So, I've been knocking this idea around for a couple of years now, and I figured that some feedback would be a good thing to tighten up the idea. BEFORE I start my new campaign up, that is.
Anyone who's read my posts on gaming will realize that as a player and as a GM I don't get onto the railroad, regardless of scenery. As a player I'm a little more open minded... a little, but as A GM I've been seat of my pants. The problem with this is that an epic game, the sort of thing I love to participate in, requires at least the idea of a plot. How to reconcile these two conflicting desires?
The idea I've toyed with, even brought to the table in an abortive attempt to see it at work (not the idea's fault it failed, but the players bickering amidst themselves..alas) is this.
Script the events and the major actions of the NPC's far in advance. I was thinking once of a near future modern game starting on Jan 1 that had an outlook calander for half a dozen major players and countless minor NPC's, for an entire year.
The key, however, is all those events are written without any input or action from the players. The players are a variable thrown into the mix. If the characters do nothing at all, Joey the mob goon will deliver a package on 4 Feb at three fifeteen AM... five minutes later Grand Central station is a wasteland of dead bodies, including the unsuspecting Joey, when the package releases nerve gas.
Now, the players might encounter Joey in january and kill him. Someone else might deliver the package, or they might get curious and open it. There is nothing stopping the players from discovering the plot at any point in the adventure and trying to stop it either. Likewise, if they say they are going to Grand central station on that day, and about that time, they can be there for the event itself.
I see potential problems in overdetailing leading to the PC's never participating in anything, and then there is the workload involved in spinning an entire years worth of important stuff.
Any ideas, thoughts, comments?
This is more or less how I run all of my games. I already consider what the NPCs would end up doing should the PCs do nothing, essentially; and usually try to keep in mind how the NPCs will react in various circumstances of possible player intervention.
The key is that you should have an almost buddhist level of non-attachment to the possible results; the PCs should be able to sincerely alter events by whatever means they choose. But knowing your NPCs motivations, and how the plot will unfold in its "virgin" course, is a pretty vital craft tool to me.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditThis is more or less how I run all of my games. I already consider what the NPCs would end up doing should the PCs do nothing, essentially; and usually try to keep in mind how the NPCs will react in various circumstances of possible player intervention.
The key is that you should have an almost buddhist level of non-attachment to the possible results; the PCs should be able to sincerely alter events by whatever means they choose. But knowing your NPCs motivations, and how the plot will unfold in its "virgin" course, is a pretty vital craft tool to me.
....*Blink, blink*
You realize that most of the stuff that Forge guys say is essential to 'making good story' is stuff that you apparently do
on instinct, right?
I find that inexplicably hilarious.
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen....
I find that inexplicably hilarious.
It is pretty damn funny how forgie pundit sounds sometimes. :D
To be honest, I don't hear much about making a story out of it. This sort of thing seems to me to be a fundamental tool that a good GM should probably use in some way... that is knowing what his NPC's are doing when the players aren't right there. Right now I'm trying to develop my own version of it, refining the idea that I've already had, maybe make it a bit more complex than just some idea that NPC farmer brown goes to market every tuesday.
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen....*Blink, blink*
You realize that most of the stuff that Forge guys say is essential to 'making good story' is stuff that you apparently do on instinct, right?
I find that inexplicably hilarious.
Hey, some of the foundations might be similar, but the Forge varies in some pretty spectacular ways. For one, they think you can make this happen by talking a lot about it, or by using mechanics.
For another, they think that the GM shouldn't be the one who gets to do it.
But yes, pretty much
anything good the Forge ever says is just
common sense to the rest of us, who have been doing it for years.
RPGPundit
QuoteIt is pretty damn funny how forgie pundit sounds sometimes.
But a lot of those guys seem to be coming at it from the opposite direction, like continental Europeans getting all hyped up about critiquing Marx, and coming up with contorted Foucaultian responses to the Master Narrative, while Anglo-Americans are like, "Yeah, if you'd just applied a little common sense, you'd have seen it was a bad idea the whole time."
