GMing: A D4 of Design-Run-Discuss-Reshape to Kick Off a Campaign

In science and business processes go through planning, doing, checking, and adjusting which is in a turn a version of the scientific method. Use an RPG version of this method to improve your game and resolve problems. Work hand in hand with your players to create a campaign and adventures designed specifically for their characters and the goals they are pursuing. Use Design-Run-Discuss-Reshape (DRDR) to kick off a new campaign.

Picture courtesy of Pixabay​

D&D and Pathfinder have books that cover adventure paths: connected adventures for a GM to run for her players. The challenge is if the group can make it through the whole thing and hopefully have lots of fun doing so. RPGs can be run other ways however.

Imagine pitching a game and setting to your players and working in their suggestions for additions and changes. Having those players make characters based on the world and setting the group came up with. The GM then discussing how character creation went and how well the PCs fit in to the concept the group came up with. The GM and players then doing any needed tweaks to finalize the setting and PCs. Then the GM creates an adventures tailor made to those PCs and the goals and interests they want to pursue. And as the game progresses, both GM and players continue to play, review, and adjust as the story unfolds cooperatively.

The goal is no longer to complete the adventures. The goal as players is to see what happens next. Can the players’ characters achieve their goals and dreams? Not even the GM knows. Everyone keeps playing to find out.

Consider using the big hardcover or six softcovers only as reference and not to kick off your next campaign. Try DRDR and see the machinations and scheming of your PCs come to life.

1. Design

The GM decides on a system and genre and the basics of setting. No adventure building yet. The other players discuss this broad pitch and narrow it down. They come up with NPCs their PCs might interact with and jobs they might want to take. They consider what characters to create.

Example: I’d like to run the Alien RPG for you. You can be space truckers or frontier colonists either freelance or working for the man. You’ll have a ship and be based out of Novgorod Station. The players discuss. They want to play frontier colonists doing salvage, survey, and courier work using a deep space salvage starship freelance. We come up with named NPCs including a dock master, colonial admin, street rat informant, tech company liaison, a scientist with backers, and a ship inspector. They will make a company agent, pilot, roughneck, and scientist. The roughneck player really wants to use the starship crane.

2. Run

The PCs run through character creation. The GM answers any questions they have. When finished, each player sends the GM a copy of their character. They include goals for their characters, some secret.

Example: The company agent has the following personal agenda: The Company is holding back information from you. What? And why? The GM decides to dangle information pertaining to this agenda on this for the opening scene of the campaign. Along with some possible crane work.

3. Discuss

During character creation, the players may want some changes made. The GM may also make suggestions.

Example: The GM knew the player of the scientist was torn between that and the profession of medic. The GM tells the player that a medic would fit really well with the personal agenda of: You have some unusual (but classified) medical reports that the Company is looking for. Find out why they are so important. The player says he’d like to see a medlab added to the ship as soon as possible if he decides to play a medic.

4. Reshape

Any suggested changes are implemented if desired. The GM will then be ready to design the opening scene.

Example: The player liked the medic idea and also wants the agenda of: You are addicted to a strong painkiller. Protect your stash—and your secret. The GM agrees and can tie this agenda into the first scene. An offer of a medlab from the Company is extremely likely. Hooks firmly attached and dangling. And the GM has some leverage for the Company to use if they find out the PCs secret which in turn will generate more experience points for that player.

DRDR is a cycle. Once the GM and players run through one cycle it circles back around to design. The GM can now design the opening scene and possible adventure using the Company and the secrets swirling around the PCs as a springboard. Plus the crane. Using DRDR for adventure design will be covered in a future article.

 

[Campbell]

An adventure is an unusual and exciting, typically hazardous, experience or activity. That is what the characters are experiencing. If you don't run adventures and play adventures what do you call it when you get together and play a table top RPG with a GM and players?

