Campaign Styles : Plot-driven versus Character-driven
- Thread starter SolitonMan
- Start date
Drammattex
First Post
Same.
Plot-driven: Steve's Gamer Blog: When Awesome Happens
Character-driven: Steve's Gamer Blog: Musings on "Yes," Musings on Leveling
And within a few sessions of each other. When writing adventures, I always try to throw one or two characters a bone, then alternate who gets the spotlight. The goal is for the game to run kind of like a TV show like Battlestar Galactica (i.e. from week to week, certain characters get episodes that highlight their story while contributing to and moving the overall story forward). It's easiest for me if the players show or tell me what they want. Then I simply create an adventure around that.
howandwhy99
Adventurer
A "Plot-driven adventure" is a misunderstanding of role playing in which DMs try and script players' actions before they take them. What it can also refer to is single objective role playing exercises. In these cases, a sole objective needs to be achieved to finish the game. It can either be chosen by the GM or the whole group, but must it be done before play can begin. The GM or Referee then makes preparations based upon that particular objective. For example, the objective may be to bake a cake, to cross a lake, or, in simulated fictional role playing worlds, to save a princess from a dragon.
Just as with any role playing the role players can either be assigned or choose for themselves the roles they will play. The activity is made into a formal game by laying out specific rewards for accomplishing certain defining elements of their role (or roles if multiple roles are supported by the game design). However, these other rewarded objectives are separate from the purpose of play in a single objective game. Inevitably, the purpose of the game is to achieve the agreed upon objective.
Multiple ways to play this kind of game exist. In D&D some DMs' run a series of separate games with some relation between them. The different boards you can complete within a computer game are a good illustration of this kind of play. Each board level is generally confined to itself, but appears to be a consequence of finishing the previous level.
A "Character-driven adventure" is also poorly understood phrase that covers multiple different kinds of role playing and at least one kind of non-role playing objective. The non-role playing understanding (or misunderstanding really) is that the player behaves, and play progresses, based upon what the "character" would do. Asking the question, "what would my character do?" can help to understand how to act out a character, but it won't help one role play.
The two meanings of this phrase that do qualify as role playing objectives are:
1. Situational-based role playing exercises where the players role play to the best of their abilities to fulfill their individual roles within a particular situation. No objectives other than performing the roles are judged, but accomplishing goals defining of the role(s) do qualify. Play continues until the situation is judged as over by the GM.
2. Situational-based role playing as in number 1, but with the initial situation continuing to the next based upon the consequences of the players' actions. In this way, play evolves based upon previous performance. No endpoint to play is required here as the objective of the game is being fulfilled by rewarding role playing. As in many traditional card games, like Spades for one, scoring can continue beyond the point of when a specific number is reached. Most role playing in this manner (called campaign play in D&D) goes on until players choose to stop playing.
Note: Neither of these two or the "Plot-driven adventure" single objective should be confused with the reward of experiencing what it means to be in the role in and of itself.
Because all role playing has objectives these other kinds of role playing setups are not necessarily incompatible with single objective role playing. Players may be involved in a one time role playing exercise (or a "one shot") where the objective is laid bare, all the while playing the "character-driven" game where they can achieve the alternate objective of masterfully performing their role. However, too much of avoiding an agreed upon objective can disrupt a group just as in any social endeavor.
Here is an example, a one shot may be about baking a cake, but the role playing objectives may also be rewarded. For instance, the quality of the cake baked, how sanitary the bakers were in making it, the time it took to complete the entire process, their frugality with using ingredients, or the wear and tear on baking utensils. The other objectives rate the players' ability to be in the role of cake baker, but the game ends with the eventual baking of a cake (or when the GM calls off the exercise due to failure).
