One of the main complaints about commercial adventure modules for RPGs is that they either follow a linear design, or they are a list of encounters, where each encounter must be "checked off" by the Players so that they can solve the scenario. These tend to guide or railroad the players to a set resolution or group of resolutions. Encounters tend to be static, the NPCs waiting on the arrival of the PCs before anything happens.

There is the other kind of adventure design and that is the "adventure seed". The adventure seed is not a full fledge scenario, just the basic plot for one, with the occasional NPC list tacked on. Usually they have multiple endings allowing the GM to pick one that best suits his group and style of play.

Adventure seeds allow the GM to customize the scenario more than the more traditional linear designs, but still, these are more suited for generic settings and "Home campaigns" and do not further the official published campaign for the RPG.

What is needed is a scenario design that allows more freedom for the GM to improvise as he can with an adventure seeds, but provides more background and structure for the official campaign.

What I’m proposing is what I call "Event Driven Adventures". Instead of a collection of encounters, the adventure is driven by a series of events arranged in a timeline and these events can diverge from the main plot line.

Physically there would be too books: the Events book and the Settings book. The Events book contains the series of the primary events and alternative events that take place within the environs of the Settings book.

The Settings book can be as big as a world book, or it can be small as a regional book. The beauty of the Settings book is that it is independent of the Events book. You as a game designer can then produce more Events books that take place in the same setting, or across multiple settings. The GM benefits in that he now has a setting to run adventures in, along with the one that was packaged in the set.

Events are not "encounters" renamed. Encounters are typically PC driven, where Events are NPC driven. Also, as an event, the PCs can interact with the event anywhere along its occurrence. This lets the PCs to show up when the Event is halfway done. The Event happens whether the PCs show up or not, and will trigger another event that the PCs may or may not know about ahead of time.

Events are arranged in timelines with branches that can be triggered by the PCs' actions. There is the primary timeline: A series of events that will occur if the PCs do nothing at all. Then there are the branch timelines that can occur if the PCs do interact and change the outcome of the primary event.

The branch events are the crux of this design, as well as the bane of the design. If not limited, they can quickly get out of hand. So my advice is to limit the branches based on the goals of the NPCs, and if at all possible, reunite a branch back into the primary timeline. Of course the NPCs will not have the same capabilities that they would have had if they had succeeded earlier.

At least two of the events, typically in the early events, that are what I call "hook events". The goal of these events is to "hook" the players and get them involved with the plot line. You need two, because the first one may not work, but the second one will.

Next: A sample set of Events.

Hey John, and welcome to the Forge.

I'm curious. What happens to your Event tree if the players do something totally unexpected? Say that the adventure is about the assassination of a political leader. What happens if the players say, "Screw this assassination stuff, I want to run a flower shop!"?

That example is off the wall, but it could be something equally valid that isn't covered by your listed events. For example, perhaps you provide event trees for players to take if they side with the assassins or if they side with the guys protecting the target. What if they want to play both sides against the middle?

If the answer is, "The events happen anyway, no matter what the players do," then you run into some problems with your players being unable to influence the world in any major way. If they are able to influence the world in major ways, then event trees will likely be far too restrictive to cover for the insane activities they will attempt to undertake...

Thomas

Thanks Tom!

Well, if the players want to run their flower shop, they run their flower shop and the events occur. If they choose not to get involve, then that is their choice. And in any case, the fault lies not with me as the designer, but with the GM for picking up an adventure that didn't suit his players.

As the designer, it behooves me to state in the advertising and on the box that this adventure is aimed at Law Enforcement, Espionage, or similar characters. Also, the assassination plot would be part of a larger series of events, that would have plenty of hooks for the players to get involved in.

A big hurdle in Event driven scenarios is finding good examples. One good example is the movie "Black Sunday", where several of the events by the "NPCs" occur in the absence of the of the "PCs". In fact the protagonists are playing catch up almost all through the movie.

But is must be noted that the protagonists are well suited to the adventure, they are Mossad and FBI agents. I can't see running something like Black Sunday with flower shop owners... :-)

But you do raise another good point: What do you do about Players who go off on a tangent in an Event Driven Adventure?

Let me answer that with another question: What do you about players who go off on a tangent in a Linear Adventure?

In terms of the Linear Adventure, not a dang thing.

