[Avalanche] - encouraging SIM/NAR, my problems

[pells]

I'm currently working on a rpg project, based on content (setting/stories). I've developed a new desing, a new way to write scenarios and setting related to them.
The two main differences in this design are the presence of multi plots with no predefined hole for the players and the use of a calendar instead of chapters. I believe this two components encourage SIM and NAR play, but I still got some problems, questions.
First of all, I believe those kind of play are encouraged, somehow, intuitively. Here's the explanations.

Multi plots with no predefined hole for the players
I believe this way of writing encourages NAR play because the players tend to be in story now all the time. They are always confronted to choices, their choices. The way they have to go is not given to them. An example.
Some forest people are going to war against the humans. What will the players do ? Fight beside the forest people, the humans, try to prevent the war ? There is nothing in the story like 'Chapter X : fighting the humans'. They have to make choices. Even so, when they have made their choices, they might come up with another dilemma, as they learn that in some region, the peasants are fighting over their oppressors, or that a long lost city is now free of his icy prison. What will they do, stay with their previous choice or choose a new plot they find more important ?

The use of a calendar
I believe removing the static chapter based design of a scenario encourages SIM play, because players realised that things move in the world. I think it encourages immersion into the world. When they come back to some places, they need to get informations about what has happened there since they left. Not only do they have to try to achieve their goal, but also try to acheive them in time. Sometime, they might be too late. Also, they can't see, participate in everything on the narrative plot (sorry for the term), so the gathering of informations is very important.
One important note about SIM design and the use of calendar. My main question when writing down the stories, is not much how does it work ? but more how is it done ? Some examples.
The orcs are building a camp near a position they want to control. It is not done in a blink of an eye, it needs time. So, how is it done ? They need to build trenches, collect wood and stone, build fortifications, camps, also boats in that particular place. This takes a couple of weeks.
The humans try to reconquer a long lost city. How is it done ? They call the arms into a capital, word is spreading of this. As the civilian population is now in the city, the fighters who gather there need to build camps outside the city, waiting for departure. This may also take a couple of weeks.
My main concern while writing is that the superimpositition of the different plots, in time, needs to be realistic.

The way I play it
I have to admit there is a strong social contract between my players and me. I'm there to play with them, not against them. We're there to build their story. I also almost play freeform, refering to the system mostly for combat. For my games, I use d20 system (d&d 3rd edition). That said, I don't distribute experience points. I just 'level up' the characters at the end of the chapters (i.e. seasons, three months of calendar). It is clearly understood by my players that they are rewarded base on the influence they had on the plot. So, they are not encouraged to fight anyone, but only when there is a stake.

My problems
As long as I'm the only one playing this scenario, no problems arise. But, I wish to publish it. Note that I'll use d20 at first to illustrate my stories into a system as its licence suits my needs.
So, here are some of my concerns.
- First of all, do I get the SIM interpreted in the right way, trying to present a realistic, living world ?
- Does the design of the setting/stories seems enough to encourage SIM/NAR play ? Would there be need for rules to enforce it ?
- Do the understanding/influencing of the plot seem rewarding enough ? For my players it is, but I doubt making a generalisation based on that.
- Beside putting a big 'general note' on this matter, what can I do ?
- For me, intuitively, the design encourages SIM/NAR, that it affects actual play. But is it, really ?

[Tommi Brander]

Why is this on actual play?

First of all, do I get the SIM interpreted in the right way, trying to present a realistic, living world ?

That is somewhat indicative of Sim. Not something that defines it.
As long as the players are active, this could be sim or nar, I'd say.

Does the design of the setting/stories seems enough to encourage SIM/NAR play ? Would there be need for rules to enforce it ?

First, tell what you mean by sim/nar play.
Rules are never needed for a creative agenda, but they can help enormously.

Do the understanding/influencing of the plot seem rewarding enough ? For my players it is, but I doubt making a generalisation based on that.

I'd build a reward system around it. Instead of levelling by months, level by impact on plots.

An idea: advancement tokens. When a plot is significantly changed, grant 2 of them. When a more minor change occurs, grant 1. When number of tokens equals current level, gain another one.


So, in summary, add a reward cycle and elaborate on how you see sim/nar play. Give an AP account and an ideal gaming moment.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello!

Great reply, Tommi.

