Narrative Frameworks in TTRPGs

One of the most essential tools I employ when game mastering, both in prep and play, is what I call a narrative framework. This is my term for it - others may use different terms, but virtually all role-playing games leverage at least some level of narrative framework. Most of my play experience is in games where there is a dedicated GM and limited player authorial power over the setting, but I also suspect these principles would hold true in to greater or lesser extent in games with shared authorial power or with GMless play.

In my experience, recognizing that my games have a narrative framework and being aware of it as I plan and run my games helps me be more effective at creating fun experiences as a game master. 

What is a Narrative Framework?

A narrative framework is that collection of elements which, when players engage with them, can become a story. 

A narrative framework isn't in and of itself a story, which requires the PCs to interact with the setting and its inhabitants. I'm not talking about plot, which is a series of interconnected, sequential events. Rather, I'm talking about all the scaffolding that goes around those things - the characters, their motivations, the adventure hooks, the relationships, the factions, the history, and so on. 

Some people might just call this worldbuilding. And a narrative framework contains worldbuilding. But it also contains NPCs, factions, relevant events, maps, and rumors that the players can interact with. And it includes theme and tone, letting everyone know what type of game they are playing. And it contains 

Some of it is established in session prep. And some of it develops organically through play. A solid narrative framework can create powerful stories at the table that are engaging and exciting for both the GM and the players.

Are You Sure This Isn't Just Another Name for Plot?

A plot is a series of interdependent events. X happens, and then because of that, Y happens, and then Z happens, and so on. A narrative framework is the connective tissue that provides meaning and context to otherwise unrelated events. A narrative framework exists in both a sandbox game and in a scripted scenario. 

In a scripted scenario, the narrative framework is the background (how did things get to be this way), the problem (what do the characters have to solve), the characters involved (the BBEG as well as other NPCs), and involved factions. It's the quests that the PCs undertake and the resultant outcomes of completing those quests, which is what many people would call the plot of the scenario. This plot, in a scripted scenario, is part of the narrative framework.  

In a sandbox game, the narrative framework consists of some of the same elements. There's usually some background about the area that play will take place within. There are probably factions, so the narrative framework will include those factions and their goals. It probably includes a dungeon, maybe a wilderness, maybe a town. The narrative framework includes a summary of what's going on in these locations - again with various factions, NPCs, etc. And the narrative framework is going to include things like rumors, secrets, etc. Notably, it doesn't include a plot, because a sandbox doesn't pre-assume a planned, interdependent sequence of events. 

A narrative framework isn't a plot or a story, but it instead provides the scaffolding to build a plot or a story, either by playing through the events of a scripted scenario or by developing the story organically through play, or some mix of both. Narrative frameworks exist regardless of what type of game you're running.

How Does This Narrative Framework... Work?

The narrative framework is the lens through which the players experience the world and through which the GM shapes and presents the world. 

For the players, the narrative framework also helps to answer the question, "why should I care about this?" It is the glue that connects the PC to the world, through their desire to uncover the secret, to investigate the rumor, or to complete the quest. A narrative framework, when designed with intention, offers hooks to the player that they can connect with, transforming the experience of play from something that feels generic and abstract to something that feels discrete and personal.

PCs races, classes, backgrounds and, optionally, backstories make up this narrative framework as well, because all of those elements connect the character to the world, and, importantly, help the player feel connected to the world through the interface of their character. The selection by the GM of what options to offer to players shapes this element of the narrative framework.

For example, let's imagine a player, Barb, who creates an elven cleric of Selûne (goddess of the Moon in the Forgotten Realms setting). During play, Barb learns about a ruined temple overrun with undead which locals say has moon symbols painted on the walls. Barb suspects this could be an ancient temple of Selûne that has been defiled and wants to investigate. The elements of the narrative framework (the deity the cleric follows, details about the deity such as the moon, and a rumor of a local event) give Barb a compelling reason to engage with the game world.

For the GM, the narrative framework informs what is presented to the players. In prep, this means determining what kinds of information (often in the form of secrets or clues) and challenges (often in the form of monsters or NPCs) the PCs will deal with. Even the choice of what entries go onto a random encounter table are part of the narrative framework. Each choice the GM makes during prep should be done within the narrative framework. The GM should ask themselves, "Does this fit the narrative framework I've build or expand the framework in a way that makes sense? And, critically, will the PCs be interested in interacting with it based upon the narrative hook it creates?" If so, it should be included. If not, it should be excluded.

For example, let's consider a sword and sorcery game. The players have recently completed a dungeon crawl and are returning to town with hard-earned loot. The GM prepares some rumors for the next session. A rumor about the Cult of Chaos who the party has previously crossed paths with establishing a new temple in a ruined manor is a good rumor for this campaign because it fits within the existing narrative framework, expands the framework by building on a relevant faction's goals and activities, and presents a narrative hook that the PCs might have a compelling reason to interact with. The GM considers a second rumor. This one is about a fluctuating grain prices in a distant town caused by a major hurricane. The GM discards this rumor because, while it could potentially expand the narrative framework, it's thematically (and geographically) too far away from the existing framework that has been established. Furthermore, it doesn't present a clearly actionable hook that the players are likely to want to engage with. 