I tend to prefer scenario or just playing the game. The games I like to play do not generally involve characters who go off elsewhere on adventures. They are people who live tumultuous lives. Like sorcerers with bound demons who have just had their lives upended, mecha pilots serving in a war town living alien ship who is slowly waking up, a crew of daring scoundrels crawling their way up the Underworld in a world where the dead walk the streets, saxon warbands trying to prove their worth, or dangerous hardscrabble survivors trying to keep their community together in a post apocalyptic wasteland. Their life is an adventure. They have no need to go on one.

 

[Charles Dunwoody]

I tend to prefer scenario or just playing the game. The games I like to play do not generally involve characters who go off elsewhere on adventures. They are people who live tumultuous lives. Like sorcerers with bound demons who have just had their lives upended, mecha pilots serving in a war town living alien ship who is slowly waking up, a crew of daring scoundrels crawling their way up the Underworld in a world where the dead walk the streets, saxon warbands trying to prove their worth, or dangerous hardscrabble survivors trying to keep their community together in a post apocalyptic wasteland. Their life is an adventure. They have no need to go on one.

Scenario works for me.

 

[Charles Dunwoody]

It's play to find out what happens. As in the purpose of playing is to play out high pressure scenarios and see how things shake out. One way of doing that is to place the game in a pressure cooker like Apocalypse World or Blades in the Dark where you have all these different factions or individual NPCs with interlocking relationships with each other where any move the player characters make will shift the status quo and effect the way the world sees them. The scope does not necessarily have to be tightly geographically constrained, but it definitely helps to keep things simmering.

Alien keeps the pressure on through Stress and, of course, all the getting screwed over by the governments and the Company. Not to mention PC versus PC tension and conflict. Being stuck in a tin can floating through space or on a dustball of a planet in a tiny colony helps ratchet up the tension too.

 

[pemerton]

An adventure is an unusual and exciting, typically hazardous, experience or activity. That is what the characters are experiencing. If you don't run adventures and play adventures what do you call it when you get together and play a table top RPG with a GM and players?

When we talk about an "adventure module" or "preparing and adventure", I generally take the meaning of adventure to be something like what Hobbits mean when they talk about having an adventure, or to be something like what we mean when we talk about adventure fiction. In either case, that's something like a series of dramatic, exciting and/or hazardous events.

In the context of GM prep for RPGing, its the series of events that is typically prepped (look at eg the advice in multiple editions of the DMG; or the advice for "node-based design"; or a module like Speaker in Dreams). And it is the preparation of that series of events that is at odds with playing to find out what happens.

Sometimes the events are prepped in the form of potentialities or conditionalities - eg "If the PCs speak to NPC so-and-so, she will tell them such-and-such" or "If the PCs attempt such-and-such, NPC so-and-so will react by A-ing." Setting preparation can involve a fair bit of this. I think this is also at odds with playing to find out what happens, because it is still the GM's pre-authorship that is driving the consequences of player action declarations.

My experience is that it is not terribly difficult to present a situation, and adjudicate consequences, without relying on this sort of pre-authorship. All it takes is a bit of practice. But it is still somewhat uncommon - outside of a somewhat focused/specialised set of RPGs - to see a non-pre-authorship approach presented as the norm.

It's fairly easy to overlook what elements of GM technique, of fiction, and of mechanics, push in favour of or against this sort of approach. And this is reinforced by the fact that many RPGs don't overtly talk about these features of their systems.

Eg GM technique: framing scenes in a way that allows players to see, or through "warming up" action declarations to establish, what is at stake will help support playing to find out. Framing scenes so that what is at stake is opaque (eg The GM's notes say, of an NPC, "He always reacts badly under such-and-such circumstances" but the players aren't choosing or shaping or controlling those conditionalities, so that outcomes are arbitrary relative to player knowledge and interests and goals) will undermine playing to find out. This instead pushes towards playing to learn what is in the GM's notes. Which is probably the most common form of RPG play. (See eg @Lanefan's post not far upthread.)

Eg Fiction: fiction which involves both trajectory and uncertainty allows stakes to be established and consequences to be extrapolated as part of the process of action resolution - VIncent Baker's examples of play in Apocalypse World are really good illustrations of this. Whereas fiction that is static and certain will produce a very different sort of experience - consider eg The Tomb of Horrors as one example of extremely static and certain fiction.

