Fundamental to any roleplaying campaign is the
conceptual structure which controls it. That structure is the basic frame upon
which the gamemaster creates the framework of the campaign, like a tapestry on a
loom; as the initial pattern is set, so the goes the game. And yet the creation
of campaign structure is rarely considered as a subject in itself.
The basic building block of all plot structure is
the story; a flow of events containing a beginning, a middle, and an end.
This essential unit can be used in three ways. There are few unalloyed examples
of these forms in the real world, of course; many stories combine different
elements from various forms, with one type predominating.
I. The Stand-Alone
A to B to
C
A stand-alone story is self-contained; the point of
the story is the telling or playing of it, and once the end is reached there is
nothing more to be said. In roleplaying, the one-shot scenario is an example of
a stand-alone structure. Made-for-TV movies follow this pattern; so do many
short stories. Anthology shows such as The Twilight Zone are an excellent
example of collections of unrelated stand-alone plots. This structure offers the
advantage of extreme clarity and comparatively little committment of time. It is
limited in effectiveness, however. Compared to other, longer forms it doesn't
give the creator enough time to develop sub-themes and character development.
Participants have less time to build a strong attachment to characters. On the
other hand, a series of unconnected stand-alones allows treatment of many widely
differing stories and settings.
II. A Never-Ending Cycle
A, B, C,
A, B, C, A, B, C... (repeat until failure)
Take a set of characters and produce a string of
stories about them and you have a cyclical plot structure. This is the most
common form on television; almost every drama and sitcom falls into this
pattern. So do most comic books. Early roleplaying campaigns used this form
almost exclusively, and I suspect that it is still the most popular type of
campaign.
The advantages of this form are several. In a way,
it provides the greatest quantity of material for the effort expended by the
creator; once the characters and setting are created, new stories may be plugged
into the formula with ease. Characters and setting are unlikely to change, and
so require little or no upkeep. The formula can be repeated indefinitely;
participants will have a chance to become familiar with the characters and
develop attachments. Individual characters and settings can be more richly
developed over time, as they accrue incidental details -- though the creator(s)
must be careful not to alter the basic structure, lest the cycle be disrupted
and disaffect participants/consumers.
The cyclical form offers advantages from a
sociological/economic perspective, too. As the only form which has the potential
to continue indefinitely, it is ideally suited to a medium such as television in
which the ultimate point is marketing. Obviously once a successful structure has
been developed those who profit by it are unwilling to allow it to end...
...which is itself a disadvantage, of course. In
television in particular the purpose of the cyclical story is not to tell a
story, but to protect a profit-making entity. Thus a disadvantage of the
cyclical form is its inherently static quality. Successors to the original Star
Trek series are an excellent example of this; corporate executives have made
no secret of the fact that their only purpose in producing the show is to
"protect the franchise" and thereby their profits. Absolute
changelessness is the law. Thus far this approach seems to have been successful
from a financial viewpoint, though it is arguable that the Star Trek story and
universe have been diminished by it.
One interesting aspect of the cyclical story
pattern is the means by which it ends. The point of such a pattern is to
continue indefinitely; as with all things, however, the story eventually must
come to an end. Since there is no provision for winding the cycle up, however,
the result is that cyclical stories often end abruptly, with little or no sense
of closure. In the case of television, this means either no ending at all or a
hasty wrap-up episode with no meaningful connection to the preceding body of
work.
III. The Meta-Cycle
Also known as an "arc", the meta-cycle is
a long-duration story form that has a beginning, middle, and end. This type can
be divided into two sub-forms: "Padded" and "Expanded".
A to a1;
a2, a3, a4 etc.; B; b1, b2, b3, etc.
Padded story structures are a fairly straight
combination of types I and II. Between the beginning and end of the entire cycle
are any number of sub-stories; these substories have comparatively little impact
on the overarching story. In such a structure, the existance of a
"middle" point is usually academic; between the beginning and the end
all stories are interchangable. There is little difference between this form and
that of a Never-Ending Cycle that includes a beginning and ending, and the
advantages and disadvantages are similar to the Type II form.
A to aa to
ab to B to bb to bc to C
In the expanded meta-cycle structure the basic
story is enlarged to a large but limited extent; there is a beginning, middle,
and end, but each of these are developed in greater detail. The basic story is
developed in greater detail and depth, through sub-cycles with associated
sub-plots and recursions. This is the most complex of the various structures. It
is also the least common in any medium.
