Overarching Plots Vs. Self-Contained Plots

[Umbran]

AAnd so they did. In an interview one said they will keep writing story lines as they keep coming up with ideas. There is no real cohesive stortyline holding it together and moving to an inevitable conclusion.

Funny, earlier this season TV Guide quoted them as quite the opposite - that they were in talks to figure out exactly when the series would end, so they could wrap up their ideas.

The internet is full of misinformation. Trust noone. Keep your laser handy. Rumors are treason....

 

[Firedancer]

Funny, earlier this season TV Guide quoted them as quite the opposite - that they were in talks to figure out exactly when the series would end, so they could wrap up their ideas.

The internet is full of misinformation. Trust noone. Keep your laser handy. Rumors are treason....

My snippet was heard during a live interview, at the end of season 1, before shooting season 2. So, where are the writers now - penned 3 and 4? Can see how their comments will have changed.

Erm, thread jack, back to rp.... ...how is paranoia these days Umbran, you sound a fan...damn, need to edit that post, poor poor English.

Merkuri, yeah, he had penned 5, got told to chop to 4, then asked again to make it 5 but didn't. Wanted to continue it in the rangers series, but that got delayed and momentum lost

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

And I heard in a recent interview that Lost was always planned for five seasons...apparently the creators are as lost as the characters.

 

[sniffles]

Overarching plots are a nice way to give cohesion to the party, but as others have pointed out they do have their drawbacks.

I think Merkuri's example of the A and B plots is a good one to use. The B plot can be developed further and eventually become the A plot at some points in the story if the players show interest in it, or it can be left by the wayside if they don't.

To use another tv series as an example, on Star Trek: The Next Generation in the first season they introduced a plot about some unknown aliens infiltrating Starfleet Command. But after they destroyed some of the aliens who were masquerading as important Starfleet officials, that entire plotline was dropped and the series never went back to it. No one ever went on to investigate where those aliens came from, or if more of them had infiltrated other parts of Starfleet.

It's okay if you introduce a plot involving the Dreaming Dark and the players decide not to pursue it. As long as everybody's having fun, it doesn't matter if the party doesn't follow through on your B plot.

 

[00Machado]

Somewhere along the line of my visiting here and playing D&D in general I had the notion ingrained into my head that overarching plots are better.

I don't think they inately are. And even if they are, the length of your arcs needs to serve not just as theory, but fit into the reality of how much time you have to play, how long your group will stick together, and how quickly everyone wants to finish and move on to other campaigns, parts of the world, game systems, etc.

Looking at Age of Worms or Shackled City, both have an overarching plot, and both are popular and considered well-crafted.

I also see "time consuming" and "long" when I see them, in additon to interesting and potentially fun. For my play schedule, I think the three adventure arcs work better. Also, my players don't always like doing the same thing for twenty levels, fighting for that long for instance might seem like dragging out the victory/story arc.

A lot of times when people discuss D&D on here, they mention the main villian or arch-nemesis. My games don't have that.

If everyone is having fun, you're all doing it right. If you want to try for more fun, ask everyone at your table for ideas, and the ones people collectively get excited about, try those.

I would compare it to a movie versus some television shows. A movie you start, the protagonists and villians are established, and the entire plot revolves around them and their conflicts, direct or indirect. Then there are shows like Star Trek or Firefly where every week the protagonists find themselves up against a wacky new threat, or explore a new world, or whatever. If there happens to be an overarching plotline it's in the background filling a secondary role.

Trek has recurring arcs as well, they just go away for several episodes and then return. An excellent article that might be an optimal middle ground for your episodic GM style, and your goal of longer story arcs, is Running Emmy Winning Games from Dragon 293. I recommend you take a look. I've found it god inspiration for structuring my games. Also, Aaron Allston wrote some GM theory stuff about pacing a long running campaign - summarized, it's basically intersperse short arcs in between longer arcs. You can find it in Aaron Allston's Strike Force, which is well worth picking up a used copy of.

So I racked my brain for an evening trying to come up with a superior, overarching plot and I finally did. It involved fighting The Dreaming Dark, and I had a timeline figured out, and they would eventually make their way to Sarlona; I was satisfied with myself. And yet, a day later, after I had it all established... I realized I didn't like it. I realized I don't enjoy overarching plots in general, or at least not as much as the fresh new adventures every week. This confused me, because while I don't like them as much, they are considered the superior method... aren't they? After all, it requires more foresight and more planning to make a plotline that follows from level 1 to 20 than it does to just throw a new encounter every week.

I call games that are fun for all involved the superior method. There is no other measure or other opinion that is worth consideration. Also, even if you like reading long plots like movies and novels, game play is a different entertainment form. You might prefer the game to feel like a collection of REH Conan short stories, and your movies to feel like the Star Wars trilogy (which arguably could be expressed as three normal length adventures instead of levels and levels of play - but I digress), and your books to feel like The Wheel of Time. Go with what works, and I'd even add, the most streamlined version of what works for your group.