Eg Mechanics: mechanics that produce finality of resolution - ie definite changes in the fiction that (i) matter given what is at stake, and (ii) bind all participants, including the GM, and especially in relation to what matters - are very good for playing to find out. Skill challenges in 4e D&D are one example of this. The system in Classic Traveller for resolving hazardous manoeuvres performed while wearing a vacc suit is another example. These two examples show how it is possible to have quite different mechanical approaches to achieving finality of resolution.

Conversely, there are many RPG mechanics that don't produce finality in resolution - eg onworld exploration in Classic Traveller, where the mechanics are make such-and-such checks per day but it is the GM who gets to decide how many days are required; or the mechanics for producing artworks, performances and the like in many RPGs, which often provide a system for working out how nice the work or performance is while leaving it up to the GM to decide whether or not any given NPC is impressed by, or indifferent to, works or performances of that sort.

When preparing a scenario with the goal of playing to find out what happens, it's helpful to keep all these things in mind:

* What sort of fiction do I want, that will avoid static fiction and allow for genuine dynamism?

* What mechanics do I have to handle this? (eg it's no good framing things around a chase scene if your system has no way of resolving chases with finality)

* How will stakes be established and made clear, and how are parameters for consequences going to be established and managed?

I think that if these things are under control, it's possible to run a pretty engaging scenario with very little prep of the traditional sort.

 

[hawkeyefan]

If we are talking about techniques that are different from, say, those that are advocated or presupposed by the 1980s Dragonlance modules, or the 2000s Expedition to the Demonweb Pit module, then I think it is probably not helpful to use the overarching term "adventure" as if this was a self-evident category of thing to prepare.

Those modules I've mentioned absolutely do involve a set sequence of events in which the action is to take place, and they contain advice to the GM on how to bring this about. So do many other modules. Generally that advice amounts to various ways of manipulating or establishing unrevealed backstory so as to ensure that actions taken by the players (via their PCs) don't change the underlying fiction in any fundamental ways.

That is anathema to "playing to find out".

A variant of the set sequence of events is the "node based design" where the events are set but the sequence is determined by player choices. Mystery-type adventures often feature this sort of thing. It likewise does not involve any serious "playing to find out".

If what the "adventure" consists in is just an opening situation, plus a list of possible consequences, then I agree it can support "playing to find out" but at that point we're talking about something quite different from a D&D module. I don't know the Alien scenarios you mention (other than by reputation) but Robin Laws has some examples of this in his Narrator's Book for Hero Wars. I've adapted one to 4e D&D - The Demon of the Red Grove. And many Prince Valiant episodes are like this also.

As I posted just above, the skills needed to establish and then adjudicate this sort of thing are very different from those needed to run Dragonlance or a traditional CoC scenario or Against the Giants. And working on your prep isn't the place that I would advise a new GM to focus on, if s/he wants to run this sort of game.

I don't think that anything described in the OP is akin to the kind of GM directed modules you've sited, other than the use of the term "adventure". I think that term was simply used conversationally, and so I accepted it that way.

What @Charles Dunwoody describes in the OP is having the GM involve the players in the creation of what their game will be about. He's encouraging folks to involve the players in crafting the world, particularly in the form of NPCs with whom their PCs will have existing relationships, and in the form of goals for the PCs to pursue. Then, he's saying that the GM should take those elements and use them in crafting a scenario for them, and then seeing how things go.

The stated goal was to watch how, when you do this, the idea of an adventure plot pretty much vanishes.

I agree that this is quite different from what we tend to think of as a D&D module. The Cinematic Scenarios that Fria Ligen have put out so far for the Alien RPG are indeed scenarios, although they also offer pregenerated PCs who have goals that will come up during play. But there is no reason that players couldn't come up with their own PCs and goals in order to play such a scenario. And I think the scenarios could play out a number of ways, depending on what a given group of players decides to do.

