Topic: [Avalanche] - Should prewritten scenarios be about the PCs ?
Started by: pells
Started on: 3/1/2006
Board: First Thoughts
On 3/1/2006 at 9:10am, pells wrote:
[Avalanche] - Should prewritten scenarios be about the PCs ?
I've already presented my theory and my desing here (see my signature for more information), but there seems to be some recurrent questions about my project, so I'd like to address them here. As most of those questions came lastly from mail, I'll use italic to represent them. I'll also use a common example thru this thread, lord of the ring. I guess I'll be repeating (a bit) myself from other threads, but at least, it will be all there, in this one, from now on.
There are two purposes to this thread : the answer to this questions and a presentation of the design of my final product.
Just a reminder, I'm working on an rpg project, oriented toward plot/setting. My goal is to redefine the way prewritten scenarios are done. Althougth my specific product is multiplots and calendar based, I'll omit those two elements for the present conversation.
Should prewritten scenarios be about the PCs ?
My answer is no. I'll even say that is the main problem with prewritten scenarios. As they concern the PCs, they are chapters based, and thus tend to present railroading. I also think that is the main reason most people think prewritten plots get in the way.
Another important point for this conversation, I don't believe in setting defined outside of plots. So, let's take the lord of the ring example.
Obviously, this is a book. This is not meant for the rpg. From my point of view, for it to be written for the rpg, Tolkien would have needed to separate the setting from the plot (in a book, you discover the setting thru characters, which is not rpg oriented). He would also have needed to present the plot for the all the world involved thru all the timeline. I also think he would have needed to segment the plot (not use chapters, or at least shorter ones). That said, here we go.
My game should be about the PCs !!!
Yes, of course. The actual play experience should be about the PCs. That's why prewritten scenarios should not be about them. That way, the PCs have more freedom. It's just that they evolve in a moving setting. Things happen outside of their influence.
In LOTR, Frodo (as an example) is the equivalent of PC !!
Well, maybe. Or maybe not. In what I'm proposing, players can take the role of major characters. They can even replace them. Or, they migth come to help them. Or, maybe you want them to play heroes from the followship. No problem with me there. But, at least, you have the choice.
If I want a prewritten scenario, it is to play main characters (i.e. Frodo), not just in middle earth !
For one thing, the PCs will be main characters, those of your story. Also, it is not just about being in middle earth, it is about being in middle earth at the time of the war of the ring. That makes a big difference. Stakes are high at the present time. Well, obviously, your PCs can always say "we don't care about those events", but I still think a moving setting is richer than an immobile one.
Prewritten scenarios are doomed because of the PCs' influence
Well, depending on how you play, PCs might or not have influence. That said, if they do have one, I don't believe in illusionist tricks. I prefer to admit that they will have influence, so be it. So, where do we go from now ? We have to provide a way to determine the exact impact of the players over the story. And, if possible, provide more than one story. If one collapses, they may take part in another one.
Just like settings are not about the PCs, I suggest the scenario shouldn't be either.
Providing storyboards as prewritten scenarios
It didn't occur to me until recently that my product looks like a storyboard. Well, in fact, until I added illustrations that was tougth to see. So, that said, let's take a look at what a storyboard is.
It is my strong belief that storyboards are unfinished product. They can be used for ads, teleseries, movies, manga, anime, books, comics. But they are not sold. What is sell is the final product they were made for. Well, I guess for collecting purposes, some people might want to buy them.
When the storyboard is complete, you have a good idea where you are going. The characters are defined, the locations presented, you know the plot (what happens before and after what), but still, you don't know the details. That is not the purpose of the storyboard to settle the details. Based on the storyboard, you know what the final product will be about, but not exactly how it will look like.
What I'm saying is that storyboard would be excellent for the rpg. The final product would be the actual play, and the details would be left to the group (DM and/or players as the group sees fit).
So, what do you think of this idea ?
On 3/1/2006 at 12:22pm, Artanis wrote:
Re: [Avalanche] - Should prewritten scenarios be about the PCs ?
Here is what I think of the idea. Maybe you should tell us who your target audience is and then we can give you more useful feedback.
Should prewritten scenarios be about the PCs ?
My answer is no.
(...)
It didn't occur to me until recently that my product looks like a storyboard.
(...)
When the storyboard is complete, you have a good idea where you are going. The characters are defined, (...)
(I put the last bit in italic.)
How can your prewritten scenario not be about the PCs and then claim that it looks like a storyboard? As you said, a storyboard needs characters defined.
If you where thinking of NPCs, then either the storyboard is going to tell a story about characters over which the players have no control (this is just like listening or reading a story), or the storyboard will be of no use to actual play, except for adding the sense that something is happening in the background (personally, I will not give money for that, sorry).
That is not the purpose of the storyboard to settle the details. Based on the storyboard, you know what the final product will be about, but not exactly how it will look like.
What I'm saying is that storyboard would be excellent for the rpg. The final product would be the actual play, and the details would be left to the group (DM and/or players as the group sees fit).
I'm not interested in filling out detail! I want to, as a player, have a decisive effect on how play turns out, not just deciding if I ride through the woods or over the mountains to get to the action.
If the actual play is your storyboard, then it's just like doing everything according to the storyboard (which by the way is what storyboards are used for in other medias, right?). The players become secondary actors without even knowing what their characters are supposed to do.
I mean your actual play report just showed that, didn't it?
You left your players do what they wanted, and they ended up cancelling a whole part of your calendar. The storyboard was of little use (just the first event was used, I can do that with bangs).
So why would I buy something that either railroads the story, putting the players in a spectator mode, or else is of little use?
On 3/1/2006 at 1:24pm, pells wrote:
RE: Re: [Avalanche] - Should prewritten scenarios be about the PCs ?
Maybe you should tell us who your target audience is and then we can give you more useful feedback.
First of all, I want to redefine the way prewritten scenarios are designed, in a way more specific and appropriate to the rpg. My main audience would be people who are buying already prewritten scenarios. Dungeon magazine is still in print, so I guess people are buying it, cops sells a monthly magazine with prewritten scenarios and living campaings work well from what I hear. I'm also targeting people who used to play (I konw some) and stopped because they lack the time to write and find prewritten scenarios too poor. My goal is not to convince players who don't use prewritten scenarios.
How can your prewritten scenario not be about the PCs and then claim that it looks like a storyboard? As you said, a storyboard needs characters defined.
If you where thinking of NPCs, then either the storyboard is going to tell a story about characters over which the players have no control (this is just like listening or reading a story), or the storyboard will be of no use to actual play, except for adding the sense that something is happening in the background
The storyboard is there as a support to actual play, as a tool. And yes, I'm taking about NPCs. What I say, is that when there are things happening in the background, the overall actual play might get richer. The facts that events occur outside the players' influence doesn't mean they can't take part in it or try to change them. I'm saying that if the prewritten scenario is all about the PCs, then things are railroaded. For me, it has no use that way.
personally, I will not give money for that, sorry
I know you don't use prewritten scenarios. So, let me ask you a question : what would make you buy a prewritten one ? Then, of course, if you reject all prewritten scenarios, calendar or not, storyboard or not, you will reject what I do. I quite understand the difficulties and problematics of prewritten scenarios. What I say, is that what we can design better ones.
I'm not interested in filling out detail! I want to, as a player, have a decisive effect on how play turns out, not just deciding if I ride through the woods or over the mountains to get to the action.
When I talk about details it is not about how you reach a destination. Details must be filled even in major events. They must be fill all the time : creating secondary characters, places... What I say, is that I don't hold the hand of the DM. And that's what you would do in your game, see how decisive effects made by your players influence the course of events. And in a typical prewritten scenario, you don't even have to fill out the details (or almost not) !!!
If the actual play is your storyboard, then it's just like doing everything according to the storyboard (which by the way is what storyboards are used for in other medias, right?).
