No-Myth junky cries out for help

[TonyLB]

As I look back over the patterns of games I have run, one thing leaps out at me.  I don't prep story lines.  At all.  Now, I do prep.  I consider the characters my players have made.  I arrange a nice little bandolier of bangs (to use Ron's terminology).  I work up villains and sets and tensions and all that jazz.

But I don't tell them what they need to be doing.  I almost never run a game where there is a problem the characters need to address in the long haul.  Problems are either fixtures of the environment, largely inescapable and unaddressable, or they are temporary hurdles, forcing the player to make a single choice, and then exploding into one or (typically) more consequences that are themselves the next stage of small problems.

I don't mean to do it that way, it just happens.  And I respect it as a workable style.  After all, I've been doing it for more than a decade.  But I want to expand my abilities.

I feel incapable of plotting the equivalent of "They should have to journey to Mount Flame to destroy the mystic toe-nail clipper... they'd have to figure out a way over the mountain range, then through the forest, then past the dragons to Mount Flame itself."  Whenever I try it just seems so depressingly railroaded, so unequivocally my story, beyond any chance for the players to make real contributions, that I give up the effort.  

Or maybe it's that I think so little of my own ability to tell a story that I fear to present my own ideas, and retreat into the comfort of pure reactivity.  Hard to say from inside my own mind.

So here's the challenge:  Given my predilection for leeching off of the effort of my players, is there a different way for me to look at plotting, that would align my intellectual desire to provide more established story elements (for the players to bounce off of) with my emotional drive to give the players as much room as possible to develop their own stories?

[eef]

How about this:

You have the start:  The Toe-Nail Clipper of the Gods.
You have the end:  Mount Flame.
You have an idea of the challenges the players should face:  such as epic slaughter, dealing with the tempatations of power. the choice between the Toe-Nail Quest and defending home and family, etc.

Drop the players at the start with a good kick and see where they go.  They might go in some unexpected directions.  For instance, a character could decide to steal the TNCotG and head off and see to the podiatric hygene of his home town.  That will take the story in places you never thought of.  But the issues / Premise will still be the same.

In short, design the start and the end and let the players design the maze.

[anonymouse]

A simple way to start is to structure small, plotted games centered around setting or story landmarks. You come out, before play has ever begun, and say:

"We're starting at the Podunk Village. The game ends either when you destroy the Clippers at Mount Flame, or if the Clippers fall into the hand of the Manicurist. The whole point of the game is to destroy those Clippers; if your characters don't want to do that, make new ones or don't play. Mount Flame is about a month's walk, along roads, from Podunk Village."

You explain that there will be several landmarks along the way that you want the players to go to: the City of the Dandelion Eaters, the Land of the Low King, and the Saucy Wench tavern. Explain that how they get there, and what they do while there is completely up to them; but they WILL end up at those locations in some order, at some point.

You can also come up with less physical landmarks: "a betrayal," "a star-crossed lover," "a prophetic dream-world". These I wouldn't share.

I think of it less like railroading, and more like careful use of gravity.

[Adrienne]

So here's the challenge:  Given my predilection for leeching off of the effort of my players, is there a different way for me to look at plotting, that would align my intellectual desire to provide more established story elements (for the players to bounce off of) with my emotional drive to give the players as much room as possible to develop their own stories?

I'll start with the disclaimer that I'm not an expert GM, so I'm basing this mostly on my experience as a player.  

One of the most enjoyable games I've ever played in was a mid to high-level D&D fantasy game where the plot was filled in with pretty broad strokes.  Our characters were loyal to a kingdom in the midst of political reforms and turmoil, whose three neighbors were invading simultaneously.  We had to get to the library of the Undying Emperor, locked up for hundreds of years, to retrieve forgotten lore about manufacturing super-weapons.  That was our toenail clipper.

Instead of mountains, we had to find or negotiate a way through the encampments of three separate fiend factions surrounding the old emperor's Forbidden City; decide how to deal with the envoy/spy of another nation in the area; sneak, fight, or talk our way past the various magical guardians of the library; and decide what to take back with us.