Most games reward role playing well with abstract points, either to the entire group or team or to individual members for independent accomplishments. As each GM, Referee, or Judge rewards differently based upon his or her own experience, knowledge, and judgment of the players' performances of the role, rewards (also known as Accomplishment Points or Experience Points) are valued differently from GM to GM (not necessarily group to group). In competition judges often work together to best ensure accurate appraisal of the role players' performances. Formal rules are used like reward points for killing a specific monster in D&D, but assessments can also increase accuracy by including multiple judges for each role playing exercise. Judges' assessments might be totaled, averaged, or be a consensus agreement.
These benchmarks of achievement to be rewarded are also predetermined by the GM before the game begins, but can be determined by the entire group as well. D&D has always used abstract experience points which tie into increased chances of avoiding or surpassing non-role played elements within its' game. Specifically, the parts where players roll dice rather than role play the situation. 4th Edition uses a Quest system in order to reward players for setting their own goals. Either way role playing is rewarded, the degree of the reward for these benchmarks is still set by the DM based upon their knowledge of the actual roles.
Just as with any role playing the role players can either be assigned or choose for themselves the roles they will play. The activity is made into a formal game by laying out specific rewards for accomplishing certain defining elements of their role (or roles if multiple roles are supported by the game design). However, these other rewarded objectives are separate from the purpose of play in a single objective game. Inevitably, the purpose of the game is to achieve the agreed upon objective.
Multiple ways to play this kind of game exist. In D&D some DMs' run a series of separate games with some relation between them. The different boards you can complete within a computer game are a good illustration of this kind of play. Each board level is generally confined to itself, but appears to be a consequence of finishing the previous level.
A "Character-driven adventure" is also poorly understood phrase that covers multiple different kinds of role playing and at least one kind of non-role playing objective. The non-role playing understanding (or misunderstanding really) is that the player behaves, and play progresses, based upon what the "character" would do. Asking the question, "what would my character do?" can help to understand how to act out a character, but it won't help one role play.
The two meanings of this phrase that do qualify as role playing objectives are:
1. Situational-based role playing exercises where the players role play to the best of their abilities to fulfill their individual roles within a particular situation. No objectives other than performing the roles are judged, but accomplishing goals defining of the role(s) do qualify. Play continues until the situation is judged as over by the GM.
2. Situational-based role playing as in number 1, but with the initial situation continuing to the next based upon the consequences of the players' actions. In this way, play evolves based upon previous performance. No endpoint to play is required here as the objective of the game is being fulfilled by rewarding role playing. As in many traditional card games, like Spades for one, scoring can continue beyond the point of when a specific number is reached. Most role playing in this manner (called campaign play in D&D) goes on until players choose to stop playing.
Note: Neither of these two or the "Plot-driven adventure" single objective should be confused with the reward of experiencing what it means to be in the role in and of itself.
Because all role playing has objectives these other kinds of role playing setups are not necessarily incompatible with single objective role playing. Players may be involved in a one time role playing exercise (or a "one shot") where the objective is laid bare, all the while playing the "character-driven" game where they can achieve the alternate objective of masterfully performing their role. However, too much of avoiding an agreed upon objective can disrupt a group just as in any social endeavor.
Here is an example, a one shot may be about baking a cake, but the role playing objectives may also be rewarded. For instance, the quality of the cake baked, how sanitary the bakers were in making it, the time it took to complete the entire process, their frugality with using ingredients, or the wear and tear on baking utensils. The other objectives rate the players' ability to be in the role of cake baker, but the game ends with the eventual baking of a cake (or when the GM calls off the exercise due to failure).
Most games reward role playing well with abstract points, either to the entire group or team or to individual members for independent accomplishments. As each GM, Referee, or Judge rewards differently based upon his or her own experience, knowledge, and judgment of the players' performances of the role, rewards (also known as Accomplishment Points or Experience Points) are valued differently from GM to GM (not necessarily group to group). In competition judges often work together to best ensure accurate appraisal of the role players' performances. Formal rules are used like reward points for killing a specific monster in D&D, but assessments can also increase accuracy by including multiple judges for each role playing exercise. Judges' assessments might be totaled, averaged, or be a consensus agreement.
