Art of Roleplaying - Pacing and Plot

[maddman75]

Ranger_Wickett's thread on art of RP has inspired me to start another discussion. I've been thinking a lot about pacing and such lately, mostly because I'm starting up a new group and want to make sure that I can really grab them. I'm working on a basic plot formula in my head, and hopefully the good members of ENWorld can help flesh it out. My goal is to come up with this basic formula along with some additions to apply variety to help us all make better adventures.

One of my main inspirations is the show Buffy the Vampire Slayer. There a lot of fans of the show around here, and a lot of non-fans as well. If you don't like B horror, and a little comedy with your horror, Buffy is going to leave you cold. But even if the exact flavor doesn't spark it for you, we can at least look at the structure.

Why is this a good structure? Many have said, and I agree, that one reason Buffy is so popular with gamers is that every episode is like watching a really well run RPG session. Of course I'm just using this as an example. These are not exactly new ideas, just well-executed ones.

The first part is the Teaser. This is generally some action, Buffy killing some vampires, a monster attacking some people, or some other immediately interesting event. It not only grabs your attention but also gives you a hint as to what might come next.

After this we have the conflict introduction. We find out what the monster of the week is doing, what characters are involved, and so forth. Generally after that there's some Exposition, where the characters do some research and find out what it is they are dealing with and come up with a way to defeat it. Once that is done, Buffy goes and kicks the crap out of it for our Resolution. Then there's generally some kind of conclusion.

Contrast this to your typical RPG session. IME, things rarely go this smoothly. First, you wait for the table talk to die down and everyone to start playing. Then there's some rough plot hook, and old man approaches with a treasure map or a rich merchant hires the PCs to guard his caravan. The PCs follow this hook not because it's compelling, but because that's the nights' adventure. So they go off and find some bad guys doing bad things but generally don't worry too much about what they are up to exactly. A few dead bodies later they consider the problem solved.

In fact pacing is rarely considered at all! If in adventure 1 the PCs track the orcs back to their lair and get halfway through, for adventure 2 the DM will simply want to pick up right where they left off. With no new conflict, introduction, or hook, this therefore may lack the exitement that a well paced story can bring.

So I'll start the basic formula as follows

- Teaser
- Conflict Introduction
- Exposition/Investigation
- Resolution
- Conclusion

Now you can certainly add to that. Subplots are a good way to do this. But, you're likely to need some help from your players for this. If you can get them to tell you what they'd be interested in, you can throw one of them a bit of their personal story along they way. For instance, maybe the wizard is searching for secrets of a lost empire. In the orc cave, he finds some old scrolls dating to that period that suggest a lost city somewhere in the area. Its not much, but it add something for that player. Just take turns with them, giving at least one of them some small piece every now and again.

Another addition would be meta-plot. Also known as a story arc. Perhaps you want the overall theme to be that a warlord is gathering all the orc tribes together to form a massive army. Maybe in one room instead of orcs they find a pair of humans. They are emissaries from the warlord, sent to bribe the chieftan to join in the Dark Lord's army. As the campaign progresses, they see more and more of this dark lord, eventually confronting him in the campaign equivelent of a 'season finale'.

That is all well and good, but there's one thing standing in the way of your beautifully paced and planned plotline. The players. Unlike a character in a book, movie, or TV show they have a will of their own. They are likely to go in directions you did not forsee, take options you were sure they would turn away from, and generally cause all kinds of problems. This isn't a bad thing - for me it's what makes DMing fun. If I wanted all my characters to behave as I expect them to, I'd be writing novels instead of running games.

So while you have your formula, you have to stay loose with it. Be prepared for the character to stray from the path and don't fight or punish them for it. Don't be afraid to 'cut to commercial' to think about how you want to deal with something for a few minutes. You taking five to gather your thoughts will be much less disruptive than letting the game founder for a half an hour. And just because the exact thing you planned didn't work out well that doesn't mean that you can't do a similar thing. For instance if instead of having a conflict with the Orc Chieftan and his Shaman, the PCs leave the dungeon chasing the fleeing emissaries of the Dark Lord. Just roll with it - have them meet up with a band of the Dark Lord's minions just as they catch up to their quarry. A powerful captain along with a cleric on his dark god. In fact, if you used the stat blocks for the orc chief and shaman I'd bet $10 no one would notice .

So, thoughts, questions, opinions? Is the formula sound? Do you do something like this in your games, or do you think its' a good idea?

 

[Knightcrawler]

I've never really liked the whole episodic idea for gaming sessions. If you plan a specific beginning and end to each session you may finish the session very early or you might have to stop in the middle of an important plot scene because your players took longer than expected to reach the end point.

I have one meta-plot which I treat very much like a play. Each major portion of the meta-plot can be viewed as an act, a campaign within the campaign. Now my plan is to run a campaign lasting many years so each of these "Acts" can last from 6 months to a year in length and could be used almost as separate campaigns. The meta-plot involves the major shaker and mover villian that is gaining power and that the party will not actually face until the end of the campaign.

