INSIGHT HELP, PLEASE! Characters' Arc: is it even possible in our campaigns?

[Ronaldo Lima]

It seems there is a consensus among authors/critics in a few basic blocks for a great story: a character with wants/desires and needs; character faces obstacles/conflicts trying to get their wants until they realize what they need and turn to that instead, which leads to change.
This contrast between wants and needs can also be described as lie v. truth; the character starts believing in a lie (usually, a result of a traumatic event in their past), which is driving their behaviour; then the story develops confronting that lie until a climatic moment where character learns/accept the truth and because of that is changed, so character ends the story different than how they started.

Example: in Inside Out, Joy believes she is THE most important emotion and wants to be always in control of Riley's mind; but she gets trouble when forced to conflict with Sadness as they get lost out of the control room; in a climatic moment, she realizes that Sadness is an emotion as important and essential as herself, and also that every one of Riley's happy core memories were only possible, because they contrasted with significant sad moments in Riley's life. Having learned the truth, Joy drops her desire to be the "one-emotion-show" and makes all the effort to get Sadness and the others back in the control room to work together for Riley's emotional health.
[that was my not-great definition of character arc in a nutshell.]

Then, considering how important a solid character arc is for a movie/show/book (basically all the ones I really love/enjoy do that wonderfully), I can't take it out of my mind that I should be trying to include those arcs in my campaigns.

Problem is: how? It's too hard, because I don't own the protagonists (like in all other medias), so I can't put them on the path of change. I can read their backstories, understand who they are at the start of the adventure and provide elements in the world to promote that change, but if players are not into that idea, they can just ignore whatever support elements/hints are there; summarizing it: I cannot drive player character's arc on their behalf.
[I even thought about talking/"arranging" specific moments with players beforehand, but then it felt like "cheating", like pre-planning actions/reactions before sessions and robbing the improv and organic flow of the narrative.]

So, please, help me with some insights... Has this concept ever crossed your conscious GM mind as something to pay attention to? Have you tried to implement anything like this in your games? And maybe, more importantly, could it be that I am struggling with something that is not transposable from other medias to RPGs?
Should I just let authors of screenplays/books to worry about this and simply get back to focusing on running great encounters in my game sessions?

 

[Gedece]

One way of doing this, is something we do without realizing when we put something weird into a players hand and see how that changes how the character does things. Then that weirdness is able to grow with the character, and transform, then if that character embraces the change, he's growing in a different direction than he expected.

For example, give one player a mild case of lycanthropy. It's on will and not affected by the moons, but also needs him to loose his clothes or break them every time he uses. Then check what he does with it. If he continues trying to be always human and it's only a tool, the player didn't go for i it. But if he starts favoring woods instead of cities, or eating his meat a little more raw, not fully cooked. then push it further. As he embraces the inner wolf, take the at will off, now it's driven by his emotional peaks, but it also lets everything he carries transform with him. And check if he embraces once again.

Other times it's the player that starts doing something different, so embrace it and make some fuss around him when he does it without noticing in public. Will he be shamed or will he embrace it? Will he be shamed at first and then think it better before quiting or before doing it harder?

This are minor character arcs, the ones that deal with change and growth. There is another possibility that deals with expanding his backstory beyond "X was kidnapped" or "Y got murdered".

 

[jrrnewton]

One possible technique is to be an unreliable narrator as GM. I would only suggest this with a group/player that trusts you to deal with them fairly, as I can result in players feeling you betrayed them. This relies on setting up backstory and campaign in a way that the players (and their characters) are presented with one reality, but through play they find that they are actually in a completely different reality. Movie examples of this include (to one extent or another) Logan's Run, The Truman Show, even The Matrix. Many of M. Night Shyamalan's movies base their dramatic reveal on the idea that the main characters are missing key information about their world and place in it. My understanding is that the first Deadlands campaign was based on this idea the PCs woke up one day outside of a town, and when they went in saw evidence of a massacre with news papers talking about a marauding group of bandits who were going to descend on the town. Eventually they realized they were the bandits that had destroyed the town.

