Overarching Plots Vs. Self-Contained Plots

[Presto2112]

As I've said before recently, I'm DMing my first campaign, and I'm actually attempting a story arc that has things going on in the background that, while they don't directly involve the PCs, they do affect them. What I'm attempting to do is to give several options to the PCs as to what to do, and which ever path they take, events happen on the paths they don't that could affects everything else. Not all of these things are bad either.

I'm also trying to work a rival NPC adventuring group into the mix, so it's all been quite fun.

 

[shilsen]

Here's my take on the subject: Don't start with an overarching plot, but create one over the course of the campaign.

I mainly like the idea of an overarching plot for the flavor aspect, i.e. the sense of accomplishment it gives players as they work it out and achieve various things along the way, the way it ties the entire campaign together, the little "OMG! Now I see!" moments, etc. But I abhor some of the mechanical aspects it pushes one towards, esp. the certain degree of railroading it implies, the problems inherent in it if PCs decide to take off on a different tack or if the original PCs are replaced by new ones, etc.

So my particular solution, which I used in a 2 year campaign and am doing so right now in another one just into its 3rd year, is to start a campaign with no overarching plotline at all, but rather to let one emerge from the choices of the players/PCs. After the first session of the campaign, I threw out a dozen different plot options at the PCs and just let them follow the one they wanted. And from those choices arose other choices, and I also threw in a few more every dozen sessions or so. And while this is going on, I weave backwards and forwards to create the overarching plot. All you have to do is insert things into the game that can have various meanings, and only pick the specific meaning when you have to, and make that meaning the one most relevant to the PCs' backgrounds, choices and probable future.

So, for example, right from the start of the current campaign, I had someone powerful manipulating the PCs. When we started, I really had no idea who the individual or its agenda was, knowing only that it had access to significant wealth and magical resources, and that it was most likely tied into the background of the paladin and the wizard in the group. As time went on and the PCs made various choices, the BBEG in the background gradually got narrowed down into someone who was in Sharn (it's an Eberron game) and able to assume various disguises, someone who was at least decades and maybe centuries old, someone who had lairs in other nations, and eventually, someone who was really interested in items that could break binding magic. And so, the BBEG eventually emerged as a powerful rakshasa spellcaster. And the PCs eventually ended up with a climactic encounter with him which tied together the first 45 sessions of the campaign and the first 1.5 years of the campaign.

None of that was set in stone at the beginning of the campaign, and (as I just indicated) in many cases didn't even exist at all. but now if you go back over the details and the interconnections, they are absolutely ironclad. So I got an overarching plot without actually having started with one, and effectively got all the benefits of one without any of the negatives. All it takes is patience, flexibility and a careful eye for threads that one can weave together, with the understanding that one is weaving backwards as much as forward.

Hope that helps.

 

[Metus]

A lot of early morning replies. At least early in Arizona.

I wanted to do some quoting, but pretty much everyone has said something noteworthy. The situation is similar to Eric Noah's in that overarching plotlines just tire me. Shilsen clarified it when he said that it implies a certain amount of railroading, and railroading is complete anathema to me. I recall one time when a player in my campaign complained that the current problem they were having is that it was "the complete opposite of railroading." I guess too open-ended? There's also player character continuity, since if they set out to stop the BBEG from the beginning, and they all die, it turns out kind of odd. Same thing if I'm drawing on their past experiences... if they're dead. Combine that with the fact that I don't flub dice for good or ill, and there can be a decent amount of PC death in my games, depending.

Published adventures are unfortunately out; I subscribed to Dungeon for years, I bought a lot of popular adventures including the WotC ones, I played in Shackled City and ran Age of Worms. I've probably run at least 100+ published adventures in the past 5-6 years (I was in college); I've come to realize I absolutely hate published adventures and have sworn off them forever, but I think that's for another topic. So, using one for me is pretty much off the table.

Mixing in overarching plots and self-contained ones like some TV shows do just doesn't sit well with me. It's funny because usually when I watch TV shows that have certain episodes dedicated to an overarching plot and some episodes dedicated to self-contained ones, I usually skip the former and only watch the latter.

Because I usually run a game spontaneously with barely any planning, Shilsen's method would probably be the way to go. In fact, I have gone that route, and it wasn't all that bad. I'm still thinking heavily about how to run this upcoming campaign.

Great responses from all, and I appreciate the comments. I'm really curious as to how DMs run their campaigns, and I've gotten a sampling of that.

 

[Merkuri]

Mixing in overarching plots and self-contained ones like some TV shows do just doesn't sit well with me. It's funny because usually when I watch TV shows that have certain episodes dedicated to an overarching plot and some episodes dedicated to self-contained ones, I usually skip the former and only watch the latter.

Why? Do you not watch the episodes that work on the over-arching plot because you missed out on earlier episodes, or do you just like your plots to wrap up nicely within an hour's time? If it's the later then you should probably just dump the idea of an over-arching plot in your adventures altogether. If they're not for you, then they're not for you, and you will probably find yourself becoming less and less interested in the game as you go, which isn't good for anyone.

