What makes for satisfying story obstacles?

[Roz]

@Third-Eye said in What makes for satisfying story obstacles?:

@Roz said in What makes for satisfying story obstacles?:

Players IME feel much more secure about making choices when they understand the full context and implications on an OOC level. (Not that they know all the secrets OOC or anything, but that they understand the overall lore, setting, etc., that their character would know.)

I’m curious what you think the onus is on STs and even on other players in cases where…the the information is there, it has been conveyed, sometimes it has been overly-conveyed, but a particular PC continues to…do what they want, to an ‘are we on the same game/inhabiting the same reality?’ level. I find it very hard to engage with those people on a player-level and just minimize my interaction with them as much as I can, though idk.

I don’t think there’s any onus on anyone to play with them at that point, to be frank.

[Pavel]

@Third-Eye said in What makes for satisfying story obstacles?:

@Roz said in What makes for satisfying story obstacles?:

Players IME feel much more secure about making choices when they understand the full context and implications on an OOC level. (Not that they know all the secrets OOC or anything, but that they understand the overall lore, setting, etc., that their character would know.)

I’m curious what you think the onus is on STs and even on other players in cases where…the the information is there, it has been conveyed, sometimes it has been overly-conveyed, but a particular PC continues to…do what they want, to an ‘are we on the same game/inhabiting the same reality?’ level. I find it very hard to engage with those people on a player-level and just minimize my interaction with them as much as I can, though idk.

A big part of my psych/counselling course is about conveying information to a client. And a big big part of that is conveying information at the client’s level. They’re not you, they’re not in your head and you’re not in theirs, so one must do their best to meet the client where they are, not where one might expect or assume them to be.

The same goes for any kind of communication, especially when there’s a distance.

One must do their best to step outside their own understanding. Of course you know how to solve the puzzle, or fight the big bad, or whatever it is. You designed the encounter. Sure, there’s going to be people who just plain won’t get it, and you have to judge that as it comes up. But in general, I’d say assume that the person is trying to participate “properly”, but they’re just having trouble understanding what it is you’re putting down.

It’s all well and good to say that the information is there, and has been conveyed… but if it hasn’t been conveyed in a way they understand, it might as well be in German.

[cirim13]

I am usually a lurker, but a lot of stuff here made me wanna blather, so.

TL;DR: I like when STs communicate clearly, when I have an idea of stakes, I prefer all large obstacles be accompanied by smaller obstacles which have their own conesquences, and when the story’s obstacles are relationships the PCs have, that can change and is nuanced - and I like multiple relationships.

@Testament said in What makes for satisfying story obstacles?:

sometimes the obstacle doesn’t have to mean a conflict that needs to be overcame.

That idea is the lynchpin for a lot of plots I’ve felt comfortable in. In fact, one of the best lessons an ST ever revealed to me was that a satisfying story obstacle could be as simple as ‘trying to get your NPC barkeep friend to open up to YOU for once.’ or ‘Get the long sofa up through the apartment staircases’ - and ‘simple’ isn’t always easy. That barkeep’s been keeping a lot in. I know the discussion is probably about antagonists, but obstacles and challenges can be positive, too, for those sunshine-and-happy-fun people.

But generally, I’ve felt the most satisfied in plots where opposition isn’t always as clear-cut and simple as WIN OR LOSE, but about how much progress you make or how the relationships shift.

This means what I hate for big stories is just, ONE BIG OBSTACLE THAT MUST BE OVERCOME AGAINST ALL ODDS AND IS ALL THAT MATTERS. We do not want our entire city to unequivocally be wiped out if we don’t stop McMonsterbutt by 8:15 on Friday, even if we do love a monster of the week. (Which- sometimes you want an obvious enemy mook along with any big bads). I prefer a lot of challenging small obstacles setting up or feeding into a higher-stakes one. A lot of STs do this naturally:

We couldn’t (A) kill McMonsterbutt before it got to the city and destroyed downtown, but we (B) got a lot of people down to the subways so we still saved a lot of lives, and we (D) kept it away from the orphanage even if it took out the (E) hospital - three small challenges (BDE), one big challenge (A); two gains (BD) and two losses (AE).

