Models of Adventure Structure

[John Kim]

So this is cross-posted with my http://www.livejournal.com/users/jhkimrpg/">blog.  I'm pondering ideas about the development of the RPG adventure.  This is something that isn't explicit in character creation and action resolution rules, but is an absolutely vital part of the game.  i.e. How does the GM prepare and run a game?  What do characters do?

Here is my list of adventure models:

Location Crawl
Not necessarily in a dungeon, this technique is having a keyed map where each marked location on the map has a static description. According to the plan, whenever the players go to location #17, they will find what is in the key for location #17. This is the approach of original D&D/AD&D for both dungeons and towns. Note that the players control the pacing here.  

Battlegrounding
This technique usually uses a mapped location, but there is little description or detail (i.e. the location is not interesting in itself).  Instead, a set of NPCs are described and given objectives.  This is used in some Traveller (1977) adventures but most notably in Champions (1981).  Here control of pacing can go either way, depending which side is the aggressor.  Champions is very character-centric.  The guide for an adventure is the set of NPC villain character sheets, not a map.  

Timetabling
This technique has a mapped location, but rather than static descriptions, what the players find at the locations depends on a timetable of what the NPCs will do.  The problem here is that NPC behavior after the PCs interfere with them is unclear.  This is used in several Top Secret (1980) adventures and Thieves Guild (1984) adventures.  Here the GM has more control over the pacing, though the players still have a fair amount.  

Trailblazing
This is a technique of having a series of disconnected locations, where each location has an encounter as well as clues which lead to the next location.  The players are free to wander but there is nothing of interest prepared outside of the trail.  This is to some degree extremely linear.  However, the players can engage in diversions and subplots of their own devising between locations.  This is used in certain outdoor adventures such as Gamma World (1978).  This lacks the direction-choosing of a location crawl, but shares the player control of pacing.  

Hybrid
It is worth noting that there have been a number of adventures which use a mix of mobile NPCs and static encounters.  Notable is the seminal adventure for AD&D, Ravenloft (1983).  This combines the Champions approach of having a mobile master villain (the vampire Strahd) with many lesser location-based encounters.  It added in randomized fortunes within the landscape.  James Bond 007 adventures tend to combine the trailblazing and timetabling approaches -- i.e. a mostly linear sequence of locations along with a villain timetable.

Illusionism
This is a technique of trying to bring GM-controlled pacing into Trailblazing, often intended for more cinematic feel.  This is also prepared as a series of encounters, but the GM is encouraged to use a variety of techniques to quickly bring the PCs to the next encounter.  One is "Schroedinger's NPC" -- which means preparing an encounter with indeterminate location, so that wherever the PCs choose to go, that's where the next encounter is.  Another is "Waiting in the Wings" -- which is where something happens as soon as the PCs show up.  This is used explicitly in Torg (1990), Feng Shui (1996), Deadlands (1996), and many other games.  

Branching
This is a variant of trailblazing where a number of different paths are prepared.  A good example is Millenium's End (1992), which explicitly presents the Clue Trees as a technique and uses it in adventures.

Relationship Mapping
This is a technique where locations are not particularly detailed, but instead NPCs are.  The characters then move between one character encounter and another, collecting information and interactions.  This was first attempted in Vampire: The Masquerade (1991) -- notably the sample adventure in first edition was a social gathering where the characters were all described but the house was not. Some later adventures had graphical relationship maps of NPCs showing relationships.  This was developed more explicitly in the "Sorcerer's Soul" supplement for Sorcerer (2001) and Dogs in the Vineyard (2004).  It is aided by rules which allow either the GM or the players to skip to declaring that the PC or PCs encounter a particular character, regardless of location (i.e. Scene Framing).

Randomized Events
This is a set of techniques which can be added to any of the above.  It tends to add interest and boost pacing, but can interfere with controlled pacing and plot development.  The simplest is D&D's random rolls for wandering monsters.  On a more sophisticated level, the original two Ravenloft modules also incorporated random fortune telling and card draws into the plot.  

Bangs
This is a technique of the GM (or possibly players) throwing in defined events into the adventure structure.  I would trace this back to Ars Magica's Whimsy Cards.  It explicitly appears as a GM technique in Sorcerer (1998).  

There are a number of questions in my mind about developments here, since there are an awful lot of modules which I haven't seen.  For example, I can see from Ravenloft adventures how the hybrid approaches of the original Ravenloft and Ravenloft II turned into more Illusionist adventures of later Ravenloft in AD&D2.  But there are probably lots of development bits that I'm missing here.

Comments?

[TonyLB]

Where does a structure like that of Dogs in the Vineyard come in?

There aren't specific Bangs for the players, but there is a situation to which they address themselves, and that situation has a structure that is topologically complex, so that considering its permutations (through the act of judgment) is an enjoyable pastime in and of itself.

[Albert of Feh]

Sounds like what John labled "Battlegrounding".

a set of NPCs are described and given objectives.

Sounds like a DitV town to me.

[John Kim]

Where does a structure like that of Dogs in the Vineyard come in?

There aren't specific Bangs for the players, but there is a situation to which they address themselves, and that situation has a structure that is topologically complex, so that considering its permutations (through the act of judgment) is an enjoyable pastime in and of itself.

