Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs

[Desdichado]

If an activity is fun for someone how is it not valid to call it entertainment? Not being a game is a different argument from what constitutes valid entertainment.

But it is a game, so why would you try to say that it's not? What possible agenda could someone have to try and exclude games that aren't exactly like the kinds of game that they already like to play?

 

[Raven Crowking]

But it is a game, so why would you try to say that it's not? What possible agenda could someone have to try and exclude games that aren't exactly like the kinds of game that they already like to play?

Well, in the case of Hussar's posts, what he was talking about was a game, but he was not describing it accurately. What he described was not a game because of those inaccuracies. Exploring the same led to the discovery of a nifty new system for me to read up on and possibly play. With any luck, exploring the same also led to someone seeing how the system they are using works a bit more clearly.

Win/win from my perspective.


RC


EDIT: The value of examining anything is always directly related to how open-minded you can be about it. None of us is always as open-minded as we would like, obviously. However, examining what things mean is usually of some value (even if it might sometimes seem pedantic). This discussion has certainly brought some of my own ideas into sharper focus for me, and expanded my horizons in terms of game systems available, if nothing else. I can only hope that it has done as much, or more, for others.

 

[The Ghost]

Can someone XP ExploderWizard for me?

Sadly, no. Because...

You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to ExploderWizard again.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Me too.

 

[CharlesRyan]

What strategies have you used to avoid scene scripting and which ones would be of use to people WRITING adventures down?

My answer applies to homemade adventures and would at the least require some polish before it would be truly useful to published adventure authors.

Bullet points are your friend. They help you focus on what's actually important without getting bogged down in details. They keep things succinct, maximizing your flexibility when you're actually playing. They discourage a level of detail that devolves your encounter idea into a scene script.

When I start to work on an adventure, I usually write a page or so of notes that set up the background of the adventure--what has gone before, and the real scoop on what's happening now.

Then I write a few bullet points on what the adventure should accomplish as relates to the campaign plotline (things like "introduce this NPC who might become an ally later" or "give the heroes a chance to learn more about the mcguffin's backstory")

Then I write a few bullet points for each of the major NPCs or factions associated with the story: what they are trying to achieve.

Finally, I write a few bullet points for encounters I expect to occur in each of the three acts, one bullet point per encounter. Generally speaking, at this point the later acts have fewer and vaguer encounters than the first act, but I try to visualize a likely course of events and usually have an interesting set-piece in mind for the climax or a few key scenes (often the turning points between acts, which include plot twists or major reveals).

Each encounter follows a similar outline, on a smaller scale. Usually one or two sentences setting up the encounter. If I know when and where the encounter is likely to occur, I bullet point the date, the weather, and the phase of the moon. If the encounter is tied to a specific location, I do a few bullet points of "boxed text," but I usually keep that in my head. Then a few bullet points about what the NPCs/monsters will do proactively, and how they'll respond to the most likely player actions. I also try to come up with all the little details that might be relevant (the names of minor NPCs in the scene, for example) even if they're unlikely to be used, because those details really bring the game to life, and I find it hard to come up with them on the spot. (Sometimes I think writing the little things down is more important than the major plot points or even stat blocks--I can fake those things more convincingly than the details!)

Follow that up with necessary supporting data--stat blocks; who's who lists of NPCs, etc., and you're golden!

Now here's the kicker: I usually only write down enough encounters to take me through the next game session, with maybe a couple extra to spare in case the players make better time than expected. After all, I have the single bullet points in the overall outline as my road map. When I'm preparing for the next session, I review my overall bullet points (what the bad guys want to achieve, the three acts, etc.), and I detail the next few encounters as above. Because I haven't already committed to too much detail, these encounters can be designed in reaction to what has happened in the story so far.

I guess the bottom line is this: Don't write yourself into a corner. Keep things loose and flexible. Nail down the details that have nothing to do with player decisions (NPC names and the like), while keeping the rest of it vague. Allow yourself to develop a lot of the content at the gaming table, instead of beforehand. Give yourself a road map, but don't plan any details too far in advance. And make liberal use of the bullet point!

(Oh, one more thing: Bullet points are also much easier to reference in play than dense running text.)

 

[Ariosto]

I reject the notion that you must have a "win" condition in order to have a game. Or rather, [that?] the win condition must be directly tied to the events of the game.

Dissociation actually seems to have been the preferred mode among hip "story-telling" game designers for some time!

The approach tends to feel to me like nothing so much as a visit to a casino. It does not, for me, enhance role-playing or narrative. I would rather go quite free-form (the Dark Cults card game having succeeded in my experience) -- or use actual rules of drama in the game.