There were several ways to resolve each of these challenges--sometimes just a choice of tactics, but sometimes involving pretty weighty decisions for the characters.  For example, we teamed up with the envoy from the other nation, and made a very strict agreement about which books to extract.  But when we entered the library, several of the PCs got greedy, and decided they'd rather forgo the agreement in favor of everyone taking what benefitted them most.  This meant that the foreign NPC would be taking out substantial superweapon instructions of his own... so had we unleashed a magical arms race on the world?  How could we mitigate that damage?  And so on.

Anyway, I hope that provides some useful example.  Looking back, I think it's a long-winded version of eef's post.  :)


-Adrienne

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Tony,

Um, it seems to me that your challenge contains its own answer.

"Hey guys, how do I light a fire by rubbing two sticks together?" Um ... by rubbing two sticks together.

I suggest that what you might really be looking for is, how do I communicate to the players that I'm really doing this?

If I'm way off track, then forgive me - but I can't see what you're presenting as a stopping-short or blocking point to your (very well) stated goal.

Best,
Ron

P.S. Major pedantry note: what you are talking about has absolutely nothing to do with No Myth as I understand the term.

[TonyLB]

Ron, I trust your understanding of "No Myth" as a term better than I trust my own.  I apologize for misusing it, and would appreciate a clarification if anyone has the time and inclination.

In terms of my challenge containing its own answer:  The challenge I posed isn't simply "Can people tell me how to run a linear, constrained adventure?"  It's not even "Can people tell me how to convince players to play a linear, constrained adventure?"  It's "Can people recommend a way of thinking or planning that would let me tolerate creating and running such an adventure?"

I know, intellectually, some ways to (as you put it) rub the sticks together, but whenever I provide a structured plot, it feels like the players shut down their own creativity in sheep-like desire to line up behind the story they've been given.  I feel terrible when that happens.  So much so that I always sabotage the effort, either in planning stages or during play itself.

My sense is that there are people out there who plan out a big story structure, and then have ways of having that story be only one contribution in an effort of equals.  Those are the techniques I'm hoping to learn more about.  Things that seem childishly simple to some people will, I rather expect, be a confusing revelation to me.

For instance, I look at eef's suggestion ("Design the start and the end and let the players design the maze") and I immediately wonder:  How do you get the players to design a maze that leads to your end?  The example of the character who decides to abandon the quest and return to his home town strikes me powerfully... that's a big choice.  I wouldn't, perhaps couldn't, override that choice by having events conspire to force him back onto the quest he's betrayed.  So what do you do?

[inky]

whenever I provide a structured plot, it feels like the players shut down their own creativity in sheep-like desire to line up behind the story they've been given.

I think that suggests you're not presenting the sort of story you want, then. It seems to me that the No-myth way of handling your desire for an overarching storyline isn't really to say "ok, first they go through the forest and then they go over the mountains" -- any time you write a plot assuming the players will do something, you've broken the fundamental rule of No-myth.

This seems really trivial, but isn't the main thing to do to toss in a bunch of themed bangs and scenes? Like, the first thing the players encounter as they're setting out with the nailclippers are the Motorcyclists of the Dark Lord, harassing some villagers. They can interfere or not or react however: the point is just to get the motorcyclists out there. Later on the players run into, I dunno, a slave train run by other minions of the Dark Lord, and they can break it up, or buy some slaves, or decide they want to spend time trying to free slaves across the country -- but of course if they do that eventually the minions of the Dark Lord come looking for the nailclippers because that's what he's looking for. Not all the bangs are about this, of course, but if you put in plenty that are linked together into a storyline based on what's happened so far and what makes plot-sense for the Dark Lord to want, it seems like you get an overarching story without forcing the players in any particular direction.

So is this what you're doing and you're not happy with it, or does this not fit what you're looking for?

[clehrich]

You might try reading this old thread:

Star Wars.

Fang Langford explains No Myth as producing exactly what eef describes.  Check it out.

[dredd_funk]

clehrich--in some ways the recent thread with your notes on how to run a mystery might help some too, as far as giving the players some power to create details (clues) that the GM hadn't explicitly prepped.  Perhaps that also would help reduce the feeling of being railroaded in a bad way.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=13089

TonyLB, I don't know if that helps or if it's way off base.  Good luck in any event!

Cheers
Chris

[TonyLB]

Great advice all around.  I really appreciate it.  Now I have an embarrassing admission:  My first reaction on reading all of the advice on this thread has been "No, no, no, no, no, it's not that simple!"