The expanded meta-cycle a form of saga, and
as such its roots are ancient. Homer's Illiad and Oddessy are
excellent historical examples of this form; in modern literature, The Lord of
the Rings is an obvious exemplar. Both The Prisoner and Babylon 5
are combination forms, containing type II and III elements; though they have
definite arcs and go through an evolutionary process, there is a degree of
"padding" used to add bulk to the story. This additional padding may
be necessary to avoid the simplification of an expanded saga; otherwise
viewer/participants may find every new plot point to be too obviously connected
to the main plot. In other words, if everything that happens is significant to
the story arc, the creator will suffer the considerable disadvantage of
predictability and consequent boredom and disenchantment by consumers.
There are obvious advantages to the expanded
meta-cycle. It allows the creator to tell a story in great detail; there is no
limitation on length apart from those imposed by the medium (i.e., until the
show is cancelled, the publishing option is dropped, or the players stop coming
to the game).
A well-done saga is also addictive. As
players/viewers/readers learn more about the characters and setting they come to
care for them, too. The result is loyal fans who support the efforts of
the creator, and often attempt to create their own additions to the story (which
is, of course, the point in a roleplaying game).
The last advantage to the expanded meta-cycle is
the least tangible, and the most difficult to define. It is a sense of meaning.
By its nature the saga must have a point, and if the story is successful
that point will be powerfully conveyed to the participants. It is even possible
for that meaning to influence the participants' lives outside of the story
itself, and thus to make a lasting mark on society. But in any case, a well-done
arc, once completed, can be the most powerful form of storytelling possible.
Each differing part of the arc can give added resonance and meaning to the
whole.
Disadvantages are obvious. The expanded meta-cycle
demands a maximum investment of time and skill. If handled poorly, it falls
apart; and the failure is that much more painful to the creator because of the
work that has gone into the creative process. The structure is also less
flexible than other forms; additions and alterations must be weighed carefully
to avoid disrupting the basic story. The expanded meta-cycle also demands more
from the viewer/player, which can be a particular handicap in commercial media;
once the saga has begun, bringing new spectators up to speed on the storyline is
difficult (come to think of it, that applies to roleplaying sagas as well).
* * *
All
of these forms of story structure are used in roleplaying games. I've run and
played in all three types myself. Type I is any one-shot scenario; soloquests
also fit within this catagory, and so do many Paranoia campaigns (I suspect that
TOON games do as well, though I haven't played any).
Classic
AD&D roleplaying campaigns can be placed within category II, though the
continuing improvement of character abilities provides an upward curve to the
power level of the game that makes it a less than perfect example of the type;
old-style Traveller with its lack of PC skill improvement is closer to an ideal
Never-Ending Cycle, though typically characters tend to acquire money and
equipment over time.
In
my own experience I'm presently involved with an old-fashioned round-robin
RuneQuest campaign which could be considered to be catagory II. It's fun, the
characters are relatively low-maintainace, and it's easy to create a scenario
for the campaign.
"Deep"
roleplaying campaigns can be generally placed in catagory III. My own Nereyon
campaign fits that category nicely: it has a definite beginning, middle, and end
(though not reached yet), and has lasted for eight or nine years. Over that time
the characters and world have evolved considerably, with numerous revelations
that have required the players to reconsider past events in a new light.
Conversely, their actions have changed the world and forced me to
re-evaluate major plot points.
When
I began this essay I assumed that insofar as the types would be compared to each
other, the expanded meta-cycle would emerge as the superior structure. It was
that form of roleplaying that drew me into the hobby, after all; and I've spent
twelve or more years working on that form. On television, meta-cycle shows such
as The Prisoner and Babylon 5 have stood head and shoulders above
other forms in my book. Of course sagas are the best way to go -- or so I
thought.
But
that's not how it turned out. It's fortunate that I'm involved with two
RPG campaigns, one each of types II and III; that gives me a chance to compare.
And to discover that comparisons of this sort are meaningless. It's a cliche,
yes, but the fact is that each form has unique and valuable qualities.
Each has its place. Perhaps the meta-cycle RPG campaign is underrespresented in
the gaming world, but then the effort for such a game is more than many people
would want to expend -- and in truth many GMs probably lack the skill and
patience to develop such a campaign. Other forms offer different enjoyment and
advantages, and the comparative success of type II roleplaying does not detract
from the good points of type III.
In
television, too, there are outstanding shows in all forms. B5 and The
Prisoner are well-written and enjoyable, but the original Star Trek is
equally so -- and that show is almost pure type II. And The Twilight Zone proves
that a show that follows the type I pattern can be as classic and well-done as
any other.
The
lesson, then (if one may be derived at all) is that though structure determines
the nature of the entertainment, it is quality of writing (or in roleplaying
games, quality of design) that determines how enjoyable the experience will be.
Given the choice, I'd rather play in a type II campaign run by a great GM than
in a type III game run by a mediocre one; just as I'd rather watch The Twilight
Zone than Star Trek: Voyager. It isn't even a difficult choice. :-)