Roleplaying without a Plot

[Just Joe]

I want to discuss a range of related issues regarding styles of roleplaying. The title of this thread is meant to be an attention-grabber that gets the rough idea across, but please don't take it too literally.

Like many of you, I got my first experience role-playing with D&D. At first, we did the most ridiculous kinds of dungeon crawls. Then, sometime in junior high, I got into a game with a DM three years older than myself. He started with what was in many respects a typical dungeon crawl, but he thought about the history and ecology of the ruins we explored. He then developed the surrounding region and populated it with goblins, bandits, and the like. In many ways, the role-playing we did was very basic, but there was also something very cool about the game that I don't think I've experienced enough in the twenty-some-odd years since. There was an exciting and somewhat mysterious world to be explored and it was ours to explore, without regard to plotlines imposed on us by the DM/GM.

Now don't get me wrong -- I'm not entirely against plotlines, but I think many of us miss out on a valuable style of roleplaying because we get too hung up on advancing a particular plotline. And it's important to understand that I am talking about role-playing, not killing monsters in the most efficient way and collecting their treasure, but exploring and interacting with a world (or part thereof) in a way that makes sense for the character you're playing.

I'm tempted to ramble on more, but I'll let that stand as a discussion-starter, except to add a few questions:

1) Do you understand the style of roleplaying I'm trying to get at?

2) Do you roleplay in this way?

3) Would you want to roleplay in this way?

[Trencher]

Yes I do and to roleplay this way you have to stop meta-gaming and second guessing the Gm and try to figure out the story. When I role play I try to see out of the eyes to the character I play to get some of the same feeling back.

[RDU Neil]

I'm tempted to ramble on more, but I'll let that stand as a discussion-starter, except to add a few questions:

1) Do you understand the style of roleplaying I'm trying to get at?

2) Do you roleplay in this way?

3) Would you want to roleplay in this way?

Yes

Yes

Fuckin' A! :thumbup:

One of the main things I've learned in twenty plus years of GMing is the following...

Know what your world is like, and know what the badguys are doing... then just let the players go from there.

Corollary... whatever the players seem to find interesting as they explore... then that is the next plot.

Basically... do NOT tie yourself down to one plot... and even if you have one going... keep it open to go in directions you never intended, based on actual play. Say your description of a new part of the world involves a casual mention of "Off in the distance you see a mountain range... and one mountain in particular stands out, as it is capped with black smoke and the dim red of fire!" You just mean it to be description... but for some reason the players are like "Whoa... that mountain is important. We should travel there and see what's going on!"

Now, as the GM, you may have had ZERO plan around that mountain... but if the players are jazzed by it... go with it. Say, "It will be at least a two week journey to the mountain... between you and there is a vast rolling plain that eventually rises into foothills before the mountain side. You also know of no towns or villages out there, so such a trek should be prepared and supplied!"

Now you have a number of "intermediate" adventure possibilities to keep the players busy as you figure out what the heck you are actually going to do with this mountain idea. You've got an adventure around them getting supplied in the nearest rough and tumble border town... then, once they get going, there are any number of cool encounters they might have crossing open territory, etc.

As the GM, you need to be comfortable with improvisation... and keep decent notes so you can remember later what you make up on the spot... but when done well, the players may have no clue you are just making stuff up, and to them it feels like a game where they are "totally on" as every decision they make seems to be appropriately dramatic and moving the story forward. They may not realize that almost ANY decision they made (as long as it was consistent with the world, previous events and in character) would have been the "right" decision.

[RDU Neil]

Joe,
What you are asking about (in a bigger picture idea) is an RPG example of a larger human phenomena... how we orient towards and order our world.

People in general tend to fall on one side or another of a dichotomy.

J - Judging... preferring planned, ordered, controlled direction that seeks closure.

P - Perceiving... preferring to go with the flow, more flexible and open to change and new information.

This dichotomy plays out in every day life all the time... and can especially be seen in the differences between how people organize their work lives. Even in normal lives it shows. "J" preference, on vacation, will have planned for weeks in advance, have itineraries set for every day, and expect to stick to them. "P" preference, on vacation, will likely have no plan... do whatever strikes them as interesting at the moment and not be bothered by last minute additions or changes.

In gaming... the "J" GM is likely to be very planned and organized. Have tight plots with detailed information... but not be as open to deviations from that plot, and may be frustrated by the fact that players don't do exactly what he expected. At their worst, these will be the "rail roading" GMs.