In terms of an Event Driven Adventure, well, you can do a lot, especially if you as the designer carefully detail out the motivations and goals of the NPCs, the average GM will be able to improvise a new timeline, and more than likely adapt the existing ones to the new reality being forged. Obviously if the PCs are going to play both sides against each other, the NPC events may in fact still happen, just slightly altered.

I hope that answers your question...

I'm a tad unclear as to where the line is between "event-driven scenarios" and "published metaplot".

Again, if the event-driven scenario says that Senator Shuffley is assassinated, but the players manage to foil the assassination, what do you do in the next book when Senator Shuffley's replacement proves to be involved in a conspiracy?

I'm not attempting to undermine your idea. I'm looking to understand how it escapes the problems of what seem to be similar ideas launched in the past.

--M. J. Young

Alright, how about a situation where a major NPC, around which the events often turn, gets killed early on?

I'm not saying that what you're talking about isn't possible (I'm writing one) but you have to be very, very careful to consider as many possibilities as you can... and you end up writing far, far more material than the PC's will end up encountering.

Thanks for your synchronisitic replies M.J. and Vaxalon!

What do you do when the players get that lucky shot and take out Mr. Big?

What do you do if Senator Shuffley doesn't bite the big one?

Both good questions, and both have their counter questions:

What happens if the players do not take out Mr. Big?

&

What happens if Senator Shuffley does bite the big one?

All of these are the same question: What happens if the fate decreed for the NPC does not happen?

My first answer is that is linear design thinking. In event driven design, there really isn't one answer or resolution. There can be several.

Let's take Senator Shuffley for instance. He has three probably fates: Alive, Dead, Alive but not in office.

Also, the assumption is that the assassination attempt on Senator Shuffley is the climax of the adventure. More than likely it is the event before the climax. As M.J. pointed out, the real climax is finding out that the Senator's replacement, the Honorable Horace Pedantry is neck deep in the conspiracy. And hopefully enough information has been given during the adventure that the players figure out that Pedantry is the mastermind behind the attempt that they get to him just before he tries to kill Shuffley with his own hands...

As for Mr. Big snuffing it in the first event, well, that's a good one.

OK, I have an answer: If someone is present in an event, he's fair game and therefore is expendable.

If Mr. Big appears in the first event, then he can be offed, arrested, sequestered, or otherwise taken out of the picture. Why? Because Mr. Big is the frontman for Mr. Bigger, a well heeled, pillar of the community, who has the police commissioner in his back pocket, and the mayor is his puppet.

Or Mr. Big was the main man in charge of Event #1, but now that he's dead, in Event #2b the rest of the gang picks a new boss and go off on a different crime spree.

But the real problem is that you can't really design a game that is proof against Kamikaze Beserker PCs, who blow through events designed for guile and intrigue like bread through a seagull.

Event Driven Adventures are not for players who think with their swords/guns, but for players who think.

The last question about how do you follow up in the next adventure? Well, you can't. The Event Driven Adventure must be complete, in that it ends in a resolution of sorts, with most of the plot lines tied up.

Now remember, the Setting doesn't change, or it shouldn't change much, so you can set a different adventure in the same Setting.

But as Vaxalon points out, this can lead to big event trees, so it's behooves me as the designer to keep the branches to a minimum and make sure that any plot holes are throughly plastered over or at least accounted for.

To be honest, I'm still in the stages of designing my first one, but I decided to share my concept now, before I get all the bugs worked out and perhaps gain some wisdom from the rest of you!

Thanks in advance!

In terms of the flower shop, I don't think it's unfair for a product to say 'X, Y and Z are our focuses with this product, not A, B, or C. You'll get best results if your group agree's to pursue this area.' I mean, panadol designers don't need to accomidate users shoving the capsule up their nose, in order to take it. :)

In terms of the time line and such, I think what you really need is a collection of resources which help you form something interesting extending from player actions.

Instead of: Important person X is going to get assasinated and here's a bunch of things you can do to stop it.

Instead its: If your players start laying into a significant evil organisation, this organisation, as it's pushed into a corner, will make moves to assasinate X.

As a GM, I'd prefer to be helped to respond in interesting ways to the players.

Hello,

I discovered a similar Event Driven design in Unknown Armies' "Pinfeathers" scenario (*). I had to test it with some players to realise that it actually works. It works BUT players don't understand the whole story, because of behind the scene events, and the GM has to explain some facts after the game or let the players wondering what happened.

Odds are a "NPC driven" plot will have players skirting the story and being frustrated about it.

Shlo.

