Confession: I like Plot

[Hussar]

Hi, my name's Hussar and I like plot in my RPG's.

I do. I like it both as a player and a GM. I want the campaign to have a clear goal (or goals) from the outset and a definite beginning, middle and end. I feel that it makes the group work together better, and as a GM, it allows me to use many more narrative (in the literary, not GNS meaning) techniques in my game. After all, if there's no obvious plot, then foreshadowing becomes pretty tricky.

DM: "You have a dream of ((blank))"
Six months pass
Player: "Hey, what was up with that dream?"
DM: Well, since you guys decided to completely ignore those plot hooks, that dream was just a dream.

The trick, of course, is to be able to create a solid plot without laying down the tracks of a railroad. Now, some railroading is going to be inevitable. If the ring has to be tipped into the volcano, eventually the party has to go to the volcano. Of course.

However, while you can define the what of the plot, the trick is to leave the how completely open, or as open as possible. Do they sneak in? Do they build a coalition of forces and assault the gates? Do they do the smart thing and get that damned wizard to cast a teleport spell?

In my mind, plots are good. They focus the players. They give the players something to work towards as a group. They give a reason for the group to exist in the first place.

For those of you, like me, who like plots in your game, how do you craft your campaigns so that the plots are there, but, leave them open enough that the how is left up to the players?

 

[Nightson]

I try to always leave a way to advance the plot, should the PCs choose not to follow up on the plot, well they clearly didn't find it interesting. I try to do less overarching plot and more reoccurring villain types of plots.

 

[AverageCitizen]

Yeah, I do too. I think it's pretty much indispensable.

To craft my campaigns to include plot, I've learned that I have to break a few rules.

Specifically the unspoken rules that say "Players have control over their characters" and "DMs have control over everything else."

The best opening to a campaign I have ever run involved me creating roles for the players to play. They made their characters, named them, and then I decided how they all fit together and who they were in the game world. For example, one player rolled a Dedicated Hero (We were playing d20 Modern,) who he said he wanted to be a doctor. Once I had a good idea of how the story would go I told him something like "You are a surgeon in St. Joseph's trauma unit in Chicago. Your wife, Barbara, recently left you and took your 11 year old son Spence and your 3 year old daughter Julie with her. Earlier in the day, there was a streak of gang-related violence as a 3-week drug war continues, and you've been in surgery with the victims all night long. You have just been relieved and are about to go home. It's about 3 A.M." The other characters followed similar patterns, all building on the one before.

Trusting me with some creative license allowed me to not only connect the players to each other, but to ensure that they had personal stake in the events that were about to unfold. By the time we were rolling everybody was interconnected somehow. Not everybody knew everybody, but they knew someone who knew each character. More importantly, they all had relationships that would prove to be their main motivation in the story. Because they had all been provided with vested interest in the game-world, when things started happening they took it a lot more personally. When things went all Wrong, with a horrifyingly paranormal capital W, their characters had a good reason to care.

This came with some very beneficial side-effects. By pretty much assigning them a role in the story, players who had previously been very timid about role-playing were much less self-conscious. Fulfilling an assigned role is a lot more personally justifiable than spouting a backstory of your own creation to any one who will listen. Not to say that I did all the work for them, once we got rolling we worked together on the fly to flush out the skeletal frame-work I gave them, and then they played their parts to the T. "Why did my wife leave me?" he says. "I dunno," says I, "It'd be more interesting if it were your fault." "How bout I had a stroke a few years back and now she says it's like I'm a different person?" "Thats good, that'll work really well." So when things go all X-Files on him and he starts to wonder if he really IS another person, everything all ties together, and he helped create the story possibilities.See, it all becomes co-operative.

Referring to the rules I mentioned at the beginning, you can see what I mean when I said I broke them. They gave me some of their creative control, and I gave them some of mine, and what we made together was way, way more awesome.

 

[Gilladian]

I generally try to run campaigns where there is a background change going on in the world. This change may be good, bad, or unclear. If the PCs notice this change, ask questions about it, and get involved, well, then it becomes a major thread in the campaign. If they don't, the change will still happen, but they will have no role in it.

For example; in Greenvale, the High Prince's heirs went missing several years ago during a war. They were twins. One returned after several months, and seems unaltered by his misadventure (he says he was struck on the head, nearly buried in an avalanche, and nursed back to health by villagers who thought he was an ordinary soldier). The second son has never been found. He is believed to have died in the same avalanche.

The truth is that the returned brother is not himself. He was captured by the lich leader of the evil army that had invaded (and was defeated). He's been magic jarred, and his soul is now trapped elsewhere. The lich is now heir to the kingdom.

The second son was rescued by a wizard of Greenvale, who wants power of his own. Having realized that the lich had the first son, he "protected" the second prince by shapechanging him into a parrot. The parrot then somehow got out of his control and into the hands of a gypsy caravan. The wizard is trying to get that prince back, under his control, so that he can someday try to challenge or at least blackmail the lich.

There's also a whole secondary plot, unconnected to this one, about one of the Counts of Greenvale attempting to take control of several counties and break away from the rest of the Kingdom on his own. That one was less defined in this campaign.

The PCs at one point actually HAD possession of the prince-parrot, realized who he was, and turned him back over to the wizard (not quite realizing he was the reason the prince was a parrot, but knowing he was a power-hungry not-good man). They didn't want to get involved. Their choice. Prince remains parrot, lich remains prince, and we'll see if in "20 years" the kingdom hasn't fallen on hard times.