The "P" GM will have a "general idea" of what they are looking for... likely very basic notes, and a lot of different ideas that aren't fully fleshed out until, at the last moment, the GM decides "Ok... we're going with that keep scenario for tonight's game..." They may seem disorganized, and tend to hand-wave certain parts of the game, and if they aren't quick at improvizing, may find themselves challenged to provide good detail and response to players who want detail about what is going on. At their worst, these will be the "lame" GMs who can't keep up with the players.

As in real life... so goes gaming. The biggest source of conflict between people is the J-P dichotomy. J's can see P's as lazy and unfocused. P's see J's as rigid and overbearing. It's a huge source of work place disfunction... and can be the same in a gaming group.

I love this kind of personality/cognition/psychology stuff... and I think RPGs are classic testing zones to see this stuff play out in a micro-cosm of life.

Cool questions and discussion.

[tgrandjean]

Yep. I know and like these type of games.
I'm one of those people who can't help playing around with the scenery. I'll seek out plots even when there aren't any and derail the main plot simply because I don't like where it's going. (I'll still try to save the world, I just want to save it on my terms...)
However, the vast majority of gamers are spineless masses of jello needing to be forced and prodded into even following the story let alone to take the initiative.

[sinanju]

Know what your world is like, and know what the badguys are doing... then just let the players go from there.

Corollary... whatever the players seem to find interesting as they explore... then that is the next plot.

Basically... do NOT tie yourself down to one plot... and even if you have one going... keep it open to go in directions you never intended, based on actual play.

Amen. My game prep for years has consisted of deciding who the bad guys are, what they want to accomplish, how they plan to do it, and how they'll react to interference. Then I figure out the plot hook that will get the PCs involved. That's it. No plotline from A to B to C. I let the players take the lead and then improvise what happens; since I know the bad guys' plans and resources, it's easy to decide how they react (and to handle combat when it comes up).

At the same time, sometimes I throw my established scenario out the window when the players arrive at unexpected conclusions. I once ran an "Expendables" (like Stargate, only exploring alternate timelines) adventure in which the PCs were intended to visit a world where zombies were rising. They stepped thru the gate and found a mass grave half full of bodies, and others which had been filled in. Helicopter gunships roamed the smoke-filled skies, etc.

The players immediately began to spin paranoid fantasies about civil war and dictatorship in this alternate USA having nothing to do with zombies. Their theories were way more interesting than my initial zombie scenario...so I ran with it. They had a blast running and hiding and fighting MIBs and so forth before making their escape back to their own world three days later.

[RDU Neil]

Amen. My game prep for years has consisted of deciding who the bad guys are, what they want to accomplish, how they plan to do it, and how they'll react to interference. Then I figure out the plot hook that will get the PCs involved. That's it. No plotline from A to B to C. I let the players take the lead and then improvise what happens; since I know the bad guys' plans and resources, it's easy to decide how they react (and to handle combat when it comes up).

At the same time, sometimes I throw my established scenario out the window when the players arrive at unexpected conclusions. I once ran an "Expendables" (like Stargate, only exploring alternate timelines) adventure in which the PCs were intended to visit a world where zombies were rising. They stepped thru the gate and found a mass grave half full of bodies, and others which had been filled in. Helicopter gunships roamed the smoke-filled skies, etc.

The players immediately began to spin paranoid fantasies about civil war and dictatorship in this alternate USA having nothing to do with zombies. Their theories were way more interesting than my initial zombie scenario...so I ran with it. They had a blast running and hiding and fighting MIBs and so forth before making their escape back to their own world three days later.

Great example! Kudos to you for capitalizing on the players ideas. The best part about these adventures is that they feel like they are "clicking" as they "figure out your plot!" And you get credit for having such a great game designed... when really, they did all the work, and you just played off of there actions.

Really... this dichotomy can be broken down as follows.

Does the GM provide stimulus and the players react...

... or do the players provide stimulus, and the GM reacts?

It's non-intuitive... but the more open ended games... the GM may set the setting... but otherwise, the GM is often reacting more to the players ideas, than vice versa.

This does take mature, pro-active players... but this can be trained with postive reinforcement. :)

[Storn]

Its funny... but I just was talking to Neil about running a campaign arc that would be very much in the hands of the players.

Certainly, I have certain preplanned events to happen, but they are almost generic, meant to set the stage... not determine PC direction.

I am going to set up a valley in my Realms game that has gone through a bloody local war between 3 baronies which solved nothing. Think Hatfield and McCoys level of rancor between 3 clans within 80 or so miles of each other.

Enter into this war that ended a week ago in a bloody draw, the PCs... who could be mercs who didn't get paid, local adventurers, leige men who lost their leige in the battle... basically, I'll ask for the players to give me folks who are disenfranchised and maybe a bit desperate.