(*) This scenario is available for free on Atlas Games' website : http://www.atlas-games.com/unknownarmies/index.php

I get what he's saying, and for published, company supported material its not a half bad way to go.
Its kind of like Butterfly Effect. You have say 5 guideposts, or 5 dots on the page. You can draw ANYWHERE on the page, so long as they dots connect.

- You decide instead of joining the security detail for the upcoming senatorial ball that you want to open a flower shop. So, you're minding your own business taking care of your new, small flowershop when a young woman bristkly walks in and asks your rates and how long it would take you do a dozen fresh floral arrangements using Yellow and Black flowers, ribbons ec. These just so happen to be the colors for the Seneator's family and you can tell by the badge just under her tunic she's a coordnator for the ball. As you're talking to her, you notice a gentleman standing outside the shop, across the street. He notices you looking at him and bolts around the corner and into the alley.

Construct a basic timeline of things that WILL happen and things that COULD happen, or WAYS things that WILL happen COULD happen. The movie Time Machine, how many ways could his fiance have been killed? Several, we saw two: the mugging and the buggy. You can go anywhere, do anything, but those actions will somehow be intertwined with these actions.

daMoose_Neo wrote: (...)You have say 5 guideposts, or 5 dots on the page. You can draw ANYWHERE on the page, so long as they dots connect. (...) Construct a basic timeline of things that WILL happen and things that COULD happen, or WAYS things that WILL happen COULD happen.(...)

I recently read a Star Cluster module (Flyingmice LLC) La Famiglia Amalfi which is presented as pure situation. The starting conditions are specified, the NPC's goals and probable courses of actions are specified.

There is a (rough) time line of events but there isn't a tree-structure or flow-chart.

Additionally, since you brought up the problems of Mr. Big being killed in scene one, here is an essay on our site about how to construct a game that may resolve some of those problems.

Fault Tolerant Game Design

-Marco

shlo wrote: Don't get me wrong, I admire your description of events design and totally agree with this kind of design, but IMO this is different from Kedamono's Event Driven Adventure design proposition, which doesn't convince me for the moment.

Kedamono wrote: Hi Shlo, I'm curious, what is it about my proposal that you don't care for? I really want to know, as it is still in the design stage, and I rather find out that flaws there are before I really invest a ton of time in it than to find out later that I didn't see a potential problem.

Thanks Shlo for your reply. I've taken it to heart and agree that are problems in my basic assumptions. This is why I shared my initial ideas with this group.

However, looking at the various comments, I'm modifying the way to create an Event Driven Adventure.

At its heart, it is a situational adventure, where the NPCs all have set goals and reasons and the means to pursue those goals. But as folks have pointed out, a pure situational adventure may not engage the players or have them skirt the edges of the adventure.

That is where Events come in. Events represent the NPC attempt at achieving their goal. And Events can occur without the PCs being present, but the effects of the Event can affect the PCs afterwards. This means that some Events are NPC only, and others may or may not involve the players. Some Events may not involve anyone at all, such as a rain storm or earthquake.
Events can be local to portion of a Setting, or affect the Setting in its entirety. Multiple Events from the same timeline branch can occur at the same time or overlapping. Events can occur inside of larger Events (The biggest snowstorm in weeks occurs, and at the same time, Beaver Bob and his evil henchmen rob the bank.)

So what is an Event? An Event is any set of actions or occurrences that advance the Plot. Isn't an Event just another name for an encounter? Yes and no. A standard encounter is a subset of what makes up an Event.

What else is in an Event?

Well, I'm working on that...

Shlo-

Maybe I am mistaken, but even taking the concept Ked provides to an extreme, its still quite similar to real life- a LOT goes on that affects us that never see or have any input on.
What I was seeing wasn't so much the NPC's altering themselves to the PC's action, it was the GM thinking ahead enough that the NPC mechanitions could be far reaching enough to encompass even PCs who almost go out of their way to be included. I mean, a flower shop! Whats more harmless than that? Well, if an NPC assassin or conspirator was smart enough, they'd think ahead enough to have multiple, but subtle, situations set up by which to take out the mark. The GM need not explicitly detail everything: instead of going to extreme detail with the flower shop when the PCs decide to go ahead with the plot hook as-is, the GM can drop a clue or something about "a fellow down at the flower shop...". Had the PCs been there, that would have played out instead.

Pre-Gen characters with set hooks and connections and goals?

