I thought this was a really good blog post on building an imaginary play space in which a story can be built collaboratively rather than building the story first and then playing in it. It's relevant to a number of conversations going on here in these forums.
Here's an original link to the blog. (It's also not my blog, so I'm not self-promoting.) Enjoy:
I’ve been working a lot with how RPG sessions are run and planned. What’s been bugging me is that it has always seemed difficult to find that right blend of preparation and improv as a GM. I’ve run from both ends of the spectrum, and I’ve run in between. In twenty or so years, I’ve hit what I feel is every major variation of running for and preparing a game.
And I still haven’t been happy. I realized first that what has filled me with discontent is not the notion of preparation or improv or preparing to improv; it has been the notion of preparation itself. Until recently I haven’t found a proceess that coincides with the way that I think an RPG should be run. My process used to be something like: Figure out a story, describe some situations, prepare the maths/crunchy bits go. Sometimes there was more refinement to this, other times there was much less.
The first epiphany I had was: Story is an artifact of play. Re-phrasing: Story is the point of playing an RPG. If story is the thing that you’re making, you shouldn’t then fill your preparation with narrative. Prepping story is like shovelling dirt in the hole that was dug to build a pool. You’re going to need that space emptied for the players to do anything and to have fun. Story is typically the first thing GMs build, trying to define the beginning middle and end of a narrative, when that in reality should be the thing that we do not define. Story comes last, because creating the actions and reactions with the characters inside a fictional space is why we gather to play.
Instead we should build situations. Adventure Burner does some great work describing what makes a great situation. What I’ll add is that the best situations present an event, then also pose a question relating to that event. A monster approaches the players, bellowing loudly. What does it want from the players? In the answering of that question is where all of our play begins and then progresses. You can add more or less detail to the situation, and you can ask more particular questions for followup. Once you have the event and the questions (it should go without saying that these are implicit questions, not specifically posed to the players) you have created a space where play can happen. Instead of filling the space of events with “if players do this, then that”, you let it be explicitly blank and powerful.
Underlying the creation of situations is what should be our first step: the creation of a structure. What is the framework that the situations rest in? What are the implicit genre assumptions we abide by? What is the ultimate progression that events might lead us to?
More succinctly: What sort of story do we want to see in play, and what is the best “box” for that story? For example, I’ve decided that I want to do a murder-mystery. I know that structurally, the characters must be introduced to a crime (someone getting murdered), and then they the group will be involved in scenes where the interrogate and explore the people and environment. Finally, they will confront their suspect.
With this structure in mind, I know what elements that I need to create, and where the gaps will be left to fill up in play. If I tried to think about this in terms of story first, it is certainly doable but in my experience it’s harder, because building story tends put you in a linear, narrative mode. Building a a space for RPG play is best when you work from structure and fill out just the parts you need. Structure provides guidance but few answers. You shouldn’t be doing a lot of if this happens, then this will occur. You are building key events and describing the flow of play, then you consign yourself to what happens in play.
When you have a lot of story, it’s easy to go off-script. When you have a lot of structure, you never go off-script, and you never truly waste elements.
Adventure Burner talks pretty deeply in this vein, and one of the many things I like about Marvel is that it already does a lot of what I’m talking about. Because of Marvel’s structure-based adventure writing, you can play the Breakout intro adventure multiple times with the same people and never have the same story twice. The event has a flow and it has elements, but little else. You orient the players, spark the inciting situation, and boom! You’re all set for a few sessions.
Earlier I mentioned experimenting with this kind of preparation. A little bit at a time I’ve been building a 13th Age adventure called Hell’s Harvest that uses some of these principles. If you want, you can follow along and see what you think.
No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues. Reduce DM Prep & Increase Player Engagement:Don't Prep the Plot | Structure First, Story Last | Collaborative Roleplay | "Yes, and..." | Prep Tips Games I'm Running on Roll20: Island of the Frog | Vanguard of Dis | Star*Juice | Tesseract | The Crucible | Fimbulvetr | The Delve | Draj, City of the Moon Follow me on Twitter:@is3rith
I hate to post such a short reply to such a long OP, but in the example of the murder mystery would you prep by deciding who the murderer is, or would you just go "sure, why not" when the player makes a stab in the dark? I am not sure if you chose murder mystery on a whim, but to me it is one of the ones that needs the most planning.
In terms of watching or playing a murder mystery, I have found the joy is piecing together the clues & deducing who the murderer is. It's the challenge/fun of out-witting the enemy, or the feeling of success for knowing the answer. I know as a player I wouldn't feel any of those things if I know that I'm just making it up myself, there is no "true" murder/plot/mystery.
As an aside, have you ever looked into forum RPing? Where there is no mechanical system to abide by, where there is no story-generating DM, but where each poster actively creates & moves the plot forward? That seems to me what you are aiming to achieve as a DM.
Zippy, I wrote that article. First, did you look at the link for situational play on At-Will that the article links to? That explains more that it's not necessarily about "less" prep (it ends up being that way), but about better prep. Detailing everything that is going to happen in the game is a waste of time that ends up being a railroad or wasted energy.
