General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
I use the three-act structure to design my adventures and campaign arcs all the time; I frankly don't know how I'd GM without it.
That said, I think the OP outline is too detailed; attempting to stick to that tight an outline won't give you the flexibility to work in the unexpected--especially elements that players bring to the table (either through backstory or game play).
A willingness to work with the unexpected and be flexible about how the story unfolds is, in my experience, critical to avoiding the dreaded "railroading." Even more importantly (because I think railroading is an overblown bogeyman), it ensures that the ongoing story is every bit as engaging for the GM as the players, because it retains an element of the unexpected. As the GM, you can see the road map--but you get to enjoy the unexpected sights (and occasional detours) along the way.
Defendi's level of detail is just about right. However, both it and the OP miss one crucial factor: Use Act 1 to introduce or at least hint/foreshadow the major factions, NPCs, and story elements. Introduce a major story element in Act 3 or late Act 2, and it will feel arbitrary. If that element was hinted at in Act 1, it will seem like brilliant GMing.
No, not sandbox, but also not really railroading. I simply saw this as a way to structure a campaign. To me it was no different than running a Dungeon module or the Scales of War adventure path. Not as strict rules.
Field's version of the three-act structure isn't just railroady when it comes to RPG's--It even railroads screenplays.
Specifics like the order and timing of "inciting incidents" and "plot points" are designed for a two-hour screenplay and shouldn't be transcribed so accurately to an rpg campaign. For example, the shortness of the first act in movies reflect their rapid pace. In novels, the first act can take up as much as half of the book, simply because the author has more space to work with.
__________________ In California? Enjoy gaming? Then you don't want to miss PolyCon.
No, not sandbox, but also not really railroading. I simply saw this as a way to structure a campaign. To me it was no different than running a Dungeon module or the Scales of War adventure path. Not as strict rules.
I played in a group that was running Age of Worms Adventure Path by Pazio. I think I can speak for everyone in the group by saying this was one of the best DnD games we've ever played. Was it a sandbox game, no. Was it a DnD game on rails, yes. Was a great time had by all, absolutely.
Part of DnD, as a GM, is understanding and helping to set player expectations (this is true for any social game). Ask your players if they prefer an Adventure Path style game, an open sandbox style game, or something in between. Is it bad to run an Adventure Path style game? Well, yeah, if the players really wanted a sandbox style, no one is going to be happy. The same is true is you are running a sandbox and the players wanted an adventure path.
Before we started the game I am running now, I asked my players about the following things; PC death, magic items, and game style. After discussing these issues for an evening, we settled upon an agreed idea for each of them (Sandbox world with over-riding goals, magic items are very rare and unique, the world is lethal and PC death is likely). I'd encourage any GM to do this with his players before starting a new game
Finally, I am a recent convert to Reynard's Sandbox style of games. Furthermore, I'm slowly converting from a 3.X/4E mentality of what a game should be to a 1E/2E style of game expectations. Personally, I like 3d6 stat generation instead of point buy, random hit points at each level, vast differences between the classes, sudden PC death at 0 hp instead of thousands of ways to stave off death, etc. I'm not sure of all the reasons for this (nostalgia, 4E backlash, a desire to time travel to 1989, who knows), but I do know I'm longing for a simpler game with less flash and more random numbers
__________________ -You're Gonna Carry That Weight
Last edited by Alaxk Knight of Galt; 18th March 2009 at 02:26 PM..
In novels, the first act can take up as much as half of the book, simply because the author has more space to work with.
This is my experience in RPGs as well--especially campaign arcs. The first act puts all the pieces into play, and that can take as much time as the rest of the arc put together.
That said, I don't think that negates the value of the three-act structure, or makes it necessarily railroady. It just supports the point that GMs need to be flexible and not slavishly adhere to an initial idea of how the story is "supposed" to unfold.
A while ago, I proposed something like the 3-act structure to influence combat, to avoid the 4e grind, and it works really quite well.
Heck, even music follows something like the 3-act structure, building a pattern, breaking it, and resolving it.
The three-act pattern can be nested to be episodic -- within Act I, there might be little self-contained arcs.
It's insanely flexible. Rather than pushing your game along, you use it to answer the question of what you, as a DM, should do next. Is everyone introduced? Have they faced a failure yet? Have they had a little success? If not, give it to them, then move onto the next step.
It's not so much a railroad as it is a way to figure out what you should throw at the party next, as a DM. It's up to them to take it or leave it or fail or succeed or think it's important or think it's not, but it can help inform you of what you can do next.
KM's point is valid. If you run a game without considing the 3 act structure, looking back at it, it's probably a mess of a story. Using a 3 act structure gives you something that makes sense when you're done. Which is why story-telling uses it.