A lot of this discussion of event driven design seems to center on a situation that as a GM, I used to hate a lot, namely that there was a conflict between the idea of player freedom, and plot of adventures. Since I was a WW fan, this one was especially trying. WW modules ( or whatever you want to call them...) were set up with the idea that a situation was present, plots were in motion, and various NPCs were madly scheming away.

Oh, yeah, and then there were some PCs.

They were sort of created however the players wished, and the GM was supposed to cobble together some sort of connection to the story line and involve the PCs. Very often the players, when presented with events would proceed to do the equivalent of open a flower shop. You know, basically take the assumed freedom and do what they felt like.

I hated it.

It often meant either scrapping the adventure as written ( which I often liked), or completely railroading the hell out of my players (which they didn't).

The thing that makes it tricky has to do with rpg tradition. With old-school dungeon crawl gamism, there is a certain amount of participationism. PCs can have a lot of leeway, so long as they go into the hole and kill critters and loot their stuff. Even if the players rebel a bit and go elsewhere, as long as they eventually follow the pattern, everything is fine.

Interestingly, I found part of the answer in LARP designs. Not the sort of generalized stuff built for on-going campaigns ( MET/WW, for example), but in one-shot designs. LARP designers working on the idea of one-off events often seem to involve players in a different way from TT RPG design. There is no assumption that PCs are "some guys in the vicinity of the action", but rather that they are important key players. Players get a lot of freedom to interpret their character, but not as much in initial design or plot hook creation. My impression of one-shot/event LARP design is that it is closer to improv theatre in some regard, with restrictions. To get back to WW, as an example, consider how different most WW modules would be if the players were assumed to take the role of one of the NPCs as a pregen, as opposed to creating their own character and shoving it kicking and screaming into the setting. Any of the "...By Night" or "Rage Across..." modules would have a very different feel, IMO.

So, in summary, yes, I think event based design is good. I think that it would be more successful with integrated characters, picked by the players, that have abiding connections with the adventure. I don't feel that wide-open character design with huge player freedom fits well with it. For that kind of feel, I think participationism should be left behind ( and I do consider participationism to be a positive term...), and a more "playing bass" style should be adopted. So...

1) Pre-gen them. Let the players play important connected characters, with background and goals, allowing for interpretation, or...

2) Skip all the plot stuff and concentrate on whatever the players want. Build everything around those characters, developing enemies and allies as appropriate.

Both are good, but an admixture of the two is bad. Trying to have both is a recipe for frustration on everyone's part.

I sympathise with your goals but thiunk your approach is unfortnate.

Lets look at "event driven" games as described. this is comrpised of a series of events, causally linked to varying degrees, that occur in the game world.

the problem here is that they are still deatched from both players and characters. Presumably, if neither players nor characters existed, these events would go ahead anyway.

Thus we kind of find ourselves back at the starting point: designing the environment in which play will occur, rather than the game that will be actually played by players.

Event driven design as described above would have a line of continuity from thet stats of game to the ernd of game, in the game world. Bu the players may only be on, or cross, or in proximity, of that line from time to time. Anytiem they are not on the line will require improvisation.

Hence, I have begun to think that this ideas is misplaced. Instead we should be designing scenes that necessarily contain the characters. A scene-based continuity would necessarily have PC's present at all points on the line. consturcting events merely postpones the moment at which we have to develop an actual scene to do plot exposition. I think we should start with those scenes, and design exposition directly.

Thanks Contracycle for your comments, but, your points... well, miss the mark.

contracycle wrote: Lets look at "event driven" games as described. this is comrpised of a series of events, causally linked to varying degrees, that occur in the game world.

the problem here is that they are still deatched from both players and characters. Presumably, if neither players nor characters existed, these events would go ahead anyway.

Hence, I have begun to think that this ideas is misplaced. Instead we should be designing scenes that necessarily contain the characters. A scene-based continuity would necessarily have PC's present at all points on the line. consturcting events merely postpones the moment at which we have to develop an actual scene to do plot exposition. I think we should start with those scenes, and design exposition directly.

komradebob wrote: With old-school dungeon crawl gamism, there is a certain amount of participationism. PCs can have a lot of leeway, so long as they go into the hole and kill critters and loot their stuff. Even if the players rebel a bit and go elsewhere, as long as they eventually follow the pattern, everything is fine.