Pells, let me start with the jargon-stuff first, and I'm going to take it a little farther than Tommi did. Basically - you'll do better to leave out the Sim, in the discussion. If you really mean that business about the players' "story," then what you're describing as Sim is actually support for the Narrativist play.

So, Narrativist play with a sense of powerfully imagined, powerfully rooted, powerfully consistent material to work with ... that's what I'm seeing you talking about.

A lot of people get kind of confused about that, because as soon as they see a big map and an in-game-world calendar, or as soon as they see stuff about the different cultures in different areas on the map, they say, "Sim!" But that's not correct. That stuff can be supportive of any Creative Agenda, including Gamist play.

Now I'll talk about just one of the questions you brought up, because it seems like the central one - the issue of in-game time and its role in the imaginary situations. In technical terms, it seems like what you're looking for is dramatic constraint. All (all!) good stories need dramatic contraints, and time is one of the best.

A bunch of orcs start building their fortress. This sets up the time-scale for how tense the humans' problem is, specifically whether the ships full of grain are going to arrive before the fortress is completed. Right? Stuff like that?

Well, I think you'll do best to design your system in terms of personal conflict among characters. I realize it's not 100% realistic, but don't let that throw you. What I mean is that you can think in terms of the three ship's single commander "fighting" against the orc leader. The former's sailing and leadership abilities against the latter's expertise and leadership abilities. Again, this is just like combat, except that the two aren't actually meeting with one another.

The neat thing is that the time it takes is then set by (for instance) the orc chief beating the human captain in a round of this "combat." That means the orcs pulled ahead, and the ships were delayed, or something similar. (the details depend on your resolution system)

Now you can subdivide each leader into two things: (1) the characters or groups that help them get their job done, like the ship captain's trusty lieutenant; and (2) the characters or groups who cause trouble for these goals, like the orc shaman who's always undermining the chief. If you want there to be a serious physical/geographic issue to consider, like the storms that sweep in out of the western ocean, then they become similar to #1 or #2 even if they are "things" rather than people.

The neat thing about doing it this way is that all of the time-based realism actually appears after all - right there during play, not fixed in-place prior to play. You don't have to "glue" two separated task-by-task processes together using time all by yourself as GM.

That's a big shock for people who are used to having tons of charts and maps to use for simulating the climates and terrains and reactions of characters, all of which are supposed to be utilized and cross-referenced constantly with fictional time as the underlying connecting factor. Your current suggestion seems to be aimed right at that fictional time, but it will work best as a means of starting conflicts (i.e. saying when the orcs start their fortress project), rather than as a means to manage those conflicts once they're under way.

So! I am supporting your use of the calendar, and your interest in having in-game time be a major, inspiring, tension-filled part of your scenarios. What I'm suggesting is that you use the characters' conflicts to move the game along the calendar, which can set up sudden new conflicts, rather than using it as a timer like you'd see in a computer RPG for "whether you can get the ships there in time" or stuff like that.

Best,
Ron

[Lance D. Allen]

Hm. From what Ron's describing, you may want to take a look at the The Riddle of Steel mass combat system (from The Flower of Battle) for an example of how to abstract a large scale undertaking. Basically, I see it like this.

You build each commander's "body of resources", which could be something like armies, or what have you. Whatever factors you think would apply will give bonuses or penalties. Things like "veteran ship crews" or "novice engineer corps" would strengthen or weaken each side. Total it up to a numerical value, compare the values, and decide what the disparity means. Maybe it grants bonus dice to one commander or the other's roll. Roll, and decide what the roll means. Maybe each roll augments a running "progress total". Then have ways for the PCs actions to help or hinder either side.

Anyway, it's a thought to accomplish what you're looking for. For a more indepth example of the sort of thing I mean, check out the aforementioned.

[pells]

Well... I had to give a lot of thougths on this one, but, maybe, this is what I like about the Forge... So first things first. I'll follow Ron's advice and leave the SIM beside.

Why is this on actual play?

I hesitated to put it into design, but, I think, it really concerns actually play. That said, I may be wrong.
About NAR, from what I understand, it is about choices, moral dilemma. As I see it, players just don't follow a pregiven path. At some points, they are confronted to dilemmas.

So, in summary, add a reward cycle and elaborate on how you see sim/nar play. Give an AP account and an ideal gaming moment.

