Plot

[buzz]

I'll beg to differ. For me, the plot of the adventure is what the PCs choose to do.

But that's the kind of plot that doesn't reveal itself until the game is over. The point, from an adventure-writing perspective, is that you can't write out what the players are going todo, unless you're just going to railroad them. What you can do is set up a situation with a timeline of events that will occur should the PCs do nothing.

E.g., the "adventure plot" of Star Wars is that the Empire builds a superweapon and then plans to use it to destroy the Rebel base. The Rebels will be destroyed if the PCs do nothing. The cool film that happens is a result of the main characters taking action to thwart this.

 

[buzz]

This is all stuff that has been said for years by different people.

Yeah, but it's always handy to be reminded. I'd never seen this particular advice phrased thusly, too. Me like.

 

[Desdichado]

I'll beg to differ. For me, the plot of the adventure is what the PCs choose to do. The BBEG's army besieging a town isn't the plot for me. It's the backdrop for the plot. PCs lead a valiant defense? Then that's the plot. PCs decide to sneak the target of the BBEG out through the enemy lines? Then that's the plot. PCs decide they're all going to die anyway and commit suicide? Then that's the plot, albeit a very short one
[...]
I personally like my PCs (whether I'm a player or DM) to be proactive rather than reactive and usually find ways to facilitate that. So I prefer having the PCs create the plot.

Sure, that's the after the fact plot. But if you write that plot, then no thanks; I'll play in someone else's game. Me no likey the railroad.

That is pretty brilliant advice, although certainly not new; I've been essentially writing campaigns that way for a long time. It's a bit harder to write smaller adventures using a strict application of that concept, though. It helps to anticipate a bit what the PCs might do and have some sketchy plans in place accordingly. But the best games are those in which the PCs are making the decisions, and the campaign reacts to those decisions, not ones in which the PCs see an obvious angle to pursue (because the GM set it up that way) and so they do, predictably.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

It's a bit harder to write smaller adventures using a strict application of that concept, though. It helps to anticipate a bit what the PCs might do and have some sketchy plans in place accordingly.

What you can do is simply decide what the big picture is going to be before the start of the campaign. You'll need a single column table going from -X to +Y with the campaign starting at the zero mark. Now write in what happens in each box. If the PCs do nothing, the counter slides to -X and the world goes all blowy-uppy. If the PCs take direct action, they'll be moving things to the +Y mark and get a ticker-tape parade.

The DM then has to decide how fast things will slide to -X. I'm a fan of doing it on level up and/or two month's time. That way if the PCs go on a cruise things deteriorate and if they go dungeon crawling for the phat l3wts things deteriorate.

Now, in the third paragraph of this post, I address your point. (nice of me, huh?) Figure out what events will move things in the +Y direction. Make the list big. Put violent and non-violent goals in there. A violent goal could be putting the smackdown on a few of the BBEG's lieutennants. A non-violent goal could be creating a magic item that the BBEG's minions are vulnerable to (e.g. a dragonlance). It's still open ended, no railroading, and you the DM have an idea what he PCs are going to do because they end up telling you and you get to write the adventure they want to play.

It works well, or at least it did for me.

 

[Henry]

How about:

"Plot is what happens if the PCs do nothing; Story is what happens after the PCs get involved."



I always try to write up the goal markers for the villains ahead of time. If the PCs don't interfere, then what is planned, then happens.

 

[mmadsen]

Other tidbits from Rich Redman's latest Bullet Points column:

An opponent is not necessarily evil and is not always out to destroy the heroes.

For our purposes, the "plot" of an adventure is what happens if the heroes do nothing.

Make sure you figure out at least two paths that could lead the heroes from the adventure hook to the climax.

Your encounter descriptions should fire your players' imaginations with only a few words.

Never write more than you actually need to. In fact, you should purposely avoid writing everything out in order to leave some mystery in the situation and some opportunities for expansion in other directions.

"I don't have to run faster than the bear, I just have to run faster than you." [...] Just write about subjects that you know better than your players do.​

 

[barsoomcore]

Man, you guys work too hard.

Last Barsoom session our heroes are part of a caravan heading across the prairies of Yshaka. They fight off an attack by a savage warrior nation mounted on velociraptors, and discover the caravan is smugging magical artifacts that they know are used to summoun people from great distances (only they can't tell WHO these artifacts would summoun...) and they're feeling pretty good about themselves and it's midnight so the game session's pretty much over when I announce,

"Next morning, you see dinosaurs approaching from all sides."

"How many dinosaurs?"

"Maybe 500. T-Rexes and big ceratopsians."

"Savages riding them?"

"Yep."

"So that's something like 2,000 blood-crazed warriors attacking from all sides mounted on gigantic beasts that are either so armoured as to be impervious to our weapons or else so powerful they can EAT most of our guards? And we're, what, at least three days' travel from the nearest civilised city? In a land that is A) fanatically hostile to outsiders, B) apparently getting geared up by an insane goddess to destroy the world and C) possibly the world's biggest spell focus ever, so that if we interfere with ANYTHING we might just trigger the end of the world anyway?"

"Yep. See you next week."


Now THAT'S plotting, kids. Leave that wimpy touchy-feely stuff for whoever it is what plays those World of Darkness games.

 

[Henry]

Now THAT'S plotting, kids. Leave that wimpy touchy-feely stuff for whoever it is what plays those World of Darkness games.

I smell a chase brewing.

 

[shilsen]

How about:

"Plot is what happens if the PCs do nothing; Story is what happens after the PCs get involved."

Nice. That distinction I can agree with. I hate being railroaded as a PC, so as a DM I try to give PCs as much freedom of choice as possible. Sometimes it even freaks out the players a bit, since they actually have to be completely proactive.

I always try to write up the goal markers for the villains ahead of time. If the PCs don't interfere, then what is planned, then happens.

Same here. A couple weeks ago (in game time) in my Eberron game, the PCs had a dozen different plot hooks that they could follow, all of them completely unrelated to one another. They took one and then managed to link it to another, which'll keep them busy for a month or more. While they're doing whatever they do, the other plot hooks are proceeding in various ways, and depending on their future actions, they may or may not matter to the campaign. It's amazing fun to DM the game without knowing what the focus of the campaign will be a couple sessions down the line.

 

[maddman75]

This is pretty close to how I write. Another tack I like to take is to design a stalemate of several groups. None (or few) of these are "good guys" or "bad guys", just different power groups with different agendas. And of course, mutually exclusive goals. Everything is at a standoff, no one feels they can act against the others.

Then, a group of powerful strangers appear in town. The different group all try to flatter, hire, threaten, or bribe the newcomers into acting against one of the others. As soon as they do, then all hell can break lose and the entire area can be engulfed in a turf war.

So in this case, nothing is what happens until the PCs get involved.