Interestingly, I found part of the answer in LARP designs. Not the sort of generalized stuff built for on-going campaigns ( MET/WW, for example), but in one-shot designs. LARP designers working on the idea of one-off events often seem to involve players in a different way from TT RPG design. There is no assumption that PCs are "some guys in the vicinity of the action", but rather that they are important key players. Players get a lot of freedom to interpret their character, but not as much in initial design or plot hook creation.

contracycle wrote: Hence, I have begun to think that this ideas is misplaced. Instead we should be designing scenes that necessarily contain the characters. A scene-based continuity would necessarily have PC's present at all points on the line. consturcting events merely postpones the moment at which we have to develop an actual scene to do plot exposition. I think we should start with those scenes, and design exposition directly.

Kedamono wrote:

contracycle wrote: Lets look at "event driven" games as described. this is comrpised of a series of events, causally linked to varying degrees, that occur in the game world.

the problem here is that they are still deatched from both players and characters. Presumably, if neither players nor characters existed, these events would go ahead anyway.

The problem is that your point above is true of any published adventure, regardless of how it is used. I buy module Q and now I have to convince my players to send their characters through it. It doesn't matter if module Q is linear, event driven, encounter bucket, situational, or a big collection of adventure seeds, the players will be detached from it.

Kedamono wrote:
The problem is that your point above is true of any published adventure, regardless of how it is used. I buy module Q and now I have to convince my players to send their characters through it. It doesn't matter if module Q is linear, event driven, encounter bucket, situational, or a big collection of adventure seeds, the players will be detached from it.

Two points: What you have described above is Linear Design. The old linear express, all aboard! Scene followed by scene, never branching or varying, the Plot must move on.

Secondly, how do I as a game manufacturer/designer, create an adventure that is tailored to you PCs? I can't. No one can.

I aggree with contracycle saying we must concentrate on actual play.

But maybe we don't aim for the same thing when designing a scenario. Correct me if I'm wrong, but on the one hand Kedamono would like to write a "what if" scenario where many branches are possible -- giving a rather different story for the same plot -- and where PC would personalize the scenario, and on the other hand contracycle (and I) would prefer writing a scenario consisting of a serie of scenes, a regular story, and let the players -- and the GM too -- find their own ways and reasons to go from one scene to another, with the scenario giving some indications on what those ways and reasons could be.

While I understand the "what if" approach, I think it belongs to total improvisation and can hardly be prewritten, since we're talking of dozens of solutions. Note that the "scene to scene" just asks the players to be 100% present in the story but doesn't necessary tell neither on which side they have to be nor what their goals must be, and that's why I don't think it is linear. I see "scene to scene" like a more story (*) focused version of EDA as defined by Kedamono. In fact I would say "scene to scene" is EDA too, since I always used "scene to scene" and think of it as event designing. The difference with EDA as seen by Kedamono is that it relies a lot on timing and parallelism, so I suggest an appellation like Timed Event Adventure Design (TEDA) for example. Unless you disagree with my opinion that "scene to scene", or "event to event", is EDA too, of course.

I would be more than happy to see a functional (T)EDA method, provided it doesn't ask the designer to write dozens of branches, and I will keep on reading this thread and help Kedamono if I can. =)

Shlo.

(*) Here we have to consider the story as hollywood does: a story is a collection of strong scenes with whatever pretext to connect them. Don't skip those scenes!

Id like a middle way between Kenamano's "what if" and "Shlos "send 'em from scene to scene", please.

How about a scenario with

-a plot that can tolerate a varying degress of 'success' by the players
-a scenario flow chart, with 2 to 4 broad outcomes per scene/encounter/event
-a few side plot-loops
-a choice of endgames - 3 or 4 'climaxes' depending on the branches took.

NN wrote: Id like a middle way between Kenamano's "what if" and "Shlos "send 'em from scene to scene", please.

How about a scenario with

-a plot that can tolerate a varying degress of 'success' by the players
-a scenario flow chart, with 2 to 4 broad outcomes per scene/encounter/event
-a few side plot-loops
-a choice of endgames - 3 or 4 'climaxes' depending on the branches took.

I keep trying to wrap my head around this, because I'm sure I've designed scenarios that are event driven, but I can't think of how to do it. So let me put forward an example or two, all Multiverser games I've run.

It's The Last Starfighter. The idea is to get the verser to take the place of hero Alex Rogan, but of course there's no guarantee. I drop him near the trailer park where the video game is, and make sure someone drops a quarter in the parking lot. Hopefully he takes the bait and uses the quarter to play the game, and then Centauri comes and offers him a job.