The actual play is not my storyboard. My storyboard supports actual play. Big difference.
I mean your actual play report just showed that, didn't it?
I've posted three actual play threads (as a reminder, here are two) :
[Avalanche] part I - with unprepared players : in which I tried to show that players, when not filling a hole into the plot, could get somehow disoriented. But, still, they found out how to build their own story.
[Avalanche] - encouraging SIM/NAR, my problems : in which I tried to point out that the management of players' impact can be monitered easily.
By the way, I played last weekend, my players went on complete different story, which they had not impacted yet. I could easily know that, thanks to my design.
So why would I buy something that either railroads the story, putting the players in a spectator mode, or else is of little use?
Of course, you can railraod the story or set in a spectator mode if you want. What can I say ? But I think it will be easier to avoid those things using my design. In a typical prewritten scenario, you'll come up railroading, since it's about the players. You know what will happen to them beforehand. Not in what I do. As for the use of it, well, I guess it is worst in normal scenarios. Let's say it begins by a mage who offers a mission and your players say "no, thanks". Then it'll be of no use at all !!! The presence of multiplots in what I'm doing helps avoid that, at least I think.
So then, I think we come to a crossroad. We can decide that prewritten scenarios don't suit our hobby and reject them in block or we can try to redefine them to suit us better. I'd like to say that all the points you came out with are revelant, but could be also adress to all prewritten scenarios. But I think it (railroading, spectacle, impact) is worst if the scenario is all about the PCs.
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 18006
Topic 18451
On 3/2/2006 at 12:34am, Sempiternity wrote:
RE: Re: [Avalanche] - Should prewritten scenarios be about the PCs ?
pells:
Have you seen The Shab al-Hiri Roach with its use of an arc of defined events, and mix of predefined and made-up-on-the-spot NPCs? Is something like that what you are going for with this idea?
The heart of the issue, as i see it: What does a prewritten scenario give you that a kicker and bang technique does not?
I think much of the idea of "kicker & bang" play is to create a "polite fiction" that things are indeed occuring in the greater world, behind the scenes, while in the reality of the actual game play everything drives from or towards the players (& their player-characters). That is, the GM pulls events out of the PCs' actions & intentions, spins them into the fictional World, and then throws them back into the PCs' faces - everything that occurs in the realm of the players, outside of the fiction, is centered solely on the players, but the fictional space of the game still functions.
That key reasons for this is that it is simply easier for the players to manage as opposed to trying to simulate an entire active world at once, and it also ensures that the PCs are given full protagonist powers.
I do see the attraction of having a defined gamespace populated with situations off of which the players can kick, but is that not really the purview of the setting?
You say "setting should not be defined outside of plots", which i find very strange - i look at Setting materials as those things which give rise to Situations, through constraint and focus of the "kicker & bang" combo. (I'm not sure what the "forge consensus" on the use of setting is, this is just newbie me talking!)
Much of what you are working toward seems to be based on this idea of "situational setting" - would you care to elabourate on your concept here?
I'd really like to know the exact specifications of what you are adovating here - in part it sounds like just a slightly different take on the classic "packaged plot" storyboards, but also in part it sounds as if you want to deliver a structure that strikes me as being very much as Setting tools delivered in small chunks divided across fictional time & space.
On 3/2/2006 at 11:06am, pells wrote:
RE: Re: [Avalanche] - Should prewritten scenarios be about the PCs ?
Have you seen The Shab al-Hiri Roach with its use of an arc of defined events, and mix of predefined and made-up-on-the-spot NPCs? Is something like that what you are going for with this idea?
I've taken a look at it. What I'm doing is more classical rpg with a DM/players interaction. Also, the arc of events are not known to the players beforehand. And finally, I use multi arcs, which I prefer to describe as a web of events. But, yes there are still some similitudes.
That key reasons for this is that it is simply easier for the players to manage as opposed to trying to simulate an entire active world at once, and it also ensures that the PCs are given full protagonist powers.
I believe simulating a real, living world is very hard. At least, the chapters based scenarios aren't fit for that. I think you need a tool to do that. That said, I think events located on an arc can be used, somehow, as bang. And, there is nothing in what I do that prevent the use of kickers.
You say "setting should not be defined outside of plots", which i find very strange - i look at Setting materials as those things which give rise to Situations, through constraint and focus of the "kicker & bang" combo.
Settings are fixed, immobile. I'd say there are, somehow, out of time, as there are no immediate stakes at hand. I guess you can see the difference between selling middle earth as a setting and then plots apart, and selling middle earth as a setting in the time of the war of the ring. The setting and the plots are one coherent thing.
Much of what you are working toward seems to be based on this idea of "situational setting" - would you care to elabourate on your concept here?
The idea is to provide a moving setting. But to do so, you have to povide all the events for all the setting involved. So things moved, plots evolved without the players' influence. That means that no one is waiting for them. Just like settings are not about the players, this moving setting is not about them. The fact that things moved changes a lot of things in the game. For more information about my specific implementation, see my theory (in my signature). I'd be my pleasure to answer any further questions.
I'd really like to know the exact specifications of what you are adovating here - in part it sounds like just a slightly different take on the classic "packaged plot" storyboards, but also in part it sounds as if you want to deliver a structure that strikes me as being very much as Setting tools delivered in small chunks divided across fictional time & space.
The main difference is the presence of numerous plots occuring at the same time. So they cannot be sold separatly. Players can't take part in all plots since they can't be at all the places for a given time. So, instead of selling five different plots to be played one after the other, you sell them altogether. Given that, you don't know which story your players will want to take part in.
On 3/2/2006 at 7:57pm, Sempiternity wrote:
RE: Re: [Avalanche] - Should prewritten scenarios be about the PCs ?
What do you gain by keeping the chain (or web) of events secret from all of the players?
It would seem better for everyone to know what all the events that are framing their story could be, so that they could play off of and to them during play - especially for character development. If i know, say, Saruman is going to turn traitor to the White Council that gives me all sorts of opportunity to play into that event, especially if the system rewards me for playing dramatically & hurting my character - Gandalf laid it all on the line, and i can too.
You might gain some value out of surprising the character players with an event - though i am dubious on that account - but even so, you would lose that on the second or third time you played through the chain/web. Ideally, each time you can use the events differently, even in a simple chain format.
I take the purported success of Roach as a sort of proof that the core of your "moving setting" idea does indeed work. I'm interested in other applications of the concept - seeing how far you can stretch it, how much you can add, how much you can take away.
One thing in particular, that may be only tangentially related: I'm interested in a system that uses LifePaths not only in character creation, but also to shape and guide character advancement through play - what you do determines which path your character's life takes.
On 3/2/2006 at 9:28pm, Czar Fnord wrote:
RE: Re: [Avalanche] - Should prewritten scenarios be about the PCs ?
That key reasons for this is that it is simply easier for the players to manage as opposed to trying to simulate an entire active world at once, and it also ensures that the PCs are given full protagonist powers.
I believe simulating a real, living world is very hard. At least, the chapters based scenarios aren't fit for that. I think you need a tool to do that.
This is your conversational disconnect, in a nutshell.
Semp, you are correct... and that is the precise reason Sebastien is creating this method for authoring Settings and Situations (and, for some Systems, Challenges and Rewards).
Sebastien, I'd get away from the notion of "storyboard" and use the term for what you are actually building: timeline database.
See, Semp, that's why there's incoherence in your objections--or, conversely, why you were mislead into making the incoherent statement. The "problem" that you express as the root of your issue with his design is, in fact, exactly what he is attempting to "resolve." See? You agree--and are in debate about it. :-)
What do you gain by keeping the chain (or web) of events secret from all of the players?
Again, incoherence (caused this time by misapplication of GNS theory on both sides).
