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.

 

[Charles Dunwoody]

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.)

anyway: Trad vs Indie: FIGHT! pt2

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.)

But can’t a plot hook be just that? You’re assuming that a plot hook must lead players to a specific series of events, but I’m not sure why.

I’ve absolutely introduced elements that I thought might interest players but had no idea where they would go. Sometimes these hooks might be spur of the moment decisions, other times I may have given them some thought beforehand, and very often they’ll be based on something in which the player has expressed interest. Perhaps in the form of a character trait or aNPC bond or similar aspect of a PC.

I find this fundamental in running Blades in the Dark, where “partial success/success with complication” results require the GM to introduce complications to a scene. But I also do it in 5E D&D when it makes sense to do so.

I don’t see how a plot hook at it’s most basic contradicts the play to find out approach of Apocalypse World and its many spinoffs.

 

[Campbell]

@hawkeyefan

This might be a case of talking past each other using different. What usually matters to me is what the social expectation is. Like when I hear plot hook or adventure hook I generally assume the social expectation is to follow that hook in a particular way. If we are talking about introducing something to the fiction which players are free to ignore (although it might bite them in the ass) or address in a different way than I do not really consider a plot hook. It's just framing a scenario or scene.

This is a common communication issue I have with one of my buddies. He tends to use a lot of the same language as more GM driven play advocates despite having a natural GM style that is very much playing to find out what happens. He even uses Storyteller as a game neutral GM label having cut his teeth on World of Darkness games. For me personally adopting language that does not include things like plot or hook has helped me to think in terms that aid a more collaborative play style.

Does any of that make sense?

 

[chaochou]

But can’t a plot hook be just that? You’re assuming that a plot hook must lead players to a specific series of events, but I’m not sure why.

I’ve absolutely introduced elements that I thought might interest players but had no idea where they would go.

Then how can it be a 'plot' hook, when you're saying there's no plot? Those two things are mutually exclusive.

As Campbell identified you're applying the language of one thing (having a preset plot and expecting the player(s) to accept it as 'their mission' - GM protagonism of player character) when what you're referring to is simply framing or introduction of content, irrespective of how (or whether) it is used further.

 

[chaochou]

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

I don't have Marvel, or any of the Cortex systems, but from your examples of Wolverine and Cap America, the above would be my overall take on it. Milestones look like part of a reward cycle which encourages / enforces protaganism, in the same way that Goals do in Burning Wheel, and Keys in Lady Blackbird.

In other words, if you're Wolverine you have old friends and enemies - you can't be a wallflower, you're involved. Who they are and why, and what it all means is up to you. But show us something about Wolverine. Similarly, if you're Captain America you are driven to lead a team. Who, and how and why and where and what for is up to you - but get on with it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

@hawkeyefan

This might be a case of talking past each other using different. What usually matters to me is what the social expectation is. Like when I hear plot hook or adventure hook I generally assume the social expectation is to follow that hook in a particular way. If we are talking about introducing something to the fiction which players are free to ignore (although it might bite them in the ass) or address in a different way than I do not really consider a plot hook. It's just framing a scenario or scene.

This is a common communication issue I have with one of my buddies. He tends to use a lot of the same language as more GM driven play advocates despite having a natural GM style that is very much playing to find out what happens. He even uses Storyteller as a game neutral GM label having cut his teeth on World of Darkness games. For me personally adopting language that does not include things like plot or hook has helped me to think in terms that aid a more collaborative play style.

Does any of that make sense?

It does, and I do think any conflict we're having is likely more to do with jargon than with any actual disagreement. I get Play to Find Out as a principle of play per Vincent Baker, and I think it's a great approach.

I think the term plot hook as used was more about the kinds of things you are discussing: framing and setup. The main thrust of the original post seems to be about how to avoid GM authored plots. But I don't think it was about avoiding GM input into the fiction. Part of the role of a GM is to introduce elements that may be interesting. The OP advocates for using the information players provide for their PCs as the starting point, or at least a source, for those elements.

I see how, as described, this approach could still allow for the GM to force the fiction down paths of his choosing, but I don't think it's a given. It lacks the specific constraints on GM action that AW and similar games place, but that doesn't mean a GM would be incapable of using those principles to guide play.

