When to Start the Story

[Camelot]

You All Start in a Tavern...Again...

We are all familiar with the fantasy adventure trope of starting the story in an inn or tavern. It's before the adventure has started, maybe even before the characters have met. From there, they begin their character development from scratch, and they can hear about problems that need heroes to solve. This sounds like the perfect start to an epic journey, but in practice, it doesn't always work out that way.

The Problem with an Open-Ended Beginning

When you put RPG players into that scenario, there's only a slim chance that they'll all follow along until they find the main plot. Some will be distracted by pretending to drink and hit on barmaids in order to cause the real life friends to laugh. Others will not understand when the GM is trying to give them plot hooks, and will end up heading off in the wrong direction or spending way too much time in that goshdarn inn, until the GM has to break the suspension of disbelief and push them in the right direction. You might even have a player who actively tries to derail the game from where the GM intended.

The problem is that, for some players, there is such a thing as too much choice. They don't know which way to turn. Some games are meant to go that way, but if the GM has a plot planned out, it can be a great disappointment when the players decide that they want to go somewhere else.

The Solution...Or Is It...

So, a clever GM will come up with the idea to have the adventure start in medias res. It's what all creative writing teachers will tell you whether you're writing a poem, a short story, or a novel. The characters start already in the dungeon, so they can only go forward towards the plot.

For the story, such a technique is a good way of holding the reader's attention. They don't know who the characters are yet or why they're here or what they're doing. It makes them want to keep reading. For a game, such a technique can give the players just as many problems as starting in a tavern. They don't know who the characters are yet or why they're here or what they're doing. And while a short introduction from each character and a brief explanation of the recent events from the GM may be the solution for some players, other players will still be confused because it's a lot harder to remember details that are told to you rather than details you experienced.

Your Mileage May Vary

Every gaming group is different. Some people prefer using the first method of experiencing the adventure's background. Some people prefer the method of starting in medias res. When a group is made of players who all prefer one method, this problem is not noticed. It's when players with mixed desires and play styles play in the same adventure that the conundrum reveals itself. Starting with a talk with the baron will upset Jack and Jill, because they want to get into the action; however, starting in the goblin burrow will upset Mickey and Minnie, because they want to know the details of why they're there.

In the Middle of the Beginning...

Can you combine the "tavern" introduction with the "in medias res" one? Here are some possibilities...

The Tavern Becomes The Dungeon

What makes "in medias res" interesting is the excitement of being thrust into this adventure without the nitpicky details of where you are or who you're with. To introduce those details without getting rid of the excitement, have an introduction adventure. Instead of meeting in a tavern, the players can meet in the middle of the woods during a heated chase by wolves and wild elves. The unlikely heroes must band together to defeat this minor threat that's unrelated to the main plot (or is it?). When the action dies down, the introductions begin. The players then get to explain why they're all together. But they don't have much time, and have to keep moving towards the Great Tree Tower...

One Detail at a Time

You can start in the middle of a dungeon, as a normal in medias res would be, but bring along an additional NPC run by the GM. This character can be the players' employer, guide, or anyone else who knows the details that the players don't yet. If the players start to make a decision that they probably wouldn't if they knew more details, this character can speak up and tell them about the details. This way, the players get to start with excitement but won't end up making hasty decisions that they'll later regret. Once they have learned all they need to know from the NPC (except maybe one crucial detail...), he or she can leave or even be killed for added excitement.

Your Stories

I'd like to hear how other GMs start their adventures, and how they worked out from both the GM's and the players' perspectives. I hope you enjoyed my geeky musings.

 

[Hussar]

I'm a huge fan of in medias res. Cut out all the lead up and get to the meat and potatoes.

For example, I just started a fairly simple adventure for my current group. Lizardfolk are terrorizing farmsteads - raiding, burning, eating, that sort of thing. I didn't even bother giving the players the chance to say yes or no. I started off with a bit of background to what's going on and started the adventure at a burning farmstead where a group of lizard folk were bbqing the farmers and eating them.

Started off with the PC's ambushing the baddies and got things rolling from there.

Works for me.

 

[Wik]

I generally prefer the Media Res approach, and my group tends to like it. Starting a campaign with having the players introduce their characters and then saying "roll for initiative" is a damned fine way to start.

A great approach I've used in the past is to have the opening scene (which is a throwaway, has no relation to the campaign, establishes some of the cool things the PCs can do, and is designed for the PCs to kick serious butt) advance in tiers. Essentially, I introduce the campaign to the PCs bit by bit during that opening scene. Maybe each round of the combat, I give them a bit more of the exposition on why they're in that fight, until by the end of the combat, the Players know what's going on (sort of).