Semp, this question only makes sense in narrativist play. Clearly, in SIM play, the players would not have an overarching knowledge of the Situations and Challenges: that would just force them to use play Techniques that tried to "hide" knowledge from themselves. Not very good for "immersion" into a game world. Finally, in GAM play, knowledge of the story arc is, largely, moot: if my guy gets whooped on in the first acts, no amount of knowledge will improve my chances--and, worse, use of such foreknowledge seems, to me, to undermine GAM Agenda: what "kudos" does the victor get amongst the player peers, if he uses foreknowledge to lessen a Challenge until he can defeat it? Sure, he "wins" the Challenge, but he loses the whole point of the GAM Agenda.
And with all that said: secrecy is a toggle, an option, in Sebastien's method. A "GM" might well choose to reveal all, if the groups chooses to play with a NAR System using his database. In fact, to really explore Theme, one could argue a GM would have to reveal the bulk of the Situation ("frame it") in advance--and don't most NAR Systems have a device to do just that?
Basically, try to take Sebastien's product for what it is: a database-driven method to manage events within a deep Setting, with a slew of Situations and Challenges and personalities as hooks for whatever Agenda the group is pursuing.
At least, that's what I think he's pushing for.
Hope this helps;
David
On 3/2/2006 at 11:14pm, Sempiternity wrote:
RE: Re: [Avalanche] - Should prewritten scenarios be about the PCs ?
This question only makes sense in narrativist play. Clearly, in SIM play, the players would not have an overarching knowledge of the Situations and Challenges: that would just force them to use play Techniques that tried to "hide" knowledge from themselves. Not very good for "immersion" into a game world.
That is a very good point! I *have* pretty much fallen into the trap of equating "functional rpg-type thing" with "story game".
And i originally saw myself as a SIM player, too! I'll have to make sure to track down the few threads around here that cover SIM play, and see if i can reacquiant myself with the topic.
On 3/3/2006 at 12:34am, Artanis wrote:
RE: Re: [Avalanche] - Should prewritten scenarios be about the PCs ?
Just to answer Sébastien:
Nothing will make me buy prewritten scenarios since I know of Kickers, Bangs, Relationship maps, etc.
Regardless of CA.
I mean, all players, regardless of CA, want their characters to be the central part of the story (not necessarily the game world), right?
So, Sébastien, this tool you are developping is getting me nowhere (since you keep saying it's not about the players, I discard the option that this is a technique for the GM to control the flow of play by railroading the PCs).
Either we get a good Bang out of it from time to time, but that would be per pure chance, since we don't know if the players will feel concerned at all. Even if there are multiple plots, thus increasing the probability of the players feeling concerned. Sorry, but that's not good enough, I want, as a GM, that what I introduce will be important to the players and play all the time.
Or else it's just background decoration. It might help my immersion the same as, well, theme music and props can.
(Actually, a lot of that can be said about the way Setting has been presented to us in numerous big RPGs.)
And I'm saying this regardless of CA.
BTW David, there is no "clearly" when talking about Techniques in relation to CAs. Immersion is a technique, Actor Stance is a technique. But they do not define Sim. Ask Vincent Baker if he doesn't immerse in his Narr games. Foreknowledge of certain events is a Technique I guess, but it certainly rarely occurs in Narr games of the kind I play, since all is constructed on the go as things play out (how could anyone have foreknowledge of anything?) While I'm at it, Sébastien's whole product is a collection of Techniques. But I'm derailing the subject.
Then again, I mostly agree with the foreknowledge discussion you present, but I'm not sure that that was exactly what Stefan was talking about (foreknowledge of what are we really considering?). More so, the kind of foreknowledge you use in your examples implies that the foreknowledge has a direct connection to the PCs, which cannot be the case with Sébastien's product as he claims since the beginning of this thread, so we aren't helping him with this foreknowledge discussion in the first place.
On 3/3/2006 at 1:10am, Nogusielkt wrote:
RE: Re: [Avalanche] - Should prewritten scenarios be about the PCs ?
Artanis wrote:
I mean, all players, regardless of CA, want their characters to be the central part of the story (not necessarily the game world), right?
No, we don't. Also, I hate bangs. I don't want the game to be about me, I merely want to be a part of the game (albeit my part).
Sorry if that was a rhetorical question I answered.
On 3/3/2006 at 6:25am, Sempiternity wrote:
RE: Re: [Avalanche] - Should prewritten scenarios be about the PCs ?
I feel like i'm hijacking here a bit, but c'est la vie:
Artanis:
What do you think of the "defined events in time" technique as used in Roach?
Although Sébastien's idea is somewhat more complicated, perhaps detrimentally so, than that, it seems to me that the *core* of the concept presented is identical; This structuring seems to work in Roach, so i'm forced to wonder how it could be applied to other games - would a structured Middle Earth game be engaging?
(There is a lot of other stuff that has to go in there, as well, but this would form the core of the game, it seems.)
Nogusielkt says
I don't want the game to be about me, I merely want to be a part of the game.
I take it you want the game's story to be about the player-driven characters considered as a group, then?
On 3/3/2006 at 9:33am, Selene Tan wrote:
RE: Re: [Avalanche] - Should prewritten scenarios be about the PCs ?
Hmm, I just had a thought.
Sebastien, are you familiar with Dogs in the Vineyard, and specifically with its town creation rules/process? To make a town, you detail your way through a "Something's Wrong" ladder, starting from the least serious (Pride) and ending when you feel satisfied. Events in the ladder always go chronologically from least to most serious, and where you stop on the ladder is assumed to be when the Dogs come in. Then you answer three questions: "What does each named character want from the Dogs?", "What do the demons want to happen?", and "What would happen if the Dogs never came?". If the Dogs never come, the town works its way up through the rest of the Something's Wrong ladder. (For some sample towns, Jason Morningstar has a page full of them, all neatly formatted and well-structured.)
I'm wondering how close the resulting towns are to what you're imagining for your scenarios. The Something's Wrong ladder provides a chronology of major events, although one without strict timings. And it's possible, in a single town, to have multiple ladders of Something's Wrong, each at a different level. (Compare this to having multiple overlapping scenarios.)
I'm bringing up Dogs as a possible counter to your statement that pre-written scenarios should be about the PCs. The point of Dogs town creation is to craft a situation that will go to hell if the PCs don't intervene, and where it's not clear-cut what the PCs should do. That's why it's important for each character to want something from the Dogs really, really badly.
The focus on the effects of the PCs makes it easy to drop a town into an existing game. I don't know if you'll consider it "holding the GM's hand", which you've said you don't want to do.
I hope I'm not totally off with my idea of what you're looking for.
On 3/3/2006 at 9:40am, pells wrote:
RE: Re: [Avalanche] - Should prewritten scenarios be about the PCs ?
David
Your analysis is correct and the presentation of my product is as good as I can do. And you're quite right about the option aspect of revealing the events in advance.
Semp
Your are confonding things for Roach. From what I understand, each game of Roach goes thru the exact same scene. Not in Avalanche. You don't know which events your players will encounter. That said, you can replay the scenario by having players play very different characters and thus going thru a very different part of the web of events.
Artanis
Nothing will make me buy prewritten scenarios since I know of Kickers, Bangs, Relationship maps, etc.
I guess which way of the crossroad you go. That said, I don't see how the knowlegde of Kickers, Bangs, Relationship maps excludes the use of prewritten scenarios. For me, those elements can still be present in one. I don't see how they exclude one another. In what I'm doing, there is something like relationship map, events can be used as bangs and I don't see why kickers can't be used.
Either we get a good Bang out of it from time to time, but that would be per pure chance, since we don't know if the players will feel concerned at all. Even if there are multiple plots, thus increasing the probability of the players feeling concerned. Sorry, but that's not good enough, I want, as a GM, that what I introduce will be important to the players and play all the time.