Well, I guess, you won't like this one, but here's two examples :
[Avalanche] - with prepared players
[Avalanche] part I - with unprepared players
I'll give a third one as I'll use it for the purpose of this post. I played it with my regular group.
There is in the north a human capital, last stand against the white orcs. Within this city, a council rules, where the shamens (false druids) are very important. But the latest have stolen a precious artefact from the Luciomes (forest people) some fifty years ago. So the shamens abuse this artefact, thus increasing their power, but killing off the Luciomes people. At some point in the story, the Luciomes decided to go war against the men as to recover this artefact. A young Luciome convinces their king to allow him to try to recover it without the use of arms, thus preventing the war. It occured that my players were in the city the moment this 'ambassador' came to the capital. As you can guess, the shamens were not very willing to give them the artefact. A couple of days later, this artefact was stolen by another group.

So, my game. My players decided to help the Luciomes and discovered that the artefact was no longer in the hands of the men. They met the king of the Luciomes, explained to him that the humans were no longer their 'real ennemy' as they could not abuse the artefact anymore. But, the shamens, trying to preverse their secrets, were in the woods, trying to hunt down the Luciomes. The king said to my players "If they are not longer our ennemies, how come they are still in the forest, fighting us?". My players said to him that they would manage the shamens, and came to an agreement with the king : if the shamens were to leave the forest, the Luciomes would not attack the men. So, my players walk for a week back to the capital, fighting some shamens on the way, reveal some secrets to important characters there, threaten the shamens' leader and succeeded in preventing the war as they returned to the king. Overall, it took them three weeks to acheive this. So what ?

For one thing, they chose to try to avoid the war. They could have chosen to fight back the shamens instead, or fight beside them. Or even not to interfere. It was their choices. And another important thing : when they came to town to negociate with the shamens, they found out that a member of the council had been murdered. For a couple of days they tried to investigate it and found out a character who was doing the same thing. The latest guessed the murderer came south and noticed my players that he was going that way. As my players needed to go back into the woods, they could not follow him. When they came back in the town, this character had been gone over a week. But, there again, it was their choices. They decided it was more important to prevent the war than investigate a murder. Note that this murder is on different plot and has nothing to do with the shamens or the Luciomes.
I'll get back to this example.

Now you can subdivide each leader into two things: (1) the characters or groups that help them get their job done, like the ship captain's trusty lieutenant; and (2) the characters or groups who cause trouble for these goals, like the orc shaman who's always undermining the chief. If you want there to be a serious physical/geographic issue to consider, like the storms that sweep in out of the western ocean, then they become similar to #1 or #2 even if they are "things" rather than people.

I think I understand what you mean, and realised d20 is not meant for this purpose. As I see it, it is a great tool for resolution.
Let's say some players are in the wood, learn that the orcs are establishing a camp. They know humans will be coming in boats in that direction. So what will they do ? Harass the orcs who try to collect wood or stone, as to prevent the construction of the camp ? Set fire to it ? Try to murder the orcs' chief ? Help the humans' captain by (I don't know) making the ships fly, so they can meet the orcs earlier ? If they are good sailers, take command of a boat ? Or maybe, they want to help the orcs and will try to sink some ships ? Anyway, the influence of the players is reflected in dices' roll. They prevented the construction of the fortress, so the orcs won't get any benefit from it, for example.
My question here : this will help me resolves the players' influence, but does it encourage them to take sides, to respond to this dilemma ?

So! I am supporting your use of the calendar, and your interest in having in-game time be a major, inspiring, tension-filled part of your scenarios. What I'm suggesting is that you use the characters' conflicts to move the game along the calendar, which can set up sudden new conflicts, rather than using it as a timer like you'd see in a computer RPG for "whether you can get the ships there in time" or stuff like that.

"The timer bomb" is one thing I want to avoid. In fact, when players are in one story, the calendar is not really that important. It is more important for the stories they are not involved in. This is very tricky when it comes into multi plots. I'm getting back at my example. I'll simplify things, sorry for that.
My players are in the wood, have just met the Luciomes' king and are on their way to the northen capital. At that point, they met some rangers who informed them of the presence of the orcs and their presumed goals of building a fortress. Let's say my players think the humans who are going by boats there will be crushed by the orcs. Let's say they know humans will be there in about three weeks. What will they do ? Prevent the war or prevent the orcs from establishing their camps ? So, my guess is this : not only my players are confronted to moral dilemma in a given story, but also between stories. Of course, the group could split, but let's say no.
As you can see, the use of the calendar is not much as "time bomb", but rather as a way to impose dilemmas. What I want to avoid, is seeing my characters say "let's prevent the war, then we'll go against the orcs." It is not possible, as the two plots occur at the same time. They can't do both. The calendar is useful when players go 'in' and 'out' of stories.
And this is why I say that multi plots, using a calendar, encourages, intuitively, NAR play.