Maybe you could do something with thinking about what sort of adventures you want to run in each phase of the campaign, and worry about moving between phases when you get there.
Er, like Orpheus - the first phase is everyone playing employees of the Orpheus Group - sorta mercs/investigators who can astrally project and enter the spirit world. Adventures involve going on missions, like investigating haunted houses or bumping off businessmen for clients.
Then, Something Happens, and you start running On The Run From The Law adventures. Then something else happens, and you start running Investigate The Alien Dungeon type adventures. Then Aliens style adventures.
So, the GM is inserting the events that change the play style, but what happens within each phase is very flexible.
Burning Empires has a sorta system to decide when you move between phases (Infection, in which the bad guys try to insert themselves in to culture, Usurpation where they try to take over and Invasion where they, yknow, invade), and who wins each phase.
Maybe try chaining a bunch of swine scenarios togeather - You start playing My Life With Master, then they get sent out in to the world and you play Dogs In The Vineyard, then there is a threat to solve, so you play The Mountain Witch.
See, Erik, that isn't so much what I was thinking. I don't really run phases or even properly speaking, sessions. I move characters along much like they were living their lives, even if we don't sit through every day, they are accounted for, and the world keeps moving. If the players are still exploring the local region when the big war sweeps over them because they didn't get involved with the war effort, that was their choice.
Hmm... back up a spot. Okay, the test bed campaign that failed was Iron Kingdoms, the Second Orgoth Invasion. Essentially, the characters were independent adventurers running around in a war torn area, and some big bad menace was going to sail up and fuck up everything. The players had about six months lead time on the initial invasion, with a few clues (scouts and the like) to give them a heads up if they wanted. Ideally they'd find out about the invasion and be in a position to engage in heroic deeds that would turn the tide of war.
If they spent six months farting around town doing nothing, the invasion would happen as scripted. If they still did nothing, and treated it as background, the invasion would eventually over run the city, how the players chose to act is what sets the tone of the game. If they stay and fight, if they run from the war... all up to them. I merely want to set the stage for them to act against.
This was just a test bed, only a few key NPC's actions were written, and those were strictly 'what happened to them' during the war... generally removing them from play leaving the characters the prime movers and shakers.
the More Ambitious idea is a 'daytimer' schedule for an entire cast of NPC's, rather than a single sweeping event. The NPC's WILL act as scripted until the PC's interrupt things. Even if an NPC turns out unimportant to the players, their actions, and repurcussions, are known things. As new NPC's arrive they can get scripted forward as well.
This goes beyond just having a cast of thousands, into having a dynamic world for the PC's to influence and react to.
I have an overall theme that I think would be interesting for the players. Or rather that the players may show an interest in. Before the game I describe the setting and ask the players what they hope their roles would be in the setting. Character motivation is a big part of the campaign creation process.
I do the whole mapping out what the npcs would do, for specific adventures and not for the campaign as a whole. So yeah my gming style is more of the phases kind of play.
I think of my campaigns as organic as such, sometimes, the pcs by their actions may inspire the campaign in a whole different direction, and so my original idea/theme is tossed out the window. So, I don't like having to script any events or npcs actions in advance.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: RPGPunditThe key is that you should have an almost buddhist level of non-attachment to the possible results;
Yah. That's absolutely the key - the understanding of all of the anticipated, uninfluenced results of the npcs' actions, but zero investment in those outcomes.
The variable of the players added to that system then creates all sorts of wonderful cascading effects that you can reflect/rebound off of the original premise, which you couldn't (or I couldn't) necessarily create or process in a completely organic, free-form game. I just forget too much of my good shit if I don't write it down, and the players are coming up with good shit every minute of every hour, and I want to include it all. There's something durable and, um, resonant? about a world with a bunch of tiny levers that actually affect other events which the characters might not ever know about, but which put events into motion that....
Okay, I'm not saying anything you all don't know already.
Spike, I think the More Ambitious Idea sounds like candy-coated, masterfully tasty ass-kickery. Personally, calendars of major events and np character involvement work very well, but I just don't have the time or inclination to create the kind of day-to-day Grand Master Plan that you're talking about.
