Has complexity every worked for you as a DM?

[Piratecat]

Most of my plots are relatively complex. I try for a simple beginning, a relatively simple end, and a complex series of interlocking plot elements in the middle that change depending on which order they're tackled in.

Hmm, let's think of a simple example. I wanted to use G1, Steading of the Hill Giants. After conquering the fort, the PCs learned that someone in a nearby town was paying them to keep trade out of the pass. The group used the carrier pigeons to track down the family, who turned out to be the son of the local knight... then they had to prove the charge without a shadow of a doubt before they could even accuse him. It worked out wonderfully, and helped round out a dungeon crawl with a mystery and political adventure.

 

[barsoomcore]

Yeah, I love complex campaigns. Barsoom is a mess.

I don't really create a "hierarchy" of bad guys -- that implies that they're all working together. I just come up with lots of cool bad guys (or rather, I come up with lots of cool crazy people who are willing to do just about anything to get what they want -- whether they're good or bad is less important, as far as creating strong stories goes), throw them all into the mix, and see what they do.

Every so often I go through my notes and say to myself, "Now, what's so-and-so up to these days?" and come up with ideas for deeds and plots they might be getting involved in.

Here's a related question: Do your players take notes on stuff in your campaign? My players have gone through entire notebooks jotting down stuff in Barsoom, and every time some new information comes to light, there's a room-wide shuffling of papers as everyone hunts frantically for connections/contradictions/confirmations to what they've already learned...

 

[DungeonmasterCal]

OTOH, my most successful campaign ever was very intricate, but that intricacy grew naturally and gradually over the course of two years.

Mine took about 10 years to unfold, but there were story lines for each character that entertwined and unraveled, only to be tied up again at the end. I didn't start out with this idea in mind, but with great players who help with their own input, it evolves naturally.

 

[random user]

Some rambly thoughts, as I was thinking about this while trying to fall asleep last night:

I think that complexity is sometimes a perception. Things can appear simple when looked at in one direction, yet very complex when looked at in another direction.

I've found that simple things can give rise to complexity just by existing. For my campaign, all I did was create a set of NPC's and gave them motivations. To carry out their objectives, I thought about each NPC and what they would do, and how they would interact with other NPCs (and eventually the PCs). This gave rise to some complex interactions, but at the core, each NPC still had a simple objective, whether that was to keep the status quo, attain more power, create partnerships, or whatever.

In regards to a complex city, I wonder what could cause a city to have a lot of dead ends, or twists, etc. That just doesn't seem very... city-like... I guess for lack of a better word.

If I wanted to create a complex city (which I don't think would be useful unless the PC's plan to spend a lot of time there), I would again, start at the beginning.

The city needs to exist for some reason originally. Here are some possibilities:

- Is it on the river? Maybe it was a place to stop along a trade route.
- Maybe there was a blacksmith who lived there, and people came to get things repaired
- Maybe it was a farmer that was renowed for growing great fruit and vegetables
- Maybe it's about 1 day out from a major city
- Maybe there was a war and the place became a supply station.

Once you come up with a reason for the cities' existence, then you put that piece in the center. Perhaps it's a smithy, or an inn, or a farm. Then you decide what might come next.

Perhaps the smithy was so successful, he decided to make extras and sell it in a store. Someone else realized that when the people came, they were often hungry so he opened a tavern/restaurant. It served drinks too but was "upscale."

If it was a stopping point, perhaps the first thing that happened was someone had a farm and got tired of people asking to sleep in the barn. He created another structure and made it an inn. People often were running caravans, so the next structure to get built was a tack/feed/general store. Though most people don't want to admit it, the next structure build was a brothel, though it was constructed a discrete distance away. It was so successful (and they needed an excuse for being there) that they put up a bar (which quickly got the reputation of being rowdy) next to it.

Build a couple more structures then create a growing pain. It might be minor, like they realized crime was a problem so they created a militia/police/whatever. Or it might be major like a fire swept through and destroyed half the town.

Do that a few times, and now you have a living and breathing town with a real history.

So now if the players ask, "Um that makes no sense, why does that street just deadend," you can reply, "Well there used to a large estate at the end of that road, but the noble ran up some debts and it fell into disrepair. Development continued around it, while the house just stood there in shambles. Since the estate was already claimed they build other streets to bypass it. Eventually someone bought up the land and tore down the house. But they didn't want to waste their acreage so they just put up the inn and tavern that's there now. People complain that it's kind of a pain that it's there."

I'm kind of rambling here, but the point is that things seem complex when you can only look at it from one angle. If you can provide the players an explanation of the underlying cause of why things are the way they are, I think they will have a much easier time tieing everything together.

And yes, I know a good DM can look at any city map and come up with good reasons why certain things are the way they are on the fly. Not everyone can do that though. One thing creating a history will do, though, is create more cohesiveness than most on-the-fly performances can provide.

And no, I don't advocate doing this for every town the party comes to, especially if they aren't going to spend a lot of time there. But if it's going to be the player's base of operation for 8 levels, and you aren't using a pre-fab city, it might be a worthwhile exercise to do.


I find for myself that if I remember the underlying motivations for my NPC's etc, then I can keep everything straight without too much trouble. It may seem complex to someone who doesn't know all the stuff that's going through my NPC's head, but in reality he's just trying to twist whatever circumstance he happens to be in to his advantage in whatever he is trying to accomplish.

 

[drnuncheon]

In regards to a complex city, I wonder what could cause a city to have a lot of dead ends, or twists, etc. That just doesn't seem very... city-like... I guess for lack of a better word.

