Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 4719576" data-attributes="member: 8835">and to sort of get it all back on track, the real point of the article is that you can use some story-writing technique to organize the events that happen in the game to make for a memorable adventure.put another way, is it enjoyable to go to a dungeon, go room from room disarming traps and killing monsters, with each encounter having no bearing on the last?It can certainly be a challenge.  And each fight could be fun.  However, try listening to a recounting of the tale.  It's tedious and makes no sense.  If the retelling of it isn't interesting, how good was it really?Now wrap a story around all of that.  Same encounters.  But now you've got something.  It's going someplace.  Is there anybody who TRULY just wants to kill monsters?  You'd be able to prove this in that they don't even care to sit in the room during the non-combat encounters.  I think most folks enjoy a story, it's a matter of presentation, and emphasis on the elements they like (I want more stabby, less politics).Given that most of the published adventures seem to follow the 3 act model (as other folks have pointed out), writing a story is pretty much ingrained.My real beef against sandbox/simulation is that taken literally, by a poor group, the PCs either stand around and nothing happens, or they whine that everything they do has consequences.   In a good sandbox, with good players, them GM is sub-conciously applying story-telling techniques and good judgement to what the players do, and the players aren't fighting it, because they are participating.  At that point, we're actually talking the same thing, and I'd just as soon drop the sandbox term as it's an illusion.The result is, a story IS the consquences and reactions.  A group of players that fight this, is a group of players who aren't ready for an RPG.I'd like to get off the sandbox, er soapbox.  What'd be useful to see is how to implement KM's checklist, or timeline of where the party is in the story arc.  And how to write/plan a story arc that isn't a railroad, and allows for a lot of adaptability.For writing such a story arc, I'd recommend the following ideas:create an initial problem, that the PCs are likely to want to solvemake it obvious and relevant what the consequences will be if the party doesn't undertake it (the village will be destroyed, as will be your base of operations)Allow for the possibility that the party will quit the quest, at any stageAllow for the possibility that the party will fail the quest, at any stageUntil you get to some specific encounter, there's a lot of predictability on what a party will do, you're not going to have to plan on a specific action, so much as a generic type of action.  With any given problem, a party will likely try one or more of the following:fight their way outtrick their way out (some spell or item, or sneakiness)talk their way out (diplomacy, etc)investigate their way out (sneak, find evidence and use it)run away (stop trying anything else)wait for the other side to act first (react in kind usually)You can usually set the scene such that some choices are more likely.  Confronting the party with a group of armed orcs with weapons drawn will most likely get the fight response.  Orcs with weapons sheathed, at medium distance, with one orc calling out to the party opens up the talk option.  Orcs seen nearby, but not seeing the party opens up the trick option.  And in all cases run away and wait are still viable.This is why as a DM you CAN plan on what the party will do next.  Because while it is possible the party could do anything, many options are not probable.  I've got a DM who's a long-time good friend with a long-time campaign (running since 1992).  He can predict what we'll do as a party and only write that much material, and we hit each mark like clock hands strike the hour.  Where we surpsise him is how we solve specific encounters (using items he's forgotten about, or new tactics).  But that doesn't break his outline.  After the adventure, we've even talked about how there was "no way he could have known for sure we were going to pursue X, and then goto Y."  Which proves the point.  The only party that isn't predictable is the party that is deliberately trying to be random.  And those folks are simply being contrary for the point of being contrary</blockquote>

Verification