The problem, as we all know as GM's is trying to avoid a railroad. Because books, TV and Movies are all planned out before the audience sees it. Whereas an RPG is supposed to feel like the audience (i.e. the players) have created it, and a pre-planned script goes against that feel.
This is where KM's point comes in. Pre-game, the GM creates a rough 3 act outline of what the heck is going on. In game, the players mess it all up, but that's OK, the GM has a checklist, and marks off where the party is within the outline, and brings up the next encounter.
The idea is, that basically, the GM is the director and changing the script as he films, based on the actors feedback as they go through each scene. He's using his knowledge of the original plot outline, and story crafting, to make sure he has a believable and enjoyable story, based on the new input from his players.
It's kinda like filming Alien, and right after the chest-burster scene, the actors say, "no way in heck would our characters to try to hunt this thing. Let's lock our selves in, suck out the air of the rest of the ship, wait an hour, and re-fill it. That ought to kill it." And the director decides to change the script and film the new scene, which leads to them thinking it's dead, and simply looking for the body, only to get ambushed by the bigger version.
In a way, that's the whole point of DMing. What most of us didn't know, is how to craft a story.
It's part of why I hate the idea of "sandbox" gaming. There's no such thing. The GM creates every object and entity in the game. The GM creates every action and motivation, and reaction for every entity in the game. There may be tables to randomly create things, and some tables to set NPC reactions, bu the GM decides whether to use them, or make it up with no tables. There is no real sandbox, it's not a simulation, and rocks fall when the DM says so.
Because of this, the real duty of a DM is to provide an environment that the players enjoy interacting with. And since ultimately anything you do in an environment can be retold as a story, you will likely get a better experience if you try to create a story, than if you try to have a series of random events.
Janx, it is objectively false to claim that "there's no such thing" as playing D&D as D&D was originally designed to be played.
You can (as you say) "hate the idea." However, your metaphysical argument is utterly specious when it comes to actual practical facts. It is trivially true, and readily acknowledged, that the game does not operate independently of a game master. To claim that there is disagreement on that point is to set up an obvious straw man. The disagreement is with your suggestion that your preferred mode necessarily follows as the "right" way to play.
As a matter of history, it plainly does not.
The traditional mode of play is not an efficient means to the ends you desire in your game. Neither is attacking people who happen to have different goals for their games.
Last edited by Ariosto; 19th March 2009 at 10:52 PM..
Ariosto, I like all your ten-dollar words, but I think in the end you're the one creating straw men.
Janx's point (as I read it) is that "sandbox" gaming, as a concept, is an illusion. The GM is always making subjective calls, and is therefore, to one extent or another, always shaping the outcome of events. Thus, to one extent or another, acknowledgement of story structure has the potential to improve the game experience.
The idea that a game world can be some sort of objective reality over which the GM exercises no control isn't a straw man; it's been posited in threads here on ENWorld quite recently. I think Janx is saying (and I agree with this) that that's impossible, so you might as well acknowledge the GM's subjective role in shaping outcomes, and educate yourself on how to put that tool to best use.
You're correct in saying that the degree to which you use storytelling techniques to shape your game is a matter of your own ends and playstyle. You may prefer to inject very little story guidance into your campaign, and that's perfectly fine of course.
(And another thing: I don't grant the premise that "sandbox" = "playing D&D as D&D was originally designed to be played." There's plenty of evidence that story has been an element of D&D play since the very beginning.)
CharlesRyan hit my points exactly on the head. That's exactly what I mean, and he had an excellent way of restating it.
On this quote from Ariosto:
"The traditional mode of play is not an efficient means to the ends you desire in your game. Neither is attacking people who happen to have different goals for their games."
I take offense. In my previous post, I do not attack anybody. The strongest statement I used is "I hate sandbox gaming". That's a statement of opinion on a thing, not a person.
Lastly, on this sandbox is a story/not a story thing. Go play a sandbox game. When you're done, go tell somebody what happened during the session. It's a story. While you were in the game, that was also a story, and it was being created as you played (as in any D&D game in darn near any style).
I simply posit, that the best game sessions make good stories. And that a good "sandbox" gm is simply a good storyteller (and a good GM). The result is, a GM could learn a lot about the craft of story-telling, and do a better job GMing.
"there's no such thing" as playing D&D as D&D was originally designed to be played.
I'm sorry but everytime a proponent of how D&D was meant to be played comes up with this assertion, I have a very hard time swallowing it.
Gygax himself, designed and redesigned parts of the dungeons of Castle Greyhawk with a bunch of teleporters in response to Rob Kuntz's nearly photographic memory. So he was continually changing the "sandbox." To say that sandbox style play is the way "the game was meant to be played", flies in the face of the evidence of how the designers of the game actually played it.