However it's done, we need some element of uncertainty and significant choice in order to play a game. Just going along for a ride on the GM's roller coaster is something else: an entertainment.

 

[maddman75]

If an activity is fun for someone how is it not valid to call it entertainment? Not being a game is a different argument from what constitutes valid entertainment.

Because it is an attempt to invalidate someone else's way of playing the game.

 

[Ariosto]

Because it is an attempt to invalidate someone else's way of playing the game.

Ah, no. See, you're taking as privileged -- as unquestionable credo apart from which is only heresy -- the claim that activity X is in the first place a "way of playing the game".

How then is there any such thing as "the game" to play? How can Wizards of the Coast have anything to sell, much less something different enough from Flying Buffalo's product to warrant getting lawyered up over trademark?

"We played Hungry Hungry Hippos for three hours. Then I was slain by an elf."

 

[Ariosto]

oops

 

[IvanDragonov]

My answer applies to homemade adventures and would at the least require some polish before it would be truly useful to published adventure authors.

Bullet points are your friend. They help you focus on what's actually important without getting bogged down in details. They keep things succinct, maximizing your flexibility when you're actually playing. They discourage a level of detail that devolves your encounter idea into a scene script.

When I start to work on an adventure, I usually write a page or so of notes that set up the background of the adventure--what has gone before, and the real scoop on what's happening now.

Then I write a few bullet points on what the adventure should accomplish as relates to the campaign plotline (things like "introduce this NPC who might become an ally later" or "give the heroes a chance to learn more about the mcguffin's backstory")

Then I write a few bullet points for each of the major NPCs or factions associated with the story: what they are trying to achieve.

Finally, I write a few bullet points for encounters I expect to occur in each of the three acts, one bullet point per encounter. Generally speaking, at this point the later acts have fewer and vaguer encounters than the first act, but I try to visualize a likely course of events and usually have an interesting set-piece in mind for the climax or a few key scenes (often the turning points between acts, which include plot twists or major reveals).

Each encounter follows a similar outline, on a smaller scale. Usually one or two sentences setting up the encounter. If I know when and where the encounter is likely to occur, I bullet point the date, the weather, and the phase of the moon. If the encounter is tied to a specific location, I do a few bullet points of "boxed text," but I usually keep that in my head. Then a few bullet points about what the NPCs/monsters will do proactively, and how they'll respond to the most likely player actions. I also try to come up with all the little details that might be relevant (the names of minor NPCs in the scene, for example) even if they're unlikely to be used, because those details really bring the game to life, and I find it hard to come up with them on the spot. (Sometimes I think writing the little things down is more important than the major plot points or even stat blocks--I can fake those things more convincingly than the details!)

Follow that up with necessary supporting data--stat blocks; who's who lists of NPCs, etc., and you're golden!

Now here's the kicker: I usually only write down enough encounters to take me through the next game session, with maybe a couple extra to spare in case the players make better time than expected. After all, I have the single bullet points in the overall outline as my road map. When I'm preparing for the next session, I review my overall bullet points (what the bad guys want to achieve, the three acts, etc.), and I detail the next few encounters as above. Because I haven't already committed to too much detail, these encounters can be designed in reaction to what has happened in the story so far.

I guess the bottom line is this: Don't write yourself into a corner. Keep things loose and flexible. Nail down the details that have nothing to do with player decisions (NPC names and the like), while keeping the rest of it vague. Allow yourself to develop a lot of the content at the gaming table, instead of beforehand. Give yourself a road map, but don't plan any details too far in advance. And make liberal use of the bullet point!

(Oh, one more thing: Bullet points are also much easier to reference in play than dense running text.)

I totally agree. I only ever have a basic outline of what is going to happen. Basically you need to know how your NPCs are going to react to things, i.e. personality and I always know what the NPCs will do to push the plot along. You also need to have PCs who like to PLAY adventures for the plot, not just hack and slash and disrupt things. I also take PC suggestions for a campaign (group of seperate adventures equaling one main epic, like LOTR or War of the Lance, i think) and they each get to put a certain aspect in, which keeps them actually interested and eager to play. Some have been to have a shrunken head involved, so a villian had a powerful artifact that was a shrunken head. Another was to have a villian who became a good guy kill another villian so that happened. PCs should love to play the game and adventures. Having random encounters is like original D&D in dungeons, it gets boring like that I think. That's why Greyhawk made such a huge splash when it came out. Just some thoughts!