Act structure in adventure design

[CharlesRyan]

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.

 

[arscott]

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.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

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

 

[CharlesRyan]

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.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

 

[Janx]

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.

 

[Ariosto]

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.

 

[CharlesRyan]

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.)

 

[Ariosto]

There's plenty of evidence that story has been an element of D&D play since the very beginning.

Not knowing what you mean by "story," I cannot judge whether it is really something excluded from "sandbox play."

Some of that evidence might clarify. I don't recall anything incompatible with the mode in the three "little brown books," but maybe I missed it.

 

[Janx]

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.