It?s Not Your Story
- Thread starter Archon
- Start date
Fantastic article, it contains some good advice. I can remember instances where I used the "plot web" as you call it in my own games. It greatly cut down on the amount of preparation since each point of interest consisted of a generic idea I fleshed out on the spot rather than a long cut scene I would force the players to sit through.
An interesting side effect of this technique not mentioned in the article is reusability. You can reuse the map and monster stat resources on multiple gaming groups and still get a fresh experience every time. For a DM that can't get all their D&D playing friends together in the same location all the time, having a reusable campaign is quite nice.
An interesting side effect of this technique not mentioned in the article is reusability. You can reuse the map and monster stat resources on multiple gaming groups and still get a fresh experience every time. For a DM that can't get all their D&D playing friends together in the same location all the time, having a reusable campaign is quite nice.
Interesting article. I think your story web idea is something I would do instinctively - create a bunch of possibilities and see what the players bite at. I've never managed to run a full-on campaign, although I do have a half-built, sand-boxy kind of world kicking around mostly in the back of my head (it's a literal sand-box too, given that it's a desert planet....).
Out of curiousity, will you be doing an article on running one-offs too? The most concrete advice I've ever seen on running one-offs was in a DrivethruRPG newsletter. I didn't agree with all of it, but it was an interesting read.
Out of curiousity, will you be doing an article on running one-offs too? The most concrete advice I've ever seen on running one-offs was in a DrivethruRPG newsletter. I didn't agree with all of it, but it was an interesting read.
I know it's not actually an RPG, but I found that adapting the rules for "campaign events" from Necromunda : Outlanders or Gangs of Mega City One : Death on the Streets are excellent for running a sandbox RPG in any kind of setting, not just sci-fi. Every week, between sessions, I'd make a roll on one of them (Outlanders is better, but Death on the Streets is cheaper and easier to find) and have it happen at the next settlement/merchant caravan/whatever they met. How they chose to deal with it was up to them, but it essentially gave my players three layers of gaming in the campaign - the overall story arc, local events and the results of whatever they did outside of the events.
My current campaign doesn't even have a map, and is aided by the fact that it's on an uncharted world, and covered in tiny, almost identicle settlements that are dotted across it's landscape. No matter what direction my characters choose to go, I can have them eventually walking into a small hamlet/villiage with four-five shacks, a communal area and a food-processing vat. I guess it's cheating, but I've seen the results of a meticulously-planned railroad and all it takes is a player like me ("The door's magically warded, but we have a minigun! Let's shoot the wall round the door!") to ruin it completely.
My current campaign doesn't even have a map, and is aided by the fact that it's on an uncharted world, and covered in tiny, almost identicle settlements that are dotted across it's landscape. No matter what direction my characters choose to go, I can have them eventually walking into a small hamlet/villiage with four-five shacks, a communal area and a food-processing vat. I guess it's cheating, but I've seen the results of a meticulously-planned railroad and all it takes is a player like me ("The door's magically warded, but we have a minigun! Let's shoot the wall round the door!") to ruin it completely.
What is a one-off? (I have an Idea what you mean, but given I could be completely wrong, I'll stay safe and ask, before I answer)Amazon warrior said:
Op: Interesting article (again) - ultimately, the story-progress is indeed made by the whole group, not by the dm alone - though I personally prefer the freedom to stay within reason - all paths should be available, but a good dm can easily make some paths, like ignoring the king's orders in your example, unattractive, so players will either not go that way, or at least come up with a decent plan on why they do it, and what they want to achieve. Making every path possible, and playing along no matter what, will often, unless your really lucky in your choice of mates, result in a lot of dicking around, and large piles of npc-corpses.
Great as the previous ones. Reminds me too much of me and it wasn't that long ago, quite fresh actually. A great adventure I created, wanted the players to experience every inch of it, wanted them to see the dungeons I drew, the puzzles I made up, the monsters I placed. But, as it went along my perfect plan and set of events began to collapse under its own weight.
As with all things, people never want to do anything that they have to do. And since they were slightly forced to go to Place A to retrieve Object 2 and so on it became a bit of a nuisance and they now just wanted it to move along and I became too obsessed with finishing the adventure. Luckily, I came to my senses somewhere along the way and threw the whole thing away. The directed part. I put "them" in charge and what do you know, it all worked out great.
It didn't work out how I planned it but hey, if I want that I should go write a book instead.
Once again, great article and a good point to teach those willing to GM. Also, when I made the "switch", I started doing the same things you did with session planning, instead of a railway I made a branching dirt path.
