Seriously... if you are not really interested in design theory, or games as art discussion, SKIP this part. For theater, TV/film, or literature geeks, there is nothing new here, move along. Otherwise, proceed.
---
OK... rpgs have in their DNA a little of oral folktales, a little of literature, a little of theater, and a little of TV/film. Modern games often use the vocabulary of TV/film to discuss play, and as such, it is worth understanding what is in the DNA. So... there are lots of dramatic structures through history. One act, two act, three act, four act, five act... beyond that you get something that is more episodic than serial, and might find literature scholars and critics who delve into really really abstruse discussions on structures that are distinctly "art-house" in character. I won't even go into that playground because very little of the adventure fiction that 90% of rpgs are inspired by follows structures remotely resembling them. To reiterate, there are some great stories that have something other than three acts (e.g. all of Shakespeare, many of Spielberg's films, a lot of Hitchcock), but three acts is quick, easy shorthand for providing structure, and one of the reasons I have turned to Fate as my first choice game system, is that it is built on quick easy shorthand that is very suitable for telling powerful narrative stories. Further, because three act structure is what most genre films (and much of television) that gamers are familiar with and use in their own cook books, it provides a very accessible structure to work within.
Is it the only structure? Nope. Is it the best? If you are an avid student of Blake Snyder who wrote Save the Cat which is practically the required playbook for Hollywood writers, absolutely... if you look at the rest of story telling history from Homer to about 1980, then poppycock. Some literary snobs are adamantly against three act structure for just that reason. Rigidly codified three act structure is what has given us such films as Battleship, or The Amazing Spiderman, Transformers 2, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and X-Men: Apocolypse (all very formula though not especially good). Snyder is still following the same basic structure introduced in antiquity, and you can take as much of the skin of his formula as you like and leave what you don't. See, while the above examples are Snyder playbook scripts, so are the latest Bond films, the new reboot of Star Trek, The Avengers, and the Captain America movies. The key is the basic structure as an organizing dramatic principle, with the willingness to weave a little when the mood strikes. But a little more on formula.
Formula is everywhere in genre films now. This tends to take the principles of structure and make them rigid rules, at which point creativity is more likely to break than not. Sometimes it gets pulled off well but often not. Escalation of conflict is something that is a principle assumed in many including the standard three act structure, as it tests the resolve of the protagonist to act within a story. If the protagonist just gives up and goes home, the story tends to fall flat, so an escalation of conflict in pursuit of what is at stake should make both protagonist and antagonist commit to see a dramatic conclusion. Done as a principle rather than a hidebound exact formula, this can be done in a host of creative ways. But forced into the exact formula, it gets predictable and lazy.
Case in point... a tired trope, that absolutely should not be, is blowing-up-the-world threats in every single film of a series (X-Men: Apocolypse ... the most exciting piece of boredom in years). It's only slightly less obnoxious sibling is the threat more-is-better problem. Pirates of the Carribean for example, is a good film. The stakes matter to both the protagonists and antagonists, and you curiously, don't find the rest of the world shaken. But by At the World's End, the stakes have become global, and while not a bad film per se, it is weaker because in part, there is too much going on and it stretches too thin. Same for all of the most recent X-Men (and other superhero) movies, and oh so many of the Bond films. Regarding the last, look again at the Craig Casino Royal. Excellent movie, with stakes serious enough for the characters to commit everything, but without blowing up the world.
Finding ways to provide dramatic interest in talky rather than fighty ways between hero and villain provides another creative challenge, because on the one hand it allows a slower but continuous escalation, and reveals things that are more personal to the characters than you get when they are busy punching. One particular plot device that feels very de ja vu is common to The Avengers, ST: Into Darkness, and Skyfall (all made about the same time)... they all have a formula plot in which the villain gets caught on purpose. We can argue that this was done well or badly (IMO, Avengers pulls it off, the other two not so much, and that partly because Loki should be a trickster which is not the same as criminal mastermind). For that matter, Dark Knight does it too very well. There are other examples in the last two decades. The reason for this plot device is to allow hero and villain a justified talky scene rather than a fighty scene, but as some have pointed out, the problem when used as a hidebound device, is that it ends up being predictable, and lazy. Indy and Belloq have a perfectly talky scene in Raiders in the bar... the original Wrath of Khan has plenty of talky scenes via view screen... Die Hard has plenty via radio. This is where hard formula is proven to be unimaginative.
All of this is to point out that structure makes a stronger story than no structure, but following that hidebound formula can also lead to the horrible no-no of "railroading" . The basic framework helps clarify how to both allow player agency in an emergent story (I won't argue with the people who think emergent story is an invisible unicorn) and a dramatic arc that serves both plot and character.
---
ADVENTURE PLANNER IN PLAY
This is the first page. This should be filled out not in full before a campaign starts, but rather as story emerges through play. So at the start of a campaign, the Title, Story Question, Themes, and Tone would be noted, and the Teaser and Inciting incident of Act I summarized. The rest is only filled in as subsequent sessions are played.
For example, The Herald or Threshold Guardian might be alluded to in the first session of play, but not defined till after the session, and then introduced in the second session. The rest of Act one might be very simply outlined and prepared for before the second session based on what the players do in the first, and then the player's actions of the second session suggest what would be planned for and outlined in Act two, which would also take about two sessions. Act three would follow a similar model, though it might be resolved in one session, as the resolution might best be summarized by the players after the final climax. The point of using this to structure things, is 1) to keep track of where the story has been, and 2) to try to focus the direction it is going while trimming off things that are emerging as superfluous.
This is the second page, and is likewise updated throughout play. It is a quick recall tool of the things that need to be included meaningfully in the story. If it is on here, it probably needs stats. If not, things that come up in play can be thrown out on an ad hoc basis in play and only upgraded to mention here if they become important to the players.
This one drills down to individual scenes. Here is where notes can be made for specific elements that will keep the action focused on driving the main story forward, and making clear what the scene is for, and what consequences it might have later.
And this supports the previous page by essentially breaking the scene into a fractal of it's own with a sort of three act structure.
So there they are. They are not the only ones I have worked on, and they are still a work in progress. I will undoubtedly continue to work on and revise them, as they are a little cumbersome at this point. I would ideally prefer to cut down the set by at least half, and if I can find a satisfactory way to make it work on a single sheet, I will. But here is this version.
Cheers.
No comments:
Post a Comment