So back to my problems.
As I understand it, the creative agenda is dedicted by reward, if I understand this right. From my above example, my players preventing the war, what was their reward ? For one thing, I'd say they were very proud in succeeding in preventing the war. Also, the Luciomes are now their allies. From the human race, my group is the one the Luciome will seek help from in the future. And this will happen. Also, as described in one the link I mentionned, my players are now, somehow, treated like heroes by the Luciomes and their characters help them meet others. But, is that reward enough to encourage them to take sides ?

I'd build a reward system around it. Instead of levelling by months, level by impact on plots.
An idea: advancement tokens. When a plot is significantly changed, grant 2 of them. When a more minor change occurs, grant 1. When number of tokens equals current level, gain another one.

There are two things there : how and when. Personnaly, I prefer to see my players play at the 'same level' for a long time, thus knowing their strength. I'd prefer to 'level up' them two levels at a time, but less often. I know this is not by the book. As to what you propose, I think this is a good idea, and I almost use it that way, without formality. And I think it encourages NAR play.
That said, I see another problem arises. When it comes to moral dilemma, can you really count (for that see utilitarianism, a moral philosophy of 19th century which use counting and doesn't work at all) ? Wouldn't players make choices based on reward, saying "we'll choose this plot over this one as it has more impact, thus more rewarding" ? Then, this will evade the question of moral dilemma...

But, why do I want to encourage NAR play ? Because, as there is no predefined hole in the story for the players, they can always say "we don't care" about all plots. Thus, I want to encourage the players to take part in the story, to build their own.

Hm. From what Ron's describing, you may want to take a look at the The Riddle of Steel mass combat system (from The Flower of Battle) for an example of how to abstract a large scale undertaking. Basically, I see it like this.

Thanks for that, althougth it is not my main concern, this problem will arise eventually, as d20 is not meant to deal with this.

Last note : maybe I get some of the things wrong, don't hesitate to tell me.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

You're doing very well, actually! Thank you for providing even more examples of play for this thread. It's a good lesson for others to understand - that Actual Play is the perfect forum for effective playtesting.

One very small correction about the ideas is that reward doesn't dictate Creative Agenda, but Creative Agendas are certainly the point of any given reward system.

Actually, that's a little more important than it looks. You have asked a couple of times whether your scenarios will cause the players to take sides, or to become active in the middle of a dilemma in some way. My answer is that no rule or scenario can make anyone do anything, but what you are describing will be very attractive for players who already want to play in this fashion. My experience suggests that many players will enjoy it a great deal, and that you will be surprised at how well they can build the developing story instead of merely watching it.

As you can see, the use of the calendar is not much as "time bomb", but rather as a way to impose dilemmas. What I want to avoid, is seeing my characters say "let's prevent the war, then we'll go against the orcs." It is not possible, as the two plots occur at the same time. They can't do both. The calendar is useful when players go 'in' and 'out' of stories.

And this is why I say that multi plots, using a calendar, encourages, intuitively, NAR play.

That is certainly the case for me, both as a player and GM. Our preferences are similar in this regard. However, just as a reminder, another person's first and main reaction might well be to see the calendar as a strategic resource, and to let thematic concerns be secondary, or absent. Again, you can't make anyone's preferences change, even by offering a specific reward, unless there is some existing desire or tendency there already.

But as long as we are talking about ourselves and other people who share that preference, just for purposes of playing your game, then that is no problem. You can even make your reward system only mediocre or even bad for other preferences, which is what I did with my game, Sorcerer.

The one, single thing that will encourage taking sides and getting involved at a thematic level is this: presenting the situation as personal conflicts, not just strategic ones. If the players understand the various people involved in the conflict, and they aren't just "any old orcs," then you will get the kind of involvement you're looking for. How is that understanding achieved? I have written about that extensively, mainly in my book The Sorcerer's Soul, and also in many posts.

The key is to have the conflicts be rooted in problems that the players, the real people, care about. This isn't really about some stupid artifact and some imaginary history ... it's about conflicts among kin, among lovers, and among loyalties.

