Framing, Good Story? Good Characters? Still bad. Options

[ZarroTsu]

Something that may be hard to grasp, or easy to forget, is that RPGs are meant to be a story. The general difference between it, and a simple novel, is the ability to multiply the number of dimensions through which the story takes place. I can't recall any novel I've read ever involving the main character speaking with every individual he ever came across on his journey, as this would be unfocused and unnecessary to the story meant to be conveyed. And the same should hold true for an RPG -- NPCs, unless a direct part of the story, shouldn't be a source of important or necessary information required to continue the game, unless the scenario is set up in such a way that this would be something the average individual does in this sort of world environment. That said, one of the most important factors into determining which of these options to use (and that's just the tip of the iceberg), is framing.

Framing, much like the term associated with pictures both artistic and personal, is a device present in any media form meant to convey a message, be it story or otherwise. Whether it be the Mona Lisa, The Hobbit novel, or the Star Wars movies, if any of these were presented as pinned to a cardboard box and covered with mud, it really wouldn't matter how breathtaking or inspiring they actually are, when the fact remains that they're pinned to a cardboard box and covered with mud. It means the artist didn't care, and why should you?

But this isn't a document having to do with the physical act of framing a piece of paper with a story written on it, but the story itself as an intangible understanding. In a story sense, framing doesn't have to do with plot, setting, characters, or the story itself, but rather how they are conveyed, or told. This can be done through the writing style given, the protagonist's own given attitude, how realistic the setting is, or how serious the plot might be. In any case, there is no 'incorrect' way to convey these ideas, but the way they're conveyed will determine how different people will dedicate themselves to your final product.

Perhaps the best way to verbalize framing is how the reader or viewer watches events take place from behind a window -- the frame itself. A good example of framing might come from a magician performing a magic trick, such as palming a quarter and opening his hand to show it had vanished. The perspective of the viewer is such that we saw the quarter being grasped by his hand, and as such we instinctively assume it is true that the quarter vanished. But from a different angle, we'd see he let the quarter slide into his other hand. From this angle, the "trick" is merely the fumbling of a quarter, and what's the point in that?

In the perspective of the RPG, the introduction is meant to set-up the frame through which we watch the turn of events. If we're given a story of a city from the perspective of the rich, there's no reason not to have likable characters and an interesting story without any negative conveyance. Perhaps we might learn the poorer side of society is involved in terrorist actions against the richer members, and many people had died in their assaults. But if we were to shift perspectives to the poor side of town, we'd see the poor side is a desolate wasteland, and many people are dying in the streets from hunger and poverty. In either case, a frame could be set to inform the player of who's the 'good guy' and 'bad guy' in either situation, the poor or rich being interchangeable. The especially daring might be able to frame this from both perspectives at once, from a pair of lovers between the two factions of society, each fighting for what they feel is right for the city and its people, only to be bastardized for their relationship.

But the thing about framing in this situation is that you can't have a "neither" side of it. If the "neither" is the presented situation to the player, there's no reason for him to care, since there's no device or explanation as to why he should care. If the player were a character from outside this town it would be fine, but the ability to convey this city's problems is generally skewed, and the player can't really "take a side" immediately, even if forced with the option. Being forced with this option would also be an example of poor framing, but only if the decision had a very strict or very powerful effect on the overall story.

Another perspective of framing would be the characters themselves, their attitudes, their actions, and how they are written. Even the most generic of RPG protagonists can be made compelling and interesting if the devices framing them are conveyed in such a way as to MAKE them compelling or interesting, as opposed to forcing the audience to THINK they are. There's nothing wrong with a military leader as a protagonist, but it needs to be conveyed as such that we believe they're a military leader. An example, pre-game reminder, or written documentation to prove it. Saying someone's a brilliant military mind is great, but if there's nothing supporting this claim, then you may as well have called them a chocolate doughnut. Same effort, really. Or perhaps the protagonist is just a generic naive swordsman protagonist. That's fine and all, but in what way will this naivety be used to the teller's advantage? Are we going to be given a wise old sage to explain the world and give some belief that the protagonist would avenge his death if it were to occur? Are we going to be given a number of other companions set up before the given story each with their own strengths and weaknesses, and the protagonist's naivety given as his weakness to a useful strength? Or is the protagonist just an idiot? Why would I want to read about THAT?

Just the same, the 'nihilist emo protagonist' trope doesn't automatically make your character interesting or believable. He's just a dick. Unless you shed light on WHY he's like this, WHY I should care, and WHY he's the protagonist, I'm not playing your game, no matter how good the rest of it is, or how many people before me were willing to except a game with no explanations. (Final Fantasy 8 had terrible framing. Stop using it as a reference.)