Knowing an ST takes into account and communicates good and bad consequences and tells them to you (when relevant) is satisfying - even when the relationship persists as the obstacle is now finding out where McMonsterbutt came from or what to do with that carcass downtown.

The following is probably more player-side explanation of feelings, not sure if it’s helpful or not, but. Regarding communication:

I am dumb. Not in like, a low self-esteem way. But while I am probably not the exact person Roz had in mind, the volume was particularly heightened when they popped up with

@Roz said in What makes for satisfying story obstacles?:

This also comes out re: nervousness about how to engage in plot/story, which is often from players not feeling confident about their options and worrying that they’ll make the wrong choice due to OOC ignorance, and that will then reflect on their character IC. Players IME feel much more secure about making choices when they understand the full context and implications on an OOC level.

Because I am:

1. Often incredibly confused about my options and worried about disappointing/holding other players back (yes I know irrational, doesn’t mean it isn’t there) if STAKES are suddenly involved,
2. Someone who can easily miss the obvious. The ST could be like, ‘There’s a body on the floor, with circle-shaped wounds’ I absolutely could trip over a smoking gun, pick up the smoking gun, remark, “Wow, this gun is warm, weird.” and STILL be like, “Circular holes? How sharp is the fire poker??!!” because obvious implications are still implied.
3. Someoen who knows all this about myself, still hates feeling stupid.

An ST who is like, ‘Well the wounds are CIRCLE SHAPED and beyond that, it’s YOUR CHOICE you just DO WHATEVER and I’ll lay out the consequences’ doesn’t really help my satisfaction levels: it just makes me feel dumber, doesn’t make the obvious thing I already missed any more obvious, and makes me more worried about getting things wrong, so now back to point 1, and by now I’m overwhelmed. Overwhelmed is not ‘challenged’, it’s feeling overwhelmed, and now I’m more worried about ruining everyone else’s fun to be satisfied or have fun myself.

Sometimes it’s as easy as expectations up front, furthering communication, and saying ‘bullet wounds’ or at least putting forensics up to a roll of the dice.

[Kestrel]

In my experience, what players want more than anything is to feel special.

When it comes to obstacles and villainy, they should feel targeted and personal in some way, not just to the group, but the individual. Everyone wants to feel like their contribution mattered somehow, that their participation wasn’t interchangeable, and that some specific aspect of their character was pivotal to how events unfolded.

As a simple example, if you have a retired thief, an army veteran and a scientist on your team, then you can design a plot device that needs to be investigated under a microscope, after being stolen from a museum, protected by bodyguards who need to be dispatched. You make a point about how important it was that each of the participants were on board to assist: they narrowly escaped with their lives thanks to the army veteran’s timely and muscular rescue; the scientist made a surprising discovery that will turn the tide of their conflict; the thief’s choice to come out of retirement and do this one last heist is rewarded by their moral supervisors, who lacked the skills or experience to break the law.

Villains can have an overall agenda, but they should have a personal one, too. Perhaps they recognise one of the PCs on your campaign from back in the day, who can subsequently provide an exposé to the group. The villain may choose to fixate on and target this one PC who successfully thwarted them last go around, and make a point about how humiliated they are to have been outsmarted. Maybe they decide to kidnap the scientist — but it’s to offer a recruitment pitch. They’ve been watching this person’s work from afar and are very impressed. If they want to hurt a PC, it’s never just because they want to hurt people. They want to hurt this specific character, as a direct outcome of that player’s choices either in play or in chargen.

Importantly, it’s generally best not to demean PCs. The villain hates their rivals for being smart, powerful and morally upstanding, not for being stupid and pathetic. If they do insult PCs, it’s a compliment in disguise, e.g.: ‘It’s stupid and pathetic how much you care about your friends.’