Games should have structure. Games should have elements - character, environment, mechanics. Games don't need plots. That doesn't mean NPCs can't have motivations, and it doesn't mean that events can't pop up to surprise the characters.
And the answer is definitely not forum roleplaying This isn't something that only I randomly do. Many people do play this way with general tabletop RPGs. I played this way in 4e when I was playing it and we still had great battles and great RP. It seems that you think that one can only either plan the whole story or it's a vague "artsy" exercise. But that's not really how it works. It doesn't require the absence of mechanics to tweak your play this way.
A reader had left these links on the post and I think they are pretty awesome to share as well.
Hope that clarifies things for you on what I mean. Obviously, play how you want to play, but I was stating my preference on my blog so I hope I don't have to apologize for that
@ Quinn: Sure thing, man! Thanks for putting so many thoughts I've been having into a coherent post. A lot of this stuff isn't new, but when it's parsed in a new way, it becomes easier to understand and makes it much easier to focus on what's important. Since I think prep is a barrier to DMing, anything that can be cut out of that process is a boon, not just for me, but to the hobby. Less/better prep means more DMs which means more groups and more people playing. That's a good thing.
@ Zippy: What Quinn said. Also, I probably wouldn't use D&D for a murder mystery adventure. There are better RPGs for that. While D&D is fairly broad as a game, it does one thing well and other things inconsistently. Right tool for the right job, and all that.
No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues. Reduce DM Prep & Increase Player Engagement:Don't Prep the Plot | Structure First, Story Last | Collaborative Roleplay | "Yes, and..." | Prep Tips Games I'm Running on Roll20: Island of the Frog | Vanguard of Dis | Star*Juice | Tesseract | The Crucible | Fimbulvetr | The Delve | Draj, City of the Moon Follow me on Twitter:@is3rith
Quinn - Zippy's post brings something to mind. The way you put it (and I agree) is that the point of us getting together to play an RPG is to create a story together.
That raises a question: If many DMs are writing the story (and I've done this myself, as have you), then what is it exactly the group is doing when they sit down to play? If the story is written, what is the purpose or goal of actual play?
No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues. Reduce DM Prep & Increase Player Engagement:Don't Prep the Plot | Structure First, Story Last | Collaborative Roleplay | "Yes, and..." | Prep Tips Games I'm Running on Roll20: Island of the Frog | Vanguard of Dis | Star*Juice | Tesseract | The Crucible | Fimbulvetr | The Delve | Draj, City of the Moon Follow me on Twitter:@is3rith
Quinn - Zippy's post brings something to mind. The way you put it (and I agree) is that the point of us getting together to play an RPG is to create a story together.
That raises a question: If many DMs are writing the story (and I've done this myself, as have you), then what is it exactly the group is doing when they sit down to play? If the story is written, what is the purpose or goal of actual play?
To see how they can influence the story through their in-game decisions and actions. To see how what the DM had planned can be changed. To see how the PCs can make the story their own and what kind of life the players can build for their characters in a world not their own.
To be honest, I can never tell what you think of the other side. Do you believe DMs who sit down and write out a plot or plot points and some kind of basic structure or flow to the story do so very rigidly? I'm sure there are some who do. But most DMs I've met are much more relaxed and allow for an adaptable storyline so as to avoid railroading.
For example, most of my prep is influenced by decisions made in prior sessions so I have a direction to run with during prep. That way, their decisions have effected the future and twisted what I come up with.
In my current campaign, I had intended the following flow to the story:
A locally famous group of mercenaries work out of a town they've been in for years. One day they are approached by the captain of the guard to do a job for them. The job requires investigation into a string of grisly murders. After investigating several scenes and fighting off mysterious forces they were to be led into the forest where the bugbears lived. This would allow them to discover a piece of the bigger picture and when they return to town, it's burned to the ground and they become leaders who have to rebuild the town.
At the same time, I also include a job board in the tavern that allows them to take breaks between these main plot points. So they don't have to follow it all the time and I can focus on creating random interesting one shot adventures. This also allows for expansion on the world slowly and gives an even greater air of freedom to the world.
What actually happened:
The captain of the guard approached them and hired them. During the first investigation, they accidentally burned down the crime scene. This got them arrested. When they approached the guard captain to get them out of hot water, he denied ever asking them to do this. When surprised by this event, they realized that they never questioned the captain for details about the job or whether or not the job was on the up and up. That night, when they were in their prison cells, a corrupt guard came and tried to confiscate the locket. This led to him gutting the fighter and running off into the forest. After the captain of the guard finds them and patches them up, he explains the situation in full to them. They then pursue the corrupt guard into the forest. Which led to their capture (which they had the full potential to avoid). After being captured, I had intended for them to slaughter every single bugbear, but because I built an adaptable story, they managed to turn this on it's head and befriend the bugbears. The town still burned to the ground however because there are key NPCs in place who took advantage of their capture to push their own agenda (which required burning the town) into place.