Ron pointed out (in this post) the useful pop-psychology term "Stuck".  I think I have to admit that that's where I am on this situation.  I want to try something new but I've convinced myself that nothing new could possibly work.  I apologize for how that confusion has flavored my earlier responses on this thread.  You guys have been giving me terrific advice that I was vested in not hearing.

I think the only way forward is to accept that, yes, new techniques will well not work for me the first, or second, or twentieth time.  I am going to go out and try the techniques that folks have pointed me to (both the radical (to me) bounded-game ones and the refinments on familiar shared-GMing ones from Fang's thread and the mystery thread).  If it turns into a train-wreck then I'll try them again, with modifications.

And, of course, I'll post here for help.  It's hard to be starting over again.  I'll need all the help I can get.  And, again, many thanks for the help I've already received.

[Valamir]

Hey Tony, if you're looking for advice on how to get your mind around structured campaigns I suggest picking up Evernight and 50 Fathoms, a couple of Savage Worlds campaign books.  They represent a couple of different approaches to the problem that may help with your own structure.

Evernight is the classic oldschool dungeon crawl.  It thoroughly revels in being 100% railroaded...so much so you can almost see Lionel stamped on the back cover.  The only way to play this campaign and enjoy it is for everyone (players included) to embrace the rails.  Its kind of like the Disney rides Haunted Mansion or Pirates of the Caribbean.  You know you're in a car being taken from 1 animated scene to the next...but its still kind of cool to see what's around the next corner.

50 Fathoms is a very very cool concept of semi programmed campaign where there are a few dozen adventures ranging in scope from quick plot hook to nearly complete mini scenario.  They are more or less indexed and organized in the book.  Some of them are Plot adventures and some are just filler; much like the organization of say Babylon 5 where you had a mix of story arc episodes and other stuff episodes.   Players basically can bop around the world doing their own thing, and periodically they will run into a location where Adventure 17 happens, so you run Adventure 17.  Most of the Plot adventures have lead ins to the next adventure but nothing in the world really advances so players can run off and do other stuff and then come back to pick up the next plot adventure.  Instead of a rail road, think of this as being more of a limited access highway.  There are a number of exit ramps that lead to various gas stations and restaurants and tourists traps...but eventually you get back on the highway somewhere and keep going.  The latest X-Box RPG Fable is structured like this as well.

I'm not a big fan of either setting as a setting...50 Fathoms is "just like the caribbean only with magic and walrus people"...um....ok...and Evernight is your basic Alien Bugs invade stock-fantasy-setting genre mix...but conceptually they might be useful tools to draw from.

[jdagna]

Tony, looking at your first post, I think I have two suggestions, based on these two quotes...

As I look back over the patterns of games I have run, one thing leaps out at me. I don't prep story lines. At all. Now, I do prep. I consider the characters my players have made. I arrange a nice little bandolier of bangs (to use Ron's terminology). I work up villains and sets and tensions and all that jazz.

I feel incapable of plotting the equivalent of "They should have to journey to Mount Flame to destroy the mystic toe-nail clipper... they'd have to figure out a way over the mountain range, then through the forest, then past the dragons to Mount Flame itself." Whenever I try it just seems so depressingly railroaded, so unequivocally my story, beyond any chance for the players to make real contributions, that I give up the effort.

You present these two ideas like they're in conflict with each other, but I don't think they are.  What if you simply take your first paragraph there and tack on "and the players will have to journey to Mount Flame to destroy the mystic to-nail clipper"?

In other words, you don't have to plot out each and every little portion of the journey.  You do just what you normally do - create an interesting world full of things to be solved and let players go about solving it.  An evil baron control that province, and that river is full of magical fish and the forest and mountains have their own challenges.  Let the players know some of this, so that they can pick the more interesting route (and go further, by letting them to address or ignore certain problems - they could topple the evil baron and restore peace to the land or they could sneak their way through his terrority, with either option being an interesting game scenario).  Your players' epic journey is only going to sound rail-roaded AFTER they play.

The second bit of advice: practice this in small chunks.  Instead of thinking year-long epic adventures from the beginning, start with a small story arc that takes one or two sessions to do.  For example, my usual Fantasy story works like this: two game sessions for random adventures that seem unconnected, which I use to identify the things and people that interest the players most.  Those things and people then get retroactively worked into a larger plot which occupies the next four to six sessions.  Having had a better chance to see what players do and like, I end that larger plot with the hook to my epic quest.