Maybe, though, he doesn't. In that case, Alex Rogan will play the game, and Centauri will take him, leaving the player character here. But we know that there's going to be a Zandozan coming eventually, looking to kill Alex Rogan, who comes back at some point. So there's still an adventure here, it's just a different adventure.

Or maybe the character leaves the trailer park altogether. That's fine; we'll just have another Starfighter video game wherever he goes, and it won't be Alex but someone else who becomes the starfighter if the verser doesn't, and again we'll have the Zandozan assassin, so we still involve the player.

Whether or not the player character goes to Rilos, Zur will attack the hanger. If he's there, that may be the end of the story. If he's not, it's either because he never left earth and is instead part of the unfolding of the other half of this story, or it's because he got a ride back and now has the assassin after him.

After that, Zur will breach the frontier. What that means depends on where Alex Rogan is and where the player character is, and that's got to be worked out.

I've also run If Looks Could Kill. In this, the character is somehow going to wind up mistaken for the spy and provided with briefing and equipment. He's going to see the cute girl headed for the casino. She's planning to kill the villain, because she's the only person who knows he's the villain; he's supposed to protect the guy, according to his briefing, and find out who is killing the people that the guy has already killed. The villain has a plan to poison all the heads of Europe so he can take over, and he'll follow his timetable pretty closely; but the girl is trying to destroy him. What happens depends on what the player character does in the middle of this.

It has just clicked in my mind. A few months back I did an article, Game Ideas Unlimited: Antagonists, in response to questions about designing an adventure. This was the first of several articles on adventure design, but it seems to be very much on point here.

What I recommended there was to create your villain and work out his plan, complete with a few contingencies that this particular villain would undoubtedly prepare. Then play the villain. He's behind the scenes, most of the time; the player characters don't know he exists, even, initially. But somehow (and this also must be planned) there is a moment in the villain's plans where the players will become aware of something. It may be that he needs something he will have to take from under their noses. It may be that something went wrong somewhere. Whatever it is, the players are alerted to the existence of the plot, and they can begin chasing down the details. The referee's job from there is to play the antagonist as well as he can, with an eye to carrying out the initial plan as closely as can be managed.

That strikes me as an event-driven sort of scenario. Is that what you're after?

--M. J. Young

Kedamono wrote:
What would the events be?

Event 1: The PCs find out about Bart's intentions to rob Johnson's Surverying's Warehouse.

Event 2a: Black Bart and his boys break into the warehouse and make off with a crate of dynamite.

Event 2b: Black Bart sends Pecos Pete and Deadeye Dan to the Dutch Creek mine to get what's left of old man Clinton's stash of explosives.

Event 4b: Pecos Pete and Deadeye Dan arrive at Dutch Creek mine and enter it to find the dynamite.

Event 5a/b: Black Bart breaks into the Wells Fargo office.

Event 5c: Black Bart decides to rob the coach that will be carrying the payroll...

6a/b: With the payroll in hand, Black Bart gets the Hell out of Dodge...

6c: Black Bart ambushes the payroll wagon in Blood Gulch...

MJ, that site seems to be knackered.

I think that a possible trap is to make the villains plan too linear and too specific (villain does A to do B to do C to win ultimate goal D).

Instead it would be better presented as: Villain wants to achieve D, and heres an action 'tree' of how theyll try to get there.

Also, dont make D all-or-nothing.


nick

My experience with something resembling EDA was very negative. Let me explain why, and you can tell me whether this bears any relation to what you have in mind.

The campaign was a space thing, with the PCs running a small ship for one important federation/trade-empire place.

The GM scripted up a kind of timeline of NPC events, with a certain amount of flexibility in it, but mostly it was a fixed timeline. Basically the various NPC factions were up to their various things, and barring major interference from the PCs they would get up to those things. He then asked himself, "Okay, so how do I get the PCs to run across this stuff?" And he dropped hooks.

So then we made up characters and off we went. First up, we were ordered to a particular location, so running into the plot was certain. But we weren't told, "Okay, now you have to do this next thing," but rather figured it out ourselves.

Now what happened was that when it got right down to it, there really was a "right answer" for where to go after a particular scenario, because if we went to the wrong places, given travel times between systems, we could end up right off the plot timeline and miss all the important events. So the GM started dropping broad hints about where was the right place to go next. Sometimes there were two or three different possibilities, because there were enough things going on with the timeline that if we made any of these few choices, we'd be sure to run smack into some big events.