However, now I'm talking about things that aren't really the topic of this thread, which is the calendar. My point is that the calendar is, yes, an important tool - but that itself, it cannot be the main content of the conflict, but rather just a source of tension during the conflict.

Would you like to talk about how to use that calendar as effectively as possible, during a tense conflict that the players already care about?

Or would you prefer to talk about how that caring is generated in the first place?

Best,
Ron

[pells]

Ron, thanks for the insight.

The one, single thing that will encourage taking sides and getting involved at a thematic level is this: presenting the situation as personal conflicts, not just strategic ones.

From what I understand, the best way to encourage NAR is to have a good, challeging story in which the characters can take part. And the 'in game' rewards (i.e. making alliances, gaining some sort of recognition) seem sufficient enough. So, I guess, you can't force anyone to play NAR. They either want it or not. And if your players say 'we don't care' about the plots, then, maybe there is big problem about the story.

Or would you prefer to talk about how that caring is generated in the first place?

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean. That said, I'll give it a try by speaking about how I work, based on the above example I gave, as to provide rich conflicts, hoping they generate care.
But, first thing, a short notice. I've been introduced to the concept of 'relationship map' since I began reading things on the forge (which means, long after I began writing). I found some similitudes with what I'm doing.
That said, I've never seen a factual one.
I have four strong beliefs when it comes to writing/designing setting/story.
First, I believe the story/plot should be rooted in 'history'. Characters, protagonists are linked by a common history. This is the glue that tie them together. And I think this is also true for all relationship (lovers, friends) : it exists because of a common history. From that point of view, I also believe no one can't understand the present without understanding the past. I believe that this reference to the past enables the plot to be thicker, richer. So, how does it work ?
For one thing, each item (characters, location, groups) is described for the present time (ressources, motivation) in the most classical way for rpg. Items who are in relation mentionned each other, of course. But, as I wish to add the "history aspect", I'll also write down a "personal history" for each item, from their birth (or creation) to the present time. This is where all things come together, that while writing it, it gets a feeling "of coming to life". An example.
Let's revisit that plot about the shamens, Luciomes and northen capital. Some fifty years ago, the shamens stole the artefact (i.e. the stone of madness) from the Luciomes. Before that the shamens were seen with scorn. Let's say that happened in the year 1302. This example is simplified on purpose.
Shamens : their leader steal the stone of madness from the Luciomes, killing their king. They enter the northen capital, posing as druids, and participate in its defense against the white orcs. They show great power due their use of the artefact. They succeed in forcing the true druids to leave the city. The shamens finally gain their long awaited revenge over men.
Forest : for the first time, the shamens use the power of the stone. The forest begin to suffer from it, revealing its dark side. After their exile from the northen capital, druids seek refuge in the forest.
Luciomes : death of their king and lost of the stone to the hand of the shamens. A new king arises. The luciomes start to suffer from the abuse of the stone.
Northen capital : first presence of the shamens in the defense of the city. Their strength is very helpful. At the end of the winter, the shamens have taken over the druids' place in the city, the latest force to flee it.
Druids : they cannot oppose the presence of the shamens who seems too strong and helpful against the white orcs. They must leave the city as the shamens take over their place. The druids cease to exist as a group, but survive as individuals.
The stone of madness : as the king of the Luciome dies, the stone is taken by the shamens. They begin to seek power thru the artefact.

I try to work on three levels of history : long in the past, a generation ago and a couple of years. Note that I design all of the items related to one part of history all together. And some elements may be used in differents points, the northen capital for example.
So, about the game ?
As my players decided to help the Luciomes, they realised that the present situation was only a "surface". They had to dig out the story, the past. As the secrets were revealed, as they "scratched" the surface, I believe they came to care more about their choices. I believe that if the players need to investigate, to understand, then they'll care. At least, I'd say it works for my group.

Second, the use of gray scale protagonists, meaning I don't have black and white characters. I don't things it generates dilemma if your players can say "this is the bad guy and those ones are the good!".
My players want to get ride of the shamens. At one point they thougth about confronting them and forcing them to leave the city. But then, a question arose ? What will happen to the northen capital next winter ? Surely fall against the assault of the white orcs. As you can see, this dilemma is not easy to solve.
Also, my gods are quite different. For example : "god of hope, equity and reconciliation", "god of memory, forgiveness and vengeance", "the god of doubt, lucidity and compassion". As you can see, they are not black and white.