In one game, I played a paladin who eventually realized that the order I was a member of were the big bad guys for the whole campaign. My wife once played a game where half way through she realized that she was a clone of the big bad (she had been made as a backup, but somehow got out and started her own life).

Again, I think you need to have quite a bit of trust for this type of approach, and you really need to have a good "twist" that will completely change the PCs perceptions of what it going on. When running this type of game, you can apply it to the world, the party, or even just a PC, but you will need to present things as up front and normal to the players and slowly add bits that don't make sense in the current framework they see, which will eventually lead to a big reveal. Unlike many of the movie examples, however, what they choose to do after the reveal is where the character development and change comes in.

 

[Ronaldo Lima]

For example, give one player a mild case of lycanthropy.

I liked the progressive and flexible nature of this idea... and this week I was talking to one of my players who was complaining that he feels like most stuff in D&D has a duration of a few rounds of 6 seconds each... if not, whatever it is, it's gone after a long rest... to be honest, he was being more emphatic, because he is trying to influence the group to pause D&D and play some World of Darkness/Vampire... but anyways, he had a point, which could be met with this suggestion...

 

[Ronaldo Lima]

Again, I think you need to have quite a bit of trust for this type of approach, and you really need to have a good "twist" that will completely change the PCs perceptions of what it going on.

I really love this concept... when done well, I take great enjoyment in having my expectations turned, my perceptions changed... just a few weeks ago, I finished playing The Last of Us - Part 2 and the storytelling on that game is just on ANOTHER LEVEL... it's like taking your suggested approach, leveraging the strengths of the media (video-game) and executing it flawlessly... a genius masterpiece... wish I could do something at least close to that experience in my RPGs... 🤤

 

[ejnotts]

a character with wants/desires and needs; character faces obstacles/conflicts trying to get their wants until they realize what they need and turn to that instead, which leads to change.

I'd really like to run a campaign where this sort of character-driven story emerges from play. But as you've identified, DMs can't drive character arcs on players' behalves. Things like the slowly escalating lycanthropy described by @Gedece or the Shyamalan plot twist that @jrrnewton details are awesome if you can pull them off, but I wonder if they leave a lot of the onus on the DM to create?

I'd prefer to outsource to my players, at least partly, since this reduces my workload and increases the chance of the player successfully picking up and carrying their character's arc.

Talking to the players, as you mentioned, can be problematic. I agree that arranging specific moments beforehand would rob the improv and organic narrative. But I think some conversation between DM and players is crucial for achieving great character arcs in an organic way.

Discussing character arcs with players at least makes them aware of your interest in them, and of your desire to enrich your campaign in that way. It signals that you care about their characters, which should encourage them to care too. It gives you license to mine character backstories in more detail, whilst prompting players to invest in their character's backstories. Ideally, it also prompts players to be aware of their character arc in session, to notice when you drop backstory-related information, introduce backstory-based NPCs, or pose character-specific obstacles, conflicts, and challenges... and to react (in-character) accordingly.

So I'd encourage you to talk to players about this, because I think it is possible to have satisfying character arcs in our campaigns, but I think it takes perceptive and engaged players to make it happen.

 

[Ronaldo Lima]

So I'd encourage you to talk to players about this, because I think it is possible to have satisfying character arcs in our campaigns, but I think it takes perceptive and engaged players to make it happen.

Yes, hopefully my players will get there... or not... I was reflecting on this and the recent discussions about Player/Gamer Types, and it feels like it takes someone really into the "Story" bucket to care enough about this whole "arc thing"...


But doing some more research I found a couple of videos I would like to recommend here from this YouTube channel called "Just Write".
The first is an analysis of The Last Jedi movie, showing how the character arc is developed for all the three main "heroes": Rey, Poe, and Finn

1) The Last Jedi and the 7 Basic Questions of Narrative Drama = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE7SkcoyVAI


The other one is what really gave me an alternative solution to my question on this thread: it talks about the Flat Arc, which is when the protagonist doesn't change during the story, pretty much starts with it's wants and needs aligned and pursue them through the end; however, he/she influences people around and you can see the arc on those support characters, that ended up the story different than how they started, because of the protagonist. He gives some examples, like Maximus in Gladiator, Katniss in The Hunger Games and the lovable bear Paddington.