I think this approach works so well for Alien because the setting itself constrains the PCs significantly. Alien has a far more specific list of elements and themes that should come into play. Something like D&D is far more open in that sense.

I do agree that the kind of skills that are needed for this type of game differ from those needed for a more traditional D&D module approach. I think that the Alien RPG is likely a good first step for those familiar with only a more traditional approach of pre-authored adventures to get their feet wet with something that is less pre-determined and which allows for a lot of player input.

 

[chaochou]

I think an absolute necessity when 'playing to find out' is that the the players are the source of their character's protagonism.

Plot hooks from the GM are not it. That's the GM assuming protagonism of the character in order to run their railroad.

When playing to find out what happens - in the sense that was written by Vincent Baker in Apocalypse World, the player has to be the one with authorial control of their character goals.

And they can change them whenever they choose - it's not a one and done thing, they can be driven by one thing, and the character can change and have an epiphany and want something totally different.

I notice that the OP includes 'character creation and the player write a number of goals, some secret' as part of the described play loop. I don't agree that anything needs to be secret. That's an option. But player-created goals are not optional within this style. They are central - both to driving play forward and ensuring GMs don't try to assume control of the content of the game. I think that element should be given greater prominence within the OP.

 

[Charles Dunwoody]

I think an absolute necessity when 'playing to find out' is that the the players are the source of their character's protagonism.

Plot hooks from the GM are not it. That's the GM assuming protagonism of the character in order to run their railroad.

When playing to find out what happens - in the sense that was written by Vincent Baker in Apocalypse World, the player has to be the one with authorial control of their character goals.

And they can change them whenever they choose - it's not a one and done thing, they can be driven by one thing, and the character can change and have an epiphany and want something totally different.

I notice that the OP includes 'character creation and the player write a number of goals, some secret' as part of the described play loop. I don't agree that anything needs to be secret. That's an option. But player-created goals are not optional within this style. They are central - both to driving play forward and ensuring GMs don't try to assume control of the content of the game. I think that element should be given greater prominence within the OP.

I disagree. The GM still has control of the content of the game and plot hooks are needed. The world doesn't revolve around the PCs. Just the opposite. The world runs regardless of the PCs but will react to their actions.

The GM just encourages her players to participate more. And believe me, a lot of players don't want all those headaches. Or they would be GMs. I wouldn't try this approach with my casual old school friends who only game every once in a while. The players have to buy in.

Also, this style of play goes way back before AW. Anytime you let PCs drive the game you go from an adventure path to what some call a sandbox or a hex crawl. The PCs wander and do what they will. But the GM still runs the world and the NPCs in it.

 

[chaochou]

I disagree. The GM still has control of the content of the game and plot hooks are needed. The world doesn't revolve around the PCs. Just the opposite. The world runs regardless of the PCs but will react to their actions.

That's one way to play. It's not the only way. Some call that GM setting solitaire.

It certainly doesn't represent playing to find out what happens, in the sense I used it, which was also the sense used by Vincent Baker in Apocalypse World.

The GM just encourages her players to participate more.

Encouraging participation in the GMs plot isn't what I'm talking about.

Also, this style of play goes way back before AW. Anytime you let PCs drive the game you go from an adventure path to what some call a sandbox or a hex crawl. The PCs wander and do what they will. But the GM still runs the world and the NPCs in it.

Apocalypse World, Sorcerer, Blades in the Dark, HeroQuest, Dogs in the Vineyard, Burning Wheel - tell me which of these you've played?

All of them are games where the PCs drive play. None of them are what 'some would call a sandbox or hex crawl'. None of them use 'adventure paths' either. That failed 'AP to sandbox' spectrum captures none of the play I'm talking about.

All of them are games where the GM 'runs the world and the NPCs in it', although they are designed with a more nuanced understanding of various types of authority within an RPG and how those can be shared or moved between people at the table at various times to provide a better play experience. And all of them are games where the players are the source of their character's protagonism.