These benchmarks of achievement to be rewarded are also predetermined by the GM before the game begins, but can be determined by the entire group as well. D&D has always used abstract experience points which tie into increased chances of avoiding or surpassing non-role played elements within its' game. Specifically, the parts where players roll dice rather than role play the situation. 4th Edition uses a Quest system in order to reward players for setting their own goals. Either way role playing is rewarded, the degree of the reward for these benchmarks is still set by the DM based upon their knowledge of the actual roles.
SolitonMan
Explorer
Thanks to everyone for adding to this conversation! 
It's gotten me to think a lot about the nature of the game and my own expectations. Certainly things aren't as simple as I originally presented them, so I really appreciate everyone's thoughts and how they've helped me open my eyes a bit more.
It's gotten me to think a lot about the nature of the game and my own expectations. Certainly things aren't as simple as I originally presented them, so I really appreciate everyone's thoughts and how they've helped me open my eyes a bit more.
kenmarable
Hero
As the original poster said, all campaigns probably have elements of both, but in my experience, they definitely seem to slide one way or another. As I see it, with plot-driven, the PCs are along for the ride and can largely be interchanged without affecting the story. If a PC dies and someone writes up another, it's very easy to plug them in. In heavy character-driven, you can't really replace any PC. Everything is so inherently tied to those particular PCs that it is very disruptive to swap anyone out.
As a player, I prefer character driven, but probably more because some of the DMs I've played with have tried heavy plot-driven that sometimes felt forced and constrained us all too much - sometimes sacrificing fun to keep the story on track.
As a DM, I'm in a bind. I have a strong tendency towards plot driven (I have these cool epic storylines in my head that I want to share with the players), BUT the campaigns that have been the most fun have been very character driven. I'm currently working on resolving my big plot faster than planned in order to go more sandbox and let the PCs explore because I came to the conclusion that letting the PCs explore would be a lot more fun than just participating in this movie I have in my head.
It's a tricky balance, and once I think I managed to strike it perfectly by having very loose plot points (actually more like only a villian's agenda, and some possibly allies to contact) and let how they reach those points and their outcome be entirely dependent on the PCs actions and even backgrounds. I didn't even realize at the time how I pulled it off and only recently starting looking at that and trying to figure out how to re-create that balance.
As a player, I prefer character driven, but probably more because some of the DMs I've played with have tried heavy plot-driven that sometimes felt forced and constrained us all too much - sometimes sacrificing fun to keep the story on track.
As a DM, I'm in a bind. I have a strong tendency towards plot driven (I have these cool epic storylines in my head that I want to share with the players), BUT the campaigns that have been the most fun have been very character driven. I'm currently working on resolving my big plot faster than planned in order to go more sandbox and let the PCs explore because I came to the conclusion that letting the PCs explore would be a lot more fun than just participating in this movie I have in my head.
It's a tricky balance, and once I think I managed to strike it perfectly by having very loose plot points (actually more like only a villian's agenda, and some possibly allies to contact) and let how they reach those points and their outcome be entirely dependent on the PCs actions and even backgrounds. I didn't even realize at the time how I pulled it off and only recently starting looking at that and trying to figure out how to re-create that balance.
Melba Toast
First Post
Characters should always drive the plot, and if they aren't, you are doing it wrong.
The analogy to "Signs" is nonsense. If you want to use aliens as plot device, then characters drive the game by deciding how to deal with the aliens. Maybe they want to blow up the alien supercomputer. Maybe they want to hide or run away. That is the character's decision. The GM does not make it for them. If they do, they are bad GMs.
The analogy to "Signs" is nonsense. If you want to use aliens as plot device, then characters drive the game by deciding how to deal with the aliens. Maybe they want to blow up the alien supercomputer. Maybe they want to hide or run away. That is the character's decision. The GM does not make it for them. If they do, they are bad GMs.
I said I'm in plot driven but prefer character driven, as I'm playing in a Serenity game where the GM has a storyline laid out for us. He's great with the emulation, and I'll see where it goes.
