Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CharlesRyan" data-source="post: 4716016" data-attributes="member: 5265">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.</blockquote>