That's where we disagree. Just a note, what I'm doing is highly related to my conception of the world (the real one, not a fantasy one), it has its roots, somewhere in existensialism. For me, any kind of conscience (that would mean PCs) is set for a given time, anchored into his history (and language), confronting his own problems, based on the concern of his time (BTW, this is why we cannot, as post modern, read the ancient greek using our own concerns). For me, PCs' actions take all their sense because they are anchored into immediate stakes, the concerns of their time. I don't think that my events would be something like a background music. I believe the experience of the PCs get richer that way, because they can write down their own story in the context of the concerns that surrounds them. Hey, but that's me. I can understand you think otherwise.
More so, the kind of foreknowledge you use in your examples implies that the foreknowledge has a direct connection to the PCs, which cannot be the case with Sébastien's product as he claims since the beginning of this thread, so we aren't helping him with this foreknowledge discussion in the first place.
You're right, but in fact it can, if the players choose to substitute main characters (i.e. let's say playing Frodo).
I did some homeworks and look some previous threads related to prewritten scenarios on the forge. I found out those two that are related to what I'm doing. I hope it can help the purpose of this conversation.
Event Driven Adventure Design
Why so little Scenario Oriented Design?
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 14065
Topic 10137
On 3/3/2006 at 12:03pm, Artanis wrote:
RE: Re: [Avalanche] - Should prewritten scenarios be about the PCs ?
I second Stefan's question to Nogusielkt. I didn't mean to say that play has to be about the players, but I think it's got to be about the player characters. Or maybe some players enjoy watching the big things happen outside their character's influence. But that's a bit like listening to your grandpa's story and getting to choose the princess' name.
Stefan: in the Roach, the scenes are of course preset, but they're intimately tied to the characters you play. It's all about the university campus and the characters trying to become more reputed in that context. There is no list of events that are outside the player character's scope.
Sébastien: Of course your product doesn't exclude Kickers & Co. I never said that, did I?
Of course the PC experience is richer if it is in context with their surroundings. But only if the context is linked to them. And you specifically don't want your product to be linked to the PCs.
And I distinguish between stories and what happens IRL, they're not comparable most of the time.
You're right, but in fact it can, if the players choose to substitute main characters (i.e. let's say playing Frodo).
Cool, but then you get a prewritten scenario that's about the characters and you are doing your best not to do this. Or maybe I just don't understand what you're talking about from the start.
I've read the two threads you link to. Yes, they are somwhat related to what you do. And all I see is people saying they aren't convinced and the original author not really being able to convince anyone.
On 3/3/2006 at 12:57pm, pells wrote:
RE: Re: [Avalanche] - Should prewritten scenarios be about the PCs ?
I'm bringing up Dogs as a possible counter to your statement that pre-written scenarios should be about the PCs. The point of Dogs town creation is to craft a situation that will go to hell if the PCs don't intervene, and where it's not clear-cut what the PCs should do. That's why it's important for each character to want something from the Dogs really, really badly.
Selene, that's a fine example. From what I read from your link, at not point, this concerns the PCs. And yes, I do think this kind of structure does not hold the hand of the DM. He would have to fill in the details. There is also a kind of storyboard, althougth, not formal and it also describes what happens if the players don't interfere. On that side it looks like what I do. The big difference, I think, is in the space. Those stories concern a town, Avalanche is about a realm. In what I'm doing there is more much happening, this is why I need to structure my writing. Suppose your examples were, in fact, happening at the same time, thus not consisting of separate adventures, but a single, complex one. The towns would need to be nearer and I guess the different plots would have to overlape each other. You would need a tool to manage them.
Sébastien: Of course your product doesn't exclude Kickers & Co. I never said that, did I?
Well, you said you didn't need prewritten scenarios because you knew about those techniques. Then, it's my mistake.
Of course the PC experience is richer if it is in context with their surroundings. But only if the context is linked to them. And you specifically don't want your product to be linked to the PCs.
In fact they might be link to the PCs, if they are there and if they wish to take sides. But this is about actual play, not the design of the scenario. They get link to the PCs because of the PCs' actions and decisions, not because it is supposed to be linked to them.
Cool, but then you get a prewritten scenario that's about the characters and you are doing your best not to do this. Or maybe I just don't understand what you're talking about from the start.
What I'm saying is that you have choices. You may play it as you want.
I've read the two threads you link to. Yes, they are somwhat related to what you do. And all I see is people saying they aren't convinced and the original author not really being able to convince anyone.
More or less. I think there are still good points in them. It also it demonstrates the lack of theory about the design of setting/plot.
On 3/3/2006 at 8:45pm, Sempiternity wrote:
RE: Re: [Avalanche] - Should prewritten scenarios be about the PCs ?
Food for thought, regarding both Dogs and Roach: One thing that both of these games do that is very telling is to make the scale of the gamespace match the scale of the characters' actions. I have a feeling that maintaining this arrangement is very important to facilitating engaging play via structure.
Concerning the players & characters: I may have been miconstrued the terms of the discussion here.
I'm pretty much convinced that all play has to be about the players - other than the game books, they're the only source for material & ideas at the table, and nothing goes without their say-so.
Assuming that the game has player-characters, as is usual, then the gameplay (story) has to focus on those characters. Following that, any constructed Event has to generate play that is about our chosen protagonists.
However, while maintaining this relationship, there might very well be a difference between creating an Event so that it is *about* the Protagonists and an Event that *involves* them.
That might truly be splitting hairs - but from what i can tell of the scripted events/situations in Roach, they are not about the player's characters, but provide happenings, things, and characters that the PCs can involve themselves in. (The reward system, cards, & competition then drives this involvement.)
Now, events that the players aren't going to (have to) use in the game at hand? Probably, not so useful.
On 3/3/2006 at 9:00pm, Czar Fnord wrote:
RE: Re: [Avalanche] - Should prewritten scenarios be about the PCs ?
Artanis wrote:
BTW David, there is no "clearly" when talking about Techniques in relation to CAs. Immersion is a technique, Actor Stance is a technique. But they do not define Sim.
Fair enough. But it'd be weird SIM play that required all players to have preknowledge of all Situations and Challenges. Unless, I suppose, the characters that are to be simulated are godlike....
Artanis wrote:
While I'm at it, Sébastien's whole product is a collection of Techniques.
How do you figure THAT? All he proposes to sell is a database-driven tool to map out creative content in terms of Settings, Situations, and (some) Challenges and "personalities." True, each element (i.e. record) of that database might come with some fields that specify how to apply, say, d20 or Palladium or Hero Systems to the element. A user might toggle on those fields (i.e. optional) or might ignore them to use his or her own System.
Technique has nothing to do with it at all--it's content, not method of using said content. And I quote:
Taken in their entirety for a given instance of role-playing, Techniques comprise System.
And as has been (exhaustively!) established... Sebastien ain't in the System business.
On 3/3/2006 at 9:54pm, Sempiternity wrote:
RE: Re: [Avalanche] - Should prewritten scenarios be about the PCs ?
David wrote: Fair enough. But it'd be weird SIM play that required all players to have preknowledge of all Situations and Challenges. Unless, I suppose, the characters that are to be simulated are godlike....
This is the way i used to play, but now it feels wierd - cannot we trust people to spell out the divide between what you know as a player, and what your character knows?
On 3/4/2006 at 1:46pm, Artanis wrote:
RE: Re: [Avalanche] - Should prewritten scenarios be about the PCs ?
Sébastien, are there any topics you wanted to discuss more?
We're kind of going all sorts of directions here, maybe you should give us some focus or just call the thread closed if you're done.
There's just this thing that seems to be a corner stone of your design philosophy and which really doesn't work for me, which you pretty clearly state here:
But this is about actual play, not the design of the scenario.