Third, refering to what you said about conflicts among kin, I think it is really important. But for that to happen, I think it means the protagonists have some common goal, but still have their own agenda. In my example, the northen defenders all fight the white orcs, but the secret behind the stone will generate tension.

And last, about items. The main things that interested me in them are their creation and their role. Not much their power/abitity.

Maybe one more thing. I believe that if the players have freedom, they'll care more, because it is their choices. It is nothing like 'hey, let's save the princess, since we have nothing else to do.'

I'm not sure I responded to your question the right way, maybe you were talking about 'in game' problematics. You tell me. You might also tell me the differences/similitudes between this and relationship map.

Would you like to talk about how to use that calendar as effectively as possible, during a tense conflict that the players already care about?

I'd surely like to talk about that!! Here's some of my thougths :
- the use of calendar along a story
- the use of calendar between plots overlapping
- and finally, my big question : how to handle a multi plot without the use of a calendar ?
But, maybe, you had another angle in mind...

[Tommi Brander]

Sebastien,
I read you response. Nothing to comment to there.

So, I guess, you can't force anyone to play NAR. They either want it or not. And if your players say 'we don't care' about the plots, then, maybe there is big problem about the story.

No one should be forced. Encouragement is fine, though.
Rules basically do two things, from a designer's point of view: they share credibility (who can say what and when so that it gets into the shared imagined space, or basically game setting) and facilitate desired player behaviour. Everything else comes after these two.

I have four strong beliefs when it comes to writing/designing setting/story.

I hope you don't mind if I comment a bit, just to give another point of view?

First, I believe the story/plot should be rooted in 'history'.

Sometimes, creating or defining the history is one of the highlights. Generally, extensive histories are no needed and can even be negative if the GM doesn't remember them almost by heart.

Second, the use of gray scale protagonists, meaning I don't have black and white characters.

There is something to be said about wholly evil characters one must work with, or good ones one is forced to act against. This assumes that the PCs prefer to see the good guys not die horribly, and make the bad ones not quite as comfortable as they used to be. Change references to suit your setting.

how to handle a multi plot without the use of a calendar

Memorise it all. Make things happen when it seems like a good idea. Have events and let the story create itself organically.

[pells]

Sometimes, creating or defining the history is one of the highlights. Generally, extensive histories are no needed and can even be negative if the GM doesn't remember them almost by heart.

The objective of the history is to give depth to the description of the elements. And I think it really helps, even more than the simple description, who tends, most of the time, to picture the present time. As for memorizing them, as you can see, the different elements share a common past, history, so the information is redondant, repetitive somehow. But I think it helps that way to elude the problem of rembering everything, as each part of the history of an element refers to other elements. I'm not sure I get it right, but I think the description reflects the relationship map in the present and the history the relationship map in the past.

Memorise it all. Make things happen when it seems like a good idea. Have events and let the story create itself organically.

There is much to say for me there. First, remember I'm in the context of a prewritten scenario. This is not a home brew campaign, planned a session at a time. Also, I don't think memory is such a good idea when there is a lot of plots going along at the same time. At least, I wouldn't bet my game sessions on that. So, I see the calendar as a tool to elude that. The DM knows which weeks he's playing, where are his players, so he just takes a look at the calendar to see what's happening there. Very easy to manage I think. And as you can see, the calendar is not the point, but a tool.

I'll just show some examples on how to use the calendar to comment the last part of your quote. I too wish to let the story be created by itself, but, in what I'm doing, there are two things. Remember, there is no predefined holes for the players to fill. So, I'd say there are two stories : the players' one and the one written, without any concern for the players' interference. I want the first one to be build by itself and the second one to help build the first.

You're saying to have things happen when it seems a good idea. I'd say sometimes yes, but other times no. Here are the examples.

My players pursued the orcs and found out they were going to build a camp near the lake. Not a long time ago, the lake was frozen, impossible to access. So, they came to think over who's responsible for its freedom. At first, they thougth it was the orcs. But then they met some rangers who told them they saw some flames falling out from the sky. My players asked "when" ? As I told them (remember, the calendar), they came back to their own 'history'. "What were we doing at that time ? Oh, we were in the northen capital, just leaving to pursue the orcs. So, it couldn't be them."
What do I wish to show by that ? The 'liberation' of the lake had nothing to do with the plots in which my players were involved. So, when it happened is NOT when I needed it, but in coherence with that specific plot. And the fact that it happened when it was suppossed to, served my game. My players could try to understand what happened thanks to that. And they guessed there was another protagonist trying to take over the lake.