 

[Herobizkit]

One of my most enjoyable campaigns was run as a TV serial like you might see on the WB.

The main character was an Aasimar Paladin who was modeled after Superman and Angel. He began play as a rich noble enlisted in a military academy for other rich nobles and commoners alike. The 'plot' involved the hero's town (a brand new setllement in an as-yet unexplored tropical archipelago) being destroyed by a god-like figure; the first "season" centered on the hero's quest to search the shattered pieces of his land for survivors, encountering new races and monsters along the way.

What made this game so unique from others I've run is that, instead of focusing on combat, dungeon crawls, and levelling, I put all my effort into creating a worthy supporting cast (kind of like how Stargate: Universe changed its tone from the action/adventure style of its predecessors). The campaign was not finished, sadly, but we played for about a year; the hero only ever got to level 7, and it didn't matter, because the relationships he made with his team members and other NPC's were what the game was really all about.

 

[RangerWickett]

I normally run plot-heavy but railroad-light games. The last campaign I did, I tried to make it a modern sandbox, where the PCs all had superpowers.

Well, apparently in the modern day, if you have superpowers, you sit the bleep in your regular, every day life and don't both using them or investigating odd things. At most, you call the police, or contact a few scientists to have them study you. You definitely avoid the crazy guy who kidnapped some of the people from your favorite bar (all of whom are also demonstrating strange powers), and the fact that Chuck Norris keeps appearing in visions on the TV to give one of the PCs orders, and the fact that the day you all got your powers, a city in the middle of a tectonic plate had an earthquake.

Maybe it was just a bad plot, or that the modern day doesn't work well with 'save the world' storylines, because you always figure someone else is handling the problem.

 

[Crothian]

For those of you, like me, who like plots in your game, how do you craft your campaigns so that the plots are there, but, leave them open enough that the how is left up to the players?

If there is no plot in the game I'm not playing. In games that I run I believe in plot hooks. I will have lots of them in there so the players have plenty of choices and players are always free to invent their own. The problem I face is the players want to follow all the plot hooks but that's just not possible.

Not all plot hooks are long and involved though. Some are simple problems attached to NPCs that can be solved with no violence and little hassle. Some though might lead to something large and involved.

 

[Thunderfoot]

Back in the olden days (when 2e was still the new edition), I ran a campaign where all the players' characters started at 0-level. They rolled full hit points, but had no 1st level spells (if a spell caster and only 1/2 percentages if they were a thief on their skills, fighters got off easy) and had to earn 100 xp to become full 1st level. It was a quirky idea, based solely on the predication of building characters. It worked. I found the players were much more involved when their characters had to earn their way "into the bigs" so to speak.

It also gave me a chance to sit back and see what I was working with, certain actions led me to base to plot and the eventual storyline on what they did in those early days of trying to stay alive. (BTW a 0-level Celtic mage with no spells and a staff is still dangerous to undead, even if he did only have 1 hit point to start with (and the luck of the Irish)).

But what really made it click was the "bad guy". Wherever they triumphed, he was there to foil it, everytime....They hated him, and then found out he was just a minion - the looks were priceless. It's the only time I ever used the "expanding boss monster" theory but I used it in such a way that it didn't seem like, "oh, boss level". Eventually, he and the other two minions went down in a colossal fight with the actual BBEG pulling their strings. It was awesome. But that campaign taught me a lot - specifically about pacing, theme and antici.......................
.
.
.
.
.
pation. Plot is good - hack n' slay is bad.

 

[Thunderfoot]

If there is no plot in the game I'm not playing. In games that I run I believe in plot hooks. I will have lots of them in there so the players have plenty of choices and players are always free to invent their own. The problem I face is the players want to follow all the plot hooks but that's just not possible.

Not all plot hooks are long and involved though. Some are simple problems attached to NPCs that can be solved with no violence and little hassle. Some though might lead to something large and involved.

And trust me, he's a master at it. I have never understood how he can get an entire group to come together and BE a party in just 4 hours but Crothian is the King of con gamemasters. I wish some of the so called professionals would take a cue, and learn from this guy. RPGs would be a much more varied landscape if they were. (sorry for the de-rail - You rock dude!)

 

[Rel]

I like plot too. I just like it better when it forms rather than when I plan it all out in advance.

The style in which I run campaigns has developed enough consistancy in recent years that it follows a relatively predictable flow. I suppose you could say that it has a "beginning, middle and end":

Beginning - I plan a fairly railroady start to the game, incorporating as much of the backgrounds of the PC's as possible, but still pretty much dictating what the first adventure will be. They go on this adventure, which inevitably leaves several dangling plot hooks at the end of it. Then I throw a few more plot hooks based on individual characters or other interesting stuff going on in the general location in which the PC's find themselves.

Middle - The PC's have more adventures resulting from them picking up on several of the plot hooks from the Beginning as well as those that have been added on as we went along. I gradually start to weave some of these threads together into a coherent whole that starts to point in some particular direction.

End - Once I'm sure that the PC's have bought into a particular conflict being the one that is "key" for the resolution of the campaign I begin to start laying down a pathway for that resolution. This is probably the most "plotted" part of my games in the traditional sense.

One result of this methodology is that I think the players assume there is more of a plot than I really have in place. By the End of the game a lot of the Middle looks like I'd planned it out in advance when I really did nothing of the sort. There are times when I put out plot hooks that are so tasty that I'm almost certain that they'll bite. But there have been more times than I can count that they decided to go in a completely unexpected direction. After I'm done weaving it all together it sometimes feels strange that I ever expected them to do something different in the first place.