And I'm going to use the old hoary cliche of all the PCs meet at an inn. I've never used that before, amazing but true!. But here is the wrinkle. Due to REALLY bad weather (torrential rains), they are stuck... hey, I admit i'm stealing this whole cloth from the kung fu epic Dragon Inn. this will give the PCs time to form alliances, get to know each other, some talking, rumors drifting in with a few colorful NPCs.

So the Players will be told of this event BEFORE gameplay starts... the PCs will be stuck with each other for a week or so. Hopefully, everyone at the table will build hooks that will allow the PCs to come out of that week with some kind of direction.

Besides one scene that I have planned to happen during the soggy week, I have NO idea where the game is going to go from there. I have the valley picked out. I know what is nearby, including Baldur's Gate, which is the biggest city some 200-250 miles away or so. I'll detail out the lawlessness situation of the 3 baronies in collapse... because that will be common knowlege, I believe to at least a couple of the PCs. I'll detail the Inn itself, staff and a few NPC guests.. But these are just details, not roadmaps. It will be up to this group to decide what they want to do.

Since most of my Realm arcs have big personalities, fate of nations, war, trade, politics... the scope of this game will be different. At least in the beginning.. as I told Neil, these PCs do NOT have destinies. They will have to carve or make their own destinies. Maybe they will get ambitious and lift themselves up to that nation influencing status. Maybe they will do one "dungeon-y crawl" or tough mission, get rich and retire... I have NO idea. And that is what appeals to me about running something like this.

[Just Joe]

Wow. I was expecting to get a bunch of negative responses. The positive ones are a pleasant surprise. I'm still going to explore some possible areas of disagreement, not out of a perverse desire to disagree, but because I think respectful arguments can be an interesting and useful way to learn from one another.

[Just Joe]

Say your description of a new part of the world involves a casual mention of "Off in the distance you see a mountain range... and one mountain in particular stands out, as it is capped with black smoke and the dim red of fire!" You just mean it to be description... but for some reason the players are like "Whoa... that mountain is important. We should travel there and see what's going on!"

Now, as the GM, you may have had ZERO plan around that mountain... but if the players are jazzed by it... go with it.

I agree up to a point. My two (related) concerns are:
1) As a GM, I regard myself as performing a service for the players, but I am not wholly selfless. If the mountain doesn't interest me, I'm not sure I'm going to run with it, and it's tough to make that call without some time to think it over, and
2) I might have some good ideas about nearby NPC's and places. If the PC's walk away from those toward a place that I have no ideas for, it might be less fun for them.

[Just Joe]

People in general tend to fall on one side or another of a dichotomy.

J - Judging... preferring planned, ordered, controlled direction that seeks closure.

P - Perceiving... preferring to go with the flow, more flexible and open to change and new information.
I find this kind of thing interesting. I've never thought about it in this context. I've taken a personality test of this sort a few times. Once, I was right in the middle, and at least once I found several of the questions to be ambiguous and could have ended up in either camp depending on how the question was interpretted. I might be on the P?J line, but I suspect that I'm more conflicted. I tend to like things settled rather than open, but I'm a perfectionist and often hope that a better solution will present itself before a decision must be made. I also am aware that waiting for more information is often a rational strategy. BTW, I'm an INT.

As a GM, I want to prepare for virtually every possibility, not by considering each one individually or by forcing the players to stick to a plotline, but by designing the NPC's and environment thoroughly enough to adapt to whatever the players do. I am never satisfied with how well I do this.

My recent strategy was to run an episodic campaign. Before the first adventure started, I told the players that I would be more-or-less railroading them to a particular location (which i designed quite thoroughly), and asked them to design characters that would be willing to go there. But I made it clear to them that once they got there, they were free to do whatever they wanted (though character motivations and information gave me confidence that they wouldn't just walk away).

The first adventure went well. We all had fun, and they wanted to continue the campaign. The second adventure followed a similar pattern, but the location was a bit larger and I ran a bit more before they got there. We've just started the third, and I've openned things up a little bit more, but again I've given them a mission tied to a location. They just have a lot of flexibility about how to accomplish the mission and even quite a bit of flexibility in how to define the mission.

[Just Joe]

Amen. My game prep for years has consisted of deciding who the bad guys are, what they want to accomplish, how they plan to do it, and how they'll react to interference. Then I figure out the plot hook that will get the PCs involved. That's it. No plotline from A to B to C. I let the players take the lead and then improvise what happens; since I know the bad guys' plans and resources, it's easy to decide how they react (and to handle combat when it comes up)..
That sounds just right to me. That's my goal. I just don't always succeed.