To me, design of any aspect of a game should have in mind what Actual Play is about (this does not mean that one must prepare a railroading device). This especially includes the PCs.
If you prepare events which at least fall in the domains of some of the PCs' interests (see what has been said about the Roach and DitV), then it should be okay, at least if it's got the possibility for the players to interact with. But you need to know the PCs for that to be possible and this you do not and want not.
That's why your whole idea doesn't work for me.
@David: Remember that I agree that having foreknowledge of the events concerning the PCs is rarely interesting (but in my play at least this is usually impossible anyway, since it's the a big point of play to discover how and what things happen to the PCs as a consequence of the player's decisions).
A Technique is any way by which the participants agree to imagined events during play. Surely setting and a calendar of events are a means of achieving this (look at the Big Model picture, System comprises Situation, Setting and Character). With Sébastien's product, the players tacitly agree that all which the GM reveals about the setting and the calendar happens as the imagined events during play.
I never said he was selling a complete System, even less rules for resolving conflicts or tasks.
On 3/4/2006 at 4:09pm, pells wrote:
RE: Re: [Avalanche] - Should prewritten scenarios be about the PCs ?
We're kind of going all sorts of directions here, maybe you should give us some focus or just call the thread closed if you're done.
I propose we focuss a little bit for the purpose of this thread. And by the way, thanks David, I think you really understand what I'm trying to acheive.
Despite some divergences, I believe we can all agree on some things.
All actual play should be about the players, their characters. Obviously, one can always argue that, for some groups, some types of players, this is not always the case. I have to admit that you can use my product as a way to railroad or do illusionists tricks. I can't do much about that. But it has more to do with techniques used, which is not the concern of my project, as given what I'm doing, you can use the techniques you want. If a DM wants to railroad it and the group still enjoy it, well then, good for them. But my concerns are about the other players.
Artanis, I think we can both agree that the typical chapters based scenario, concerning the PCs, doesn't fit our need. You don't use them, neither do I. Instead of using them, I too, would prefer to just define a couple of characters, write a couple of lines about the plot and play based on that.
The LARP analogy
I guess I talked a little bit about that in previous posts, but I'd like to comment more. I used to play a lot of LARP and I've also written some scenarios for them. Writting for LARP is very different that for TT rpgs. You cannot railroad the story, as players do have a great influence. You cannot go into details, but will have to build them during play. Also, you have to write down a multiplots adventure, since all the participants (i.e. players) will not do the same things. And, the different plots are simultanous and must, somehow, overlaps each other. One thing I learn from LARP is that you need to have a very different sets of adventure to propose, as some players will want to fight, others will want to take part in an exciting plot and there are those are looking to gain power, seeking missions to discover magical items. There are also those who follow, as other would lead.
Given that, you still have to know where you go. You can't just have a setting, or so I think. You need stakes. And each and every players will have to come up with their own stories, taking sides as they see fit it. And of course, they might influence the course of events. But the writing of LARP scenario is not about the PCs, if you do that, it can't work. It is about what happens around them, the stakes that are there, at hand, in which they can take part.
Now, events that the players aren't going to (have to) use in the game at hand? Probably, not so useful.
Suppose you go to a LARP game that lasts for a day with a couple of friends (so let's say this is the group of PCs). Let's say that at the beginning of the day you choose to get involved in a given plot, but by, let's say noon, you encounter other groups (let's say there are sort of NPCs to you) on a different plot. Let's say you choose to go for that plot and abandon the previous one (not getting involved in it anymore). What you have done so far is directly related to you. But once you jump into another plot, it now matters to you what constitues the past. Because this plot is running and has ran so far without you. I guess you can see the difference between being there at the beginning of a plot and jumping in the course of it. And in LARP, there is no trigger awaiting you.
But you need to know the PCs for that to be possible and this you do not and want not.
When you desing adventure for LARP, you don't design it for specific players. Same thing for the examples about dogs.
David, since GLASS is about LARP, I'd be very interested in your insight about this. I had LARP in mind when I did my design and I think it would fit perfectly. One of the idea is, somehow, to reproduce what happens in a LARP (on going multi plots) into a TT rpg.
About dimension
Food for thought, regarding both Dogs and Roach: One thing that both of these games do that is very telling is to make the scale of the gamespace match the scale of the characters' actions. I have a feeling that maintaining this arrangement is very important to facilitating engaging play via structure.
I think the example of dogs is very good, since the examples related in this thread are not about the players. But, there are two things about dimensions. First, scale of space. Second, the scale of time. Those examples seem to be able to be played in around a session of play. The first part of Avalanche is meant for around thirty hours. I believe that if you wish to increase the scale of time and space, while not talking about the players, you'll need a structure to support the story.
On 3/4/2006 at 8:23pm, Sempiternity wrote:
RE: Re: [Avalanche] - Should prewritten scenarios be about the PCs ?
I had LARP in mind when I did my design and I think it would fit perfectly. One of the idea is, somehow, to reproduce what happens in a LARP (on going multi plots) into a TT rpg.
I've only been in one real LARP, but from what i can tell they are very different games, having their own particular type of social dynamic. I was only concerned with small-group tabletop games in my previous posts.
The difference here is exactly what has been concerning me: Simply that a tabletop group will have to "pick and choose" a few events from the "multi-plots" product you present - they don't have time to cover them all.
Why might that be a problem? It is only my thought that a structured series of events that they *must* go through will enhance the story that the players create.
But, at the core, both that kind of "chain of events" and the larger "web of events" approaches would be functional.
I think the example of dogs is very good, since the examples related in this thread are not about the players. But, there are two things about dimensions. First, scale of space. Second, the scale of time. Those examples seem to be able to be played in around a session of play. The first part of Avalanche is meant for around thirty hours. I believe that if you wish to increase the scale of time and space, while not talking about the players, you'll need a structure to support the story.
I was just meaning to talk about the scale of action within the imagined space - very few people want to play a character who is completely "off camera". If i'm playing a game based on The Lord of the Rings, then i want my character to be a member of the Fellowship. This is just "All actual play should be about the players, their characters." as you said!
You do have to consider the scale of time you wish the player group to take on your game, yes, but i imagine the core of the "event mapping" design applies to most normal play scales - Roach's six events are meant to be played in 3 or 4 hours, but i can equally imagine enjoying a game that intends you to take 3-5 hours to resolve each event.
On 3/5/2006 at 10:11am, pells wrote:
RE: Re: [Avalanche] - Should prewritten scenarios be about the PCs ?
I was just meaning to talk about the scale of action within the imagined space - very few people want to play a character who is completely "off camera". If i'm playing a game based on The Lord of the Rings, then i want my character to be a member of the Fellowship. This is just "All actual play should be about the players, their characters." as you said!
Sempiternity, to focuss on our problem, let's take this example of LOTR. You wanna play member of the followship ? Then I have two choices :
1. I present it thru chapter based, assuming your characters are the member of the followship. Then, it would look that way :
- chapter 1 : the followship meets, describing the meeting in details
- chapter 2 : the followship is on his way
- chapter 3 : the followship meets the elfs
This is all about the PCs !!! They have a predefined role, a predefined path. You know they'll go thru each chapter. You'll know, in advance, while preparing the game, what they will go thru. There is, more or less, one course of actions.
2. I present it thru modular writing, events based, without the details. You can either substitute the member of the followship (thu, coming back to smething a little bit like in 1.) or add your PCs to the followship. I would also present everything else that is happening in the world (let's say while they move, they meet).
Here, there is no predefined path, no predefined hole. What if your PCs choose to split from the folowship ? In 1 it would be difficult to manage, not in 2.
Do you see the difference ? My main point is : if the prewritten scenario is all about the PCs, then the actual play is more about the scenario (the pregiven path) than it is about the PCs.