2) Writing Characters Without Character Arcs = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ot02hMJ6Hkk


So, what I am thinking about doing in my next campaign is a mixed approach. I intend to talk ahead with my players, bringing this topic to our minds and do whatever I can as a GM to provide opportunities for their characters to have an arc and experience change; AND, at the same time, I can introduce a few consistent, relevant NPC's, that will orbit around the PC's and be influenced by their decisions, hopefully, leading to a significant change on those NPC's beliefs; basically, importing the idea of a Flat Arc to my player's characters, since they are indeed the protagonists of our story.

Just hope this isn't toooooo much work, because I am pretty excited about it now!

 

[BenS]

Something that's also often forgotten is the empty space between adventures, that can easily be used to further a characters personal story. Give the characters some time and ask the players what they did in that time. Speaking of too much work: I recently talked to a veteran player who remembered another DM who actually played single player campaigns with each player to properly cover the time between campaigns. This is potentially a lot of effort, but especially very epic campaigns can benefit a lot from this, as they tend to create a certain void after they are finished. These 1:1 sessions could then be used to focus on the topics which usually happen between the lines, allow the players to develop their character (arc) further to their liking without potentially boring the others and then bring something interesting back into the next campaign.

So for example, after saving the world and experiencing a lot of loss and defeat beforehand, a character decided to step down from being a hero, opened a blacksmith shop and built a living for himself through the course of the following year.
Another went on to search for clues for some lost family members (story seed!) another focused on mastering his archery skills.

This can change the fundaments of a character quite a bit, as it allows a player to re-focus his character and makes it more realistic than being forced to change a characters mindset in the course of five minutes during an intense scene rather than a year of consistent reflection.

 

[crauscher]

I have a slightly different take on the "want" vs "need" -- it is only when we are faced with the inevitable costs of obtaining our wants that we are forced to examine why wanted it in the first place (thus leading to the shift to "need".) This doesn't mean that the want was a lie, rather that the character was focused on a symptom and not the core issue.

As a fiction author, it is my job to present a character arc with interesting and challenging scenes along the way for my protagonist, but if readers don't find the scenes or outcomes interesting, they can only close the book and try a different one. As a DM, my job is different. my role is to give the players a reason to start playing (campaign/adventure details and consequences) and then let them decide the steps that provides the most interesting (or challenging) experiences for the players. As their characters slowly gain new abilities and players discover new situations I've put before them, I believe they will naturally devise their own character arcs by taking actions that are meaningful to both my campaign story (because who doesn't like to be a part of an epic story) and supports their needs.

 

[Sky River Titan]

This thread is awesome. Great food for thought from everyone involved. Just these discussions kept In mind while playing will improve all our games. Please continue...

 

[Ronaldo Lima]

So for example, after saving the world and experiencing a lot of loss and defeat beforehand, a character decided to step down from being a hero, opened a blacksmith shop and built a living for himself through the course of the following year.
Another went on to search for clues for some lost family members (story seed!) another focused on mastering his archery skills.

This is a much more richer and significant use of downtime than the tables presented in the 5e's DMG, for example.
Particularly useful on longer campaigns.

 

[Ronaldo Lima]

makes it more realistic than being forced to change a characters mindset in the course of five minutes during an intense scene rather than a year of consistent reflection.

That's another important variable... the passage of time and also multiple/intense conflicts are the "natural" way to drive change... otherwise it can feel just forced indeed. Thus, souring which should be a satisfying ending.

 

[Ronaldo Lima]

it is only when we are faced with the inevitable costs of obtaining our wants that we are forced to examine why wanted it in the first place (thus leading to the shift to "need".)

I like this approach, because it expands my perspective in regards to what I (as the GM) can do to promote my character player's arcs.

I believe they will naturally devise their own character arcs by taking actions that are meaningful to both my campaign story (because who doesn't like to be a part of an epic story) and supports their needs.

With my group of players, I think I am closer to "hope" than to "believe" territory, but I am certainly taking my time to account for that in my adventure building.