As an example, in a 3.5E game I ran a few years ago, I gave the players the basic idea of the campaign - a Roman-themed game, set in an environment sort of similar to ten kingdoms China. The PCs were all members of a paramilitary group.

Our players created characters, and introduced each other to the group. I don't remember the characters (it's been awhile), but I think we had a war priest character, a fighter, and a warmage.

Then they rolled initiative, and I described a river barge, being tossed in violent rapids as a storm beared down on them. And as lightning flashed, the PCs looked down upon the dozen or so rowing slaves who chose this moment to make a desperate bid for freedom... (yes, the PCs were killing slaves. Which perfectly set up the idea of the PCs being actual members of the culture, as opposed to people with modern ideals in a brutal medieval world).

After the first round, I described how the warmage had learned his spells in the imperial magic school, and how the recent kingdom divisions had created a schism among the arcane types. I had a slave curse out the cleric's religion, calling them mongrels, and described a bit of the religion in the area. And I had the fighter learning a bit about imperial weaponry.

Round three was for why the PCs were on that ship, and where the ship was destined - a distant town on the border of two kingdoms and a ruined city, where the PCs were to investigate.... something (I forget which, now).

Round four introduced the fact that the PCs had some legal powers, and were capable of sentencing these slaves as they saw fit. It also introduced the fact that the ship captain was a bit nervous around the PCs because of their order.

By the time the fight was over, the players had a damned good feeling for the setting, and this continued as play progressed. If I hadn't got sick and tired of trying to run 3.5E, we'd probably still be playing that campaign. It was a lot of fun (of particular note - the time TWENTY ZOMBIES snuck up on the PCs in the middle of the night).

 

[Quickleaf]

Wow, these sound like super fun campaign starts! You know, it's funny how the "start at a tavern" trope slips in when the DM allows an open start (we just had this happen in the game I'm playing in).

Last campaign I ran, all the PCs had a common enemy, and I brought them together in a secret meeting with a noble patron - their mission was to find the common enemy's bastard child. They spent half an hour on background and getting to know each other, a little more on investigative footwork, and then got to the meat of the adventure. Wasn't a slow start by any means, and very focused, but not particularly original. Everyone was very engaged though, and right away it gave a roleplaying opportunity:

(a) How does my PC respond to aristocracy and etiquette?
(b) Why does my PCs hate this common enemy? Do they try to conceal this?
(c) What does my PC think about the enemy? Does their evil carry over to their child?

For me, with 4e's focus on minis, battle grids, and pre-defined powers, I thought it was important to start with story and character to set the tone of the campaign.

 

[the Jester]

Although I agree with your goal- better beginnings for the campaign- I have to take issue with a few specifics:

When you put RPG players into that scenario, there's only a slim chance that they'll all follow along until they find the main plot. Some will be distracted by pretending to drink and hit on barmaids in order to cause the real life friends to laugh. Others will not understand when the GM is trying to give them plot hooks, and will end up heading off in the wrong direction or spending way too much time in that goshdarn inn, until the GM has to break the suspension of disbelief and push them in the right direction. You might even have a player who actively tries to derail the game from where the GM intended.

For certain styles of game, everything I bolded does not exist.

In my own campaign, there's no "main plot"- the plot, the story, is what happens in reaction to the pcs' actions. You cannot go in a "wrong direction" in a campaign that is anywhere towards the sandbox side of the 'style spectrum', and if the pcs are having fun spending time in the inn, there's no reason to stop them. Like heading in the wrong direction, there is no "right direction" because any direction is 'right' when the pcs are driving the game. And in a sufficiently sandboxy campaign, the gm has no intentions on the game's direction- again, it's reactive.

That said, sometimes one guy wants to spend all night in the inn while everyone else is bored and ready to move on; some dms aren't good with the whole "go where you want and I'll figure it out approach" either due to preference of style or their particular strengths and weaknesses as a dm; some campaigns are highly story driven and there are definite 'right' and 'wrong' directions.

Neither style is inherently better, but it's worth noting that the problems you bring up aren't problems at all in certain styles of game.

Now, personally, the main issue I have with "you all meet in a tavern" is the fact that it is totally cliched. Even then it can be okay. I started my current campaign off with the pcs in a bar but not knowing each other. A wizard stood up, roared "MYNAR!" and cast a fireball into the back half of the inn- leaving the pcs as the survivors that were in the front half. In media res indeed! It made for a very interesting meeting of the pcs, since half of them were evil bastards that decided to steal the cashbox or loot the victims.