I included it under Relationship Mapping.  It is distinct from Battlegrounding first in that there is no map of physical space and also in that the NPCs aren't necessarily opponents.  It is perhaps a misnomer because it doesn't necessarily require a graphical map of relationships.  It just requires preparing by setting up a set of NPCs and detailing their relationships.  

The earliest I see this structure is in the Vampire first edition sample adventure, which is a party at a house.  There is no map of the house, but instead there are 8 NPCs with a set of relations to each other.  The PCs pick sides, alliances, and so forth among the set.

[lumpley]

Yeah. Dogs' towns are just plain relationship maps.

-Vincent

[Ben Lehman]

What about winging it?  Is that just an extension of Bangs?

yrs--
--Ben[/i]

[TonyLB]

Wow, sorry... Dogs is even listed and everything.  Somehow my eyes and/or brain skipped right over it.  Gotcha.

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

I might add this one:

Experiementing
PCs are scientists and/or magi who are locked in their laboratories searching out the secrets of esoteric phenomonon.  Play largely revolves around resource gathering, experimentation, and research.  Conflict can come from the dangers of going insane, negotiating for rare resources, experiments going awry, or a rival scientist/magus sabotaging the PCs.  I think Ars Magica is an example of how this game might work.  I know it can also be done with Rolemaster.

Peace,

-Troy

[Andrew Morris]

Is this intended as an exhaustive list, or just a set of some of the most common structures? Because, if so, I can't see where InSpecres, Universalis, Capes, or Breaking the Ice would fit in.

[John Kim]

What about winging it?  Is that just an extension of Bangs?

I would say that any of these could be winged.  i.e. A DM could wing a dungeon crawl, which is different than winging a location-to-location quest, etc.  Winging could also follow a different structure, though I'd be interested to try to suss out what that structure is.  

Experiementing
PCs are scientists and/or magi who are locked in their laboratories searching out the secrets of esoteric phenomonon.  Play largely revolves around resource gathering, experimentation, and research.  Conflict can come from the dangers of going insane, negotiating for rare resources, experiments going awry, or a rival scientist/magus sabotaging the PCs.  I think Ars Magica is an example of how this game might work.  I know it can also be done with Rolemaster.

Hmm.  I'd want to generalize this a bit.  It's true that all of the structures I list above involve the PCs moving from location/room/encounter to a different location/room/encounter.  So it doesn't cover events happening within a fixed spot, which is what you seem to suggest.  However, in my experience of Ars Magica, what happens in the covenant is research rolls and scenes of planning or personal interaction, but most of the external conflict comes from expeditions away from the covenant.  I don't know that I've been in a game where the PCs stayed in a spot and conflict came to them as a general rule.

[John Kim]

Is this intended as an exhaustive list, or just a set of some of the most common structures? Because, if so, I can't see where InSpecres, Universalis, Capes, or Breaking the Ice would fit in.

It's not intended as exhaustive, but I'd be interested in adding cases to the list.  For example, it occurs to me that there is a common larp structure of factionalized PCs in a designated space which is distinct from both battlegrounding and relationship mapping.  I haven't played any of the ones you list, but I have played Soap which also doesn't fit with what I listed.  Soap has a very clear structure in a sense, it goes around in a circle of turns of narration.  But I'm not sure how to relate that into the other structures.

[Andrew Morris]

It's not intended as exhaustive

Ahh, good.

Does it matter who is creating the adventure? Because in InSpectres, the GM just picks something weird and a client, then the players (for the most part) define what's actually going on.

Capes is tough, but it might point to another category. I'd call it "Objective Based" or "Goal Defined" or something like that. Goals are created, then competed for. But it's all so flexible that I don't know whether trying to define a structure is possible. Universalis is similar in that might be too flexible to fit into a set structure.

As to LARPs, it would vary based on what type of LARP we're talking about. Your standard boffer-combat LARP has an actual physical space that could serve the same purpose as a map in a table-top game. Most seem to be Hybrid Location Crawl/Battlegrounding. You usually have set things or encounters at certain locations - if you wander into the orc camp, well, you'd better be ready to fight orcs. There are usually also defined NPCs who wander the grounds, creating encounters at random.

Other LARPs (e.g. a V:tM LARP) seem to be Hybrid Battlegrounding/R-Mapping or just R-Mapping.

[Albert of Feh]

I think that Soap, Pantheon, most of Prime Time Adventures, and Universalis could probably fit into a separate category.

"Communal" - All players take turns introducing scenes, events, or NPCs (where 'take turns' could be determined by round robin, spending of resources, or other means) and then playing them out.

The case of InSpectres is partway between this and Trailblazing (at least the way I've played it). The basic structure of an adventure is the Trailblaze, but the clue-glue that holds scenes together is introduced on the fly, usually by one of the players, leading clearly to the next scene.

[gsoylent]

You say that any of these styles can be winged.  My question is, does it matter to the structure of the adventure whether the events/triggers are set in advance by the GM and by and large stuck to or whether GM behind the scenes readjusts, shifts and retrofits these during play?

Or is winging it just another aspect of Illusionism?

[Sydney Freedberg]

I think that Soap, Pantheon, most of Prime Time Adventures, and Universalis could probably fit into a separate category [:] "Communal"

Capes too, I think. But "communal" only captures half of it, especially since John Kim's original list really doesn't define things primarily by who has the power to frame scenes; maybe "round-robin improvisational"?

Ugh. Somebody, please, a better name.