The way I would put how I run games (and how I like to play them - its my experience that people run the games they really want to play in) is what I would call conflict driven. The characters each have their own goals and inner struggles, but external conflicts demand action. These conflicts both pressure the PC's personal conflicts and play out a storyline at the same time.
The way I sum it up is I throw a complicated situation at the PCs and see what they do with it. They can charge in guns blazing, poke around the edge to try and figure it out, hide and hope it goes away, or run screaming. Whatever they do, I'll deal with the consequences of that.
When one of my players asks me 'did you do what we thought you were going to do?' my answer is "I don't think that far ahead."
The way I would put how I run games (and how I like to play them - its my experience that people run the games they really want to play in) is what I would call conflict driven. The characters each have their own goals and inner struggles, but external conflicts demand action. These conflicts both pressure the PC's personal conflicts and play out a storyline at the same time.
The way I sum it up is I throw a complicated situation at the PCs and see what they do with it. They can charge in guns blazing, poke around the edge to try and figure it out, hide and hope it goes away, or run screaming. Whatever they do, I'll deal with the consequences of that.
When one of my players asks me 'did you do what we thought you were going to do?' my answer is "I don't think that far ahead."
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Melba Toast said:
pssst...MT...you might want to take a deep breath and compose yourself before posting next time...all this rage is kind of pointless.
As for the actual points...
Melba Toast said:
"Character-Driven" vs. "Plot" (or "Event") driven is a choice of storytelling focus as old as the medium of narrative itself. Much like basic story structure, it's pretty eternal. It's not really "wrong" to have an event-driven narrative, it's just a different choice.
Effectively, if you want to use "invasion" as a plot device (aliens or orcs or robots or whatever), you need to choose what exact threats are there to overcome.
The DM chooses what the aliens are doing, what they represent, the kind of threat they pose.
In something like Independence Day (and, I would imagine, most D&D games) the aliens represent a threat that must be stopped. You solve the problem through action. So you go after what's in ur base killin ur doodz, and you kick the snot out of them so they can't do it again. You might do it for a variety of personal reasons (they killed your dog, you're a big racist, the mafia makes you, whatever). OotS represents a very "plot" focused D&D adventure, and, I think, is pretty typical for that. Someone evil is doing something evil somewhere and the PC's must stop it!
In something like Battlestar Galactica (and, I would hope, a lot of FFZ games) the invaders are clearly threatening, but they can't be stopped. Signs does the same kind of thing. The story isn't about how you kick the snot out of them. It's not about what happens to the world. The story is about what happens to the characters. How does Mel Gibson feel about these aliens? How does it question his faith? How does this retired commander feel about being called back into service? How does this schoolteacher feel about being thrust into a leadership role? How does this rogue pilot feel about having some sort of "destiny"?
FFZ uses a lot of questions of motive, and a GM running FFZ is encouraged to make a large part of the game directly about the characters -- their histories, their personalities, their goals -- and how they feel. It's a lot of fun to sort of see these characters emerge in this world over the course of several sessions, seeing them develop relationships and explore their motives as they discover things about the villain and its evil desires (and how they're really just dark reflections of each other).
D&D (and this is rather especially evident in 4e) is usually more concerned with solving problems by beating them up, 'cuz that's certainly a lot of fun, too.
A DM doesn't decide what the characters do, but they generally do decide what the NPC's do (and what actions are really possible and effective against the bad guys). For instance, if the orcs are invading, and the DM lets you know that it's overwhelming force and that any violent actions are likely just to get you killed because of their immense power, then obviously the game is either over very quickly when the PC's are idiots and try to kill the Orc King, or the game isn't about killing orcs (and it might be more about uniting fractuous nations into a cohesive rebellion, for instance).
Jack7
First Post
As a DM I prefer to write adventures in which the characters are central to the plot, and they can change the world based on how they behave and the actions they take. As a player I prefer games in which the plot is so interesting that I want to become involved and so change the world.
Similar Threads
