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.)

[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.