Overarching Plots Vs. Self-Contained Plots

[bento]

Metus, I agree with you about how episodic shows parcel out little bits of story info and string you along. After a while you look back over several months and decide nothing of importance has happened.

But in gaming or writing terms, maybe these stories do fill an important role - they help the viewer/participant learn more about the character. Who are they? What do they bring to the story? What are their motivations? Fears? Desires?

In gaming sense, you probably need a balance between different kinds of stories / adventures. You'll have those that move the overall plot along, and others where we learn more about the characters.

I like watching Avatar: the Last Airbender for this reason. Much of the season is spent in single story adventures, with the major plots only being glimpst at when we cut away to supporting characters. Then the last few shows of each season brings these plots to a head, where heroes deal with them head on and are propelled into a new direction.

I think in my next game I'm going to strive for this. Have a couple of major plots going on and the characters "seeing" them from time to time. But have the emphasis on the characters and what decisions they make. They will be the blind men and the elephant. Eventually they will get to an important juncture where they have an opportunity to reflect on past events and make some decisions that will point them in several new directions.

 

[Wraith Form]

I think it also depends on the players. I mean an overaching plot only matters if the characters are there to begin and end it. It's also a delayed gratification thing... hold off now for a greater reward later. Unfortunately, overarching plots need to be good. You could be stuck in a campaign for a year only for it to resolve without much satisfaction. At least with self-contained plots, if it sucks now, there's always the next session.

Quoted for Absolute Trooth. All of it, start to finish.

 

[Asmor]

May be better to think of it as a TV show than a movie, actually... The sort of show which has become much more prevalent in the last decade or so.

Stargate SG-1. Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Heroes. Lost. Each episode is a self-contained story, but there's also an over-arching plot. In most cases, each season has its own plot.

It's nice because it takes a lot of the effort off of you. Instead of each adventure being laser focused on this one goal, it gives you a lot more versatility. There's basically three kinds of episodes in those shows (or, at least, in Stargate, the one I'm most familiar with).

There's the plot-heavy stories. These directly deal with the plot and move it forward a lot. Most common at the beginning of the season and the end, with a couple peppered throughout.

There's the tangentially-related stories. These usually don't affect the plot in such a significant way. These can be broken up into two different kinds. Character-centric stories focus on one character and develop him. Then there's the ones that send the characters after some McGuffin that's supposed to help them defeat the new big bad. Generally it's just a generic adventure that pays the plot lip service.

Finally, there's the fun stories. Every season of Stargate has at least one "funny" episode that usually has nothing to do with the plot. If over done, it would get old fast, but these serve to break up things and inject some light-hearted fun. Should be used like a fine spice, rarely because a little bit goes a long way.

 

[Wraith Form]

McGuffin

Yum, I love McGuffins! Especially blueberry ones.

...


....err...

 

[Firedancer]

Shilsen clarified it when he said that it implies a certain amount of railroading, and railroading is complete anathema to me.

That would be a badly written overarching plot. The overarching plot, the plots and plans of npcs and organisations are there to give you a framework, terms of reference to adjust and make the adventure live and breath. The plot is the goal of the npc you are concentrating on. To leave it stagnant and unalterable is foolish.

You do not force the PC's into any fixed path, instead you tweak and twist as the Pc's interact with the characters/plots they've came across. It all shifts on their actions (or inaction in some instances). And it makes DMing more fun as you are also still involved with constant development.

That's how I work mine, but I avoid retro fitting happenings to past events. The PCs will blindside you at some point and its best to know what the npc they've captured can actually tell them, or that bard should have aced his sense motive on that lying merchant who got them into so much bother.

You will still have to think on your feet as suddenly a nondescript guard could be thrust into the limelight, or some other event players create will need dealing with.

 

[shilsen]

That would be a badly written overarching plot. The overarching plot, the plots and plans of npcs and organisations are there to give you a framework, terms of reference to adjust and make the adventure live and breath. The plot is the goal of the npc you are concentrating on. To leave it stagnant and unalterable is foolish.

You do not force the PC's into any fixed path, instead you tweak and twist as the Pc's interact with the characters/plots they've came across. It all shifts on their actions (or inaction in some instances). And it makes DMing more fun as you are also still involved with constant development.

Agreed, but any form of a pre-existing overarching plot is at least somewhat dependent on PC interaction with it. Even inaction, as you note, can matter, but PCs completely dropping the plot and going off in a different direction is usually a problem in such cases.

 

[Firedancer]

Even inaction, as you note, can matter, but PCs completely dropping the plot and going off in a different direction is usually a problem in such cases.

Sounds like something you experienced in the past (who hasn't); a solution: create multiple threads/hooks. Exactly as you mentioned earlier in the post. If a PC is well designed (as in has a distinct personality) it should be easy for the DM to place in a hook or 2 for a particular character.

Yes, showing no interest in what you have as the overarching plot is problematic, so's going on a tangent you've not planned for. Resolution of subplots can tide you over whilst you consider a new plot, or drop overarching completely; its not a reason to abandon the characters, so you can go back to self contained episodes.

And now the DM is dependent on his players; they need to have put adequate energy into creation of the PC. This is aided with some level of involvement from the players in the stage setting; what are they likely to play given the adventure starting point, etc.

You can see from the adventure paths and Enworld's own campaign saga the value of this with player's guides: an attempt to have PC's that are involved and motivated from day one.

 

[Firedancer]

Lost is the extreme of this in my opinion, as I've watched it from the start.

Actually, Lost is a terrible example. It does not have an overarching plot with a definitive goal. After season 1 rocketed, the writers, who originally had the whole thing finished in season 2, were given bucket loads of money to write more.

And so they did. In an interview one said they will keep writing storylines as they keep coming up with ideas. There is no real cohesive storyline holding it together and moving to an inevitable conclusion. They are doing a good job of making you think there is a definitive plot. It's a better example of several self contained storylines moving forward through the unknown, interspersed with a whole lot of flashbacks. The flashbacks will cause loads of continuity issues, and sooner or later Jack or someone else will do something totally out of character, because its needed.

Sorry for the rant

Babylon 5 is the best example of a series (in my mind leastwise) where the writer had some fixed and to build towards. Before the first series was shot J Michael had the whole plot done.

 

[charlesatan]

Babylon 5 is the best example of a series (in my mind leastwise) where the writer had some fixed and to build towards. Before the first series was shot J Michael had the whole plot done.

What's great about Babylon 5 is that they had "trap doors" -- situations wherein if the actor had to leave the show for some reason or another, they could easily be written out of the story and replaced with "minimal negative impact to the story" (quoting Wikipedia).

Just in case, you know, some players back out, or if their characters actually die...

 

[Merkuri]

Babylon 5 is the best example of a series (in my mind leastwise) where the writer had some fixed and to build towards. Before the first series was shot J Michael had the whole plot done.

I heard that he originally had planned for the main story to arc five seasons, but when the show wasn't doing so well in the first couple seasons they asked him to drop it down to four. He complained, they insisted, and he cut it down to four. Then the next season interest skyrocketed and they told him to make it five again. Of course, at this time everything was in motion and past the point of no return. It was too late to truly put it back to five without artificially slowing down the plot somehow, so the main plot ended up wrapping at the end of season four and season five was sort of an "aftermath" season.

I still haven't seen every episode in season five, and don't really feel a desire to go out and watch it, but I watched the first four seasons like a crack addict. A friend had them on tape and I watched them all in a row like an obscenely long movie over summer break one year at college. I'd bring him back a set of five tapes (something like 20 episodes) and ask for more after just three days.