How do you run your campaign, or how is the campaign you play in run? Is there an obviously superior method and if so, why? I have this perception - perhaps incorrect - that 95% of the people playing D&D generally have an overall plotline weaving its way through the campaign. Is that the better, more difficult way?

I will start with some general ideas of what I want to do in the early part of the campaign. Develop new ideas when that list gets kind of small because we've done a lot of it already. I'll recycle enemies (especially villain organizations) and expand on plots (call them sequels if you will) that the PCs seem to have liked. If there's something that was so fun we're all chomping at the bit for a sequel I'll start working on it as soon as inspiration strikes, even if I don't "need" more material, and then plan to insert it wherever it fits. I'll also plan material that helps develop the expressed interests of any of the players for their characters, and/or the group as a whole. Somewhere in there, a mix of single not arcs, multi-night arcs, recurring storylines, and sequels to previous sessions and/or arcs will happen. I've learned my lesson about trying to plan it all out at once though. Namely, don't try it. I've also learned that excellent fun is to be had by building on the experiences that happen around the table, and planning everything out at the beginning makes me want to use it all which makes me reluctant to discard it in favor of the new idea (even if it's better). If I end up discarding it, I wasted all that earlier prep. If I put it on the shelf "for later" I'm likely to never get to it, or be less inspired becuase I have new interests and ideas by the time I get to it. In my opinion, best to get to the good ideas while they're fresh, and leave room for them by not cluttering up the future game with too many (though I do recommend some as opposed to none at all) plans.

 

[00Machado]

Here's my take on the subject: Don't start with an overarching plot, but create one over the course of the campaign.

I mainly like the idea of an overarching plot for the flavor aspect, i.e. the sense of accomplishment it gives players as they work it out and achieve various things along the way, the way it ties the entire campaign together, the little "OMG! Now I see!" moments, etc. But I abhor some of the mechanical aspects it pushes one towards, esp. the certain degree of railroading it implies, the problems inherent in it if PCs decide to take off on a different tack or if the original PCs are replaced by new ones, etc.

So my particular solution, which I used in a 2 year campaign and am doing so right now in another one just into its 3rd year, is to start a campaign with no overarching plotline at all, but rather to let one emerge from the choices of the players/PCs. After the first session of the campaign, I threw out a dozen different plot options at the PCs and just let them follow the one they wanted. And from those choices arose other choices, and I also threw in a few more every dozen sessions or so. And while this is going on, I weave backwards and forwards to create the overarching plot. All you have to do is insert things into the game that can have various meanings, and only pick the specific meaning when you have to, and make that meaning the one most relevant to the PCs' backgrounds, choices and probable future.

So, for example, right from the start of the current campaign, I had someone powerful manipulating the PCs. When we started, I really had no idea who the individual or its agenda was, knowing only that it had access to significant wealth and magical resources, and that it was most likely tied into the background of the paladin and the wizard in the group. As time went on and the PCs made various choices, the BBEG in the background gradually got narrowed down into someone who was in Sharn (it's an Eberron game) and able to assume various disguises, someone who was at least decades and maybe centuries old, someone who had lairs in other nations, and eventually, someone who was really interested in items that could break binding magic. And so, the BBEG eventually emerged as a powerful rakshasa spellcaster. And the PCs eventually ended up with a climactic encounter with him which tied together the first 45 sessions of the campaign and the first 1.5 years of the campaign.

None of that was set in stone at the beginning of the campaign, and (as I just indicated) in many cases didn't even exist at all. but now if you go back over the details and the interconnections, they are absolutely ironclad. So I got an overarching plot without actually having started with one, and effectively got all the benefits of one without any of the negatives. All it takes is patience, flexibility and a careful eye for threads that one can weave together, with the understanding that one is weaving backwards as much as forward.

Hope that helps.

Kudos to you. This seems like a great way to handle the prep and planning side of keeping a long term campaign going and fun as well.

 

[Herobizkit]

I apologize if this is repeated, but I always run a homebrew campaign like a TV serial: one (or two) overarching plot, and Stuff That Happens in between. Sometimes the show's about the main plot; sometimes it's a one-, two-, or even three-off. Sometimes a particular PC's plotline is the focus. Sometime "the team" is the focal point.

Not everyone has the ability to make a grand sweeping LotR epic, and personally, I'm glad. If I wanted an epic, I'd read a novel instead of play D&D. It's good when the DM has a story to tell, as long as the PCs have an active role in it, or stems off as a result of the PC's ignoring it.

 

[Gundark]

L&O on the other hand is a series of standalone plots featuring the same cast of characters (the PCs in D&D's case), and very very rarely is there a "sequel" episode that relates to a previous episode.

Probably this is why I'm hooked on 24 and can't stand the various CSI's

 

[Metus]

Thanks for all the comments and insights thus far.

An excellent article that might be an optimal middle ground for your episodic GM style, and your goal of longer story arcs, is Running Emmy Winning Games from Dragon 293. I recommend you take a look.

I'm glad you brought that to my attention; I'll check it out.