 

[Charles Dunwoody]

That's one way to play. It's not the only way. Some call that GM setting solitaire.

It certainly doesn't represent playing to find out what happens, in the sense I used it, which was also the sense used by Vincent Baker in Apocalypse World.


Encouraging participation in the GMs plot isn't what I'm talking about.


Apocalypse World, Sorcerer, Blades in the Dark, HeroQuest, Dogs in the Vineyard, Burning Wheel - tell me which of these you've played?

All of them are games where the PCs drive play. None of them are what 'some would call a sandbox or hex crawl'. None of them use 'adventure paths' either. That failed 'AP to sandbox' spectrum captures none of the play I'm talking about.

All of them are games where the GM 'runs the world and the NPCs in it', although they are designed with a more nuanced understanding of various types of authority within an RPG and how those can be shared or moved between people at the table at various times to provide a better play experience. And all of them are games where the players are the source of their character's protagonism.

Cool, have fun playing RPGs. I'm all for lots of gaming. I can GM one way, you can another, and others GM their way.

 

[pemerton]

When playing to find out what happens - in the sense that was written by Vincent Baker in Apocalypse World, the player has to be the one with authorial control of their character goals.

And they can change them whenever they choose - it's not a one and done thing, they can be driven by one thing, and the character can change and have an epiphany and want something totally different.

This is an interesting issue when it intersects with pre-gens, which @hawkeyefan mentioned above.

I like the way that Marvel Heroic RP handles this - the pregen PCs have what are called Milestones. A Milestone is a list of events that fall under an overarching thematic label which, when they occur, earn XP for the character. Eg Captain America has the Milestone "Avengers Assemble!":

1 XP when you first lead a team.
3 XP when you defeat a foe without any team member becoming stressed out.
10 XP when you either convince a hero to join a new Avengers team or disband your existing team.​

Wolverine has "Old Friends, Old Enemies":

1 XP when you declare someone an old ally or foe.
3 XP when you aid your old ally in a buddy situation or deal trauma to your old foe.
10 XP when you declare your old ally is now an enemy or vice versa.​

And as per the rulebook (MHRP OM107), "once you hit [the 10 XP] trigger you’ve reached your Milestone. You may now close out the Milestone and choose a new one. If it makes sense within the story, you can choose the same Milestone again".

The practical effect of this mechanical structure, at least as I've experienced it in play, is that the players start by leaning their character into the preconception/stereotype suggested by the Milestone, but as the inplay situation develops can push for it or against it - because the 10 XP trigger always has the twin possibilities which admit of multiple interpretations. And then the new Milestone can be written up or cribbed to reflect the new direction the PC is heading in.

In the rulebook, rather than advice on "plot hooks", there is the following (MHRP OM106):

As the Watcher [= GM], you don’t have Milestones to keep track of for your Watcher characters. Instead, you can help the players by framing Scenes and establishing situations that encourage them to pursue their Milestones. Keep a list of which Milestones are in play, and use them as a guide . . .​

Because of the way Milestone are written, the encouragement will be in the form of provocative opportunities rather than preconceived outcomes.

The GM still has control of the content of the game and plot hooks are needed. The world doesn't revolve around the PCs. Just the opposite. The world runs regardless of the PCs but will react to their actions.

@chaochou referred to players, not PCs.

Whether or not the (imagined) world revolves around the (imagined) characters is a question of genre and detailed fictional content. It may be somewhat true in (say) a supers game. It's probably also true in a sci-fi game if "the world", for practical purposes, is the PC's ship and the only events we care about are those taking place in that immediate vicinity.

But if we talk about the real people in the real world, and their authority over various aspects of fiction-creation in a RPG, then it is not really possible to reconcile the GM has control of the game with the GM plays to find out what happens. When you are deciding things you are not discovering them.

Plot hooks, in the sense of entry-points into a series of events whose broad contours (at least) have already been authored, are not consistent with playing to find out what happens in the sense that Vincent Baker uses that phrase in AW. (And as far as I know the phrase has no currency or meaning in RPGing prior to that use of it.)