Weaving the plot around the characters
- Thread starter BigRedRod
- Start date
barsoomcore
Unattainable Ideal
You know, I used to worry about that, but I've embraced the pain of it.
The safest rule is to never develop assumptions about HOW the party will solve one problem or another. That keeps you from thinking, "Well, once the paladin's 12th level she'll be able to use the Holy Hoohah to destroy the lich."
Which all sort of falls apart if she dies at 3rd level.
Rather than trying to create "plots" in the narrative sense, have your NPCs pursue "plots" in the intrigue and sneaky sense. Some of those plots may include (should include, maybe) your PCs. Should a PC die, well, alright, those plots shift (or come to end, if your NPC was plotting to kill that PC), but you've gots tons of NPC's, right? Who are all running around pursuing their various plots, right? They're not going to stop going after what they want just because the paladin died, are they?
Alrightie then. No problem.
Don't worry about what your players are going to do. They'll take care of that for you. Worry about what your NPCs are going to do, and let your players worry about how to stop them.
The safest rule is to never develop assumptions about HOW the party will solve one problem or another. That keeps you from thinking, "Well, once the paladin's 12th level she'll be able to use the Holy Hoohah to destroy the lich."
Which all sort of falls apart if she dies at 3rd level.
Rather than trying to create "plots" in the narrative sense, have your NPCs pursue "plots" in the intrigue and sneaky sense. Some of those plots may include (should include, maybe) your PCs. Should a PC die, well, alright, those plots shift (or come to end, if your NPC was plotting to kill that PC), but you've gots tons of NPC's, right? Who are all running around pursuing their various plots, right? They're not going to stop going after what they want just because the paladin died, are they?
Alrightie then. No problem.
Don't worry about what your players are going to do. They'll take care of that for you. Worry about what your NPCs are going to do, and let your players worry about how to stop them.
I don't feel like I have to force my player's to generate a reason why they would all be working together. Rather I start with the overall plot of the game I want to run; without sharing said plot, I ask the player's to generate a backstory for their players (of course if some of them want to know one another beforehand, that's great; also, I at least share basic information such as campaign setting and specific region thereof). I then give them feedback regarding their backstory, sort of my take on it, complete with deatils (secret hints) about the upcoming game. If I have then modified their background in a way that they don't approve of, I give them a chance to ammend what I have done. The long and short of it is, there is a lot of back and forth betwen myself and my palyers regarding character background before we ever sit down to play.
So, this gives us the principle plot and character background. I then try to use the finalized (or as final as it gets before play begins) background to generate 1-2 subplots involving the characters that I can throw up as they make their way through the principle plot.
This may be a bit off topic, but I really strive to create plots and subplots that bring the characters into conflict with one another. I love to see how far I can push them without resorting to intraparty violence, then I back off the stressors just a bit. It's really quite a lot of fun and generates the best role-playing experience in my mind.
That said, it's not for everyone. You have to have a mature group to keep from things dissolving into anarchy. By mature, I guess I mean you have to have players that enjoy role-playing/character acting, but who will, when push comes to shove, put the good of the game above character integrity. Maybe mature is a bad word for this. For example, most fo my group (and it's a large group) loved this style of play, but one guy snapped and started yelling at other players (and I don't think he was "in character" at the time).
Also, creating a tense situation within the party is not for every game. I was running a modified Forgotten Realms game (lower than baseline FR magic, pulp action, Lovecraftian horror), so the intraparty tension/conflict was great. For a more light-hearted, heroic fantasy game, I'd probably shy away from it.
Enough of that.
Chad
So, this gives us the principle plot and character background. I then try to use the finalized (or as final as it gets before play begins) background to generate 1-2 subplots involving the characters that I can throw up as they make their way through the principle plot.
This may be a bit off topic, but I really strive to create plots and subplots that bring the characters into conflict with one another. I love to see how far I can push them without resorting to intraparty violence, then I back off the stressors just a bit. It's really quite a lot of fun and generates the best role-playing experience in my mind.
That said, it's not for everyone. You have to have a mature group to keep from things dissolving into anarchy. By mature, I guess I mean you have to have players that enjoy role-playing/character acting, but who will, when push comes to shove, put the good of the game above character integrity. Maybe mature is a bad word for this. For example, most fo my group (and it's a large group) loved this style of play, but one guy snapped and started yelling at other players (and I don't think he was "in character" at the time).
Also, creating a tense situation within the party is not for every game. I was running a modified Forgotten Realms game (lower than baseline FR magic, pulp action, Lovecraftian horror), so the intraparty tension/conflict was great. For a more light-hearted, heroic fantasy game, I'd probably shy away from it.
Enough of that.
Chad
Kid Socrates
First Post
I'm running two Final Fantasy campaigns (same time, same world, one party's actions eventually affect the other -- that right there is more fun than anything else, to me), and I'm building each campaign completely around the party.
The first thing I did was create the world -- the people, the magic level, the nations, the cities, the history, and then the -real- history (the stuff I didn't tell them).
Then I sat down with the two guys from the first party and said, "Tell me what character ideas you're having."
One said, "I'd like to be a summoner, dedicated to the idea of merging magic and machinery." I work with him on the idea, and take notes on the concept, and I make a few NPCs that will either help or hinder him, and I take his other motivations and tie them into the overarching plot idea I had. I do the same with the other one.
I've found it's a lot more rewarding when they accomplish things that tie in with their character. The other one, the swordsman -- he's excited to advance the plot and take out the BBEG's flunkies and strike them down. But the Aeon that's tied into his past and holds the answers to the questions he's still asking? Nothing's more satisfying than figuring more out and taking that other guy down a few notches. Same for the summoner and things involving his city or family.
My problem with both pre-generated adventures and campaigns that don't revolve around my character is that I feel like I'm just filling a slot. "Okay, we need four heroes. You'll be filling the C slot. If you die, we'll move someone else in." I don't want to feel more important than anyone else in the party, but having the story revolve around the party is a really good feeling.
In regards to killing PCs, I've actually come up with a reason that lets them come back (with repercussions, mind you), but it's really campaign-specific and wouldn't work anywhere else.
This is Matt.
The first thing I did was create the world -- the people, the magic level, the nations, the cities, the history, and then the -real- history (the stuff I didn't tell them).
Then I sat down with the two guys from the first party and said, "Tell me what character ideas you're having."
One said, "I'd like to be a summoner, dedicated to the idea of merging magic and machinery." I work with him on the idea, and take notes on the concept, and I make a few NPCs that will either help or hinder him, and I take his other motivations and tie them into the overarching plot idea I had. I do the same with the other one.
I've found it's a lot more rewarding when they accomplish things that tie in with their character. The other one, the swordsman -- he's excited to advance the plot and take out the BBEG's flunkies and strike them down. But the Aeon that's tied into his past and holds the answers to the questions he's still asking? Nothing's more satisfying than figuring more out and taking that other guy down a few notches. Same for the summoner and things involving his city or family.
My problem with both pre-generated adventures and campaigns that don't revolve around my character is that I feel like I'm just filling a slot. "Okay, we need four heroes. You'll be filling the C slot. If you die, we'll move someone else in." I don't want to feel more important than anyone else in the party, but having the story revolve around the party is a really good feeling.
In regards to killing PCs, I've actually come up with a reason that lets them come back (with repercussions, mind you), but it's really campaign-specific and wouldn't work anywhere else.
This is Matt.
Similar Threads
