I’m gonna shower thoughts this because I think this will be fun to talk about. I shall Yap. Thoughts may not be organized, consistent, accurately responding to anything, or correct in any way. Expect repetition. And redundancy.
I can really see how characters not being able to accomplish what they want only makes narratives/character action/author intent stronger for exceedingly talented storytellers. If a character’s actions in a world determine the story/narrative, then wouldn’t a character not being able to go forward with their desired path (major or minor) prove to be beneficial to the narrative?
A character is alive. A rich world houses that character. A talented storyteller would use an undesired outcome to further enhance the character’s interaction with that world. A very smart man fails an intelligence check. Why? What does that imply about his circumstances, his physical state, what he understands about the world? A strong gal fails a strength check. Do professional athletes not fail in their greatest sport? Get injured? Have off days? That’s surface level ish, but that line of thought can bring some compelling narratives, whereas an author planning for their character to succeed or fail can limit their scope.
An author may have wanted to convey something with the characters actions, and the character definitely does too. But why should the character always get to succeed when they want or even fail when they should? A talented storyteller can use unexpected outcomes to create an even more compelling interaction with fellow characters/the world. Or the Head Storyteller (collaboration) can show that the world or other characters have more influence over the character than they have prepared for.
Interesting in theory, but also to my understanding, the system of Dice is far from perfect and sometimes the Head Storyteller just says “Ok I like what you’re doing here, forget it, just tell me what happens.” Or they’ll rig stuff because some degree of author control is desired for a “good” storyline.
I feel like forcing the author to adjust their character’s decisions can really enhance the character’s actions. It may force them to consider a provably interesting obstacle/scenario. Part of what’s fun about fiction is an author getting to tell their story. What if the author still gets to tell that story, but not in the way they initially planned? Or they’re forced to reconsider the story they want to tell? In which case you’d separate Good dice rpg narrators from Not As Good ones.
Or some friends want to find their way through a Situation or Two, which creates an irl meta-narrative.
I think what makes the concept frustrating is how difficult it is to make it “work.” Which is what makes Big, Popular Productions all the more satisfying, I suppose. Idk I’ve never watched that ish, I’ve got a life!! so I can’t speak to the veracity of that claim, maybe its a hodgepodge of many things that makes it popular.
… Anyway,
laudofthedeep