Eh? Maybe not dead ends, but if you don't have twisty streets you probably live in a fairly recent city.

The surrounding terrain is the most likely reason for twisting roads. If you've got a city in a necessary position but lousy terrain - like my home city of Pittsburgh, for example - you can't really avoid it. Grid patterns only really work when things are pretty flat - often it's a lot easier to go around the hill than it is over it.

J

 

[Psion]

I'm not sure if this qualifies, but I am going to go out on a limb and say "yes".

I never realized how intricate the workings of my primary game world was until I sat down a few times and tried to describe it. It was very easy to go on and on because, well, everything that I could relate related to something else because it was linked somehow.

And the results of the campaign? Let's just say I had the players specifically request extra session because they couldn't get enough.

Some who have poo-pooed on "complexity" above have went on the assumption that those who do are flooding the players with information. It doesn't have to be that way. In fact, it SHOULDN'T be that way.

Ideally, to me, proceeding in a campaign should be like peeling back layers of an onion. One secret unveiled reveals another mystery. As soon as that is peeled away, there is another. There is satisfaction, because the players are learning why at each stage, and the intracacy of it all gives a feeling of depth, realism, and involvement. But there is always the next challenge.

How to do this:
1) My personal method -- whenever anything happens, ask yourself why. Why is the NPC trying to take over the town? Why is this puzzle-golem-gnome in the wizard's castle?

and when you do it, try to look for similarities and coincidences that exist and try to explain them.

An example, one of the pivotal villains of my last campaign was a conjurer name Galea. She was acting to disrupt trade and assist the drow in the surface world. Why? Because the PCs nation stood in the way of her plans. Why? Because she was part of a cabal of wizards obsessed with establishing themselves as a ruling class. That's how I conceived them, but until some time later, I hadn't asked that next why.

When the players encountered the puzzle-golem gnome in the lair of one of the Arcane Alliance's wizards, I started asking why again. Well, he was cursed. Why? Because he would not join the arcane alliance's purposes. Why? That's where I took the devolopment of the arcane alliance deeper. Why would there be a number of wizards who came together for this purpose. It just so happened that part of the background of my world was that a nation to the east suffered a coup, a nation that was formerly a magocracy. Some of the exiled and escaped mages wanted to return to power. Some did not see it happening in their homeland that was steeled against them, but many looked to the less ready lands of the west, towards a new future.

2) Ray Winniger's Dungeoncraft articles has a variety of techniques for making campaigns interesting, but this one was the one that impacted my game the most readily: whenever you make up an aspect of your game world, make up a secret to go with it. It doesn't always work that way, but it's a nice enough thought to strive for, and can really pay off.

 

[Gothmog]

Start simple, end complex.

That's how I tend to run my campaigns

The first few adventures are merely there to introduce the world, shake out the characters and their place in it, and figure out how "regular things" work and fit.

But then the complexity arises. Players start seeing certain NPCs over and over, both those who aid the group and those who oppose it. Statements made seemingly off-the-cuff appear to have greater meaning. Rumours that seemed innocuous before take on importance. And that nice-but-hardly-special magic item might prove to be much more than it actually seemed at first.

Some "obvious problems" or "known conspiracies" turn out just to be paranoia on the part of the players; other groupings become incredibly nasty. Recurring villains, references to books or lost spells, a mark seen over and over at the site of certain types of crimes weave into a bigger story.

Oh yes, I love complexity in my games So do my players

I think Wombat has the right idea here. Let the players explore the world initially and become familiar with it, then as they learn more about the world, add on layers of complexity. However, I will say this: when I begin a campaign, I start with 2 or 3 plot arcs detailed. This includes knowing what the situation is, who the major players are, and what will likely happen if the PCs don't intervene. The I present different situations to the players, and let them choose the arc(s) that interest them most. So far its worked out well, and the players are free to pursue their own interests. That also allows me to add layers of complexity easily, as the players delve deeper into certain areas.

 

[Ry]

Here's a little thread necromancy, because I found the advice here really useful and I've referenced back to it many times. Here's my recap spiced by my own observations in the last 2 years.

1) You're the DM; it's your job to provide adversity. So prepare things in the background that can create adversity. Complexity, of the kind that helps the campaign, can emerge from conflicting interests in the game world (especially when the source of conflict are well-designed villains). When the players, acting on their own volition, encounter those conflicting interests, they are engaged with the complexity rather than just hearing about it.

2) Add stuff to the campaign as fits the moment, session, and situation at the time. Add things along the themes, or pull them in from your conflicting interests, above. Ways to connect these elements together will be even more obvious in hindsight, and you will get great ideas both at the table and between sessions.

3) Don't try to force plot twists; if you see an opening, go for it, but don't force it. Make sure that the surprises make sense - do the work of adding elements in the background that explain the surprise.

4) When you add elements to the campaign, ask why they exist or how they are motivated.

5) Secrets which the players can discover add complexity and are a great asset to the game.

 

[Crothian]

Another thing I've found is to give different pieces to different PCs. But don't tell them you are doing this. I had a campaign that it took the players six months before they really realized they had different peaces to the puzzles they were after and they had a great time discovering what the others knew.

 

[TarionzCousin]

Most of my plots are relatively complex. I try for a simple beginning, a relatively simple end, and a complex series of interlocking plot elements in the middle that change depending on which order they're tackled in.

That sounds like a plan!


My games are complex. Do my players like them? Yes and no. As someone else posted here, players miss a large percentage of plot points. Oh well. I'm enjoying it, and they keep coming back.