The game was designed to be played in whatever manner the DM, and players decided to take the game.
Gygax himself, designed and redesigned parts of the dungeons of Castle Greyhawk with a bunch of teleporters in response to Rob Kuntz's nearly photographic memory. So he was continually changing the "sandbox." To say that sandbox style play is the way the game was meant to be played flies in the face of the evidence of how the designers of the game actually played it.
The game was designed to be played in whatever manner the DM, and players decided to take the game.
Well said (and thanks for raining a few facts onto the parade of cherished opinion and revisionist elf-history).
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
and to sort of get it all back on track, the real point of the article is that you can use some story-writing technique to organize the events that happen in the game to make for a memorable adventure.
put another way, is it enjoyable to go to a dungeon, go room from room disarming traps and killing monsters, with each encounter having no bearing on the last?
It can certainly be a challenge. And each fight could be fun. However, try listening to a recounting of the tale. It's tedious and makes no sense. If the retelling of it isn't interesting, how good was it really?
Now wrap a story around all of that. Same encounters. But now you've got something. It's going someplace. Is there anybody who TRULY just wants to kill monsters? You'd be able to prove this in that they don't even care to sit in the room during the non-combat encounters. I think most folks enjoy a story, it's a matter of presentation, and emphasis on the elements they like (I want more stabby, less politics).
Given that most of the published adventures seem to follow the 3 act model (as other folks have pointed out), writing a story is pretty much ingrained.
My real beef against sandbox/simulation is that taken literally, by a poor group, the PCs either stand around and nothing happens, or they whine that everything they do has consequences. In a good sandbox, with good players, them GM is sub-conciously applying story-telling techniques and good judgement to what the players do, and the players aren't fighting it, because they are participating. At that point, we're actually talking the same thing, and I'd just as soon drop the sandbox term as it's an illusion.
The result is, a story IS the consquences and reactions. A group of players that fight this, is a group of players who aren't ready for an RPG.
I'd like to get off the sandbox, er soapbox. What'd be useful to see is how to implement KM's checklist, or timeline of where the party is in the story arc. And how to write/plan a story arc that isn't a railroad, and allows for a lot of adaptability.
For writing such a story arc, I'd recommend the following ideas:
create an initial problem, that the PCs are likely to want to solve
make it obvious and relevant what the consequences will be if the party doesn't undertake it (the village will be destroyed, as will be your base of operations)
Allow for the possibility that the party will quit the quest, at any stage
Allow for the possibility that the party will fail the quest, at any stage
Until you get to some specific encounter, there's a lot of predictability on what a party will do, you're not going to have to plan on a specific action, so much as a generic type of action. With any given problem, a party will likely try one or more of the following:
fight their way out
trick their way out (some spell or item, or sneakiness)
talk their way out (diplomacy, etc)
investigate their way out (sneak, find evidence and use it)
run away (stop trying anything else)
wait for the other side to act first (react in kind usually)
You can usually set the scene such that some choices are more likely. Confronting the party with a group of armed orcs with weapons drawn will most likely get the fight response. Orcs with weapons sheathed, at medium distance, with one orc calling out to the party opens up the talk option. Orcs seen nearby, but not seeing the party opens up the trick option. And in all cases run away and wait are still viable.
This is why as a DM you CAN plan on what the party will do next. Because while it is possible the party could do anything, many options are not probable. I've got a DM who's a long-time good friend with a long-time campaign (running since 1992). He can predict what we'll do as a party and only write that much material, and we hit each mark like clock hands strike the hour. Where we surpsise him is how we solve specific encounters (using items he's forgotten about, or new tactics). But that doesn't break his outline. After the adventure, we've even talked about how there was "no way he could have known for sure we were going to pursue X, and then goto Y." Which proves the point. The only party that isn't predictable is the party that is deliberately trying to be random. And those folks are simply being contrary for the point of being contrary
And, if the players don't follow the "script"? Railroading?
I think the concern of rail-roading has been addressed in a number of responses already.
In a real rail-road, you can't leave the scene until you do the expected thing. That's what's annoying about it.
What most people agree here, is that the GM adapts the material to a fitting reaction and consequence to the player's unexpected action.
In reality, when a player doesn't do the expected thing, it comes in 2 flavors:
1) they're trying to "quit" the mission
2) they're trying to "solve" the mission, in an unanticipated way
#1 is easy, let them start quitting, and start showing them consequences as the bad guy moves forward un-impeded. They'll either get back to the mission, or accept the consequences, which continue to roll forward while they "do something else" which you can run for them.
#2 is also easy. Pause the game, adjust the "script" to react to the new change, which will probably replace a few encounters and reveal information early, and move them to a different point in the story arc, which is the whole point of finishing any encounter.