Improvisation and Adjudication Through a Narrative Framework

The narrative framework also informs how the GM adjudicates during play. When the players negotiate with a NPC, the GM considers what the NPC wants, how they feel about the PCs, and what helping the PCs might cost them to inform how the NPC reacts. These NPC characteristics are part of the narrative framework. When rolling on random tables during play, the GM interprets the results through the lens of the narrative framework. Rolled a bunch of skeletons on a random encounter table? Those skeletons could be the remains of the elves slaughtered here in a terrible war a thousand years ago. assuming that history is part of your narrative framework.

This improvisation and adjudication is actually a part of the "basic procedure" of play, as elegantly defined in one of my all-time favorite blog posts (Prismatic Wasteland's The Basic Procedure of the OSR). You should read the whole thing, but the idea is that role-playing games are a conversation and the conversation is essentially a procedure that we do without really even being aware of it. Here's a quote:

Step 1. The referee describes the situation, what the player-characters see, hear, smell, taste or feel.

Step 2. The players ask clarifying questions about the situation, if they so desire.

Step 3. The referee answers any such questions that are immediately observable by the player-characters. If ascertaining the answer would require player-character action, the referee informs the players what they must do to obtain the answer, and resolves such actions if the players wish to do so. Upon the resolution of such actions, the referee answers the question and gives any other pertinent information.

Step 4. Based on the information at hand, the players state what actions their player-characters take.

Step 5. The referee and players resolve all such actions. If the situation changes (which it almost certainly will), repeat these steps.

(A slightly different take on this process is also explained very clearly in the Mothership: Warden's Operations Manual, one of the very best GM guides I've read for any game.)

The narrative framework informs the basic procedure in a meaningful way. 

The narrative framework informs the GM what content to present to the players via what the PCs experience (step 1). This likely involves elements in the environment for the PCs to interact with, such as things to investigate, NPCs to converse with, or monsters to fight. All of this content is part of the narrative framework.

In step 3, the GM has to answer some questions. Sometimes this may be in the GM's prep material (how many goblins are in the room?), but often it is not (is there any notable heraldry on the banner above the gate?) and the GM has to improvise an answer on the fly or make a ruling. In this case, if the GM filters their improvisation through the narrative framework, the resulting answers are likely to fit better within the overall world, helping to enlarge the scope of the setting for the players, and providing new opportunities to interact meaningfully with the world.

Explicit and Implicit Content in the Narrative Framework

The explicit content within a narrative framework is defined by the GM, by the setting, and, to a lesser extent, by the rules (though probably not the mechanics). The explicit narrative framework is that part of the framework that is written down by the GM - maps, names of NPCs and factions, the class/race/background options available to the players, etc.

The implicit content is any content that it is reasonable to imagine would fit within the established framework, but that hasn't been written down or presented to the players. When the GM presents the rumor that a certain cult has taken over a ruined mansion, the layout and history of that mansion are implicit content in the narrative framework. If the PCs show interest in the rumor, the GM may want to spend some time creating a keyed map of the location and some background about the mansion. This then becomes explicit content within the narrative framework. It becomes part of the narrative framework.

A good narrative framework creates a feedback loop. The narrative framework informs what is prepped and presented during play. Anything improvised within the narrative framework also expands the narrative framework. And the decisions made by players may impact and evolve the narrative framework.

If Not Blorb, Why Blorb-Shaped?

One of the principles of OSR play that is often discussed is the idea that a setting or adventure should be "blorby." Blorb is a set of principles of OSR play focused around establishing the "philosophical realism" of the world and running games "fairly," without the GM putting their thumb on the scales.

There are elements of blorb principles that don't quite sit right with me (a topic for another post), but the idea that blorb is one way to make the world feel real and alive for players is very appealing. But blorb is often criticized (fairly or not) for being simulationist, for assuming that it is better to detail as much of the world as possible and to improvise as little as possible.

Having a solid narrative framework is one way to approach blorbiness in games. Presenting situations and interpreting events based on the narrative framework of the game creates an experience that feels more dynamic and dramatic. At the same time, you don't need to sacrifice the sense that the world is a living, breathing place that moves along regardless of the characters' actions. It's just that the only things moving in the world that we care about are the elements of the narrative framework, rather than an attempt at simulating a reality. Building your world and having situations and complications develop based on your narrative framework can still generate surprising, unexpected outcomes, but you disregard the boring or irrelevant parts because those don't belong in the narrative framework. It's not to say that those boring parts don't exist - of course there are ordinary people living lives of dull drudgery all around. It's that we don't feature those moments during play because they aren't likely to present anything meaningfully engaging to the players.

If your prep is focused on the the narrative hooks and relationships that make up the game world rather than a detailed list of facts the players may or may not engage with, you help to ensure that the situations you present to players will feel meaningful and interesting instead of just random. The question should always be why should the players (and by extension the PCs) care? Narrative hooks provide the answer to that question.

This post has gotten quite long and meandered quite a bit. I'm not sure if others will find this concept useful, or simply so obvious that it's hardly worth mentioning, but it's been helpful for me to think about, particularly in relation to how I make rulings at the table and to my concept of how "blorby" my campaign worlds should be.

Let me know what you think in the comments. And if you do find this interesting or useful, share it with your pals.