Example: The players are hired to hunt goblins.  They save a town and then hunt down a band of goblins who have a mage.  Now, I do some retroactive work - the players were interested in politics at the town... so the goblins were really hired by one of the families that controls the region (ah... and that's why the treasure rolls were high), and the players were surprised by a goblin mage (yes... the family is helping by training them in magic... so the family must need mages).  So, the larger story: evil family is plotting with goblins to ruin the businesses of the other families and take control.  They're working with some evil wizards and will need magic to pull off their plan (whatever it is - I don't know yet).  

Then, when the players had done some work uncovering the family's plot, I developed the epic quest: an evil chaos demigod is trapped in a nearby cave and is annoying a liche who lives in a castle above it.  The liche wants to get rid of the demigod, so is helping the wizards to help the family to open the cave, having told the family that they will gain immortality if they can kill it and make a potion from it.  This is actually a lie - the demigod is stronger than everyone else combined, but only the liche knows it (and he's happy as long as the demigod leaves).  Thus, the players must either stop the demigod from being released or stop him from destroying the world if he is, with lots of nobility and wizards and undead in between.

Now, the players assumed I had all of this pre-planned before their first adventure even started and thought I was terribly clever for having lead their characters into it so gradually.  They also had lots of input, but I never had to ask for it!  I simply watched for which elements they liked most, and I incorporated some of their theories into the actual plot. Furthermore, all of the problems were open-ended enough that it never looked like a rail-road to any of us until afterward, when the whole quest was finished.

[TonyLB]

Justin, I really like that notion.  Let me repeat back, to make sure I understand (or, if I do not, to give you a chance to further help!):

The desired outcome for the story is (for example) a big plot that is revealed in stages by events A, B, C and D.  The characters are in a unique position to address this plot.

One method is to create the Plot, then force the characters through events A, B, C and D, at the end of which the plot and their place in it is revealed.

Another method is to create lots of events, see what the players latch onto and label that "Event A".  Then you make up another bunch of events related to Event A, see what the players latch onto, and label that "Event B".  At some point the GM has to step in and abduce a big plot from Events A and B, and thereafter slant things toward Events C and D that make further reinforce that plot.

It's a magician's force:  There is an Epic Adventure whichever way the players choose to head, but because the Epic they get is the one that grows from what they paid attention to there is the persuasive and comforting illusion that they were railroaded into it.

Am I close here?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Tony, if I'm not mistaken, what you're describing fits exactly with the definition of Intuitive Continuity, which is referenced in the glossary. It was textually articulated by Gareth-Michael Skarka in his game Periphery and later repeated in Underworld.

One of the dangers of playing this way is that it can still turn into railroading if the GM "latches on" to what's going on in such a way that he or she starts forcing (taking over) players' decisions later during play.

Best,
Ron

[jdagna]

That's pretty much it, Tony.

I think the only point of clarification I'd make is that the events C and D are still never dictated out ahead of time by the GM - you're still playing off of what the players do.  Going back to my example, even once I establish the presence of the liche and the demigod, there's still an obvious fork in the road: the players might win by preventng the demigod's release, or they might win by stopping him after his release.  You base those decisions off of cues the players give you.  

For example, if they say "Uh oh... no way we could fight something like that - we'd better track down those mages and keep him locked up." then that's where you go.  If their response is "Man, a chaotic demigod is going to be powerful... we're going to need some kick-ass weapons" then you're going to go in a totally different direction.

The trick is to make it look like you meant for that to happen all along.  No matter where they go, something interesting happens that gets them closer to solving their epic problem.

Another of my tricks is to keep tying plot pieces back into each other.  For example, let's say I've already decided there's an archmage in the great library who's running the show.  If they want to prevent the demigod's release, they go find and kill the mage (or discredit/depose him, if the players like something more political).  If they want weapons, they'll go to the great library to do research on legendary weapons, and the archmage will probably still figure in as someone who'd like to prevent them from finding out.  This way, I don't usually have a lot of prep work get wasted.  Of course, I only prep characters and places like that when it's obvious they're going to get used.