Now this meta-plot has a specific timeline. X will happen at X time pretty much no matter what the part does. Now many of these events have no direct impact of the party immediately but there is always the butterfly effect. Now this timeline covers a lot of game time, somewhere between 10 and 15 years of game time. Depending when the party hits certain plot points decides how hard these encounters will be.

Next we have the sub-plots. These are plots that have really nothing to do with the meta-plot but can be effected by it. Some of the sub-plots have timelines that move along but the difference is that the party can affect these timelines. Some of the sub-plots don't necessarily have timelines but are instead party activated. If the party does X then Y will happen. But if the party never does X then Y never happens. I usually have 2 to 3 sub-plots running at one time. They don't have to be covered in every gaming session but they usually hold importance for the party for several months of real world time and anywheres from 6 months to 1 year of game time.

Then lastly I have what I call character plot threads. These are minor plots that come from a characters background. Like a character has an old jilted lover, a secret admirer, a childhood enemy, an angry family, etc, etc. These are usually situational plots. If the party goes to X inn/tavern/shop then theres a chance that one of the characters will run into one of their chracter plot threads. These can be short term plots or they could keep popping up throughout the whole game.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

When you put maddman's and Knightcrawler's descriptions together, you've got the X-Files...

Scarry.

 

[maddman75]

I've never really liked the whole episodic idea for gaming sessions. If you plan a specific beginning and end to each session you may finish the session very early or you might have to stop in the middle of an important plot scene because your players took longer than expected to reach the end point.

That's a good point, and something that would need to be prepared for.

If a session is going too long, I can see two options. The first would be to turn it into a cliffhanger. Stop it right in the middle or just before something big happens. Only catch is you'd have to make sure you have enough to play with in the next session.

The other option is to trim a little fat to try and get it done. If you have two small encounters then the main climax, well just cut out the smaller encounters or remove some obstacles.

One reason I'm looking into this is in a few months I'll likely be taking over our marathon sessions again. I need a deeper understanding of pacing to really make such long gaming sessions as fun as they can be.

I have one meta-plot which I treat very much like a play. Each major portion of the meta-plot can be viewed as an act, a campaign within the campaign. Now my plan is to run a campaign lasting many years so each of these "Acts" can last from 6 months to a year in length and could be used almost as separate campaigns. The meta-plot involves the major shaker and mover villian that is gaining power and that the party will not actually face until the end of the campaign.

I've done this before to great effect. Essentially, you set up a larger subset of the intro/conflict/resolution model. The first campaign sets up the world, establishes the characters, and introduces the villians. The second one continues their adventures, brings the villian and the heros into direct confrontation. The third is when the heros finally face and vanquish the villian. Kind of like the Star Wars original trilogy.

 

[Henry]

Shows like Buffy are good for more than just being like a well-run session; they also deal with human universal themes; acceptance; loss; sacrifice; understanding limitations; conceits and jealousies and how to cope, or fail to do so; these are statements of human conditions.

A good RPG Plot can include these elements and be better off for it. What if the villain's tragic flaw is not that we wants to take over the world, but he wants to resurrect his long-dead brother? What if he's going about it in a way that will bring evil spirits to life? What if his brother is really a fantasy version of Adolph Hitler? Now you've gone from having an irredeemable villain to a guy you sympathize for, but you've STILL gotta stop.

Basic plots make basic RPG's. Dynamic plots that speak to human conditions can be appreciated both on a simple level, and on the larger one.

Pacing however, is a beast unto itself. Nothing -- comics, movies, novels -- come close. The closest thing I can say, is Newspaper Strips like Mary Worth or Spider-Man. The action there happens so gradually that an author has time to shift his mind. What he had planned is changed by outside influences on his or her daily life, and it shows in the strips. They may be planned a while in advance, but that daily or weekly deadline means that there are times for change before the final work, and it changes daily.

So do gaming sessions - influenced by the Players on the GM. Did your PC's figure something out early? Change the plot to compensate. Did they mess up and not figure something out until far far to late? figure out what happened, and narrate it. There's really nothing like it, short of old round-robin campfire tales where each member contributes. But the pacing is important to get right.

Know as a GM when to speed things up, and when to give things some more time. Few writers short of Robert Jordan will spend ten pages on a shopping trip, but if your players are all having fun in a shopping spree, slow things down until the grow tired again. Speed things up when they tire of the current events.

 

[mmadsen]

First, you wait for the table talk to die down and everyone to start playing. Then there's some rough plot hook, and old man approaches with a treasure map or a rich merchant hires the PCs to guard his caravan. The PCs follow this hook not because it's compelling, but because that's the nights' adventure.

In a pulp swords & sorcery short story, we'd skip all that. We'd start with some action.

So they go off and find some bad guys doing bad things but generally don't worry too much about what they are up to exactly. A few dead bodies later they consider the problem solved.

That's a problem with enemies who are always just barely killable (i.e. appropriate EL). Why not kill 'em?

In fact pacing is rarely considered at all!

Very true.