Anyways, always valid to be reminded that there's significant difference between the roles of a writer and a GM, even though we can also find a few similarities. It's a recipe for frustration to be so caught up "writing your story" as if it was to be read instead of building a campaign to be played.

 

[ejnotts]

it feels like it takes someone really into the "Story" bucket to care enough about this whole "arc thing"...

Yeah, would agree with this - definitely means spending time in a productive manner, rather than embellishing the story for murderhobos!

But doing some more research I found a couple of videos I would like to recommend

I watched the two videos you posted yesterday. Definitely both food for thought. Thanks for sharing!

Insofar that you get Story-driven players, the 7 Questions for Narrative Drama would be useful to prompt players to consider their character in the game setting. So I'd ask players to think about the questions:

1. What does your character want? (when they act on impulse)
2. What does your character need? (for character growth - the character might be unaware of what they need)
3. How do the wants and needs conflict within their character? (what behaviour does the conflict prompt)
4. How do the wants and needs conflict with the outside world? (e.g. with factions, racial groups, specific classes)
5. How do they conflict with other characters? (one NPC representing their Want (Tempter), another representing their Need (Mentor))
6. How does the character change through the conflicts? Is there any resolution? (this happens in game, and defines whether character has positive or negative arc)
7. What impact does the change have on everyone else? (e.g. party members, NPCs, Factions, the wider world)

Qs 1, 2, & 3 might (imperfectly) relate to Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws on D&D 5E character sheets (and might be better represented in other RPG systems)... Q4 helps the player engage with the world via their character, Q5 adds meaningful NPCs into the mix, then Qs 6 & 7 come in over the course of the campaign.

The Flat Arc concept strikes me as helpful in that it prompts GMs to have their World change as a consequence of PCs actions, and hence make players' decisions feel meaningful, and perhaps(?) encourage non-story-driven players to engage more. Though I suspect players who are more interested in Story may find a Flat Arc a bit underwhelming?

Anyway, great material to keep the mental cogs turning!

 

[ejnotts]

This can change the fundaments of a character quite a bit, as it allows a player to re-focus his character and makes it more realistic than being forced to change a characters mindset in the course of five minutes during an intense scene rather than a year of consistent reflection.

Yes, I think this is a critical point from a player<->character roleplay perspective. Expecting players to shift mental gears like that mid-session is a tall order (I couldn't do it!). I'd want - at least - some time between sessions to adjust, and 1:1 sessions are definitely better, in my opinion.

Matt Colville has a couple of videos that I think are helpful here - one on One-on-One Sessions, and another on Downtime (a common cause of parties splitting up for a time, and hence a cause of 1:1 sessions).

 

[ejnotts]

I have a slightly different take on the "want" vs "need" -- it is only when we are faced with the inevitable costs of obtaining our wants that we are forced to examine why wanted it in the first place (thus leading to the shift to "need".) This doesn't mean that the want was a lie, rather that the character was focused on a symptom and not the core issue.

Yeah, I agree with this. And you contrast between writing a book and running a game is spot on. So in the context of running a TTRPG, then, and given your point of transitioning from "want" to "need" as the costs of wants become apparent, do you think it makes sense for players to have an idea of their character's wants, but not their needs?

Perhaps I'm getting a bit too into the nuance here, but it's interesting stuff!

 

[crauscher]

So in the context of running a TTRPG, then, and given your point of transitioning from "want" to "need" as the costs of wants become apparent, do you think it makes sense for players to have an idea of their character's wants, but not their needs?

My experience shows that most starting characters are still quite nebulous in the player's mind, and focusing on 'wants' lets them begin play sooner than trying to develop a full backstory in a world they don't know yet. I enjoy those moments when a character shifts their focus in a new direction based on something they've learned about the world and refine their motivation one step closer to what we've been calling a 'need'.

 

[Ronaldo Lima]

Insofar that you get Story-driven players, the 7 Questions for Narrative Drama would be useful to prompt players to consider their character in the game setting

I totally loved your application of this concept!
For my next campaign, I won't overwhelm the player with all 7 questions (they are really NOT as story-driven as I am), but i will FOR SURE talk to them about the first three, and gently require that, at least, the first one to be part of their character's creation/backstory.