So, whos game is it anyway?

[ThoughtBubble]

Or, rather, how much responsiblitity do I have to DM a game that my players want to play, vs DMing the game I'd like to run? Or, maybe, smiply can a story based game work?

Today, I was inspired for a game. It wasn't inspired like the usual, "hey, that'd be a neat idea for a game" inspired. It was more of a moment where symbolism, plot, atmosphere, choice, consiquence, tragedy, and battle all sort of meshed into one coherent outline and begged to be expressed. I was writing an e-mail to some members of my old group, asking them if they were interested, when I stopped and needed to think.

The problem is that I've never had any fun in a game where the DM had a large plot outlined from the beginning. In the first there was simply nothing else. Wander around in the desert aimlessly until we died, or go join up with evilcorp. In the second, it just felt like we had no control. The DM was just too happy to show us his big powerful NPC's with their powerful contraptions, and magic devices. Meanwhile we plodded from place to place, not even able to engage in the simple joy of a dungeon crawl.

And that was like seeing a sick twisted mirror of my own games. Expecially the bad moments, where the characters are just trying to avoid having involvment with anything, and I'm desperately trying to get something to happen. Anyway, extracting thoughts away from that avenue, I'm concerned that having certian encounters, NPCs, themes and scenes mapped out in advance will prove detrimental to the game at large. I'm even more concerned that It'll end up with the players getting forced into these situations because I want to see them happen.

I'm wondering what everyone else's expierence with games built around specific situations is. Is it possible to make a game with a pre-thought out plot and events that isn't horrible?

 

[the Jester]

It's possible, but it's a great deal of effort and a single off session can ruin everything.

In my opinion, you're better off avoiding trying to map things in advance. It didn't work for me when I tried it, and the players didn't have much fun.

Maybe write a book instead?

 

[Etan Moonstar]

It depends on exactly how detailed your pre-thought-out plot is. Mapping out key encounters, major NPCs, campaign themes, and the occasional cool scene in advance is not only fine, but is often the key to a memorable campaign. It's when you railroad the players by predetermining outcomes or accepting only one solution to a given situation, or when you have their characters (the true protagonists of the story) upstaged by your pet NPCs, that players become dissatisfied. The trick is to give the players the illusion of free will while letting their characters have the spotlight--get to know both the players and their characters, and use their own tendencies and desires to subtly lead them down the path you have planned (although they will generally do so in a meandering fashion, with the frequent side-trip off the path).

The responsibility for cooperation and compromise in creating a fun campaign goes both ways, by the way. Players have just as much obligation to work with the DM and generally follow the campaign outline set up by the DM, and not deliberately torpedo all of his hard work by running off in a direction they know that he is completely unprepared for. Too many players forget that the DM also deserves a share in the fun and campaign direction that is at least equal to their own.

 

[Mark]

There's nothing wrong with having a huge plot planned out in advance provided it doesn't dictate what the players' will do, and the plot must be flexible so that it can react to the players' interaction with the world and its components.

Try to have contingencies planned based on as many obvious permutations of change as you can foresee to reduce the number of in-the-moment changes you will have to make.

Be sure the individual NPCs involved in your plot only adjust and react within their own frame of knowledge.

Try to keep the world at large within the scope of your mind as you adjust the plot to react to the players' actions so that you can be sure that the ripple effect of those changes are felt appropriately.

Be prepared to improvise by working out as many of the tangibles as you can, and predicting well in advance as many of the variables as might become reality during gameplay.

These fantasized scenarios will help you to be able to better react realistically to the changes that actually transpire.

 

[Desdichado]

Here's what I do -- I plan out some cool locations, some cool NPCs, and then I give those NPCs motivations and agendas. I might even go so far as to briefly outline what will happen if there were no PCs. Then I throw the PCs into the mix and see what happens.

It's OK to have some plans to the campaign; in fact, a really good campaign probably has to have them. However, that does not mean you have to have pet NPCs or single track options. Let the PCs be creative and if they have a good idea, let them run with it. Never make the mental equivalent of saying "That doesn't work because the module says you have to solve this this way."

