather than asking them for what great feats have they already done in pursuit of the goal felt very transactional, rather than heroic.

I understand that it was time to wrap that plot up as the game was beginning to draw to a close. Leaving that plot unresolved because the players didn't put in that much effort to fix things would be anticlimactic. Ideally, it would be communicated between the GM and the players way ahead of time. As it was now, it basically felt like throwing the character at the glory most high and tossing some coins in his face demanding "it's broken, fix it" because the players wanted it really bad.

The GM did state later that if the PCs had not offered enough their ally wouldn't have been redeemed. However, the PCs also did gamble a bit about who would have to make the sacrifice, and to make matters worse it turned out they had to sacrifice nothing since the person that drew the shortest straw was the comatosed ally, who on the count of being in that state did not volunteer to sacrifice anything. So the PCs earned a free Deus Ex Machina resolution to their arc for free.

Now imagine if the resolution was instead tied to the themes of being a tragic hero, someone larger than life, or doing impossible feats. What if Three Fates Saved would have to live the life of virtue, despite the Deathlord influences, and sacrifice her life selflessly in order to achieve redemption in death? What if she had to confront the Deathlord that held her in a binding and make him achieve peace and pass on (which would be a monumental accomplishment), or accomplish a great feat of peace, like reconciling the differences and bringing peace between the Realm and the Solars (while the party that were the Solar by now essentially wanted to conquer the Realm and subjugate them essentially). Any mighty deed that would play on the themes of "redemption", while avoiding things tied to the aspects of death and destruction.

Instead, we had Rey offering to sacrifice ever seeing her home town of Nexus (central location of the series), her father (her central relationship), and any glory she would gain in the future. Jorek offered his chance of revenge at those who have wronged him. Valeria offered giving up what makes her the most happy - her relationship with Speaks-of-Silence. Sure, any of them would be noble sacrifices and an interesting plot to explore, except the series was already drawing to a close with 13 episodes left to go, so you'd barely see any of them play out.

Worst of all, I don't think this was the GM's intended resolution for this arc. A few episodes earlier the characters were also trying to figure out how to redeem Three Fates Shadow, which eventually drove her to the coma. At that time I noticed the GM tried telegraph some solution to her problem, spelling out the clues to her condition, but the player did not pick up on it and the moment was lost.

In situations like this, especially when you're making Actual Plays, it feels important to communicate with everyone about what they want to see accomplished in the game, about how they want the game to progress, etc. This also goes both ways - sometimes the players want to communicate with the GM about what they want to see in the game, and sometimes the GM wants to talk about how some things should play out. Some might balk at that since it's a bit close to railroading, but if your intent is to improve the game, make it more fun for everyone involved and for the people watching, it might be for the best. We've done that on a number of occasions. Heck, one time we played through a module, discussed it at length, workshopped a better version of it and played through it while still having fun.

It's a fine line to thread, but it probably works for the best when everyone's involved in the process and there is a back-and-forth on how things should go down. It might not be for everyone or every game, but it can make some key moments land better.

Conclusions


When you have a long story arc in a game you hope the payoff would be worth the long buildup. The longer and more epic the arc the more satisfying payoff you need for it to feel rewarding. However, if the resolution hinges on what the players do, it might be worth having a chat about it ahead of time so everyone would be onboard with what would produce the most satisfying ending to that story. This is especially important when producing media for other people to consume.

If you don't plan ahead, together between the GM and the players, you might just have to ask your characters "what are you willing to pay in the future for a resolution to this plot in the present?"...

Monday, 1 April 2019

The four voices of RPG writing

When it comes to RPG books, there appear to be four distinct styles to the writing, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. It's good to keep those voices in mind when writing your books.

The In-Universe Voice


The first voice is the voice that's the voice of someone living within the universe of your game. This can take the form of dialogue, diaries, notes, in-universe advertisements, etc. Often, this is reserved for fluff text or intro fiction.

If you want to see a book heavily leaning on the In-Universe Voice, check out Secrets of the Covenants from Vampire the Requiem 2nd edition. It's about 85% written using that voice (even if it features a plethora of individual characters and writing styles):

Long exposition writing, short scribbled notes,
extra tangent side-note, this book has it all!

While this voice can be interesting for establishing the mood of a setting or telling a story, it's not very concise and rarely if ever to the point. Add in the possibility of an unreliable narrator and you can be left extrapolating what is true about a setting, and what is true only from a certain perspective.

