“I have a story I want to tell.”
Posted on | August 28, 2011 | No Comments
Those are the words I often state, as a GM, at the beginning of a new campaign. Most recently, I stated it at the beginning of the 1863 Deadlands campaign.
I was reading a thread on the Story Games forums today where an individual equated those words to railroading. Railroading, if you aren’t familiar with the phrase, is when the GM runs the game in such a way that your character’s actions (thus, your actions) become less important to how the story unfolds. In other words, you’re just along for the ride. Throughout the thread, others were explaining that railroading is simply a style of GMing and that it’s just how many groups play. I have a different take on it.
When I indicate I have a story to tell, what I’m really saying is I want to explore certain themes and tropes of the setting as well as exploring some of the goals and ideals of the NPCs of the setting. As the GM, the NPCs are *my* characters. I often wish my players would tell me they have a story to tell. (And by “often” I mean “always.”) But I don’t recall ever having that. Now, to be fair, I usually have players who have certain sub-plots or goals they want tended to, but it’s not quite the same thing.
In the Story Games thread I was reading, another individual pointed out that the same players who don’t want to be railroaded usually get bored if the GM doesn’t have a planned adventure ready for the session. You can’t have it both ways, you know!
I have, on occasion, shown up to the game with nothing planned for the PCs to do. It’s not just being ill-prepped, it’s a test. The session usually starts out something like, “Okay, you’re in Such-And-Such Town. What are you doing?” And then boredom generally ensues because there’s nothing for the PCs to do. That’s bullshit, of course. The players, in all of the games I run, whether I have a “story to tell” or not, have free reign to create their own adventure. I encourage it. But I have yet to really see it happen. Does that mean my players *want* to be railroaded?
So, yeah… I do have a story to tell. And I hope you do as well.
The End of Lost
Posted on | May 29, 2011 | No Comments
Yeah, I’m a little late to this party, but whatever. I finally pulled Lost season 6 off the shelf and watched it. I watched all 16 episodes over the past two nights. It was a wonderful end to a fantastic show.
I think the writers went to great effort to make sure damn-near-all the questions generated through the six seasons were answered and wrapped up by the end. However, I find myself with a just a few lingering items I would have liked to see addressed.
The smoke monster. I’m still not entirely sure what the smoke monster was. Jacob’s Brother’s (did he have a name?) body (was he already dead, or just unconscious?) went into the light cave and immediately the smoke monster exited. Later on, the smoke monster hangs out in the form of Jacob’s Brother. Obviously there’s a correlation there, but what exactly happened? I have a couple ideas of what’s going on.
A) The smoke monster is Jacob’s Brother’s corrupted soul. Living among The Original Others definitely altered his perceptions of his childhood and his personality. He left the magical protection of his mother’s home and became focused on wanting to leave the island. Look at how much he aged and physically changed compared to Jacob. So when his body (still alive, or already dead) went into the light cave, his corrupted soul was freed and still hellbent on the idea of leaving the island. I’m not so sure I like this answer; it doesn’t flow right.
B) The smoke monster is a separate entity that was trapped in the light cave. Their mother took them down to the cave and explained to them that one of them would eventually replace her as the “protector” of the light. She doesn’t explain what the light is, only that people would covet it and try to steal it. She further goes on to warn them that they should never enter the cave. (Why not? I’d have to watch the episode again, but I don’t think she tells them.) When Jacob sends his brother’s body into the cave, the lock is broken and the smoke monster escapes. Afterward, the monster assumes the brother’s form, essentially, to torment Jacob, although, as we’ve seen, it can take the form of others at least temporarily. Later on, it takes John Locke’s form because Locke was so controversial to the Flight 815 survivors. I like this version of the smoke monster better; it makes more sense.
This brings me to my next question. The island itself bcame as much of a character as anyone else in the show. I wish they had given it a flashback story as well. I’d like to have seen the origin of the light cave and the “cap” that blocked the evil red light from destroying the island. I’d like to have seen the first protector and how the job came about. I’m pretty sure the giant statue and the temple predates the shipwrecked others from whom Jacob and his brother’s real mother came from. I’m thinking those people were Romans. Is the island Atlantis? Now that’s an interesting thought. The giant statue is very Egyptian-looking, but the safehaven temple where The Other Others live doesn’t look like any specific culture to me. Perhaps the island is lost Atlantis and the Atlanteans were responsible for capping the light (and the smoke monster). Whatever the case, I can only make guesses because the island never got a flashback like the other characters did.
Jacob’s mother. What’s her origin? Presumably she’s not the first protector. She didn’t need her own flashback, but she could’ve explained a little more about being a protector and such. This is a minor point, really. If the island had gotten a flashback story, it likely would’ve answered this question offhandedly.
So really, the ultimate origin of the island and the real smoke monster are the two questions I’d really like asnwers to.
Category: Uncategorized
The Game’s Setting
Posted on | October 23, 2009 | 1 Comment
I think a danger of a lot of RPGs is the cool setting itself. It’s easy to think of the setting and the game as one and the same. When that happens, the story loses.
The game is not the setting. The game is the story.
Tell a story, not showcase the setting. Although, obviously, the setting is part of the story.
I have to try to remember that when I run something because sometimes I get lost in the setting. It happened when I was running Deadlands: Hell on Earth. I love the post-apocalypse, but it was making me depressed, and the story was faltering.
keep looking »-
Gallery