Now, as you can see, they completely managed to bypass the string of grisly murders investigations, the job board quests, and were captured. All plot points I had never planned for from the start. I'm fairly certain that if I ran this story again with a different group, they would have a wildly different outcome despite the fact I still make key events happen to create or push a predetermined plot/story.
My username should actually read: Lunar Savage (damn you WotC!) *Tips top hat, adjusts monocle, and walks away with cane* and yes, that IS Mr. Peanut laying unconscious on the curb. http://asylumjournals.tumblr.com/
Eventually, I intend for the PCs to be dragged into the middle of a Mind-Flayer civil war over the Adversary while they build their town. As the Mind-Flayers are looking for the Adversary, who is currently going crazy as he tries to take his host and he is the one who caused the grisly murders, a plot point I will return them to as they rebuild.
My username should actually read: Lunar Savage (damn you WotC!) *Tips top hat, adjusts monocle, and walks away with cane* and yes, that IS Mr. Peanut laying unconscious on the curb. http://asylumjournals.tumblr.com/
To see how they can influence the story through their in-game decisions and actions. To see how what the DM had planned can be changed. To see how the PCs can make the story their own and what kind of life the players can build for their characters in a world not their own.
You've effectively made Quinn's point then. You can do all of that without the DM creating anything in the way of the story/plot. All you need is the structure - character, environment, mechanics. (I use Dungeon World's front-style, others may use another way.) Now, we can't argue if you should or shouldn't do that - it's your free time to spend after all. But the point is that you don't have to and you can get the same or better effect. (I find it's the latter.) It's extra work that you can simply do in game after you've established the basic structure. In a hobby that suffers from a lack of DMs (or good DMs in particular), lessening or focusing the prep is a good thing. It could have the effect of increasing the number of DMs and thus the number of people playing. The biggest hurdle I hear from people when I ask why they don't DM is "Too much work." It certainly doesn't have to be.
No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues. Reduce DM Prep & Increase Player Engagement:Don't Prep the Plot | Structure First, Story Last | Collaborative Roleplay | "Yes, and..." | Prep Tips Games I'm Running on Roll20: Island of the Frog | Vanguard of Dis | Star*Juice | Tesseract | The Crucible | Fimbulvetr | The Delve | Draj, City of the Moon Follow me on Twitter:@is3rith
To see how they can influence the story through their in-game decisions and actions. To see how what the DM had planned can be changed. To see how the PCs can make the story their own and what kind of life the players can build for their characters in a world not their own.
You've effectively made Quinn's point then. You can do all of that without the DM creating anything in the way of the story/plot. All you need is the structure - character, environment, mechanics. (I use Dungeon World's front-style, others may use another way.) Now, we can't argue if you should or shouldn't do that - it's your free time to spend after all. But the point is that you don't have to and you can get the same or better effect. (I find it's the latter.) It's extra work that you can simply do in game after you've established the basic structure. In a hobby that suffers from a lack of DMs (or good DMs in particular), lessening or focusing the prep is a good thing. It could have the effect of increasing the number of DMs and thus the number of people playing. The biggest hurdle I hear from people when I ask why they don't DM is "Too much work." It certainly doesn't have to be.
I'm just going to facepalm and walk away from this conversation now.
My username should actually read: Lunar Savage (damn you WotC!) *Tips top hat, adjusts monocle, and walks away with cane* and yes, that IS Mr. Peanut laying unconscious on the curb. http://asylumjournals.tumblr.com/
Personally, I don't think ill of anyone who preps a tight storyline. It's weird because when I say these things, people automatically assume I have no experience the other way. I've been playing RPGs for nearing thirty years. I've tried a lot of ways to prep and play adventures. The fact that you think that we might see "sides" is so...odd to me. What sides are there? What's the opposition? I didn't create it. I didn't say "you're wrong! Change!" I just stated something I found to be helpful, and highlighted a cognitive change that I made some time ago.
What I know from experience is that yes, you can adapt to what players do. Good GMs are willing to give up their plan and flow with the players. My question is: Knowing that you are going to have to give up your plans, why are you planning so much? In the exact scenario you describe, you could have prepped.
The initial situation (players offered a job) stats for possible foes (guards/bugbears/etc) clues (what's at the crime scenes?) event (town burning to the ground when players leave) scene(bugbear showdown at their hideout)
And had the same experience. Did you need to prep the part in the story where characters become leaders? Did you have to prep all the other sub-encounters while they investigate? Since you concede you are going to throw that out or tweak it heavily to follow player choice, why not leave out the parts that dictate or depend on player choice, and let the game flow as it will? Why not just stick to the events and let the story be written by the interaction of players with events?
It's fine to have a basic structure (in fact, my article is arguing for a focus on structure rather than on specific pre-determined stories and plots) to make the prep you do do more fruitful and impactful.
I'm going to repeat: Me stating my thoughts on my blog is not me making sides or telling you you're doing it wrong
This isn't something that only I randomly do. Many people do play this way with general tabletop RPGs. I played this way in 4e when I was playing it and we still had great battles and great RP. It seems that you think that one can only either plan the whole story or it's a vague "artsy" exercise. But that's not really how it works. It doesn't require the absence of mechanics to tweak your play this way.