You do have to consider the scale of time you wish the player group to take on your game, yes, but i imagine the core of the "event mapping" design applies to most normal play scales - Roach's six events are meant to be played in 3 or 4 hours, but i can equally imagine enjoying a game that intends you to take 3-5 hours to resolve each event.
Let's come back to our dogs example. In my opinion, there are no far away from the storyboard. That said, they stand in what, four pages long ? Suppose they would stand in forty. Then it could not be presented that way, or so I think. The first part of Avalanche, the essence and 90 days calendar stands in 400 pages (300 words/page). I need a specific design to support it if I want others to be able to use it !!!
On 3/5/2006 at 7:59pm, Nogusielkt wrote:
RE: Re: [Avalanche] - Should prewritten scenarios be about the PCs ?
Artanis wrote:
I second Stefan's question to Nogusielkt. I didn't mean to say that play has to be about the players, but I think it's got to be about the player characters. Or maybe some players enjoy watching the big things happen outside their character's influence. But that's a bit like listening to your grandpa's story and getting to choose the princess' name.
Sorry for not responding for a while...
I agree that play doesn't have to be about the players. However, what I meant was that I don't like play that is tailored to the player characters (ie: a decision that has great meaning to the character, because someone made it specifically FOR that character). Just because I've written a character that is struggling with the decision of whether or not it is okay for us to take bribes from politicians to further their cause doesn't mean I want to get involved with that type of situation. I also don't want play to be specifically tailored to our group. I want play to be mostly about the group, however. It just shouldn't feel like it was created for our group and no other. Any indication like that, hopefully, is just a random coincidence.
pells wrote:
2. I present it thru modular writing, events based, without the details. You can either substitute the member of the followship (thu, coming back to smething a little bit like in 1.) or add your PCs to the followship. I would also present everything else that is happening in the world (let's say while they move, they meet).
It seems that I have heard of this style of writing before. It was probably from a book, so I'll see if I still have it and if I can find it. It's similar to how I plan on doing things, since it works best with the style of my game.
On 3/5/2006 at 10:14pm, Sempiternity wrote:
RE: Re: [Avalanche] - Should prewritten scenarios be about the PCs ?
Sébastien:
You're not trying to cover every likely action the players might decide to have their characters take, are you?
What is wrong with defining the events so that the player-characters must become involved in them?
As an example, if we had "The Fellowship Splits Up" as a defined event in our game, then we know that the group of characters that had been working together (as defined by an earlier event) is going to divide at this point in the story, but we don't know why. Do they split up because they have work to do in too many places at once? Because some of the members turned traitor? Are they divided due to differing obligations? Do they have a simple falling out? This is for us to decide as we play the game.
The problem i see, is that *if* the PCs may choose to ignore the events then they escape from the structure of the game, invalidating all of your scripting work - It is like the Dogs deciding not to go into the town, or the Roached deciding to skip out on the Christmas Ball.
I need a specific design to support it if I want others to be able to use it !!!
I agree! Every game has its own style & focus of play - I would imagine an event-package written for d20 Fantasy would necessarily be quite a bit different than one written for Burning Wheel.
On 3/5/2006 at 10:20pm, Selene Tan wrote:
RE: Re: [Avalanche] - Should prewritten scenarios be about the PCs ?
I've just realized that I'm confused about what you mean by "about the PCs" or "not about the PCs". I'm going to throw out some example scenarios (imagine them in a GM book or whatever), and I'd like to know which ones you consider to be "about the PCs". Also, which are closest to what you want?
1) Referencing specific PC abilities/characteristics in order to advance a plot
Text to read out: "You enter the room and find a spellbook on an altar with purple runes, blah de blah."
Notes: Any magic user can make an Intelligence check (easy) to figure out that the runes are for a protection spell of some sort. Any priest can make an Intelligence check (hard) to recognize the altar as belonging to the God of Un-Undeath.
2) Referencing specific PC abilities/characteristics, but only for tactical considerations
The monster in this room is a Doubly-Dire Bunny. It prefers to attack magic users first, then non-magic-users. Initially, it will attack the closest magic user. Failing that, it will attack the closest enemy. The Doubly-Dire Bunny does not let go until its prey is dead.
If the Doubly-Dire Bunny is killed by magic, it will explode. Otherwise, it will implode. One of them is messier and will require cleanup. Either way, its death will reveal a treasure of 2 Bunny-Eared Hats (headgear, +20 magic resistance).
3) Not referencing the PCs at all
Room 17
Encounters:
* 50% chance 2x Giant Furby
* 25% chance 7x Reciprocating Ocelot
* 25% chance Dragon of Dragon-ness
Treasure:
* 42 ruby pieces (only available after defeating encounter)
Exits:
* north: connects to room 8
* east: connects to room 16
4) Referencing the ability of PCs to intervene/interrupt; unsaid: if the PCs don't intervene, things will not be interesting, or will become prohibitively difficult. Also: participation in the scenario is required to advance the plot.
The Goblins of War are warring with the Goblins of Peace (it's kind of one-sided). The Goblins of Peace are losing but are desperately trying to protect their home territory, which holds a large number of artifacts. (Note: these artifacts are necessary to progress the story!)
If the PCs do nothing, the Goblins of War will eliminate the Goblins of Peace in 2 months' time, thus taking all the artifacts for themselves.
5) Referencing the ability of PCs to intervene/interrupt; things will be interesting regardless of intervention. Also: participation in the scenario is not required to advance the game.
The Goblins of War are warring with the Goblins of Peace (it's kind of one-sided). The Goblins of Peace are losing but are desperately trying to protect their home territory, which holds a large number of artifacts. These artifacts may be useful, but are not necessary to continue the game.
Many of these artifacts cannot be used by goblins of either type, so they will be willing to make deals with outsiders about them. The Goblins of Peace tend to prefer bargains with material goods, although in their current situation they would appreciate some help with the Goblins of War. They respect magic. The Goblins of War respect martial prowess
In two months' time, barring interventions, the Goblins of War will overrun the Goblins of Peace, taking the latter as slaves. The goblins will also take the artifacts, changing what the PCs must do if they want the artifacts.
6) Referencing the ability of PCs to intervene/interrupt; the scenario does not progress until the PCs enter the scene. It is assumed that PCs will participate in the scenario.
Dogs in the Vineyard towns
Those are all the permutations I can think of right now. I've probably missed some. I'm fairly sure you object to #1, which is the kind of thing you find in a lot of modules. #2 and #3 basically have no plot/story, and are not what you're trying to do. But are they "about" the PCs? #4 is also fairly typical of modules, and I think you object to it as well. #5 and #6, I think, are more what you want.
Are my interpretations correct?
On 3/6/2006 at 8:47am, pells wrote:
RE: Re: [Avalanche] - Should prewritten scenarios be about the PCs ?
Selene this is very interesting. I'll comment in two phases : first directly to your examples, and next how I would do things, based on your example. For me the about PCs/not about PCs can be used in any example, as it is not related directly to the content of the plot. Note that this is my interpretation only.
Your examples
1) is about the PCs. But it could be not about them.
Character X, finally finds the object of his quest, enters the room and find a spellbook on an altar with purple runes, blah de blah. He avoids the rune of proctection and knows what the altar is about.
What would interest me here is who finds the book and for what purpose. If the PCs find it before the NPC, the lattest will surely try to get it from the PCs.
Important : the note you mentionned would be hidden behind this event and could be toggle, thus revealing the mechanics for the given system (there could be more than one implemented).
2) is not what I'm trying to do. I can't say if this abut the PCs or not. And then again, this is mechanic related, thus hidden behind.
3) is exactly what I'm trying to do, except your example is a dungeon, which is not related to what I'm doing. I'll come back to that after.
4) is about the PCs. In what I'm doing, the plot is without the influence of the PCs, so never mentionned.