 

[S'mon]

Some approaches I've had success with:

1. Recently, great success with the PCs arriving by ship to the docks of a strange city. They've already met on the ship, so they have a reason to stick together. They're not in a tavern yet, so they can't just sit on the dockside, at least that would be a bad idea. They need to get moving. Possibly to a tavern. Throw a bang or two in on the way.

2. Travelling PCs see monsters doing bad stuff to NPC(s), have chance to ambush them. This is good because the PCs have time to briefly talk and decide what to do, helping to establish character, as opposed to the PCs being ambushed and having to fight. Plus a rescued NPC can be a further plot hook. My players did tell me I was using too many rescue plots though.

3. Aftermath. The PCs awaken upon the field of battle, surrounded by corpses. Maybe they're the lone survivors of a pirate attack on their ship, which is about to wreck on a mysterious island. Maybe they're the last men standing at Camlann, the King is dead. Maybe the Chaos Horde just rolled over their army and is heading for their homes. REH did this a lot and it works great.

 

[IronWolf]

Some nice start to a campaign ideas here! I always have a hard time getting a campaign started.

For the Kingmaker campaign I just started up I wanted the characters to have some sense of friendship or bond with each other before I threw them into the AP. So our first session was actual a prequel adventure where they were thrown together by chance of lottery to figure help dispatch a goblin problem outside the city walls. Once completed they returned to the city, now having fought together and learned a bit more about each other. Then we advanced the timeline about 3 months over the winter months with them being in the city.

Not sure if it will have any lasting effect by starting this way, but it helps make it more logical in my head - so that at least succeeded!

 

[ExploderWizard]

I started my current campaign with the PC's already aquainted with each other and on the road towards an area in which they heard trouble was brewing. Within the first 15 minutes of play the party was approached by a gang of bandits who opened things up with the ' lone traveller on the road' ploy. The bandits were connected to the troubles occuring at the PC's destination . Once they arrived, there were multiple things to get involved with, some connected to the original events which led them to the place and others sort of independent of that.

Starting the party out on the road to a starter area ripe with opportunities was just enough of a nudge to kickstart things without setting the party upon a branchless path.

 

[FreeXenon]

I have used this too. I started a Dragon Star campaign with the players knowing that they would start on a planet-bound escape pod with life support failing... and they just woke up with a form of amnesia, although they did recognize each other. Good times...

It is a great way to get things focused and started into the campaign and adventure...

 

[Camelot]

Sandbox Games

Although I agree with your goal- better beginnings for the campaign- I have to take issue with a few specifics:

For certain styles of game, everything I bolded does not exist.
In my own campaign, there's no "main plot"- the plot, the story, is what happens in reaction to the pcs' actions. You cannot go in a "wrong direction" in a campaign that is anywhere towards the sandbox side of the 'style spectrum', and if the pcs are having fun spending time in the inn, there's noreason to stop them. Like heading in the wrong direction, there is no "right direction" because any direction is 'right' when the pcs are driving the game. And in a sufficiently sandboxy campaign, the gm has no intentions on the game's direction- again, it's reactive.

That said, sometimes one guy wants to spend all night in the inn while everyone else is bored and ready to move on; some dms aren't good with the whole "go where you want and I'll figure it out approach" either due to preference of style or their particular strengths and weaknesses as a dm; some campaigns are highly story driven and there are definite 'right' and 'wrong' directions.
Neither style is inherently better, but it's worth noting that the problems you bring up aren't problems at all in certain styles of game.

Yes, this is not always the case, and yes, neither style is inherently better. But neither style is better because, as you say yourself, this is not always the case. This is why I said:

The problem is that, for some players, there is such a thing as too much choice. They don't know which way to turn. Some games are meant to go that way, but if the GM has a plot planned out, it can be a great disappointment when the players decide that they want to go somewhere else.

Some players, however, are not amenable to sandbox games. They don't have the initiative to find a direction and will drift around, making for a boring story and game. These players prefer it when their GM tells them, "There are kobolds to the south. You should go there," or even, "You must go there."

If all the players have fun choosing their own direction and the GM likes it too, then you've found your play style. If anyone in the group doesn't like it, then you have run into my aforementioned problem.

Thanks for all the replies everyone! Those are some great stories. *Steals ideas...*