 

[Henry]

It's doable, as long as it's not a "fate of the world" scenario, where if the players don't take This one specific action,then the world is toast. Not that they don't make good stories, but it's the campaign type most destined to fail - sometimes, players just don't want their characters to show up to save the world - they want to plumb the dungeon of RatBas-tard the Demi-Lich for goodies and thrills.

I interject plot elements when the players are directionless - when they are at a lull and wondering what to do next. When they express a clear desire to go somewhere or do something I try to put the biggest plot elements on hold; it's not fun if every time they want to go explore Undermountain the Lord of Waterdeep asks them to do something else. However, I don't mean you NEVER push your players - just use your good sense and judgement of your players likes to determine when to "push," and do it sparingly.

The point is, if the players are having fun, and if they are taking the initiative, then you don't necessarily need to push a plot - they are making their own.

There was also a recent Dragon Magazine article that dealt with getting a plot back on track - it's good info, and I'll see if I can find it later.

 

[Desdichado]

The point is, if the players are having fun, and if they are taking the initiative, then you don't necessarily need to push a plot - they are making their own.

I agree; you only want to push your characters when they are directionless. For some players, this is always. They don't want to think too hard about the game, they just want to show up and have a good time. These types of players rarely take initiative, or develop plots tailored to their characters and push them back to you as the DM. If you read up on all the DMing theory, get your expectations askew and then happen to have these kinds of players, you'll be sorely disappointed.

It's important to know your players and how likely they are to really take initiative in the game. Also, its unlikely that they will be able to jump right into that kind of game that's player-driven anyway for quite some time, unless they've already had a lot of time to become familiar with the setting.

 

[Czhorat]

THe last experience I had in a game with a tightly detailed plot was fairly dreadful. Erithtotl spoke of it in this thread: http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=60829

Our problem wasn't with the idea of a plot, but with how thoroughly it dominated the entire gaming experience. I agree with the advice to make sure that the overall plot is loose enough to allow some PC choice. What I'll add is to make sure that the plot is also lightly constrained in terms of timing. Races against the clock are great fun once in a while, but part of our problem was that the entire game felt like one huge downhill rush. I think we'd have tolerated the tight structure of our official "missions" if there were free time in between for us to return someplace we'd previously visited, track down some local rumors, hunt for a specifially desired piece of treasure, or even create magic items.

Personally, I think the idea of an overall plot is a great one if done right. You can show snapshops and hints of the larger shape of things throughout the game, and then let the players find ways to get themselves more and more deeply involved as they increase in power. If done well, it could give them some goals greater than just gaining treasure and power. Good luck!

 

[DMScott]

For me, it's always been the group's game - the kind of campaigns that get run and played are the kind of campaigns a given group enjoys. Some groups like to basically play out a novel/movie/etc. as you describe - they're pretty much on rails, but they enjoy the setting and plot as well tossing in their own dialogue and actions. Other groups prefer a freeform setup, and hate being prodded in any given direction, they want to write their own novel. Some groups aren't interested in any kind of long term storyline, they're happy with a bunch of basically unconnected adventures with the same protagonists. None of these groups - nor any of the many other styles of play - are wrong as long as they're having fun.

I'm wondering what everyone else's expierence with games built around specific situations is. Is it possible to make a game with a pre-thought out plot and events that isn't horrible?

Sure, happens all the time for groups that like that sort of thing. The Dragonlance series of modules were a big hit, for example, so a decent number of groups must have enjoyed playing them. OTOH, others hated them, universal approval is at best unlikely. What's important is to know your group, what they like and what they dislike, and work on your campaign structure accordingly.

 

[Piratecat]

The trick? Plan in detail what the bad guys do, and NOT what the good guys do. Then let the PCs thwart your bad guys, who change their plans to adapt.

If you try to script the actions and plans of the heroes, you might as well not even bother.