Before going on to the next example, just a reminder : my events are defined for a given week, not day. So the DM can manage when they happen as to serve his needs.
My players are in the northen capital, just arriving after a long trip north. In my calendar I see this : the Luciomes' ambassador appears in the council's room, asking for the stone. Well, as it happened, my players spent the first evening in that room, so I made the Luciome appeared. I could have chosen not to, maybe wait a couple of days, but I thougth it served my needs. That said, I even could had chosen that the presence of the Luciome was set in the past. So when my players would have arrived in the capital, they would have heard stories about him. But I prefered to have them be witnesses.

A last thing about caring. I think my players came to care because they are involved. They know the shamens will try anything to destroy them. So, by helping out the Luciomes and druids, they help themselves.

My experience suggests that many players will enjoy it a great deal, and that you will be surprised at how well they can build the developing story instead of merely watching it.

I'm already quite surprised with my group. But mostly surprised as how they come they build their own story, jumping from one plot to the other. They are totally unpredictable. I've abandonned to plan ahead, so now I just prepared the events, without specifics thougths. That said, one comment of my player stroke me. The group is now near the orcs, watching them build their camp, see new ennemies arise against the orcs. So, my player told me : "It's quite strange your game. In a regular scenario, or in a video game, I would have known what to do. It would be clear we have to opposed the orcs and how. But there, I don't know. We have to come up with something ourselves."

No one should be forced. Encouragement is fine, though.

But how do I acheive that, encourage them ? In my game, so far so good. The players take side, they get involved, they are really in the story. They like it. But, like I said, I don't want to generalise over that.

[Tommi Brander]

Sometimes, creating or defining the history is one of the highlights. Generally, extensive histories are no needed and can even be negative if the GM doesn't remember them almost by heart.

The objective of the history is to give depth to the description of the elements.

As I said, another point of view. I do understand what you are after, and think that it is superior to standard modules or adventures (there are free ones for D&D in the company's website, if you are interested, but most are not that good). Your way is simply not the only way.

This is not a home brew campaign, planned a session at a time.

I don't plan my sessions in any way deeper than your calendar does. Probably less rigorously.

So, I see the calendar as a tool to elude that.

It is probably just me, but ready adventures always seem like crutches. Same with ready calendars. A tool with which to elude the fun point. Then, my GMing style is quite sim, so read my input with that in mind.
I am not saying that what you are doing is worthless, far from that. It simply is not something I am too interested in.

Remember, there is no predefined holes for the players to fill.

The fun part is, we do things in similar way, but you plan it ahead and target for stories. What you do seems to be a variation of "run a setting, let PCs do what they want".

So, when it happened is NOT when I needed it, but in coherence with that specific plot.

I add generic random or bizarre events now on then. See if the PCs follow the leads. So, when it seems like making something happen is a good idea does not have anything to do with a plot of any kind.

Before going on to the next example, just a reminder : my events are defined for a given week, not day. So the DM can manage when they happen as to serve his needs.

That is good. More flexibility.

No one should be forced. Encouragement is fine, though.

But how do I acheive that, encourage them ? In my game, so far so good. The players take side, they get involved, they are really in the story. They like it. But, like I said, I don't want to generalise over that.

Reward system. It is a way of telling the players that what they did was a good thing. Also, general material for GMs to tell the players, stuff like "you make your own plot, or not; your choice". D&D's standard reward system is not good for this, IMO.
Static experience awards for simply being there might work, but to a sim direction.

[pells]

Good thing is, I'm learning somethings here.

As I said, another point of view. I do understand what you are after, and think that it is superior to standard modules or adventures (there are free ones for D&D in the company's website, if you are interested, but most are not that good). Your way is simply not the only way.

This is not a home brew campaign, planned a session at a time.

I don't plan my sessions in any way deeper than your calendar does. Probably less rigorously.