Personally, I love the sense that Something Big is Going On that I get when I watch a TV show with an over-arching plotline. This is one of the reasons I like Heroes and Babylon 5 so much. It's fun to try and guess what will happen next. It's a great feeling when you've guessed right, and it's also awesome to suddenly see all the pieces come together. The same type of things go for over-arching campaign plots, but I don't doubt they're much harder to pull off. But that's me. If you or your players don't share my enthusiasm for over-arching plotlines then don't bother with them. You'll have more work with not much more fun.

 

[wayne62682]

I prefer exclusively overarching plots. I like things to be tied in to other things. The way I usually describe it is that I prefer 24 (the TV series) to Law & Order. 24 has an overarching plot, with each episode pretty much in direct relation to the one that comes before it.

L&O on the other hand is a series of standalone plots featuring the same cast of characters (the PCs in D&D's case), and very very rarely is there a "sequel" episode that relates to a previous episode.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

A I recall one time when a player in my campaign complained that the current problem they were having is that it was "the complete opposite of railroading." I guess too open-ended? There's also player character continuity, since if they set out to stop the BBEG from the beginning, and they all die, it turns out kind of odd. Same thing if I'm drawing on their past experiences... if they're dead. Combine that with the fact that I don't flub dice for good or ill, and there can be a decent amount of PC death in my games, depending.

[snip]

Mixing in overarching plots and self-contained ones like some TV shows do just doesn't sit well with me. It's funny because usually when I watch TV shows that have certain episodes dedicated to an overarching plot and some episodes dedicated to self-contained ones, I usually skip the former and only watch the latter.

Because I usually run a game spontaneously with barely any planning, Shilsen's method would probably be the way to go. In fact, I have gone that route, and it wasn't all that bad. I'm still thinking heavily about how to run this upcoming campaign.

Personally I like Shilsen's method and it was what I was trying to establish in my old group. If even that seems a little too much, you might consider not having an overarching plot at all, but instead have some recurring storylines, like the infamous Space Seed/Wrath of Kahn from Star Trek. You and the players won't feel like there is this one story that you need to keep up with, but at the same time, when that second story comes around, the players will have an instant connection to the upcoming adventure instead of an open-ended, "...the villagers throw a feast in your honor. It is three days later, what are you going to do now?"

 

[EricNoah]

Published adventures are unfortunately out.

For me, short published adventures are now my saving grace. I can drop them in whenever and wherever I want, I can prep for 3-6 adventures (by reading them) and then lay out clues/rumors that lead to them, and let the players pick which ones interest them. So no Age of Worms, no Shackled City for me (I loved reading them and would love to be a player in them, I just don't have the gumption to keep a level 1-20 campaign all about the same thing going). Dungeon Crawl Classics and stand-alone adventures from Dungeon are going to be my bread and butter these days. Doesn't mean I don't have a setting or some background info for the campaign -- I do, it's just very fuzzy, not clearly defined. So far so good...

 

[Piratecat]

I tend towards long arcing plots, with many shorter and self-contained plots layered within.

 

[Metus]

Why? Do you not watch the episodes that work on the over-arching plot because you missed out on earlier episodes, or do you just like your plots to wrap up nicely within an hour's time? If it's the later then you should probably just dump the idea of an over-arching plot in your adventures altogether. If they're not for you, then they're not for you, and you will probably find yourself becoming less and less interested in the game as you go, which isn't good for anyone.

It's the latter.

Personally, I love the sense that Something Big is Going On that I get when I watch a TV show with an over-arching plotline. This is one of the reasons I like Heroes and Babylon 5 so much. It's fun to try and guess what will happen next. It's a great feeling when you've guessed right, and it's also awesome to suddenly see all the pieces come together. The same type of things go for over-arching campaign plots, but I don't doubt they're much harder to pull off. But that's me. If you or your players don't share my enthusiasm for over-arching plotlines then don't bother with them. You'll have more work with not much more fun.

I've enjoyed Heroes, but it's beginning to aggravate me and - now that I think about it - some of the people I game with as well. When I watch Heroes or something similar, I'm ready to get the show on the road. I guess I'm just impatient. I don't enjoy the plodding pace or the dearth of information, which feels artificial to me, and how they parcel out tidbits of plot like it's the King's gold. Lost is the extreme of this in my opinion, as I've watched it from the start. I also find myself underwhelmed by the majority of plotlines I see, whether in movies or books or whatever; the amount of time and effort involved in keeping track of the story is usually not worth the payoff. Obviously if I'm DMing and making the story itself, one would I think I could remedy this. Perhaps it's just a flaw in my ability to DM, which is one thing I was curious about from the start.

 

[Umbran]

I tend towards long arcing plots, with many shorter and self-contained plots layered within.

And remember that one can be converted into the other with a little flimflam!

The players just about never get the whole story on any plot. That usually leaves the GM a whole to of wiggle room to link shorter plots together retroactively. There's always a loose end here or there that can be tied to something else. As in, "Oh, that slaver ring you broke up three sessions ago? They were actually working with the mind flayers, you just didn't know it yet!"