Ry
Explorer
(this post extracts the design advice from the thread where I keep my Problems, Threats, Resources and Rewards, see the sig)
Preparing games is very different than other forms of writing, but I often find the difference isn't made clear to GMs. In the past, I often found myself preparing material that did not see play, and finding myself underprepared while at the session despite putting in a lot of work. To figure out what I should be preparing, I sat down one weekend and sketched out what happens in the meat of my roleplaying game sessions.
The diagram is a flow chart that looks like this:
[sblock=The flowchart]
[/sblock]
This took a long time to figure out, and was preceded by several more complex diagrams. After working on this, I realized that all that's really needed for a good game is problems, threats, resources, and rewards.
[sblock=What's the difference between a threat and a problem?]Threats mean danger in an immediate sense. Problems can lead to threats but are not imminently dangerous in the same way.[/sblock][sblock=What's the difference between a resource and a reward?]Resources can take a lot of forms (this lever causes water in the dungeon to rise 5 feet, the Baron can be convinced to aid the party if they're polite, an Alchemist has set up shop by the crossroads). But they're things that the PCs have to choose to use.
Rewards also take a lot of forms (magic items, gold, cute girl feeding apples to your horses, banquet in your honor) but they're not things PCs are likely to pass up. If you think of magic items and gold as resources, then there is some overlap, but I think players do feel rewarded when acquiring those things, even if they proceed to use them resourcefully.[/sblock][sblock=How does this method prevent bad design?]
PTRR is about making sure you write stuff that will see use. In My Experience, when the GM puts something before the players, these 4 things are things the GM needs. I did a big diagram a while ago to determine the flow of play in my D&D games; I found after the player-characters are created and the players have accepted the basic premise (we're playing a game, your characters are fantasy heroes, here's a basic context for where you are) the DM's job was to put interactive elements in front of players.
Bad design, whether it's railroading, DMPCs, or boring settings, all have one thing in common: They put inert elements in front of players (a.k.a. they're all a waste of time).
"Here's the prince of Roundheria, he's thinking of invading the peaceful land of Overtheria, but you can't convince him not to."
"Here's the dragon of the west mountain, but he's so powerful he'll kill you all instantly, so listen to his monologue before he flies off to what I've already decided he's doing, OK?"
"You're in a town. There's an inn. No, nothing interesting is happening."
"Elminster talks to you for half an hour, here's his 20-page explanation of why he's not going to help you. No, you can't convince him."
In short: if it comes time for the DM to add some element to the game, and it's not a problem, threat, resource, or reward, it's a waste.[/sblock][sblock=My games are about the characters' emotions, deep down. Can this still work?]Nothing about this method is meant to diminish the emotional content of the game. Players get attached to their favorite NPCs, get worried by the problems they are trying to deal with, and so on. But those things don't happen when they are inert; players care about their favorite NPCs because they have interacted with them (saved them from threats, helped them with problems, used their resources, earned rewards from them, and so on).
But the emotions are the result of play, not the DM's front end design.[/sblock]
Preparing games is very different than other forms of writing, but I often find the difference isn't made clear to GMs. In the past, I often found myself preparing material that did not see play, and finding myself underprepared while at the session despite putting in a lot of work. To figure out what I should be preparing, I sat down one weekend and sketched out what happens in the meat of my roleplaying game sessions.
The diagram is a flow chart that looks like this:
[sblock=The flowchart]
This took a long time to figure out, and was preceded by several more complex diagrams. After working on this, I realized that all that's really needed for a good game is problems, threats, resources, and rewards.
[sblock=What's the difference between a threat and a problem?]Threats mean danger in an immediate sense. Problems can lead to threats but are not imminently dangerous in the same way.[/sblock][sblock=What's the difference between a resource and a reward?]Resources can take a lot of forms (this lever causes water in the dungeon to rise 5 feet, the Baron can be convinced to aid the party if they're polite, an Alchemist has set up shop by the crossroads). But they're things that the PCs have to choose to use.
Rewards also take a lot of forms (magic items, gold, cute girl feeding apples to your horses, banquet in your honor) but they're not things PCs are likely to pass up. If you think of magic items and gold as resources, then there is some overlap, but I think players do feel rewarded when acquiring those things, even if they proceed to use them resourcefully.[/sblock][sblock=How does this method prevent bad design?]
PTRR is about making sure you write stuff that will see use. In My Experience, when the GM puts something before the players, these 4 things are things the GM needs. I did a big diagram a while ago to determine the flow of play in my D&D games; I found after the player-characters are created and the players have accepted the basic premise (we're playing a game, your characters are fantasy heroes, here's a basic context for where you are) the DM's job was to put interactive elements in front of players.
Bad design, whether it's railroading, DMPCs, or boring settings, all have one thing in common: They put inert elements in front of players (a.k.a. they're all a waste of time).
"Here's the prince of Roundheria, he's thinking of invading the peaceful land of Overtheria, but you can't convince him not to."
"Here's the dragon of the west mountain, but he's so powerful he'll kill you all instantly, so listen to his monologue before he flies off to what I've already decided he's doing, OK?"
"You're in a town. There's an inn. No, nothing interesting is happening."
"Elminster talks to you for half an hour, here's his 20-page explanation of why he's not going to help you. No, you can't convince him."
In short: if it comes time for the DM to add some element to the game, and it's not a problem, threat, resource, or reward, it's a waste.[/sblock][sblock=My games are about the characters' emotions, deep down. Can this still work?]Nothing about this method is meant to diminish the emotional content of the game. Players get attached to their favorite NPCs, get worried by the problems they are trying to deal with, and so on. But those things don't happen when they are inert; players care about their favorite NPCs because they have interacted with them (saved them from threats, helped them with problems, used their resources, earned rewards from them, and so on).
But the emotions are the result of play, not the DM's front end design.[/sblock]
Last edited:
)
