Just out of curiosity, what happens if the adventurers don't bite in Acts 4 or 5? What if they ignore the ambushed caravan, or don't pursue the False Goal?
Do you think the nine act structure is beneficial for a rpg, or could one just take the key elements - major setback, big reveal, dramatic conclusion, denouement - and discard the rest?
My own games could probably benefit from more big reveals. Like the drow being Behind It All in G3. I didn't have a denouement for my last campaign, I just ended it after the final battle against Evil, which was probably a mistake.
If you want to run "reveal" based adventures, you need to either (1) get an out-of-game agreement with your PCs to follow a particular adventure . . .
This is why I place my emphasis on making an interesting world filled with complex people, and let the consequences of the players' in-character decisions move the game forward, rather than trying to create a plot or an adventure.. . . or (2) seed your world with a number of reveals and emphasize the mystery/reveal your players choose to pursue. If you're using a path (2) approach, you'll also want to be prepared for the possibility that your PCs pick from a number of possible "true objectives".
That bears repeating.Movies obviously aren't RPGs.
Roleplaying games offer something distinct from literature and cinema, in my opinion, and to keep trying to shoehorn one into the other is to miss out on what makes roleplaying games great.Movies obviously aren't RPGs.
I'm good with that, but that's not at all how it was presented.But the broad idea - seed your campaign word with situations that "aren't what they seem" in which the big secret is most likely revealed under dangerous circumstances - well, that looks like good advice to me...