Then how can it be a 'plot' hook, when you're saying there's no plot? Those two things are mutually exclusive.

As Campbell identified you're applying the language of one thing (having a preset plot and expecting the player(s) to accept it as 'their mission' - GM protagonism of player character) when what you're referring to is simply framing or introduction of content, irrespective of how (or whether) it is used further.

I didn't take plot hook to mean the start of a preauthored plot, although I see that it could indeed be viewed that way. I took it more as a shorthand for introducing possible points of interest, given the larger context of the conversation. As it wasn't me who first used the term, I could certainly be wrong about how it was meant.

EDITED TO ADD: Looking back, I see that you mentioned plot hooks specifically as the beginning of a pre-authored plot. I missed that and was instead lookig at the reply, and reading it as I describe above. In the sense that you meant, I agree that pre-authored plots of that kind don't fall into the Play to Find Out playstyle. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[pemerton]

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.

But can’t a plot hook be just that? You’re assuming that a plot hook must lead players to a specific series of events, but I’m not sure why.

<snip>

I don’t see how a plot hook at it’s most basic contradicts the play to find out approach of Apocalypse World and its many spinoffs.

This "plot hook" discussion seems to have mostly run its course, but I'll just add: I wouldn't normally use plot hook as a synonym for framing a scene and/or establishing a situation that is a provocative opportunity.

The more trivial, pedantic reason is that there's no plot, and no hook, so it would look like a misnomer. The more serious reason is similar to what I said upthread about "the adventure" - I think that recycling terms to describe different techniques tends to cause confusion and flattens out the discussion of GMing techniques.

When I read "The GM can now design the opening scene and possible adventure" (from the OP) and "The GM still has control of the content of the game and plot hooks are needed" (from @Charles Dunwoody not far upthread) it doesn't read to me anything like AW or Burning Wheel.

Upthread you (hawkeyefan) said a bit about Alien scenarios. Which to me seemed a bit like Prince Valiant episodes. But Prince Valiant episodes don't really have "plot hooks" either. You come to a glade and a knight is waiting there, mounted, beside his tent. He insists that you joust with him before he will let you pass through! isn't a plot hook. It's not leading into anything - it's the main event!

There is one real exception in the main Prince Valiant rulebook (which is authored by Greg Stafford), and a couple of exceptions in the Episode Book (which has multiple authors) - these are the exceptions in the sense that they lay out subsequent scenes/events that follow the initial ones, and will only make sense if the players make certain choices. The Greg Stafford exception, and the Jerry Grayson scenario in the Episode Book, handle this well - because the assumed choices are not ones that in themselves presuppose a resolution of stakes one way rather than another. Eg in Jerry Grayson's The Crimson Bull, they are events on a journey, and going on a journey is not itself a matter of protagonism in Prince Valiant, given its default genre assumption of knights errant.

The Mark Rein*Hagen scenario in the Episode Book does presuppose particular resolution to matters of stakes and protagonism, which is why, when I used it, I had to ignore his presupposed structure and sequence of events and rather just drew on his NPCs, his starting situation and his general vibe.

Which brings me back to GM advice. I think advising a GM to design an adventure with plot hooks is, at best, a roundabout way of getting to the result of play to find out what happens. Why prepare a Rein*Hagen-esque series of events and resolutions if you're only going to have to disregard them in play? Here's an example of prep that Christopher Kubasik gave way back in his "Interactive Toolkit" essays (sblocked for length):

Spoiler

Let’s say your group has decided to make up stories set in Arthurian Britain. Furthermore, it’s decided that the stories will focus on Knights alone, like the stories in Malory’s Le Morte D’Arthur (and Greg Stafford’s excellent roleplaying game Pendragon). But we don’t want a bunch of knights who simply bump into each other one day and sally forth. We want narrative ties, as discussed last issue.

Someone suggests that the four knights are all brothers; a kind of Arthurian Bonanza. An excellent idea, for the ties of family are vitally important in Arthurian literature. Now the characters are linked, are going help each other out in a variety of jams, but can still dearly pursue their own interests. This idea is broadened out after a bit of discussion to make sure the characters are different: some of the Lead characters will be squires who want to become knights (a fine Goal for such a campaign). Perhaps the knights are not all brothers, but and descend from the same grandfather, giving a greater range of family background, but still tying them together.