5) is still about the PCs, but looks a bit like something I do. Just change changing what the PCs must do if they want the artifacts by protagonists X come in possession of the artefact after an exchange with the goblins. The problem with 5) is that you assume the PCs will try to have the artefact. For me, this is a pregiven path.
6) the problem with the examples you provided is that they are single plot. So, they need the PCs. But, from what I read of them, there is no pregiven path in them, as nothing is assumed about the PCs' actions.
What I would do
Let's revisit your example of goblins at war. I'll just add one little thing. Let's say there is human realm nearby where some protagonists, X, wants a particular artifact for a specific purpose. I won't detail this plot, but assume things are described for this realm as the goblins go to war. We can also imagine that X encourages the goblin of war as to have the artefact. The important thing is that at some point, the two plots overlap. Another important thing is that, in what I'm doing, an artefact is not found for the sake of it, but for a purpose, thu there are important to continue the pregiven plot.
I'll take your example 5.
The Goblins of War are warring with the Goblins of Peace (it's kind of one-sided). The Goblins of Peace are losing but are desperately trying to protect their home territory, which holds a large number of artifacts.
Many of these artifacts cannot be used by goblins of either type, so they will be willing to make deals with outsiders about them. The Goblins of Peace tend to prefer bargains with material goods, although in their current situation they would appreciate some help with the Goblins of War. They respect magic. The Goblins of War respect martial prowess
In two months' time, barring interventions, the Goblins of War overrun the Goblins of Peace, taking the latter as slaves. The goblins also take the artifacts and exchange a powerful one to protagonists X.
Then it would continue with what X does with the artefact. As you can see, this is not about the PCs. Now, let's talk about them. What can they do ? Obviously, there is no pregiven path for them. You can guess they have a lot of choices.
- take part in the war beside either groups of goblins.
- prevent this war, discovering the importance of the artefact, ally to the goblins, take the artefact for themselves and use it against X
- prevent the war, convince the goblins to give them the artefact and fight with them against the humans
- they might be mandated by X to retrieve the artefact while the war is going on, or at the end of it. They might double cross X and keep the artefact for themselves or they might not see the importance of the artefact and give it to X
- they might not take pat in this plot, confronting later on X, now in possession of the artefact, without a clue where it comes from
- take your guess
The idea is, since this is not about the PCs, they will have to build their own story. They lead what is happening, but the DM knows where he is going. I think this could be done for any kind of story. I didn't take the time to split this story into events, but this would help in finding exactly what the PCs have changed.
Sempiternity
You're not trying to cover every likely action the players might decide to have their characters take, are you?
What I do is not about the PCs. I want to map out what the NPCs do : their motivations, how they do things if the PCs don't interfere.
What is wrong with defining the events so that the player-characters must become involved in them?
Pregiven path, railroad. I have a problem with must, I prefer might. And I don't want to provide a pregiven how the PCs will get involved.
Every game has its own style & focus of play - I would imagine an event-package written for d20 Fantasy would necessarily be quite a bit different than one written for Burning Wheel.
The content would be different, but I think the same design can be used.
On 3/6/2006 at 9:01am, contracycle wrote:
RE: Re: [Avalanche] - Should prewritten scenarios be about the PCs ?
What I believe Pells means by "about the characters" is when plot necessarily controls or directs character actions. I think Shadowrun would be a good example of these; seeing as there is no other organising principle available, the only discussion there is is of what the characters do. Characters are sent to place X so that at a later point place X can be referred to. Often, plots require specific character types.
I think that Pells model would see one of these Shadowrun games as one possible plot among several. A set of events very similar to a shadowrun game might occur in actual play, but it will not be Pells that has determined this selection nor the actual experience of the characters.
On 3/6/2006 at 3:36pm, Czar Fnord wrote:
RE: Re: [Avalanche] - Should prewritten scenarios be about the PCs ?
David, since GLASS is about LARP, I'd be very interested in your insight about this. I had LARP in mind when I did my design and I think it would fit perfectly. One of the idea is, somehow, to reproduce what happens in a LARP (on going multi plots) into a TT rpg.
My insight--such as it is--is basically that your method is exactly how one must write content for (most) LARPs. That's why I am paying attention to your process, method, and eventual releases. Your online tool would be a nice addition to The GLASS House, in time... :)
Keep in mind, however, that a LARP can have a very PC-centric plot and, thus, be set up with linear events that "await" a PC to trigger them. Some GMs like to do it this way, to make sure their players have fun and, thus, keep coming and paying. It is also a way to launch large events (like field battles) without wasting GM time and set up and effort (i.e. if no PCs show up for the "PC-less trigger" of the event). Also, most convention LARPs have to be PC-centric and generate plots that intentionally intertangle the PCs' "backstories" into the convention's storyline... and into each other, usually (to help "break the ice," so to speak). Further, many LARP types (e.g. MET) place characters in fairly influential and significant position in the game world and, as such, must have PC-centric plot lines. When the PCs are the most powerful entities in the game world, they become a very real part of Setting and Situation and must be accounted for.
On the other hand, of course, there are LARPs which have virtually NO plot: scenario play paintball games, for example. Or, the "plot" is little more than a single Situation provided as mutually incompatible motivations for the opposing sides. Example: "Defenders, you are in a battle with the Attackers and want to control the fort until 'reinforcements arrive' (end of game on Sunday); Attackers, you want to take the fort before that 'reinforcement' makes it impossible; there are supply and ammo depots all around the battlefield; GO!"
In my case (not to hijack your thread), for the initial release of GLASS, I will not include ANY Situation and only the most generic of Settings (maybe: jury still out; see my sig). I will, however, speak to the notions of plot creation, in a GM section, so that neophytes don't flounder into the most common mistakes; for example, having several players as ECs in a specific place to jump some PCs... while the PCs wander off on a tangent and never go near the site of the abortive ambush.
Later, I will release "supplements" that include a LOT of Setting elements and will include some broad-brush, basic Situations (to help GMs get general plot ideas). Eventually, The GLASS House will maintain online directories of PCs, Settings-by-genre, and "canonical" Situations in each Setting, to allow for players to move from game to game and to provide a consistent game world (a la SCA's "fiefdoms"). And there's a good chance one of your Settings could appeal enough to The GLASS Cutters--the first GLASS GMs to run games with more than, say, 100 players--that we get in touch with you to license/buy it. Gimme about a year, though.... ;)
So nail down your last doubts and concerns and get that site published! :)
David
On 3/6/2006 at 7:22pm, Sempiternity wrote:
RE: Re: [Avalanche] - Should prewritten scenarios be about the PCs ?
Sébastien:
As you can see, this is not about the PCs. Now, let's talk about them. What can they do ? Obviously, there is no pregiven path for them. You can guess they have a lot of choices.
- take part in the war beside either groups of goblins.
- prevent this war, discovering the importance of the artefact, ally to the goblins, take the artefact for themselves and use it against X
- prevent the war, convince the goblins to give them the artefact and fight with them against the humans
- they might be mandated by X to retrieve the artefact while the war is going on, or at the end of it. They might double cross X and keep the artefact for themselves or they might not see the importance of the artefact and give it to X
- they might not take pat in this plot, confronting later on X, now in possession of the artefact, without a clue where it comes from
- take your guess
This is the sort of thing i'm concerned about, regarding my "take every action into account" statement. How do the events that you have scripted further on in the web take into account all of these various ways the players could resolve the Event?
Naturally, you have to be somewhat vauge in describing future events, but what do we do when we have the PCs destroy the artifact, conquer both goblin tribes, and kick the crap out of Mr. X?
It isn't the nature of the event, as much as the necessary structure of the chain/web of events that concerns me.
The idea is, since this is not about the PCs, they will have to build their own story. They lead what is happening, but the DM knows where he is going. I think this could be done for any kind of story.