NPCs themselves are another way to convey the story. You can't simply be TOLD a city's poorer side is a desolate wasteland. Showing NPCs ACTUALLY dying on the streets and explaining their famine is the correct way to convey the message -- but don't just have them say "I'm hungry". Have them say "Papa... When can we get some food...? I'm hungry... ...Papa...?". NPCs are there for this reason. To convey a message you didn't have to hear, but a message you were glad (or sad) to have heard. NPCs are people, so make them act like PEOPLE instead of a SIGNPOST.

The point of all this, is that I'm finding an unusually large margin of people who don't understand how important conveyance and framing are. I've seen so many RPGs fall back on the idea that having characters and having a plot is all they really need to put together a compelling, A+ RPG. And maybe that's okay for the other people with this same basic understanding who think it's justifiable, but in the grander scheme it isn't.

So stop showcasing your story as pinned to a cardboard box and covered with mud. It's your work of art, start treating it like one.

(Footnote: And no, setting the frame of the game in your forum topic instead of the game itself doesn't excuse the lack of framing. Congratulations, your topic has framing! But your game still doesn't.)

[rewells]

Another perspective of framing would be the characters themselves, their attitudes, their actions, and how they are written. Even the most generic of RPG protagonists can be made compelling and interesting if the devices framing them are conveyed in such a way as to MAKE them compelling or interesting, as opposed to forcing the audience to THINK they are. There's nothing wrong with a military leader as a protagonist, but it needs to be conveyed as such that we believe they're a military leader. An example, pre-game reminder, or written documentation to prove it. Saying someone's a brilliant military mind is great, but if there's nothing supporting this claim, then you may as well have called them a chocolate doughnut.

This is a very good piece, ZarroTsu. I'd like to hear your opinion on specific examples of well-framed RPG stories. The military commander example made me think of Final Fantasy IV, which was really the first rpg to have a long opening sequence. The story begins on a military airship, with the main character, Cecil, its clear commander. The soldiers comment on Cecil's apparent moral agony over the mission they are returning home from, which is explained through quick flash backs - Cecil and his knights attacked a village of innocent mages and stole their crystal. As murmur of dissent continues, Cecil verbally squashes them, showing that he is in charge, and he answers only to the king.

Unfortunately, when Cecil asks the King why he sent them to kill innocent people, the King promptly fires Cecil and sends him on some piddly package delivery mission. We are quickly introduced to the game's other two main characters, Rosa and Kain, whose relationship becomes a prominent theme in the game, and then Cecil sets out to begin the game as scrolling text explains the kingdoms current political conditions (which at this point have mostly been explained through dialogue, but it's nice to have a cohesive summation of the important story points before jumping into the action).

The opening works so well because we immediately see both sides of a conflict. Cecil is a man torn between his loyalty to his kingdom and his moral conscious. His love for his kingdom is accentuated by his love for Rosa and his best friend, Kain. When a friend of mine in middle school explained the opening story, I reeeeally wanted to play this game to find out what happened. I wondered just who Cecil, Rosa and Kain were, and when I found out, I was not disappointed.

Some questions to think about when deciding how to frame a story: How will you introduce the "world" of the game? Will you begin with a big block of text explaining everything (Final Fantasy I)? Do you have your emo main character narrate aloud (Final Fantasy X)? Do you make your main character an outsider and have other characters explain things to the player? Do you simply explain nothing, throw all of the characters into a giant action scene at the beginning and make the player read through datalogs to understand what the hell is going on (FF13 style)?

No matter what, I think characters should drive a story. Final Fantasy IV is about saving the world from evil forces, but it's more about the murky territories of loyalty, love, jealously, good, evil and justice, all subjects the characters struggle with. Unlike in some games, the characters actually make me want to save their world because they are complex and, therefore, easy for real people to relate to.

[vvalkingman]

It's crazy how IMO older games had far better storylines. I guess it's just what they had to work with. Since they didn't have graphics they won people over with their amazing and interesting stories. I agree with the poster that a story is only as good as the way it is told. You have to put effort into it, not just slap it all in hundreds of text boxes and expect the player to read it all. I am a fan of action, animation, and top/bottom text box switching so that the player knows who is talking based on where the text box is. Also, I never have too many text boxes at once. I feel that you have to keep the player involved or else they will get bored and just mash enter until the next action sequence. So spice it up with animations, npc movement while talking, make it flow naturally. These characters are people, not signposts(I lol'd when I read that ). Any other pointers you guys and gals have?

[LockeZ]

Games that begin in mesias res (starting "in the middle of the story") are, obviously, lacking in a lot of framing that you would get in a story with a longer, more detailed opening. And yet, there are very good reasons for starting stories, especially video games, in medias res, reasons which can outweigh the need for coherent framing in the first stages of the game. Viewers are generally unwilling to put up with a solid hour of framing before the story begins unless they're already familiar with the author and know the story will become good afterwards. And in video games in particular, the player has an expectation to be playing the game, for real, the main game they signed up to play, within their first play session.