As with all things, people never want to do anything that they have to do. And since they were slightly forced to go to Place A to retrieve Object 2 and so on it became a bit of a nuisance and they now just wanted it to move along and I became too obsessed with finishing the adventure. Luckily, I came to my senses somewhere along the way and threw the whole thing away. The directed part. I put "them" in charge and what do you know, it all worked out great.
It didn't work out how I planned it but hey, if I want that I should go write a book instead.
Once again, great article and a good point to teach those willing to GM. Also, when I made the "switch", I started doing the same things you did with session planning, instead of a railway I made a branching dirt path.
These articles just seem to discribe one of the many valid ways of GMing while rubbishing all other ways as wrong.
It may not be the intention but that is the impression that I get from them (especially considering the OP "It's finally time to talk about telling stories - and why you shouldn't.").
This is really a single way of playing a generic fantasy RPG like DnD but its not the "right way" to do it. It doesn't guarentee more fun or a better campaign, it just offers one kind of experiance which some people enjoy and some people don't.
I am likely biased here because I run Dark Heresy which is by its nature a mission based, objective driven game. You are not the hero's, you are the scrubs, you have a boss who holds almost infinite power and you are up against foes who are weaving intricate plans. If the players decide not to do their job then the consequences can be terrible and their boss who has a galaxys worth of resources can decide to hunt them down.
In Dark Heresy directed stories are the norm, you are usually reacting to the events of others, if you just had a list of cults enact their plans regardless of PC envolvement it would be a poor game of DH. For one thing the PC's would likely never notice that their enemies diobolical master plan actually went off because it was on a different planet and will be dealt with by other people if they aren't there.
I refuse to believe that the defalt method of playing Dark Heresy is wrong simply because you are playing a directed story rather than an emergant one, alot of people in real life are stuck in situations and have no choice on whether to be involved or not, the story is in how they are involved.
Thats not to say I don't like emergent story games, I once played in a WFRP game where the entire puropose was that we were each agents of opposing chaos gods and we had to do the most to advance our gods cause. The GM had a series of events that ran alongside the game but how we participated was up to us, it was one of the most fun games I have played in even though it didn't last very long (we had difficulty getting the group together for a while due to exams and we never got started back up with the game as another player left).
Kaihlik
It may not be the intention but that is the impression that I get from them (especially considering the OP "It's finally time to talk about telling stories - and why you shouldn't.").
This is really a single way of playing a generic fantasy RPG like DnD but its not the "right way" to do it. It doesn't guarentee more fun or a better campaign, it just offers one kind of experiance which some people enjoy and some people don't.
I am likely biased here because I run Dark Heresy which is by its nature a mission based, objective driven game. You are not the hero's, you are the scrubs, you have a boss who holds almost infinite power and you are up against foes who are weaving intricate plans. If the players decide not to do their job then the consequences can be terrible and their boss who has a galaxys worth of resources can decide to hunt them down.
In Dark Heresy directed stories are the norm, you are usually reacting to the events of others, if you just had a list of cults enact their plans regardless of PC envolvement it would be a poor game of DH. For one thing the PC's would likely never notice that their enemies diobolical master plan actually went off because it was on a different planet and will be dealt with by other people if they aren't there.
I refuse to believe that the defalt method of playing Dark Heresy is wrong simply because you are playing a directed story rather than an emergant one, alot of people in real life are stuck in situations and have no choice on whether to be involved or not, the story is in how they are involved.
Thats not to say I don't like emergent story games, I once played in a WFRP game where the entire puropose was that we were each agents of opposing chaos gods and we had to do the most to advance our gods cause. The GM had a series of events that ran alongside the game but how we participated was up to us, it was one of the most fun games I have played in even though it didn't last very long (we had difficulty getting the group together for a while due to exams and we never got started back up with the game as another player left).
Kaihlik
Blast, and I just posted a perfect description of this in last week's article. I'll repost here for convenience.
Taco of flames said:
Interesting points, reminds me of how I often preached to my players and fellow GMs. As you mention the advice from the DMGII assumes that the GM is a talented storyteller, and can pull it off while maintaining the illusion of free choice. But alas that´s all it is, an illusion of choice whereas there really is only the GM´s path.
I won´t say, I couldn´t get pulled into a wonderful crafted story by a talented GM. But it requires far more than it´s often posible. Though, one guy that probably could pull it off would be John Wick but that´s another discussion.