 

[Knightcrawler]

Shows like Buffy are good for more than just being like a well-run session; they also deal with human universal themes; acceptance; loss; sacrifice; understanding limitations; conceits and jealousies and how to cope, or fail to do so; these are statements of human conditions..

Which is why Buffy worked so well and also why it is a good guide to what a good campaign should feel like. While I'm not a fan of the episodic approach to running a gaming session I do see it can be usefull, especially for beginning DM's. A campaign should change and grow as it moves along almost like a living thing

So do gaming sessions - influenced by the Players on the GM. Did your PC's figure something out early? Change the plot to compensate. Did they mess up and not figure something out until far far to late? figure out what happened, and narrate it. There's really nothing like it, short of old round-robin campfire tales where each member contributes. But the pacing is important to get right.

Know as a GM when to speed things up, and when to give things some more time. Few writers short of Robert Jordan will spend ten pages on a shopping trip, but if your players are all having fun in a shopping spree, slow things down until the grow tired again. Speed things up when they tire of the current events.

Which is why I like a much more free form system over the episodic approach. I'll set up the framework and the relationships and let the party play off of them. Early on in the campaign there is virtually nothing that the characters do that will change the meta-plot, their just not powerful and influential enough yet. The points of the meta-plot that they might interfere with are sp minor that they cause no change to the meta-plot. As the campaign advances the characters will have more and more affect on the meta-plot as their power and influence increases. But since the main villianess is some one that they won't have contact with until much later in the campaign not much of what they do has any effect on what she is doing.

Think back to the X-Files. There were many episodes that had absolutely nothing to do with the conspiracy, others turned out at a later date to have something to do with the story arc, and finally others were only about the conspiracy story. The further along Scully and Mulder got the more important the consiracy story became and the more effect they had on it. Also the further along the show went the more attention the "bad guys" paid them.

 

[Farland]

What you are saying isn't exactly new. You are basically laying out the typical plot structure for a fiction book, which looks like this:

Incentive
Rising Action (The Problem Develops/ Heroes work on it)
Climax (The big confrontation)
Falling Action (The Plot moves towards resolution)
Resolution

Sure this makes for a good RPG game, because RPG games at their best are interactive stories, and these types of stories (traditional wisdom has it) are the most exciting.

 

[barsoomcore]

The Gamemastering sections of Monte Cook's d20 Call of Cthulhu contain some of the best words ever written on the subject of creating good game sessions. Two ideas that ring very, very true:

"Promise A Story"

"Deliver A Threat"

The first one is important because of what it DOESN'T say -- it doesn't say "Tell A Story". Promise. DM's are not storytellers -- they are story facilitators. It's not your job (or rather, it's not your job alone) to make the game session exciting -- the players have to chip in, too. What the DM has to do is provide the promise of a story -- a notion of a possibility, be it the old man with a bag of gold in a tavern or something a little more sophisticated.

Likewise with "Deliver A Threat" -- I know that I can get pretty caught up in making sure all the monsters are appropriate ELs and everything, without ever thinking of the idea of making the players feel threatened. Any good story carries with it a sense of urgency. Imagine if Beowulf arrived at Heorot and the folks said, "Yeah, there's this monster Grendel who's eaten some folks, but she won't be back for another six years. Could you take care of that sometime for us?"

No.

This is a point where most published modules fall down, because it's so hard for them to integrate into a campaign enough to be able to deliver a threat to the PCs.

If the old man with the bag of gold gets torn apart by shadow mastiffs in the tavern, who then turn on the party as the night outside fills with haunted baying -- THAT'S a threat getting delivered.

Even better are those long-term threats that the party cannot easily rid themselves of -- cults and conspiracies are good for these sorts of things.

But anyway, both those ideas can help DMs manage their plots and pacing -- at least, they've helped me a lot.

 

[Knightcrawler]

The first one is important because of what it DOESN'T say -- it doesn't say "Tell A Story". Promise. DM's are not storytellers -- they are story facilitators. It's not your job (or rather, it's not your job alone) to make the game session exciting -- the players have to chip in, too. What the DM has to do is provide the promise of a story -- a notion of a possibility, be it the old man with a bag of gold in a tavern or something a little more sophisticated.

Yes but a good DM can almost always bring out the best in players and get them involved not matter how mediocre the players are. But if you have a bad DM it doesn't matter if you have the best, most involved players in the world the game is still going to suck. You promise them the story but then the players have to go and find that story and get it moving. And their actions expand the story.

Likewise with "Deliver A Threat" -- I know that I can get pretty caught up in making sure all the monsters are appropriate ELs and everything, without ever thinking of the idea of making the players feel threatened. Any good story carries with it a sense of urgency. Imagine if Beowulf arrived at Heorot and the folks said, "Yeah, there's this monster Grendel who's eaten some folks, but she won't be back for another six years. Could you take care of that sometime for us?"

Exactly! Draw out what is happening too much and the players will get bored. Thats one of the reasons that I use timelines and many sub-plots. If the session is going slow I can bring one of the sub-plots into the foreground to fill the gap in the meta-plot but I still know what is going to happen in the meta-plot. And in rare circumstances I can compact the timeline to speed up the action.