Critical Role Story, rails, and running games

[overgeeked]

There was a round-table discussion last night between Matt Mercer, Aabria Iyengar, and Brennan Lee Mulligan. There was a lot of laughs and a lot of referee talk. One thing that stood out was this analogy by Brennan.


I'm not sure what to think about this, honestly. I know that's a common style, but it goes against the core reason I run games. So it's not for me, really. But I thought it was a cool clip.

The full round table here:

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I think it common though not universal. I do think that a lot of the talk from modern WoTC designers only make sense under this asthetic.

 

[LordEntrails]

Hmm, maybe? But it seems like he is working really hard to make an analogy to understand how he runs things. I certainly dont see it being how I run or perceive the game and the story interactions between the players, characters, and DM.

 

[Gradine]

This more or less encapsulates how I run the game myself, and it really is quite pleasing overall.

 

[Manbearcat]

@overgeeked , I agree with you. I very much like his analogy for GM-directed play and it 100 % captures the type of 5e…but I don’t want any part of curating and directing to the degree that analogy expresses.

Ive done it before (early 90s Greybox Settng Tourism for a few years and then a heavy Setting Tourism + metaplot FR and PS game from 99-04 and standing in for a flakey GM’s 5e FR + metaplot game from late 15 to early 17). While the select group of players enjoyed the play, I loathed all of the extreme cognitive workload + out of game time investment + inability to be profoundly surprised by the shape play took (like he says in the quote…”your job is to irrigate the hill with the flowing water so it takes on a pleasing shape”). I understand it’s mass appeal, but I’ll never run that kind of game again.

 

[iserith]

My theory is that plot-based adventures are easier to prep, but harder to run in that you're trying to hide the plot in some sense yet also keep the players on it. Sandboxes are harder to prep, but easier to run. I have to create all kinds of tables and other stuff to use on the fly up front so I can be ready for anything, but when that's done, I don't have to do hardly anything at all in play except manage the prep and see what happens.

In addition, plot-based adventure products are probably more interesting for the DM to read than the collection of tables and whatnot that comprise a sandbox. For many DMs, these modules are what they understand adventure design to be.

Put all that together and we will naturally get more DMs running plot-based adventures - they're less prep on the front end and it's what people are used to seeing in products.

 

[Lanefan]

My theory is that plot-based adventures are easier to prep, but harder to run in that you're trying to hide the plot in some sense yet also keep the players on it.

IME the trick is to somehow generate enough interest among the players that they in effect keep themselves on it, because they want to see what happens next and-or how it all turns out (a.k.a. whether they will succeed or fail overall and what the ramifications of either might be).

It also means that if they don't show that interest, one needs to be ready to abandon that idea almost on the fly and have somehting else ready to go as a backup or plan B.

I also disagree as to whether plot-based adventures involve less prep, in cases where one is homebrewing the plot and designing/writing adventures oneself.

 

[overgeeked]

Hmm, maybe? But it seems like he is working really hard to make an analogy to understand how he runs things. I certainly dont see it being how I run or perceive the game and the story interactions between the players, characters, and DM.

The larger context is that it’s for shorter games. One-shots, con games, etc. Limited time and needing to hit certain things.

 

[iserith]

IME the trick is to somehow generate enough interest among the players that they in effect keep themselves on it, because they want to see what happens next and-or how it all turns out (a.k.a. whether they will succeed or fail overall and what the ramifications of either might be).

It also means that if they don't show that interest, one needs to be ready to abandon that idea almost on the fly and have somehting else ready to go as a backup or plan B.

I also disagree as to whether plot-based adventures involve less prep, in cases where one is homebrewing the plot and designing/writing adventures oneself.

What I do is I tell the players there's a plot, that there is no content outside the plot, and that they must agree to stick to the plot as best as possible. If they agree, I'll run it but only begrudgingly. I also tie character advancement to staying on the plot and not anything else.

I can prep a plot-based adventure to fill 4 hours of session time (5 hours with shopping) in about 10 minutes - a basic storyline, a couple NPCs, some stat blocks, and a couple maps (which I only need for the VTT). I can't do that for a sandbox. Putting together a wandering monster or random encounter table alone takes longer than that.

This is also one of the reasons why I think city-based play is popular - less prep. It's easier to improvise stuff there than construct a dungeon and populate it with traps, monsters, and treasure. It's the path of least resistance for the DM, prep-wise.

 

[overgeeked]

There’s a great bit at 1:05:30 where Matt talks about the player cycle of freedom and rules. Very relevant to a lot of conversations I see popping up.