No one wants the opening of Zelda: Twilight Princess, with an hour and a half of herding goats and teaching kids to use a slingshot and catching fish to help lure some lady's cat home before the first monsters start showing up. The designers of Twilight Princess did all that mostly for the purposes of framing - to make us care about the town and the villagers and the hero before they started getting in trouble - but it was too much, too soon. (No, it wasn't for the purpose of teaching you the gameplay. They could have had all the same basic tutorial challenges and puzzles, but framed differently in a more exciting environment. The wolf mode tutorial area was much better done.) Like most things, there's a sweet spot you have to hit. It can help to have multiple things happening at once - gameplay explanation intermingled with action intermingled with characterization intermingled with establishing the setting, so that the player gets into the basics of everything really quickly, and their understanding and attachment continues to quickly grow for the first hour or two of the game. But, if you know what you're doing, there are certainly reasons to hold off on one of the above until later... just beware of holding off on something that is the reason people likely picked up the game for more than a few minutes.

[bulmabriefs144]

I sort of followed this advice. My characters have Naruto-style backstories to justify some of their motivations.

But then, the protagonist-centered viewpoint is tweaked in the latter part of the first game, and the Game Plus villain might actually be more likeable (besides being an over-the-top ham) than the main character.

Framing is good, but it shouldn't be set in stone. That is, the NPCs the characters use for background, will change to some extent, if they're important. The setting may change too, and even the basic things you thought you knew about the character might change due to character development, changes initiated by villains or the other characters, or their backstory might even turn out to be a delusion or even an outright lie to gain the sympathy of the other characters.

In my game, it's never actually clear whether Ambrosia is sane or not. If we assume she is, the final ending has a totally different context than if we interpret her last actions as a crazy person finally getting over some of her problems.

Framing is a device that is actually more up to the viewer than the creator, so the best framing happens when you set up the setting and show the pros and cons of the situation/character/etc. Then leave it open ended, rather than trying to force the viewer to see what you think is so. She might be obnoxious as all hell, but since you've let the characters flow, rather than force it, the audience likes them anyway (Lina Inverse). Likewise, with an open-ended story framing, the audience can come up with all kinds of interesting theories. Was the castle really run by gnomes? Or were the drow the true power behind the throne?

Sometimes, framing is all about what you don't tell.

This post has been edited by bulmabriefs144: Nov 11 2012, 05:43 PM

[ZarroTsu]

But then, the protagonist-centered viewpoint is tweaked in the latter part of the first game, and the Game Plus villain might actually be more likeable (besides being an over-the-top ham) than the main character.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing -- But it offers a reexamination of your protagonist, and either adding, or as you said, withholding some pieces of information. But again, it isn't a bad thing to have a likeable antagonist -- if anything, it's the best thing you could hope for. And there are many ways this can be presented; whether the antagonist is laughably overzealous, or whether their goals are equally as noble as the protagonist's.

The best thing you could do in an RPG is probably the latter; make the player really question if they're "RIGHT" about the conflict going on. And sometimes your protagonist can just as well turn out to be the villain.

"Death Note" (Anime/Manga), for example, has a protagonist with a book, and any name written in that book will kill the owner of the name, so long as the writer knows that person's face. Additional information, such as events before death, and how precisely the victim dies, are also viable abilities the book possesses. The story centers around the bookholder, who uses this book as a means of killing criminals, as his own personal idea of "Justice" -- an ideal far the opposite of his father, a member of the local police force, and his antagonist, a seperate individual called the 'greatest detective on the planet'. As the series goes on, you're indulged almost entirely in the protagonist's ideas, thoughts, perspective, and goal -- and all the while this involves not only killing an enormous amount of people, but killing those who could potentially have him arrested for his crimes as a mass murderer. The "protagonist" here is ultimately a despicable villain, but the framing used to present him makes you withhold that accusation because of the information you're given, and the perspective you're given it through.

Many one-shot criminals are often shown as murmuring people who throw up a seemingly hollow defense of "I had no choice" when possibly charged with theft, assault or murder. And while the viewer would probably simply shrug it off as a lie or a character you'd never have to care about beyond the one-shot scene, the fact remains that, perhaps their life did indeed lead them to this position where there WAS no alternate choice. And, perhaps if we were told the same series of events from this criminal's perspective instead, he would seem akin to a respective individual, while it's the police instead who are seen as a villain.

All a matter of how the story's told -- not that it would be "bad" either way, so long as it's told with a focus in mind. If you wanted you could even retell the story from beginning to end from the perspective of another character, and it would do nothing but add to the story itself.

This post has been edited by ZarroTsu: Nov 12 2012, 04:40 PM