The Academic Voice


The second voice in RPG writing is the Academic Voice - a voice of someone compiling a large amount of information to present it in a compact, factual and approachable way. This does away with a lot of fluff while delivering the same information you could've gleaned from the In-Universe Voice in much smaller word count.

For example, here is an excerpt from The Invictus (Vampire the Requiem 1st edition):


The writing is straight and to the point. Everything is presented as facts, no personal opinions, no narration or "talk-like" text. It can be presented as something existing within the universe of the game, but more often than not it will be an outsider's perspective viewing the whole picture.

While the Academic Voice can be a bit dry, it's probably the most effective way of conveying all kinds of information to your reader.

If you want to have a good comparison of the differences between The In-Universe Voice and The Academic Voice, compare Vampire the Requiem 1st and 2nd editions. They are explaining similar concepts but in a much different way, and while I really dig 2nd edition's mechanical changes, I despise it for overusing the In-Universe Voice. Heck, I bought Secrets of the Covenants for the 15% of it that is mechanics and threw away the 85% that was fluff I'd rather read in the 1st edition Covenant books...

The Technical Manual Voice


The third voice is the Technical Manual Voice. It's used when you convey the game mechanics to the reader. You do away with the fiction and roll out dice, tables, numbers and so on. This voice is used to explain how things work on the mechanical level.

For example, here is a page from Vampire the Requiem 2nd Edition explaining how Cruac works:

Tables, dice mechanics, dots, points...

The writing in this Voice is technical and can get to the point of making your eyes glaze over, but it's the only way of conveying the mechanics of how the game works.

The Meta Voice


The final Voice of RPG Writing is the Meta Voice. At the end of the day when you peel off all the fiction, all the descriptions and all of the mechanics you are left with what is implied - a frank conversation between the game writer and you, the reader. While this voice is rarely used in books, when used correctly, it can convey the most amount of meaning with the highest clarity. You are no longer covering what you mean with layers of depth, but instead say exactly what you mean.

Perhaps the best example of this I've seen was in Ravenloft Reincarnated, a fan conversion of Ravenloft into Savage Worlds by Jeremy Puckett:

Talking directly to you, the fans of the setting


Laying the themes and tropes of the setting bare

The Meta Voice is perhaps the only way to clearly talk about the game directly, rather than trying to imply themes and ideas. It's a way for the author of the book to directly turn to the camera and convey what they had in mind when they were writing the book. When used sparingly, it can add the sometimes much needed clarity to what's being described and assure the reader that certain choices were made intentionally.

Comparison


To reiterate the points mentioned and directly contrast the ideas, here is a simple comparison of the same concept described in the four Voices.

The In-Universe Voice:
"You're wondering why that gal recoiled from your touch? Well, that's because you're a walking corpse - room temperature at best. HA! But don't worry, there is a trick for that. First, you have to get your old ticker going. CPR it with your muscles, then concentrate to get the blood burning up inside of you. Then, you have to dilate your capillaries to spread that love around. Give it a few minutes and you should be good to go. Just remember to keep pumping it - you're no longer on automatic."
The Academic Voice:
"Vampires can use Blood to appear more human through the use of Blush of Life. This makes their bodies life-like and warm to the touch."
The Technical Manual Voice:
"Vampires can use 1 Blood Point to activate the Blush of Life. This allows them to pass for humans and negates the usual -2 penalty of social interactions imposed by their corpse-like appearance."
The Meta Voice:
"Blush of Life has been introduced to proof it against silly things like vampire hunters using thermal imaging to pick out vampires from the crowds, vampires having to resort to carrying around heated blankets to keep themselves warm and constantly applying a tonne of make-up just to appear human. This is to make the game focus more on character interactions rather than figuring out the physics of keeping your undead body at 37 degrees Celsius..."

Conclusions


There are four different Voices when it comes to writing RPG books, each with their own application, strength and weaknesses. Figuring out the balance between those voices is important.

Use the In-Universe Voice when you want to convey the fiction and add some character to the writing. Use the Academic Voice when you want to convey a lot of information clearly. Use the Technical Manual Voice when it's time to talk about the mechanics of the game, and use the Meta Voice when you need to convey big ideas and meta-information directly to the reader.

Keep in mind that your readers might have a preference between the In-Universe Voice and the Academic Voice - some people will dig 200 pages of fluff, while others will resent you for it...