Remember, it's not a rail-road to have consequences for the PCs actions or inaction. "I don't want to find the kidnapped mayor" means the bad guy moves forward. The world is not static. A rail-road is where the party can't choose to be inactive, or a specific action. They're not allowed to. A choice with a bad consequence (that a rational person would never make) is not the same as a lack of choice enforced by the GM who nullifies every action but the acceptable one.
The reality for most GMs is, whether they write it down before the game, or make it up on the fly, once they say, "the party hears a rumor about killings on the docks" it's been planned out. They have an idea of a clue to drop for the party to find. They have an idea of who the bad guy is, even if it's only in their head. At that point, a path has been drawn from party in the bar to party confronting the bad guy. A good GM keeps adjusting that path as the party advances through the story, based on what they do, and how they want to approach the problem. In any even, the goal is to always end at the party confronting the bad guy, though the image of what that scene looks like may keep changing.
In a good sandbox, with good players, them GM is sub-conciously applying story-telling techniques and good judgement to what the players do, and the players aren't fighting it, because they are participating.
In the division between "sandbox" and "story," most people seem to think the classic dungeon crawl experience is pure "sandbox."
The funny thing is, even the typical old-school dungeon is designed to outline a sort of story arc:
The characters find an entrance and go in.
They explore a bunch of rooms and have some encounters.
Eventually, they find a staircase going down.
They go down, where they explore some more and face slightly harder obstacles and encounters.
And so on. Often, the deepest or most remote chambers contain some sort of uber threat.
Now let's face facts: Most dungeon creators design to this pacing consideration, placing it (consciously or subconsciously) ahead of the strictly "realistic" dungeon concerns. A "realistic" dungeon wouldn't likely support such pacing--after all, when was the last time you entered a building and had to wander around for hours before finding the staircase that led to the more important parts of the building?
I think we'd all agree that that's not railroading, yet there's no doubt that the design choices do impact on the players' options and decisions. Guess what: there's nothing wrong with that!
When any reasonable advocate of storytelling techniques in roleplaying talks about outlining a plot, they're talking about an outline very comparable to that dungeon design. Instead of rooms in a dungeon (or maybe in addition to them), they're outlining clues and events. This outline is no more a straightjacket or "railroad" than the dungeon map--in fact, it's often more open-ended.
If it is because the DM wants to funnel the characters to stay "on script" then it is railroading.
Is this a real problem, or a straw man?
A few posts ago, I mentioned that I think "railroading" is a bogeyman. The last time I saw a GM try to run to a script was about the same time I played under a Monty Haul DM. Sure, it happened--when were 13 and none of us had played for more than 4 months.
Nobody's talking about "scripts." We're talking about, at most, outlines. More specifically, we're talking about applying storytelling technique to make campaigns more cohesive--whether or not they're following a specific arc outline.
A kneejerk reaction of equating that sort of GMing technique to forcing a script on the players is like saying if you give players a +1 dagger, you might as well give them Baba Yaga's Hut--either way it's Monty Haul!
That ALL depends on why there are consequences. If it is because the DM wants to funnel the characters to stay "on script" then it is railroading.
Go back and re-read the last post, or better yet, today's blog entry where I expound on it more. And read What CharlesRyan said. We're all about avoiding hard-coded super-detailed scripts. It's outlines.
But even then, sticking with the term "script" I would say the GM's job is to invent plausible consequences for PC actions. Regardless of his motive, that is the point of running a simulation or narrativist game.
Furthermore, it is reasonable and rational for the GM to funnel the characters to get back to the ending. To do otherwise would create more work (having to invent more material), defy internal logic of the game world (the murderer's identity does/doesn't change, just because the party investigates the wrong person. The GM makes it all work, to maintain consistency and pacing.
It's like I said before, if the party doesn't want to complete the mission, they accept the consequences of failure. That's not rail-roading, it's cause and effect. It just happens to also help the GM's goal of running a story about a murder mystery where the butler did it.
If the party is working on the mission, and just not doing the right thing, a DM is at risk of railroading, but the solution is to adjust the "script" to get things back on schedule.
If the murderer is the butler, and you investigate the flower garden, where the butler never goes, it's not railroading to change my notes such that you find a new clue there that leads to the butler, or to make it so the butler DID go to the garden. It's not like you're NOT trying to find the murderer, the GM is trying to help the party complete the goal the party accepted, which is to find the murderer.
Talking about railroading, really is a side-topic. There's other threads on it. Nobody here wants to rail-road. We're not trying to design a rail-roady system and we're cognizant of the pitfalls to avoid. We're simply looking at how to organize our adventure so it is cohesive, rational, and makes a good story as the party goes through it.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