Excellent. But what is Fifth Business supposed to do now?

Well, I can tell you what I did last week. I arrived at my first session of my Pendragon campaign with nothing but the outline I’ve given above and the ready use of Saxons as punching bags if I couldn’t think of anything better for the characters to do for the hours of game time we’d scheduled. Let me make this clear: I really didn’t have any idea what was going to happen, but I trusted that the players would provide what was needed and everything would work out fine.

I helped the two players make their characters. I had decided that neither character would begin the game as a knight, this was too sweet an Objective for the characters nor one I wanted to give away easily. They’d have to get knighted during game play. After giving the briefest of a cultural and political background for the campaign I asked the Leads what Goal their characters had.

Mike said he wanted land. That’s a good Objective for someone in this sort of setting. But not specific enough. “Whose land?” I asked. ‘Do you want to get it from some Saxons, or conquer a fertile manor from a noble knight?”

“From a knight,” Mike replied.

“Excellent, that’ll be hard. Are you gunning for the Earl, or just a knight.”

He said his character wasn’t ready to take on an Earl, so he’d go after a knight.

“Why are you doing this? Is there something about the land, or do you hate the knight?”

After discussing this back and forth a bit, Mike decided both. He said, “The land is especially valuable, and I hate the family. The knight has a son, and the son and I have a rivalry. We fight constantly.”

“Now, your father, does he hate them too?”

Mike smiled, getting into the groove of being a problem magnet. “No. My folks and this family are really good friends. They get along great.”

“Anything else?”

“Yes. Is there some woman I could be courting, to marry her and get her father’s land as well …?”

We set this up as well. By the time we were done we were able to define the knight’s Goal: he wanted to be a major political and military power in Britain. My job was simply to give him opportunities to attain this, and obstacles that thwarted these efforts or prevented him from advancing.

The younger brother of this knight was played by Chris. He began somewhat vague as a character, but Chris eventually provided a terrific Goal.

“I show off for the women. You know.”

“That’s an activity, but what’s your goal?” As Fifth Business, part of my job is to make the suggestions of the players concrete and useable.

“To impress them.”

“For any particular reason? Sometimes when a person shows off his or her sexuality to a group, he or she does it actually to engage the attention of one person. Is there one person you’re trying to get the attention of?”

“Yeah. How about the wife of the knight my brother wants to kill?”

I smiled. Of course. “All right. Now, how strongly do you want her? Christopher Kubasik’s rule of thumb is always make the strongest choice possible.”

“I love her more than I love my own family.”

“All-Righty!”

But what about the session? All I had was Saxons, and neither Mike nor Chris had shown much interest in them. I put just blind faith in everyone and went to work.

I sent the Lead characters, Arakien and Galan out on patrol for Saxons.

Traveling with them were two knights: Sir Graid, whose daughter Arakien was wooing, and Sir Merin, Arakien’s nemesis and son of the woman Galan loved more than he loved his own family. I still had no idea what was going to happen, but I followed the Fifth Business’s first rule of thumb, put volatile characters and objects together in the same scene.

This makes more sense to me: the focus of prep is on situation and relationships, rather than a possible series of events.

It also highlights another aspect of playing to find out what happens: what Vincent Baker, in AW, calls "no status quo!" My view, based on reading modules and reading posts about play and GMing, is that one obstacle to playing to find out is a reluctance to let the players have big impacts on the fiction; a fear of the players going "out of control". Vincent Baker's advice for setting and situation design in AW seems to be deliberately intended to push back against this sort of reluctance. Whereas advice to "design a possible adventure" and "prepare plot hooks" seems to encourage it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This "plot hook" discussion seems to have mostly run its course, but I'll just add: I wouldn't normally use plot hook as a synonym for framing a scene and/or establishing a situation that is a provocative opportunity.

