Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ExploderWizard" data-source="post: 4994180" data-attributes="member: 66434">Joining plots and scenes at the hip is the beginning of the trouble. When you detail the plot of an entity in the campaign try not to morph that plot into scenes involving the PC's. Make a note of the plot, who or what is behind it, and the likely means in which it will be carried out. Setting a scene is different than scripting one.  A set scene is pre-PC interaction. A murder investigation scenario begins with a dead NPC. The scene is set and any choices the PC's make will be in relation to this established scene.  Another example: The PC's have a captive and leave him/her unguarded someplace. The DM could have the captive rescued or escape if desired. The PC's chose not to keep tabs on the captive and this choice could mean escape or rescue. If the PC's were on guard or set a trap for such attempts the DM should not automatically just decide that the captive escapes. This would render the choice to be vigilant meaningless.     A published module does not have to be scripted nor does it have to be devoid of plots or backstory.  What I like to do to avoid scripting is not stringing scenes together.  What I like to string together is a series of events that take place based on a basic setup, PC decisions, resolutions of those decisions, application of consequences.  Repeat.  Basic setup: This is where the backstory and plots of the major players are detailed. Who is planning what and when, information known (and unknown!) and resources available to get the job done. The initial scene is described to the PC's based on info available to them at which point we go to....... PC Decisions:Do they take the hook and decide to act? If yes we resolve any actions they wish to take. If no we skip to application of consequences. What if the PC's say "no"? In the event that the PC's do not take a hook we have our handy notes from the basic setup describing the plot so we can use that information to determine the consequences of the PC's failure to act. If the PC's really are needed to make a difference in the world then the DM should allow the foul plans outlined to be successful unless the PC's decide to act.  Resolutions:Ok the PC's have decided to do something. This is where the meat of prep work goes. Locations, treasures, statistics & tactics for any opposition. Resolve the effects of player decisions & actions.  Consequences:The PC's have decided to work against the foul plot being hatched by the bad guys. They have stuck thier collective nose in things and screwed up the villain's beautiful plan. Determine what response would be appropriate from the villain and effects thier actions have on the environment.  Thus the flow of campaign follows a logical action/reaction format. The scenes happen wherever the PC's make them rather than being pre-set up on a soundstage. The adventure has details on locations where interesting scenes can take place and a logical structure for how they might play out. The actual sequence of events will be shaped by the players.  As far as a published adventure goes, these will have to be written based on the PC's taking the hook. Even good old B2 starts with the premise that the PC's will choose to adventure in the vicinity of the Keep.  A good example of structure would be L2 The Assassins Knot. There is a plot, an outline of what the villain does and when, details on the area for the adventure, and most importantly does not assume the PC's take specific actions. It is one my favorite 1E modules. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

Verification