But I'd love to play inside it. :cool:
If you are willing to sacrifice some time, I've found Outlook is a wonderful computer tool for doing this sort of thing. It may not map exactly to a game world's calendar, but your players probably won't know.
I'm trying to figure out for myself some of the fiddly bits, however. How many NPC's should be mapped, how much of their routine and non-routine stuff, how wide a scope. My Iron Kingdom's campaign 'future' took up two handwritten pages, covering the four kingdoms and the half dozen or so important NPC's, but never got into the gritty, player level stuff, which is where I actually wanted it. I had the backdrop, but was missing the set dressing. Of course, part of my problem there was a really foggy notion of how to start the game off. If I'd had a better 'start point' mapping the local NPC's would have been much easier.
As for buddist level detachment, that's not entirely my problem. My problem is I WANT the players to interact and change as much as possible, so how do I avoid forcing them to participate so they can? Ok, maybe detachment is the key. :p
Quote from: SpikeIf you are willing to sacrifice some time, I've found Outlook is a wonderful computer tool for doing this sort of thing. It may not map exactly to a game world's calendar, but your players probably won't know.
Ooooh, Outlook, mmm. That's what I'm talking about. And then, fiddly bits, map out all of the npcs' actions and
color-code them in the program, and then figure out a way to
set email alarms that get sent to you according to a super-secret relationship you develop between game world events and real-time. ;) I must dash. I have an urgent date with the deep, dark anal systems demon that you have just released from bondage within my soul....
Quote from: SpikeAs for buddist level detachment, that's not entirely my problem. My problem is I WANT the players to interact and change as much as possible, so how do I avoid forcing them to participate so they can? Ok, maybe detachment is the key. :p
Chop wood, carry cheetos. :p
Quote from: ReimdallChop wood, carry cheetos. :p
Before or after enlightenment? ;)
Glad my eureka moment from way back was enlightening. Maybe I sould start a thread about misappropriating various common softwares as GMing tools....:p
Should I mention my earlier expirement with making an access database for the game? Failed only due to my utter lack of access talent, but I still believe it was a good idea.
Quote from: SpikeGlad my eureka moment from way back was enlightening. Maybe I sould start a thread about misappropriating various common softwares as GMing tools....:p
Oh, man, don't get me started. I can't tell you ridiculously happy I was when note software came out that I could link to various songs on iTunes. "You stumble into the possessed bakery," CUE the Zombie Pastry Music.... :D
Quote from: ReimdallOh, man, don't get me started. I can't tell you ridiculously happy I was when note software came out that I could link to various songs on iTunes. "You stumble into the possessed bakery," CUE the Zombie Pastry Music.... :D
Y'know, I want to say that if I used music in my Games, I'd find that even more awesome, but I don't think I CAN find it anymore awesome.
It's getting about time to start plugging away at some NPC schedules, methinks...
Quote from: RPGPunditThis is more or less how I run all of my games. I already consider what the NPCs would end up doing should the PCs do nothing, essentially; and usually try to keep in mind how the NPCs will react in various circumstances of possible player intervention.
The key is that you should have an almost buddhist level of non-attachment to the possible results; the PCs should be able to sincerely alter events by whatever means they choose. But knowing your NPCs motivations, and how the plot will unfold in its "virgin" course, is a pretty vital craft tool to me.
RPGPundit
This is how I often like to run games too, I don't always do this, but generally my scenarios are a bunch of NPCs who have stuff they are going to do and then I add the PCs. If the PCs do nothing, the NPCs get to do their stuff, but that rarely happens much.
The Forge way overthinks this stuff, all too often I see complex theoretical or mechanical constructs for stuff that is really solved just by learning some decent GMing skills.
A paucity of good GMing advice in game books is a real problem I think, but not one best solved by creating entirely new games that do away with the need for the advice. There are easier ways to address the issue.