Yep, this is exactly what you want happening in any game!
Even if using "kicker & bang" play, this occurs as the GM draws the PCs into the Bangs, using the Flags the players have defined for their characters. When using a "defined open-ended event", such as a Dogs' town, it essentially works the other way around - the Event is a sort of Flag the GM erects to pull the players into creating a Bang.
And I don't want to provide a pregiven how the PCs will get involved.
Definately!
The problem with choosing "might" over "must" is that the players end up skipping the events and not using the structure framework.
(This is the "wasted GM effort" thing, but in the case of a purchased module it is really more of a user experience issue - you want people to use as much of your product as possible and enjoy doing so.)
If the players know that they must become involved in an event, but also know that they decide how their characters become involved and how they resolve the situation, is that still "railroading"?
On 3/6/2006 at 8:12pm, Czar Fnord wrote:
RE: Re: [Avalanche] - Should prewritten scenarios be about the PCs ?
Semp's got a pretty good point, here:
This is the sort of thing i'm concerned about, regarding my "take every action into account" statement. How do the events that you have scripted further on in the web take into account all of these various ways the players could resolve the Event?
I think I can help resolve this by pointing out a bit of bias (perceived on my part). A "web of events" can only be "broken" (i.e. the product is rendered useless) in these general cases (and others that I am sure I don't imagine in time to finish this post):
1) The PCs are significant in the world.
Level 1 PCs aren't gonna be destroying the artifact or killing the king of both armies (or both entire armies!) or running the world in a way that dictates other high-level events. However, Seb speaks often of "if the players do nothing" when he talks of his calendaring of events in a given product; perhaps he sees a way to structure content that doesn't disintegrate with PC actions, even though the PCs can effect the world at that level? Further, the deeper the Setting details, the easier it should be for GMs to extrapolate logical results of circumvented events. Hmmm... and this IS a computer-based product: maybe the database could use a "drop-down" method whereby, if a user informs it that an event key influence doesn't exist in their particular group's implementation of the product, then it drops-down to the next logical triggering entity or key influence and time frame for the same event content. The story stays the same, there's just new players and a new stage for it that suits the revised world picture.
2) The web of events is, in fact, a web and, in fact, has events!
For instance, a "pure Setting" product could have TONS of material and details and even high-level history and "future history" of events. But events on the order of "Country A will eventually attack Country B, if B doesn't return control of Location X" are not so granular that (a) they MUST be played and (b) if short-circuited, the product is a "waste" of money." I wrote that event in about ten seconds: I could write a world of such events--hundreds of thousands of years, even--in a few days of pondering and logical extrapolations. Only PC action on the order of "we nuke Country B to glass" would hamstring all possible use of all remaining "events". And not if the other events are somehow "isolated" from each other. (Example: Country B was, eventually, going to be the first country to settle the moon. It's not too hard to make the moon colonists from the "runner up" country--maybe Country C was next to settle--when B ceases to exist. Thus, the material as writ is still useful for THAT country, with some tweaking.)
3) The Situations depend upon identifiable entities.
Similar to the Setting-heavy product example I give above, I can also imagine very interesting and useful Situational events that do not require a specific personality or race or whatever (entity) to initiate or maintain the schedule of events.
For example, suppose a story line has several key events like this: "someone discovers a new nanotech and it escapes into general population; in three weeks, it mutates into an aggressive virus; in three months, all humanity will die." That "someone" could be any entity that could logically invent a new nanite (and the database could randomly suggest one, or list them in order of highest probability, or list them alphabetically, or leave it tot he GM to pick one from the Setting). The details of the nanites way of killing are "flavor" and are irrelevant to the Situation--or not: they could be in the database and, again, prioritized or whatever so as to provide a clue to players about who is to blame (i.e. each possible key responsible entity would have a one-to-one relationship with each possible logical killing method; choose the killer or the method, and the other comes along logically).
4) Gotta be more...?
[hr]
You know... frankly, when you get right down to it, there's not a single Situational product on the market that survives the PCs destroying or eliminating key influences in the story. GMs have used methods like the above time and time again, to deal with "plot breakers". Good module design, usually, makes it neigh impossible to break any "plot" it has--get to the Ultimate Evil and kill it before its Evil Plan is hatched, and The Penultimate Evil hatches the same plan!
Having given it a post's though, I think this criticism of the fragility of a web of events is ultimately irrelevant, because it is trivially true of all such products. It is good, however, to think of ways to mitigate Situational incoherence due to key influence elimination, when designing content for these products (or for any game product that sells Situation).
HTH;
David
On 3/7/2006 at 9:04am, contracycle wrote:
RE: Re: [Avalanche] - Should prewritten scenarios be about the PCs ?
Sempiternity wrote:
The problem with choosing "might" over "must" is that the players end up skipping the events and not using the structure framework.
(This is the "wasted GM effort" thing, but in the case of a purchased module it is really more of a user experience issue - you want people to use as much of your product as possible and enjoy doing so.)
Your'e attributing motive here. Ther producer of a product primarily wants it to sell, that is all. For the most part they don;t care whether you use it as directed or as a doorstop.
Now the virtue here is that this work got done. It may be that for the specific incidents of my game, it made sense to skip chunks of this external plot. But then, its not MY efforts and time that are wasted, I have paid someone to do this for me, and probably I lose is about 10c worth of print and paper. And I still have an environment in which these issues are relevant; even if the players missed a bit, the world would still go on around them and retain its own continuity,
If the players know that they must become involved in an event,
They will only know as much as any CHARACTER knows. I don't believe any direct player engegement with the structure has been proposed, its a GM tool.
but also know that they decide how their characters become involved and how they resolve the situation, is that still "railroading"?
No, that is "actual play". These decisions are made in play, by players acting through their characters. The characters will be engaged if it touches them or interests them; the situation will be resolved by how they respond and ther decisions they make.
On 3/7/2006 at 2:27pm, pells wrote:
RE: Re: [Avalanche] - Should prewritten scenarios be about the PCs ?
I'll comment some more, althougth David and Contracycle pretty much covers it all.
The problem with choosing "might" over "must" is that the players end up skipping the events and not using the structure framework.
Must doesn't exist in what I do, as there is no mention of the PCs.
Now the virtue here is that this work got done. It may be that for the specific incidents of my game, it made sense to skip chunks of this external plot. But then, its not MY efforts and time that are wasted, I have paid someone to do this for me, and probably I lose is about 10c worth of print and paper. And I still have an environment in which these issues are relevant; even if the players missed a bit, the world would still go on around them and retain its own continuity,
That's pretty much the idea. And I'll even go one step foreword. If you buy my product, you know beforehand that you'll only use about 20-30% of it. Your PCs cannot take part in all the events, all the plots. It migth be strange to say this, but this is how you take the most out of my product.
Naturally, you have to be somewhat vauge in describing future events, but what do we do when we have the PCs destroy the artifact, conquer both goblin tribes, and kick the crap out of Mr. X?
In complement to David's comment, what is the best way to manage the players' impact, having a single linear plot all about them or multi plot not related to them ? Even if they make major changes in a plot, then your players will have, let's say destroy about 20% of the web. There would still be 80% untouched.
Since I want to cover many plots, I cannot go into details for any of them. If I was to transposed Avalanche into a novel, the number of pages would be something like 5 times higher. This brings me back to the storyboard idea.
Note : sorry for that, but I love this idea of storyboard !!!
On 3/7/2006 at 5:47pm, Sempiternity wrote:
RE: Re: [Avalanche] - Should prewritten scenarios be about the PCs ?
Sorry about all that - I guess i was getting too outside of the box, the topic. I just like the idea of having a structured array of events to play off of in an open-ended manner, and i was carried away.
I'll stop pestering you all - Good luck with the module!