Exceptions can be made for players who are clearly telegraphing that their character flaws are intentional and something they want noticed. So if someone’s whole thing is playing a ditzy comic relief bimbo, or an angsty anti-hero who’s done terrible things they’re now trying to atone for, then yeah, all of that is fair game — but even then, players usually still want a little sugar along with their spice. You give them the opportunity for character development, and they can take it or leave it.

In short, make everything personal.

[Pavel]

@Kestrel said in What makes for satisfying story obstacles?:

In my experience, what players want more than anything is to feel special.

To add to this: Players want to feel special, but also want to have felt that they’ve earned their specialness. There needs to be an actual risk of failure. Failure doesn’t necessarily mean death, though it can, but it must be a tangible setback that actually impacts the player characters.

[Testament]

@Pavel I think PC death is one of the most uncreative ways of suggesting failure and the easiest way of eliciting a negative connotation to failure. There are better ways to go about it. A setback is not always bad.

[Jumpscare]

I’ll always vouch for OOC check-ins. There are few things as good as a personal message from a story runner to a player thanking a player for their participation (or lack thereof) and asking them if they’re enjoying the direction the story is going, and giving them an opportunity to suggest what would make it more enjoyable to them.

A good number of people won’t know how to make it more enjoyable for themselves, but that’s not always the point. While making players feel like their IC presence matters is good, I’ve also seen how uplifting it is to ensure they feel their OOC presence matters, too.

You’re not going to please everyone, and people are going to quit for reasons beyond your control. The tiniest conflict could be the last thing they can handle due to RL stress. It happens. Don’t beat yourself up for it. RL always comes first. They’ll come back if and when they’re ready to play again.

This probably all ties back to one very important quality of being a good storyteller: be amenable to change. Player engagement matters more than your carefully laid out plans and amazing storyline. Change the direction without compromising the established rules of your world. That’s easier said than done, especially when you’re excited but your players aren’t. And that’s because, at the end of the day, it’s their story. Not the villain’s story, nor the environment’s story. Find out what your players want, not what you think they want.

If you already know from inception how your season plot is going to end, no you don’t.

[hellfrog]

@Testament said in What makes for satisfying story obstacles?:

@Pavel I think PC death is one of the most uncreative ways of suggesting failure and the easiest way of eliciting a negative connotation to failure. There are better ways to go about it. A setback is not always bad.

spoken like someone who has never been accused of ending stories and rendering characters unplayable by specifying where mangoes grow.

[Testament]

@hellfrog Also banjos.

Also, shit. I broke the rule.

[Arkandel]

I don’t know that this is helpful, or even actionable.

But I think what makes for satisfying story obstacles is a subset of what makes for satisfying stories. And, in my experience, the difference tends to be between the storyteller and participants.

In other words the mechanics and moving parts of a story, including antagonists and challenges aren’t part of a recipe. It’s not as easy as to include “a villain with good intentions” or “a riddle to open a door” where incorporating similar elements produces similar results.

The result is 100% dependent on the telling. In how it’s done. In the characters who are involved and what their players are looking for from the plot they’re in. In the wordsmithing and the dialogue used to engage them. In the trust the scene’s participants have both in the ST (if there is one) or each other (whether there is one or not), that they are all there to have a good time and not screw each other over.

[Pavel]

@Testament said in What makes for satisfying story obstacles?:

@Pavel I think PC death is one of the most uncreative ways of suggesting failure and the easiest way of eliciting a negative connotation to failure. There are better ways to go about it. A setback is not always bad.

I disagree, but that is why I said it was an option rather than the only one.

[Testament]

@Pavel Just because I believe it’s not all that creative for a result, doesn’t mean it’s not viable, so in that respect I completely agree. I suppose I should’ve said it’s not the first option I reach for if at all possible.

[Pavel]

@Testament Oh, of course not. Though sometimes the actions of player characters make it inevitable - depending on the kind of game you’re running.

In D&D, for instance, death is on the table at my table. It’s not creative per see, but it gives the world a verisimilitude that adds to the satisfactory nature of a story. In the view of my players and me, of course.