Quote from: BalbinusA paucity of good GMing advice in game books is a real problem I think, but not one best solved by creating entirely new games that do away with the need for the advice. There are easier ways to address the issue.
Like, say, giving good advice?
Quote from: Levi KornelsenLike, say, giving good advice?
Actually, yes, that was what I was thinking of.
I'm not sure why most rpgs have such dismal GM advice, I think possibly because people just regurgitate what they saw in the last book they looked at without thinking about it much.
GM advice sections often seem to be an afterthought, when in fact they are critical, most rpgs I see have either no useful GM advice at all or advice that is downright counterproductive.
CoC ironically I see as having rather good GM advice, but then the published scenarios follow none of it and create a model of how to play the game that doesn't really work and doesn't much reflect what the core book says.
There lies another trouble with GM Advice sections. After the first couple of games, the GM is likely to stop reading advice sections in his newer books.
Or am I the only lazy git? Until I started reviewing I handn't read an advice section since...oh...88.
Quote from: SpikeThere lies another trouble with GM Advice sections. After the first couple of games, the GM is likely to stop reading advice sections in his newer books.
Or am I the only lazy git? Until I started reviewing I handn't read an advice section since...oh...88.
I only read them if the game is quite specific in tone or if I am really struggling to work out what the hell to do.
Hollow Earth Expedition I read it because it's a very specific genre, Decipher's LotR and the d20 CoC I read because people told me they were exceptionally good (which they were to be fair), Transhuman Space I tried to read because I couldn't work out how to run the game but it turned out there was no useful advice. Apparently a book on how to run the game is coming out shortly as a pdf, and not before time.
Quote from: BalbinusI only read them if the game is quite specific in tone or if I am really struggling to work out what the hell to do.
Hollow Earth Expedition I read it because it's a very specific genre, Decipher's LotR and the d20 CoC I read because people told me they were exceptionally good (which they were to be fair), Transhuman Space I tried to read because I couldn't work out how to run the game but it turned out there was no useful advice. Apparently a book on how to run the game is coming out shortly as a pdf, and not before time.
Well, we are moving slightly off topic, but hey, I don't mind much as long as it's good stuff...
But I think I've seen some rather clever stuff regarding GM advice over the years, slowly coalescing into a unified 'theory' of how to present it... that is: Don't write your advice into a long chapter by itself, scatter snipits of 'how to use this' wherever relavent. While many people will skip chapters that are boring or 'unimportant'... like advice, they generally read the character creation chapter many times, the rules chapter several times, and the setting chapters whenever they want to use them.... that is where the advice should be then. Make it relavent to what is going on in the chapter.
I can't say I've seen a book done entirely like this, but I have seen a few more deliberate attempts to put advice throughout the book.
I found a lot of GM advice sections seemed a bit like the regurgitated "what is roleplaying..." sections. If you'd played any RPGs before they contained very little new info, and you'd probably skip over them. More than just good GM'ing advice, games would benefit from more GM'ing *this game* advice. How do you use the tools provided in that specific book to create an evening's game that's tons of fun for everyone at the table?
QuoteBut I think I've seen some rather clever stuff regarding GM advice over the years, slowly coalescing into a unified 'theory' of how to present it... that is: Don't write your advice into a long chapter by itself, scatter snipits of 'how to use this' wherever relavent. While many people will skip chapters that are boring or 'unimportant'... like advice, they generally read the character creation chapter many times, the rules chapter several times, and the setting chapters whenever they want to use them.... that is where the advice should be then. Make it relavent to what is going on in the chapter.
I can't say I've seen a book done entirely like this, but I have seen a few more deliberate attempts to put advice throughout the book.
Heh. 1st Ed. AD&D was written a bit like this... or maybe more like this: Don't write your advice into a long chapter by itself, scatter snipits of 'how to use this' wherever
relavent. :D
Well, to be honest, most of the DMG seemed to be one big Advice chapter, with scattered rules. Back in those days, the only use my DMG got was the To Hit tables and the magic items chapter.
Not that there is anything wrong with using the book for violence and loot!