Maybe just a reminder about the context. The campaign I'm playtesting is my final product. This is my trade, this is what I'm selling, a setting/plots. That said I agree with you about typical prewritten scenarios. And I'd say, of course, my way is not the only way to go, but, like I mentioned in a design thread related to my project (see in my signature), I don't see many new ways to design scenarios or setting. So what I wish to do is, somehow, reinvent that, offering a multiplots adventure with no holes, hoping it will elude the railroading dillema of prewritten scenarios.
When I was talking about home brew campaign, and your comment is interesting, it's normal you do things less rigorously. For example, my players began in the south and reached the north a month later into the game. If I was playing a home brew campaign, with no intention of plubishing, I would have a vague idea of what happened in the north during the first month, but I'd be crazy to go into details. In what I'm doing, I need to do it, because, maybe some groups will start in the north instead of the south. And overall, I'm quite glad I went into details, because it's easier for me to manage the game when the players arrive there. Same things for all the plots, as players jump into them in the middle, I'm glad I have a coherent 'story' so far. I do realise that all in all, any DM will use about 20 % of what I've written.

It is probably just me, but ready adventures always seem like crutches. Same with ready calendars. A tool with which to elude the fun point. Then, my GMing style is quite sim, so read my input with that in mind.
I am not saying that what you are doing is worthless, far from that. It simply is not something I am too interested in.

That's fair enough. But I can clearly see now that NAR is what I'm doing. The players' story is the point of our sessions. We might be doing other things, like 'in character' play, but it serves the purpose of the story. So, I guess, if the story is not the point of your sessions, then you don't need something like I would propose. But another thing I learned from the forge, better do one thing right than many wrong.

What you do seems to be a variation of "run a setting, let PCs do what they want".

Well, it's variation, but a big one, or so I think. I'll just give some insights as how I feel it as a DM. Let's say, to start, that stories are the main things that interested me, either in rpg, or movies, books or video games. But not only stories, also how they are told. So, no big surprise I design a product for NAR.
One big difference is that it's not only a setting running, but plots defined for a given setting. So, the world is moving. There is no one waiting for my players. It's not like 'if they entered that town, that guy will offer them something.' My players are no trigger to any story. So, I'd say, as a DM, I find it challeging to play this campaign. For the context of a prewritten scenario, I'm not the lead, my players are. It's their story, not mine. I'm there to help them to build it. We build it together. At one point in the story, before one of our session, I had this great plot I wanted them to take part in. Well, they chose another plot, I couldn't and wouldn't do anything about it. I find very interesting the fact that players may 'deny' some plots, say 'no' to some characters who offered them some opportunities. From my point of view, my role as a DM is quite different, but still very challenging. I really do have the feeling of playing with them, as I have to describe a day to day campaign based on their choices.

I add generic random or bizarre events now on then. See if the PCs follow the leads. So, when it seems like making something happen is a good idea does not have anything to do with a plot of any kind.

Then again, I guess the plot is not the point of your games. That said, maybe just a note about random events. What I provide is the backbone for the main stories. So, there is some room in it for events coming from the DM's imagination.

Reward system. It is a way of telling the players that what they did was a good thing. Also, general material for GMs to tell the players, stuff like "you make your own plot, or not; your choice". D&D's standard reward system is not good for this, IMO.
Static experience awards for simply being there might work, but to a sim direction.

A general note would be necessary I guess. And yes, I agree, d20 is not meant for that. As for 'just behind there', that's not I want in the context of NAR, you get it right.
That said, I remember something from my last session. At some point, a group of great warriors splited apart based on a conflict about the shamens. My players took side with them, leaving the city in their company. As they left, the members of those group gave them some powerful items that they use. So, my players got a reward, better armor, a steed, but not by killing out monsters, instead as a reward for the sides they had chosen to take part for. I guess this is a good way to encourage them.

[Tommi Brander]

I see no benefit in continuing discussion, as it stands now, besides this:

At some point, a group of great warriors splited apart based on a conflict about the shamens. My players took side with them, leaving the city in their company. As they left, the members of those group gave them some powerful items that they use. So, my players got a reward, better armor, a steed, but not by killing out monsters, instead as a reward for the sides they had chosen to take part for. I guess this is a good way to encourage them.

Yeah, treasure. Toys. Experience or levels should be used, too, as they are a ready-built system.
I repeat my suggestion of granting exp or some other resource for altering the plots. And by telling this before play, you are actually telling the players to mess with things. Double benefit, as I see it.

[Tommi Brander]

Oops.
The tag that ends the quote should be at the end of the first paragraph.