As this blog continues, it will likely become obvious that I think of all RPGs as a story. To me, they aren't games. They aren't rules and players around a table. They are stories, pure and simple. Much of why and how I GM comes from this belief.
Naturally, if RPGs are a story, that means that there is a fourth wall to break, that invisible barrier that separates player from character, DM from NPC, reality from fiction. It is what allows people to "roleplay", and enables suspension of disbelief.
So, what happens when the fourth wall is broken?
Many shows, comics, books and other media do this, frequently for comedic purposes, or to involve the audience.
But breaking the fourth wall invariably adds an element of silliness to the work. It makes it less believable, less realistic, and less involved if done poorly. Even if done correctly, people will forevermore remember the time when the fourth wall was broken, and think less of the story for it (if it is something that pretends to be anything other than pure comedy).
Now, what is breaking the fourth wall? It is often defined as a character "becoming aware of their own fictionality". However, this is a very specific definition. Most of the time when the fourth wall is broken, the character does not, explicitly or tacitly acknowledge their fictionality. Yet, the fourth wall remains broken, the characters of the work of fiction having, in some way or another, acknowledged that they have an audience with which to interact where there should be none.
So, perhaps, breaking the fourth wall can be better defined as "any action that could cause a character to realize that they are fictional".
This allows all those instances of speaking to the audience to count as breaking the fourth wall.
So, how does this apply to an RPG?
How does one break the fourth wall in an RPG, and how is this different from any of the host of crimes covered by the catchall term "metagaming"?
Metagaming, its ethics, and how to deal with it are beyond the scope of this article, but I believe that metagaming is indeed a small breach of the fourth wall.
Characters do not have access to the knowledge that players do. When a character turns to his friend and says "His armour class is only 23, it's ok, I can hit that", that is breaking the fourth wall. The character is admitting that they are in a world bound by a system of understandable, random, rules.
But what if it is the player saying that? Then it is fine. The player has not broken the fourth wall.
But when the GM introduces a new enemy that the characters have never seen before and one player says "I run. Those things are way too tough for us to fight", that player has broken the fourth wall. Their character has used knowledge it could not possibly have, and acted on it. That may also force the character to acknowledge their own fictionality. After all, why would they run when faced by a new but not obviously lethal foe if at full health with all their resources at their disposal?
So, we have established that a player can break the fourth wall by metagaming. This is an unintentional breach of the fourth wall. In like fashion a GM can break the fourth wall unintentionally by having an NPC target someone who might be weak against their attacks, or by creating an NPC designed to challenge the party. Technically the fact that the GM can re-write their campaign to account for the players actions could be a breach of the fourth wall (albeit one only the GM will be aware of). Again, perhaps not if the enemies could conceivably change their plans that much.
This means that both players and GM can break the fourth wall by accident.
But that brings us to the topic at hand. What about an intentional breach of the fourth wall? Is this ever acceptable in an RPG?
Many gamers will instantly say Yes, or No, and refuse to change their stance on the matter,
I can see both sides, and why they would each make their claim, but I would have to disagree with any absolute (After all, only Sith deal in absolutes).
My answer would be a definite "Maybe" followed by an "It depends on the game".
And it really does.
I have intentionally broken the fourth wall as a GM three times. All three times I considered things beforehand, weighed the options, and decided that it was for the best, or, rather, that it would make the game more enjoyable for everyone (which, let's be honest, is a GM's real job).
Two of those times were during games of Paranoia: Troubleshooters. In a game where character mortality rate is almost always 600% (Because everyone has six clones, right?), and players are encouraged to metagame and backstab as much as they want, it seems like breaking the fourth wall may just be part of the package.
I'll admit, that is why I felt justified in doing so. Breaking the fourth wall in an obvious way can be good for a laugh, and in a game as silly as Paranoia, I had nothing to fear about the game, or myself, losing credibility. In the end, I was right. My players never treated myself, or Paranoia, differently than they had before.
However, breaking the fourth wall can also be... well, it can be a trust exercise for the group. The third time I broke the fourth wall was with my current group.
The NPC responsible was a mad Mind Flayer who, well, was pure insanity. He was a creation of a moment, given horrid life by a flash of boredom-induced inspiration. He was my dark mirror in a fantasy game, as cheery and optimistic as I am, but with a penchant for mad science and devouring brains. He was a huge fanboy of the PCs, and went to the trouble of re-creating the first enemy they ever fought, making her harder to kill, and throwing her at them again, all as a tribute to their magnificence.
He broke the fourth wall several times during his stay, by referring to the campaign as a story, the PCs as protagonists and main characters, and by very obviously replying to Out Of Character comments. However, it all fit. He was a psychic, which could theoretically explain the OOC comments, he was a fan of both the PCs and literature, which could explain the story references, and he was insane, which could also explain everything,
But why did he exist? Why was he allowed to break the fourth wall?
Well, to be honest, because I wanted to see what would happen. As I said, breaking the fourth wall can be a trust exercise. I wanted to see what responses doing so would prompt in the players. In the end, they laughed it off, came to love this crazy mind flayer, and, I hope, did not lose any faith in me as a GM.
In fact, having discussed this with them, they all agreed that the character, as he was, made the story and the campaign setting far richer. Every time they see a mind flayer, they think back to that crazy man, and ask me when he is returning. They loved him for what he was, for the fact that he did what no other dared to do, and broke the Fourth Wall. As one of my players said (and I paraphrase) "I really got the sense that my character was confused, because I was genuinely confused. Then I wasn't even sure if my character should be confused, and got more confused".
Was there a less risky way to do this? Yes, of course. Was there any real reason why I needed to do that? No, of course not. And was seeing how they would react truly the only reason why I did that?
Again, of course not. I did it for the same reason I do anything when I DM, hell, for the same reason that I DM. I broke the fourth wall because I wanted to make things more enjoyable for everyone.
So, is it ok to break the fourth wall? Well, again, my answer is "Maybe" and "It depends". It depends on your game, it depends on your players, and it depends on how you do it.
But, most of all, it depends on why you do it.
With that thought in mind, I shall bid you adieu.
No comments:
Post a Comment