The 3 point plot

[LostSoul]

Hey non-gender specific peoples;

The way I design "plots", or approach adventure design, is to come up with three different groups, give them motivation, and set them against each other. It becomes a triangle in which all three groups work against each other (sometimes in the open, sometimes they're more subtle about it). I craft a little story - A wants the McGuffin from B, B wants to keep the McGuffin because it lets them pimp out C, C want the McGuffin to become free - and then try and fit in the PCs.

The PCs then become the fourth party, enemies or allies (it should always be in flux) of all the other groups. Hired by one against another, attacked by another and then embraced by that same group, then turning against their supporter. They are the catalyst that drives everything forward. And they are really sexy, too.

Anyways. That's how I like to approach adventure design. Now I don't think it's the best way of doing things - not even the best way of doing things in this paradigm - so I'd like to hear your comments or smackdowns of my ideas.

Or your own methods of creating adventures.

 

[Starglim]

Whether the plot is based on a place, a creature or group, or an object, it seems to me that the best adventures start with an incident that involves the PCs.

Something unusual, and typically dangerous, happens, revealing a larger series of events that is already in motion. The PCs can intervene, or they can flee, but the dire events will not stop happening until they reach their catastrophic conclusion, unless a brave group of adventurers faces the danger and puts things right.

I don't think an adventure needs more than one major villainous group (though it can work with two villains who oppose each other), but the main villain should be obscure at the beginning. The PCs will first interact with his low-level agents, his victims, or a less-powerful neutral group that wants to defeat the main villain or exploit the situation.

 

[rknop]

Sounds like a reasonable thing to do.

One thing you should do at some point, though, is make the PCs either A, B, or C. (Sounds like we're talking about The Prisoner here....) Then bring in a group of NPCs as the fourth group. If you have ongoing characters, eventually they should have some McGuffin that they care about enough to make them one of the three points in your plot.

-Rob

 

[LostSoul]

Whether the plot is based on a place, a creature or group, or an object, it seems to me that the best adventures start with an incident that involves the PCs.

Damn good point. I think that's what separates the "meat-plot" (yes, I meant to type meat, not meta, because all DMs know that the backstory or campaign setting is the meat of the plot) from the actual adventure.

Based on my 3-point-plot paradigm, that is something very important to consider.

Also consider something where the PCs are not just one homogenous group; but where one PC has ties to group A, and another to group B, etc. Then you will get some nice inter-party conflict. But this can only be done with a group that won't kill each other for the hell of it.

I don't think an adventure needs more than one major villainous group (though it can work with two villains who oppose each other), but the main villain should be obscure at the beginning.

I disagree. I think that every adventure needs a big "twist" near the end, where the PCs find out that what they have been fighting for (and in some cases, dying for) is not what they thought. This is really helped out by having the third party available. It sets up so that you can work towards conflict with A. First the PCs fight B, then C, then they realize that A is really the true menace (whom they knew about all along).

 

[LostSoul]

One thing you should do at some point, though, is make the PCs either A, B, or C. (Sounds like we're talking about The Prisoner here....) Then bring in a group of NPCs as the fourth group. If you have ongoing characters, eventually they should have some McGuffin that they care about enough to make them one of the three points in your plot.

-Rob

I don't think so. What I picture is some kind of triangle, with A, B, and C as the points. Then you slap the PCs into the middle of the triangle and connect them to each group.

To make things clear, however, I'm really talking about a one-session adventure. That's generally how I write my adventures up - to be finished that night. With plot hooks dangling, of course.

 

[italianranma]

my own plot design

I usually daydream of some kind of cool situation that I'd like to se the PCs in, and work from there; for example in my last game I wanted to try out elite worg riding goblins, so first I made the goblins, then I playtested them by myself and found in what situations they worked best. Then I set up the encounter, added the relevent story hooks, and I had my cool situation unfold before my eyes.

 

[Blue Prussian]

LostSoul,

I think it is a great idea to have groups A, B, and C. It (hopefully) makes the players think more about how to deal with a given situation, and it allows for interesting repercussions from their chosen actions. You can get your players into balance of power issues, Machiavellian intrigue, and anything else you can think of. It makes sense that different groups would have different ambitions and outlooks on any issue/item/event. Also, plotlines can develop and take on their own momentum simply because of the manner in which the players and the groups interact. Not to mention that it gives more freedom to players, since they can choose their friends and enemies. I am curious as to why you would draw the line at one-session adventures. Wouldn't it work for long-term stories as well?

As far as modifications to your idea, the only thing I can think of is upping the ante a bit and having new groups come to the stage, old groups utterly destroyed, groups that unify, and ones that fracture into partisan hatred. Just like real life.

 

[hong]

"And what, pray tell, is the 3-point plot exploding head technique?"

"Quite simply the deadliest exposition technique known to gaming. You touch on three plot points in carefully worded ways, and let the players think about it. But before they have thought for three minutes, their heads explode."

 

[RangerWickett]

I love hong's dry style of cultural critique. It makes my insides tickle.

 

[Snoweel]

Hey non-gender specific peoples;

The way I design "plots", or approach adventure design, is to come up with three different groups, give them motivation, and set them against each other. It becomes a triangle in which all three groups work against each other (sometimes in the open, sometimes they're more subtle about it). I craft a little story - A wants the McGuffin from B, B wants to keep the McGuffin because it lets them pimp out C, C want the McGuffin to become free - and then try and fit in the PCs.

The PCs then become the fourth party, enemies or allies (it should always be in flux) of all the other groups. Hired by one against another, attacked by another and then embraced by that same group, then turning against their supporter. They are the catalyst that drives everything forward. And they are really sexy, too.

Anyways. That's how I like to approach adventure design. Now I don't think it's the best way of doing things - not even the best way of doing things in this paradigm - so I'd like to hear your comments or smackdowns of my ideas.

Or your own methods of creating adventures.

I like the way you think.

I always make sure that whether the PCs decide to get out of bed that day or not, the wheels keep on turning and the world's a different place than it was last week.

Like you say, the key to interesting conflict is conflict of interest, which is best demonstrated by organisations with mutually exclusive goals.

And anyone who quotes a suicidal megalomaniac in their sig is cool with me.