Notion: Explicit Player Meta-plotting

Our recent DHYH session and some experiments with AnimalBall.com's Instant Game have prompted me to think a bit about direct player involvement in story planning.

DRYH explicitly involves the player by letting them lay out the first scene that starts the action, as well as specify a story goal for their character to achieve by the end of the story. During our session, I would occasionally ask S. directly for more info about her character's backstory--such as naming three anthropomorphic toys her character had as a child. Some DRYH GMs have gone so far as to allow players that win their contest to assume narrative control for the following scene.

I've also lately been exploring the mechanic of plot points, where the player can introduce some coincidence, minor story control, or introduce some world detail.

I guess perhaps its my IN research that prompts me to shy away from all this as something that will break player "immersion" or "narrative presence" in the story. Yet, in my own solitaire gaming, I've felt the difference between plotting and playing. Since I'm both player and GM, I know what's going to happen ahead of time in my storylines. The only variation from my plan is going to come from the dice--which can introduce interesting and significant variation at the micro-level, which may in turn prompt new ideas. And yet it's still a rewarding experience to play through and make all those general plot lines concrete. I guess it's like reading a plot summary or reading the original work--the details make a big difference!

So why shouldn't this experience also be rewarding for my players? Yes, there's a breaking of immersion, but at the gain of greater player control and involvement in the story.

So here's a few ideas on how I could try to add more player control:

"Yes, and..." World Building. One thing I noticed with a recent Instant Game exercise was that sometimes the GM and player might want to take the world-building in different directions. One possibility is to play the "Yes, and..." improv game here. The two take turns adding details to the world, but can't retract or change what the other has already added. (No "Yes, but..."s.) I suppose there could be some sort of "plot point" buy-out mechanism if the GM didn't want to go the full way here. Perhaps the GM has 3 chips which let him veto that many player-generated elements. Or perhaps both player and GM each get 3 chips and can veto each other. This would be better, since vetoing in general tends to kill the spirit; at least this way the two are on even footing.


As you can see, I'm hesitant to give equal power to the player. I noticed during the first part of our DRYH session that giving control to the player doesn't mean you're going to get a story out of it. (I was impressed with S.'s contributions and creativity though!) Someone--or at least some mechanism--needs to be in place to guide the story in some direction, or else things just stall. Unless there's something else at work, that guiding "mechanism" is usually the GM. And giving the player story control actually means more work (or at least flexibility) is required of the GM.

Co-GMing. It would be interesting to take turns narrating with the player, so each alternates the GM role. I know other systems (Dogs in the Vineyard, perhaps?) have a stakes-based conflict resolution system. Perhaps something like that could be used here to see who takes control of the story. Of course, some players will be passive and not want story control, while others will always want it. And this still doesn't resolve the problem of "who's driving this thing, anyway?"

Explicit Pre-game Plotting. But again I'm falling into the trap of thinking that all of this plotting needs to be subtle and in character, or emergent from the rules. I started this post with the realization that explicit plotting is not a bad thing! So perhaps following up on DRYH's notion of an explicitly-started story goal is a good one. All of this could be negotiated before the game starts--even including any major plot points that should be hit along the way. If everyone's agreed on the direction and the major waypoints at the outset, then it doesn't matter who's currently driving. Instant Game is close to this, as their instant story tables gives the main opposition and other actions that need to be worked in.

Evil Hat's Spirit of the Century/FATE 3.0's aspects are another possibility here. Aspects can be tied to the campaign/story itself, so anyone can invoke them. This serves to at least direct the story towards certain themes, if not in a particular plot direction.

Hmm... something to continue to ponder.