To me the question is, can you build a continous campaign without resorting to having to hand out scripts to your players. I would like to say yes, as the lure of a wellcrafted story with my character as one of the maincharacters sounds seductive. But to do this we need to move away from the free roaming campaign structure, and more into the realm of directed stories.
On the top of my head, the key element here would be to allow for a loose plot structure and the willingness to have the players´actions have effect. Almost regardless what happens, its just another direction the story moves. Build a structure of what the main villian plans to happen and how it could potential play out without any involvement from the player characters. Then get the characters personally involved somehow, and let it flow from there.
I won´t say, I couldn´t get pulled into a wonderful crafted story by a talented GM. But it requires far more than it´s often posible. Though, one guy that probably could pull it off would be John Wick but that´s another discussion.
To me the question is, can you build a continous campaign without resorting to having to hand out scripts to your players. I would like to say yes, as the lure of a wellcrafted story with my character as one of the maincharacters sounds seductive. But to do this we need to move away from the free roaming campaign structure, and more into the realm of directed stories.
On the top of my head, the key element here would be to allow for a loose plot structure and the willingness to have the players´actions have effect. Almost regardless what happens, its just another direction the story moves. Build a structure of what the main villian plans to happen and how it could potential play out without any involvement from the player characters. Then get the characters personally involved somehow, and let it flow from there.
Interesting.
I've disagreed with half of what you've said in the articles so far, just to find out in this one that I was disagreeing with semantics and not meaning. You laid out, more clearly than I've seen before the method of interactive storytelling that I find most pleasing. While I have always thought of setting up a story rich environment as setting up a story-arc I can understand your differentiation.
Thank you I've enjoyed this series of articles.
I've disagreed with half of what you've said in the articles so far, just to find out in this one that I was disagreeing with semantics and not meaning. You laid out, more clearly than I've seen before the method of interactive storytelling that I find most pleasing. While I have always thought of setting up a story rich environment as setting up a story-arc I can understand your differentiation.
Thank you I've enjoyed this series of articles.
Kaihlik, in my second column, "Judging the Game," I specifically wrote:Kaihlik said:
And I stand by that. I am always happy to hear from others what their methods are and how they work.
Certainly I like to fling some rubbish around, but so do most good essayists. Inflammatory phrases like "burn your DMG2" make for much more interesting reading than essays where their writer spends the whole paragraph hedging his bet.
When Nietzsche wrote "that which does not kill you makes you stronger," someone could have told him that he was only describing one way the near-death experience could effect you and rubbishing all the others. "That which does not kill you will potentially make you stronger, but might also cause post-traumatic stress disorder, chronic illness, or permanent injury" is more accurate, but worse writing...
Nejira, the closest I have come to that has been to (a) start with free-roaming and allow the party to get invested in their characters, (b) introduce a plot element that threatens all they hold dear, and (c) let them pursue a solution to "b" through a story web devoted to the plot element.Nejira said:
The way I have [tried to] avoid having (b), the introduction of a plot element, turn into a railroad is by making the plot element occur as a result of an antagonist built with and suffering from the same rules as the player characters. So, for instance, if their hometown is burne down by the villain, it isn't because I just "said so", it's because the villain is a Red Dragon and he can burn down villages. The problem with this approach is that if you need to be willing to play the villains smart and honest for it to work, and you will have less control over what happens to the PCs and to the antagonist than in a truly directed story.
I personally think the gain in agency is worth the loss in "epic directed cinematic conclusion" but that's because I see the epicness of the conclusion as an illusion. Others may see it differently.
Unfortunately neither of those options is what you wrote. The beginning of this article much more closely resembles "that which does not kill you makes you stronger, and cannot ever cause chronic illness, and people who say it can cause chronic illness are idiots." Inflammatory phrases are more interesting to read than bet-hedging, but actual information is several orders of magnitude more interesting and valuable than either. You wrote a very good three-page article on emergent gameplay, but I very nearly didn't read it because of the preceding fourth page telling me that the type of game my players specifically request from me is dumb. You would do well to re-read the disclaimer you just quoted and apply it to yourself - specifically the phrase "...and respectfully explain why". I am quite interested in hearing about this 'secret sauce' that you have, but I would prefer to do so without being told I'm wrong. You may have intended to just be entertaining, but that first page just comes off as mean.Archon said:Certainly I like to fling some rubbish around, but so do most good essayists. Inflammatory phrases like "burn your DMG2" make for much more interesting reading than essays where their writer spends the whole paragraph hedging his bet.
