Act structure in adventure design

[Kask]

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....

No thanks. I've been DMing since '76. I'm aware of the different GMing styles approaches. I don't really like this approach as it encourages railroading. That was my only point, not whether anyone else should do it.

 

[Janx]

so Kask seems to disagree with my prior post and blog on "how not to railroad" as the "approach tends to led to railroading"?

the last half of this thread has nothing to do with 3 act structure.

It has morphed to "why Janx thinks sandbox don't exist" and "story is good" to "points on how to make sure any of these ideas don't become a railroad"

Whereas Kask's contribution seems to sum up as:
everything you're saying leads to railroading, even the points on avoiding railroading

Instead of a synopsis of "being concerned about railroading" for the 1st half of the thread, wouldn't talking about how to use these ideas and avoid rail-roading at the same time be more productive?

How is your DMing style different than the 3 act structure?

Here's the 3 act for EVERY adventure anybody has ever played:
Act 1: learn about problem/ decide on a task (invent a problem)
Act 2: goto problem location and work on problem
Act 3: confront the big part of problem, and see final outcome

That maps to a dungeon crawl, political takeover, murder mystery. It works whether the GM drafts a 50 page script with dialogue, or if the GM makes it up in a sandbox game he runs impromptu style with no notes.

I'm being silly there, but the point is everything is a variant of the above. Which is what writing is about, and story-telling is about, and what gming is about. Each writer takes that outline, and tries to add a twist or extra plot to make it more complex. That's it.

 

[Kask]

It has morphed to "why Janx thinks sandbox don't exist"

I don't remember that post. I'll reread the thread.

 

[Kask]

It has morphed to "why Janx thinks sandbox don't exist" and "story is good" to "points on how to make sure any of these ideas don't become a railroad

I reread the thread. YOU said that sandboxing didn't exist. I don't know why you think the the thread morphed into that.

Anyway, I respect that is what your experience leads you to believe. My experience is different. I don't know if it is because of the amount of GMing I've done vs. you or, if you just don't agree with the concept.

Anyway, peace.

 

[Ariosto]

What's the link to Janx's blog?

I don't see how the Greyhawk Construction Co.'s including teleporters in remodeling is counter to "sandbox play." Such things are part of the Underworld (an environment for players to explore, not a plot line) as described in Vol. 3. of D&D.

I suspect some terms are being redefined by some folks, which may in turn contribute to misunderstanding on my part. I don't see how it is not a "railroad" when one imposes an act/scene structure. I may occasionally want to play in a scenario like that, and I've created and run some successful ones. If the goal really is to avoid the one while accomplishing the other, then I look forward to seeing what people come up with!

 

[Imaro]

...
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, but 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.

I'm confused here, when did sandbox games equate to a DM not creating every object and entity in the game. I always understood sandbox to mean those things were not created or changed on the basis of the character's current state in the game thus achieving objectivity in relationship to the characters (which is what matters) and not some extremist or platonic idea of objectivity.

So basically your defining a sandbox a certain way and then claiming it doesn't exist. what if you just aren't defining it correctly?

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.

Trying to "create" a story can definitely lead to the bad type of railroading, depending on how far you go with it. So I gotta disagree with this as general advice without some caveats.

 

[Ariosto]

One potential difficulty with a dramatically structured scenario is that one cannot guarantee certain player responses. I have run into that but rarely, because one can weigh the odds heavily with a scenario tailored to specific players and characters -- the longer the relationships among them, the better!

Having character descriptions "take over" from (rather than inform) free player choice is not only heavy handed, but undermines the immediate involvement that seems to me the reason to present a story as "interactive" fiction. It may seem obvious to the GM that Character X would react in a certain way, while the player has a different (but no less coherent) image of X.

 

[I'm A Banana]

And, if the players don't follow the "script"? Railroading?

There is no script.

Let's say that I'm starting up a new campaign, and I've played maybe one or two sessions -- enough so that the party feels like they've shared some experiences.

I know that eventually, I want them to fight Orcus.

So if I'm using this act structure to guide me, I know I want Orcus to be the big climax in Act III. It's the focal point of the campaign for me. I want it to be an AWESOME battle.

I know that I can make it more awesome by not having him pop out of nowhere...by making sure the PC's know and are affected by him even now.

The Act Structure tells me that I should introduce the main conflict early on in Act I. Since we've just started, we're somewhere in Act I. So, I throw in a cult of Orcus that they can break up. Succeed or fail, they know that Orcus is a force in the world.

And in Act II, maybe I throw in another cult of Orcus that they don't break up so well. I show them that Orcus has a secret weapon that is totally messing stuff up! Maybe I have them fight another cult of orcus, but make the "BBEG" in the dungeon a wildly level-inappropriate monster who, if the PC's don't run away from, will MESS THEM UP. If the somehow succeed, maybe this is just one of many of these mighty beasts. If they run away, they know that Orcus has these monsters at his beck and call!

And then perhaps they discover a way to bring Orcus out of hiding in the Abyss, so that they can kill him and end his evil forever, by finding a way around his secret weapon! Maybe they gain levels putting down cultists all over the world, trying to stop them from building these monsters, and then, as Orcus's army is finally amassed, a special blessing from a priest they saved forces them to fight in daylight -- the narrative weakness of these beasts! Now the PC's can fight them like tough normal monsters rather than impossible mega-beasts! If they fail, then perhaps the survivors try again later (or perhaps it was just a decoy, or whatever). If they succeed, yay, they've solved the Orcus Problem.

That's all act structure really is.

Step 1: Show the trouble.
Step 2: Complicate the trouble. ("A Twist!")
Step 3: Resolve the trouble.

That's just advice for a DM to follow. Nowhere does it mandate any actions from the PC's at all. All of these things are in a DM's purview to draw on (the resolution doesn't HAVE to be a good one for the party -- the complication doesn't HAVE to be a failure, either). The PC's react however they want.

There's no railroad here. There's no script. It just helps the DM answer the central DM question of "What will they fight next?" in a way that is very narratively satisfying.

And it's flexible enough to accommodate all sorts of changes. If the PC's at level 1 decide they're more interested in exploring the Northlands than fighting Orcus, you can still use your magick DM wand to keep your cool battle with Orcus in the picture by making his cult a cult of Northlands barbarians or something.

It's not a railroad. Honest.

 

[Ariosto]

Kamikaze Midget's scheme looks quite different from what was proposed at the start of this thread (a context to take into account when considering the responses it has elicited).

Parts 1 and 2 are in broad terms not incompatible with "sandbox play." The distinguishing feature of the latter is that outcomes can change radically if players intervene. That puts part 3 out of the realm of scripting.

 

[LostSoul]

I always understood sandbox to mean those things were not created or changed on the basis of the character's current state in the game thus achieving objectivity in relationship to the characters (which is what matters) and not some extremist or platonic idea of objectivity.

I think what Janx is saying that the pure form of sandbox play doesn't exist, and can't - not without a truly impartial ref, like a computer. The DM is always going to have an agenda.

Me, I think that's a good thing. I think the DM's agenda is part of what makes any play fun.