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?

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.

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.

TonyLB wrote:
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?

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.

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?

TonyLB wrote: 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.

You might try reading this old thread:

Star Wars.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

Cool. That's what I thought you were saying.

My experience with this is that if the players sit on their hands and refuse to commit to a course of action until the GM has "showed his hand" then this whole style of play becomes an exercise in frustration for the GM. Do you have recommendations for a way around that?

TonyLB wrote: My experience with this is that if the players sit on their hands and refuse to commit to a course of action until the GM has "showed his hand" then this whole style of play becomes an exercise in frustration for the GM. Do you have recommendations for a way around that?

Yeah, pretty much. Maybe a slightly more dysfunctional version of the first one where your players wanted to see the tracks. I've seen whole groups of players who insist that their characters must be disinterested loners who are totally self-sufficient and don't talk to anybody, and have no connections to any other character (player or otherwise). To which I say "Okay, so what sort of thing would such a character be doing that makes them worth hearing about?" and they reply "Oh, don't worry about me... when you start the story I'll find some way to get involved."

One person saying that... okay, fine, whatever. Every player sticking to some variation on that theme? That's a little frustrating.

TonyLB wrote: Yeah, pretty much. Maybe a slightly more dysfunctional version of the first one where your players wanted to see the tracks. I've seen whole groups of players who insist that their characters must be disinterested loners who are totally self-sufficient and don't talk to anybody, and have no connections to any other character (player or otherwise). To which I say "Okay, so what sort of thing would such a character be doing that makes them worth hearing about?" and they reply "Oh, don't worry about me... when you start the story I'll find some way to get involved."

One person saying that... okay, fine, whatever. Every player sticking to some variation on that theme? That's a little frustrating.

It's pretty damn funny though... thanks. That lightens my day.

Of course the horribly dysfunctional worst case isn't the one I'm trying to solve. Those groups are few and far between. But they clearly demonstrated (at least to me) the way in which I was relying on the players, and not doing as much to contribute to the game as I could if I presented my story ideas more forcefully.

Anyway, I got myself a few nice little short-term rollercoasters built for my game tonight. Maybe, y'know, if people were to wander over that way and be in the mood for a rollercoaster already, and if they have tickets and, y'know, meet the height requirements... well maybe I might stick 'em in the rollercoaster and we'd all say "Whee!" for a while until they got off and could walk around wherever they wanted again.

I'll probably have lots more questions after that.

TonyLB wrote: 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.

...

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?

TonyLB wrote: . . . I've seen whole groups of players who insist that their characters must be disinterested loners who are totally self-sufficient and don't talk to anybody, and have no connections to any other character (player or otherwise). To which I say "Okay, so what sort of thing would such a character be doing that makes them worth hearing about?" and they reply "Oh, don't worry about me... when you start the story I'll find some way to get involved."

One person saying that... okay, fine, whatever. Every player sticking to some variation on that theme? That's a little frustrating.

It occurs to me that there is, for my money, an excellent pre-plotted adventure supplement already in print: Hardwired, for CP2020, by Walter Jon Williams. I've waxed lyrical about this book before, but its worth mentioning again as an excellent (IMO) example of a fully structured, prepared adventure than none the less feels very free in execution.

Thinking about it, I think one of the keys to its success is sinking the element that links all the events together into the background such that, rather than leading the players by the nose through blatantly escalating tension, tension just plain escalates and realising why comes as something of a revelation, a discovery.