The more trivial, pedantic reason is that there's no plot, and no hook, so it would look like a misnomer. The more serious reason is similar to what I said upthread about "the adventure" - I think that recycling terms to describe different techniques tends to cause confusion and flattens out the discussion of GMing techniques.

Yes, I think the terminology that's used can cause confusion, and I think that's happened here. I certainly took some comments differently than others did.

But I do think it's also the nature of the beast, so to speak. Barring everyone adopting consistent, agreed upon terminology, I think it's important to look at the context and intent. I think that my gaming group, who are avid players but none of them post on this or similar forums nor do they examine the process of play to the level that can happen here, the phrases "adventure" and "plot hook" are very commonly used.

"Adventure" tends to mean gaming session, or perhaps a few connected sessions with some overall connection. "Plot hook" tends to just mean potential prompt to some kind of action or conflict.

When I read "The GM can now design the opening scene and possible adventure" (from the OP) and "The GM still has control of the content of the game and plot hooks are needed" (from @Charles Dunwoody not far upthread) it doesn't read to me anything like AW or Burning Wheel.

That's fair, and I get why there may be some confusion. But if you go back to the OP, you'll see that he specifically is eschewing the Adventure Path style of play in favor of a different style, which is then described. That description in the OP, to me, does sound like Play to Find Out. Perhaps not a perfect example of it, but certainly in the realm.

Upthread you (hawkeyefan) said a bit about Alien scenarios. Which to me seemed a bit like Prince Valiant episodes. But Prince Valiant episodes don't really have "plot hooks" either. You come to a glade and a knight is waiting there, mounted, beside his tent. He insists that you joust with him before he will let you pass through! isn't a plot hook. It's not leading into anything - it's the main event!

It's a matter of intention, of course. Is this intended to be step one in a set path of events? Or is it simply a starting situation?

But even in a game where the GM is just using this incident with the knight to frame the scene and challenge the players, the fallout of whatever they decide and whatever happens to them and the knight could lead to all manner of things, such that later on, many sessions down the road, they could look back and say "this has all happened because of that knight".

This makes more sense to me: the focus of prep is on situation and relationships, rather than a possible series of events.

Again, I would cite the OP and how this seems to largely be the goal of what is described. The GM has some initial ideas, he involves the players incrafting the setting through character creation, they all discuss and then make adjustments, then they proceed with play. The goal being to avoid pre-authored outcomes by involving the players in determining the elements that will come up in play.

It also highlights another aspect of playing to find out what happens: what Vincent Baker, in AW, calls "no status quo!" My view, based on reading modules and reading posts about play and GMing, is that one obstacle to playing to find out is a reluctance to let the players have big impacts on the fiction; a fear of the players going "out of control". Vincent Baker's advice for setting and situation design in AW seems to be deliberately intended to push back against this sort of reluctance. Whereas advice to "design a possible adventure" and "prepare plot hooks" seems to encourage it.

I agree that not letting go of the status quo and in maintaining pre-authored paths don't fit in with Playing to Find Out. Obviously, I can't say what exactly was meant by "design a possible adventuer" and "prepare plot hooks". But again, going back to the OP, if we treat those phrases more like "have an idea of what may happen, which you later modify based on what the players bring to the game", I don't see it being quite such a conflict.

I think the OP is advocating for a playstyle that is less GM led (which I think is great).....but it didn't go as far as possible, and so it's being criticized.

 

[pemerton]

I think the OP is advocating for a playstyle that is less GM led (which I think is great).....but it didn't go as far as possible, and so it's being criticized.

I felt that there were some tensions in what was said, and wanted to push a bit on them. Because this isn't an unexplored area of discussion. I've referred a few times to Kubasik's Interactive Toolkit, which has been around for over 20 years.

I was a little surprised by some of the responses (to me and others).

anyway: Trad vs Indie: FIGHT! pt2

When one reads the comments, one sees a few key ideas from Vincent Baker:

* If you want to be able to ask (through prep) and answer (through play) certain questions, you need an appropriately designed system;

* D&D can answer tactical questions, about who can beat whom in a fight, but not other sorts of questions;

* "Don't plan" = "Don't prep outcomes"​

I found the back-and-forth with cc pretty striking, because cc's comments reminded me of what I read in many, many posts on ENworld.