Mostly we necessarily stuck to the order of scenarios he'd imagined. But the further problem was, some of our characters (and some of our players) just didn't find the whole big plot interesting or important at all. We just didn't care. And nothing in our character designs had ensured that we ought to care -- we were given free rein there.

Now this meant that at any given branch-point, a number of us (me perhaps especially, because I'd put a great deal of effort -- encouraged by the GM -- into designing a complicated character with conflicting goals) would feel that the character wanted to go one way, the basic logic of the situation another (which conflict right there was just fine), and the GM was making clear that there was a third direction that was "correct." Or alternatively, if the character wanted to go one way and the situation seemed to want to go another, the GM's timeline background made me say, as a player, "Well, clearly my character has to come up with a reason to do X, because that's what's necessary for the campaign to continue as scripted." So a lot of the campaign for me became "Let's figure out what the GM wants us to do." Which sucked, as I'm sure you can imagine.

In the end, we had the big climax, but an awful lot wasn't really clear: we'd spent much of the time figuring out what the GM wanted, not what was really going on. So then the GM delivered a little lecture in which he explained his whole big plot, isn't that cool, blah blah.

For me, this was the #1 drive behind trying to design a system in which the GM simply doesn't have much control even if he wants it. The GM here was trying to tell a story using the PCs, but at the same time he wanted the PCs to discover and tell the story. This is called the Impossible Thing Before Breakfast, and believe me, it stank.

This is NOT railroading, as I read it, because the GM didn't actually railroad us through scenarios. But that background timeline ticking away there required that (1) we care greatly about his plot, even though we couldn't know anything about it at the outset and thus might well not care; (2) we correctly interpret the hints and such dropped by the GM so we didn't go completely afield; and (3) we not as a group decide, "Nope, we're going off to do our own thing," because it was clear this would have pissed off the GM who, after all, had done a lot of work on that timeline.

So my question is this:

How do you propose to get around this potential difficulty? I'm not convinced that there is no way around, but this is for me the obvious danger.

clehrich wrote:
How do you propose to get around this potential difficulty? I'm not convinced that there is no way around, but this is for me the obvious danger.

contracycle wrote:

Kedamono wrote: What would the events be?

Event 1: The PCs find out about Bart's intentions to rob Johnson's Surverying's Warehouse.

Event 2a: Black Bart and his boys break into the warehouse and make off with a crate of dynamite.

Event 2b: Black Bart sends Pecos Pete and Deadeye Dan to the Dutch Creek mine to get what's left of old man Clinton's stash of explosives.

Look at these three events: how much Actual Play do they constitute?

Even 1, maybe 10 minutes. Event 2 doesn't happen in actual play at all - it happens Off Screen. So in structuring these events we have not really structured the actual play we are going to enter in any meaningful sense. In these two events, we have only one SCENE: "the characters find out that Black Bart has nefarious plans".

clehrich wrote: This is NOT railroading, as I read it, because the GM didn't actually railroad us through scenarios. But that background timeline ticking away there required that (1) we care greatly about his plot, even though we couldn't know anything about it at the outset and thus might well not care; (2) we correctly interpret the hints and such dropped by the GM so we didn't go completely afield; and (3) we not as a group decide, "Nope, we're going off to do our own thing," because it was clear this would have pissed off the GM who, after all, had done a lot of work on that timeline.

So my question is this:

How do you propose to get around this potential difficulty? I'm not convinced that there is no way around, but this is for me the obvious danger.

John Kim wrote: 1) The module can have a bunch of modular sections designed to be tailored for the PCs. For example, "The Great Supervillain Contest" for Champions is designed as a sort of meta-adventure. You take the module and plug in pre-existing villains from your campaign (i.e. the PCs' Hunteds).

2) The module or series of modules may be designed to be integrated into the campaign. So you as GM buy and read the module prior to the players creating PCs. A typical example would be "San Angelo" for Champions. The players create their characters as residents of that city, and the GM could then incorporate various plot hooks into the PCs.

3) The adventure can force events onto the PCs without their choice. A good example would be the "Prisoner of Zenda" adventure for Multiverser. The PC is thrust into the center of the action by being mistaken for the prince, whom he looks exactly like. The technique of "Bangs" is similar to this -- i.e. they are events that happen to the PCs. You should check out The Well of Souls, a HeroQuest adventure, for examples of the technique.