When Nietzsche wrote "that which does not kill you makes you stronger," someone could have told him that he was only describing one way the near-death experience could effect you and rubbishing all the others. "That which does not kill you will potentially make you stronger, but might also cause post-traumatic stress disorder, chronic illness, or permanent injury" is more accurate, but worse writing...
I like what this article is saying but I kind of meet it half way. There is no problem to a little hand holding as long as it is subtle and the players still feel they are making there own decisions. I run Shadowrun rather than D&D, and since just about all PCs in shadowrun are basically some kind of mercenary, it is easy to make a game episodic. They have an NPC explicitly give them a mission to perform so from the begging of the session their is some kind of conflict that the PCs are involved in. Now they can solve the conflict in many different ways and have many different end results, but I have never had them explicitly ignore a mission. My first few attempts at running I just let let player do whatever they wanted, and half the party would just end up combat biking, making the other half sit around doing noting for a long pointless combat session. Those games didn't last past their first session. You should have to to say "this is the plot hook just take it" (I've been told this countless times), you should have an understanding of the PCs and give them some kind of reason to take part in the events around them. Once they involved in the conflict, then you can let them handle things on their own.
I remember one of my friends ran a campaign with a map of points of interest. I also remember the day he met with each member of the party secretly and told them something really cool would happen if they went a certain direction (wink wink don't tell the others). So when we played the first fifteen minutes were spent arguing about which of the four different directions he had suggested we should go in. All with a heavy dose of hinting that we had insider information. He was kind of a jerk like that, but he was a good GM.
I had been considering a similar solution: have a villainous spider in the center of the web. Give this main villain and his underlings both a long term plan and real goals they are trying to accomplish in the short term at various locations. You would not want every location to be involved with these guys or it would just feel like railroading again. This way if the group wants to pursue the "main story" they can, or they can just explore.Archon said:
Also, make dealing with this group time or level based, such that if you don't bother with them for long enough they succeed in the short term goals and move on to the next stage of the plan. Ignore them long enough and when you are a high level group you have a possible opponent that is conquering existing countries. Or you can have a long fight throughout your journies culminating in killing the head villain before his plan is realized.
The problem with this idea is that the villain group could be stopped fairly early on, thus a lot of work would have been wasted. The only solution I've come up with is having the group have several sub-commanders who could continue parts of the main plan if the head is killed, maybe having them splinter into various smaller groups that could then be dealt with if the players want to, though that would require even more work.
I do think a lot of GMs overvalue how much people appreciate their willingness to do the work and feel almost like the players are obligated to help flesh out their fourth-rate fantasy novel. The second the players feel like passive observers you lose so much. Sure, if it really is a great story, maybe you should, you know, write a book?
But when you know you can never die (unless you actually go out of your way to actually taunt the DM), that there is no second option, that everything is foretold and defined and will happen this way and not that, how is that a game? It certainly isn't interactive. Soon you know which NPC you can kill, which you have to talk to and can't attack (no matter how comically obvious it is he'd a bad guy), which don't matter and the only game that remains is watching how far the GM will go to keep the players in line.
My all-time favorite was playing 1st Ed with a railroading DM, who decided to throw in a non-random random encounter (i.e., he didn't have to worry about adding treasure) of some gnolls, forgetting one of the party was a ranger. So the player decided to track them to their lair. A minor thing, but not on the schedule and not "part of the plan", so the DM clearly started to get angry and tried to dissuade us, until finally, he declares "it starts raining and all the tracks disappear". The guy was a college graduate and had been playing D&D for years - whipping up a half-hour-long gnoll lair should have been trivial. But it wasn't "his story" and he just couldn't cope. We all laughed, but it wasn't funny.
But when you know you can never die (unless you actually go out of your way to actually taunt the DM), that there is no second option, that everything is foretold and defined and will happen this way and not that, how is that a game? It certainly isn't interactive. Soon you know which NPC you can kill, which you have to talk to and can't attack (no matter how comically obvious it is he'd a bad guy), which don't matter and the only game that remains is watching how far the GM will go to keep the players in line.
My all-time favorite was playing 1st Ed with a railroading DM, who decided to throw in a non-random random encounter (i.e., he didn't have to worry about adding treasure) of some gnolls, forgetting one of the party was a ranger. So the player decided to track them to their lair. A minor thing, but not on the schedule and not "part of the plan", so the DM clearly started to get angry and tried to dissuade us, until finally, he declares "it starts raining and all the tracks disappear". The guy was a college graduate and had been playing D&D for years - whipping up a half-hour-long gnoll lair should have been trivial. But it wasn't "his story" and he just couldn't cope. We all laughed, but it wasn't funny.