I see two differing viewpoints emerging from his idea

Determinism vs Free(player)will

I think an event based rpg campaign can work very well, as long as it addresses the premise - and Shared Imagined Space - and as long as there is a workable Social Contract between participants
Basically - according to the group's desires.

However, most players value freewill very highly and dislike the plot overpowering their character.
So the events need to be vaguely defined until the scenes incorporating them occur - then they can be connected to the PCs and premise.

A good way to go with events would be to examine Joseph Campbell's 'The Hero With A Thousand Faces' and try and build from the mythical exemplars he describes - or examine 'Story!' the screenwriting template (though I know less about this).

JJ - IMHO as always

Clerich, was the problem that the campaign was set up to be

"Stop the Villain taking over the Universe"

when it would have been better if it had been

"The Villain is expanding his Evil Empire: you guys can make a difference as to where the frontline is"

NN wrote: Clerich, was the problem that the campaign was set up to be

"Stop the Villain taking over the Universe"

when it would have been better if it had been

"The Villain is expanding his Evil Empire: you guys can make a difference as to where the frontline is"

clehrich wrote:

NN wrote: Clerich, was the problem that the campaign was set up to be

"Stop the Villain taking over the Universe"

when it would have been better if it had been

"The Villain is expanding his Evil Empire: you guys can make a difference as to where the frontline is"

Well, bit of both, really. But we're getting afield, I think. Unless Kedamono wants me to go on with the example....

@Kedamono:
Two last things before you sit down =)

EDA definition
When I design a scenario -- with event design as use it, scene to scene -- I first define a condition for the event to happen, then I write the description of the event as it could be. If the condition is "D+2, 8h20pm" it's exactly like the timing in your EDA, but I could use "When the PC enter the warehouse" too, or "When the PC are resting, between D+1 and D+3", or "When the pace drops down because the PC have no clue", or whatever. Branches are just a new batch of events, so if ever I want some, I write some.

Without your two restrictions that "condition" is a date and time and that there are multiple branches, the definition of EDA could be larger, and then have some specializations like time driven, NPC driven, PC driven, with or without branches... with reflections on the flaws and advantages of each method. IMO you're focusing on a specialization of the larger Event Design method, that's why I suggested sooner a more accurate term.

Branching
About the example with the bad guys trying to grab some explosives: you design two events, 2a and 2b. Can the PC stop them from taking explosives or not? If they cannot, I don't think having two or more events will extend their "free will" sensation in any way, in comparison with single branch event design. If they can, the scenario is over after 30 min, and the players I know would be frustrated. Do the NPC need mutiple ways to do things? I don't think so. IMO the use of multiple branches should be used to define multiple PC's ways, like in Clue Trees, not to let the story happen whatever the PC do.

But I'm still not a branches fan since I think it leads the PC to confusion. Give them three clues and they want to use all of them, wasting time exploring each branch, separating in multiple groups, and possibly get lost since the profusion of clues may tell a different story.

shlo wrote:
@Kedamono:
Two last things before you sit down  =)

EDA definition
When I design a scenario -- with event design as use it, scene to scene -- I first define a condition for the event to happen, then I write the description of the event as it could be. If the condition is "D+2, 8h20pm" it's exactly like the timing in your EDA, but I could use "When the PC enter the warehouse" too, or "When the PC are resting, between D+1 and D+3", or "When the pace drops down because the PC have no clue", or whatever. Branches are just a new batch of events, so if ever I want some, I write some.

Without your two restrictions that "condition" is a date and time and that there are multiple branches, the definition of EDA could be larger, and then have some specializations like time driven, NPC driven, PC driven, with or without branches... with reflections on the flaws and advantages of each method. IMO you're focusing on a specialization of the larger Event Design method, that's why I suggested sooner a more accurate term.

Branching
About the example with the bad guys trying to grab some explosives: you design two events, 2a and 2b. Can the PC stop them from taking explosives or not? If they cannot, I don't think having two or more events will extend their "free will" sensation in any way, in comparison with single branch event design. If they can, the scenario is over after 30 min, and the players I know would be frustrated. Do the NPC need mutiple ways to do things? I don't think so. IMO the use of multiple branches should be used to define multiple PC's ways, like in Clue Trees, not to let the story happen whatever the PC do.

But I'm still not a branches fan since I think it leads the PC to confusion. Give them three clues and they want to use all of them, wasting time exploring each branch, separating in multiple groups, and possibly get lost since the profusion of clues may tell a different story.