At the same time, sometimes I throw my established scenario out the window when the players arrive at unexpected conclusions . . . Their theories were way more interesting than my initial zombie scenario...so I ran with it. They had a blast running and hiding and fighting MIBs and so forth before making their escape back to their own world three days later.
It sounds like you made an excellent call in this case, but I wouldn't want to do that too often. PC's ought to be wrong sometimes, and the truth can throw them for an interesting loop.

[Just Joe]

So the Players will be told of this event BEFORE gameplay starts... the PCs will be stuck with each other for a week or so. Hopefully, everyone at the table will build hooks that will allow the PCs to come out of that week with some kind of direction.

Besides one scene that I have planned to happen during the soggy week, I have NO idea where the game is going to go from there. I have the valley picked out.
This sounds like a great idea. I've tried something kind of like this before, but didn't do it well. I want to try something like it again some day. I have one suggestion. If you want the campaign to take place in that valley (at least for some considerable period of time), tell the players this up front and ask them to design characters who will be motivated to stay there. DNPC's tied to the region are one way to tie them down, but good players should be able to come up with all sorts of reasons to want to stick around -- at least for a while.

[Just Joe]

Please excuse my rambling on. I really do want to hear back from others -- I just keep thinking of more I want to say.

A cautionary tale about PC autonomy: I was once in a FH game in which early in the campaign, we captured an apparently evil wizard. In talking with him, we became persuaded that he was not evil after all, and agreed to help him. A long cross-country quest ensued, where we seemed to have few choices. In private, players would complain that the GM was railroading us, but we did not raise the issue with him. Much, much, later, we learned that the wizard WAS evil, that he had fast-talked us, and that the GM neither expected nor wanted the fast-talk to succeed. Unfortunately, we knew too little about his GMing style to know how much freedom we had and knew too little about the world to be able to tell whether the wizard's story was plausible. My conclusion is that PC autonomy is valuable, but good GM-player communication on the subject is important to.

I'll shut up now . . . really . . . I promise. :)

[Storn]

This sounds like a great idea. I've tried something kind of like this before, but didn't do it well. I want to try something like it again some day. I have one suggestion. If you want the campaign to take place in that valley (at least for some considerable period of time), tell the players this up front and ask them to design characters who will be motivated to stay there. DNPC's tied to the region are one way to tie them down, but good players should be able to come up with all sorts of reasons to want to stick around -- at least for a while.

I don't care. I don't know if the players will remain in the valley and pick through the political power vacuum & lawlessness after the 3 Barons War... or if they will skip towards Balder's Gate (which almost everyone knows from the Computer game) to seek fame and fortune. Either path (or even a third path) will be interesting to me, because I'm not letting myself get invested in the valley. So, I don't want to overly influence the players. Of course, a few or all the PCs could be locals... but I'll let that be the players choice.

This is the whole point of this campaign arc. To give as much control as I can to the players. I'm not expecting the PCs to stay in the valley. They might choose to do so... not sure.

I'm a good off-the-cuff GM a lot of the time (not all the time, I've had duds). I've got good players, especially Neil who can provide direction and drive for his PCs. And I like games that range over geography as well as games that stay put in one place. Its all good.

[Storn]

I should also say that I've been running this particular fantasy campaign off and on for 9 years or so. I tend to have a global outlook and many mini-arcs and campaigns have been done all over the map. So if the players go a-wanderin', I've a pretty good idea of what I've already thought about that particular region. And can adapt fairly quickly to the player's ideas. The "yes...but" approach. <g>

The valley I've picked is in area where not much has been done before. So, it allows me to flesh it out and allows the players to flesh it out a bit too.

[RDU Neil]

I agree up to a point. My two (related) concerns are:
1) As a GM, I regard myself as performing a service for the players, but I am not wholly selfless. If the mountain doesn't interest me, I'm not sure I'm going to run with it, and it's tough to make that call without some time to think it over, and
2) I might have some good ideas about nearby NPC's and places. If the PC's walk away from those toward a place that I have no ideas for, it might be less fun for them.

I know what you mean here... but what about this.

You have planned to have a local warlord trying to control a town... but the players aren't really heading toward that town, but toward the mountains...

... ok... suddenly, there is a village in the foothills and the local bandit lord is trying to occupy it.

Same plot... change the names on some characters, a couple of skills, and you are running the same game you intended to all along, only the players feel like they are "driving" the campaign and that the world is organic and complete.

Again... this kind of flexibility isn't easy... but it can be very rewarding. I find it much more easy than spending time mapping out every little spot, and making up every NPC. I keep things very general... and "insert as needed" depending on the flow of the game.

Again... YMMV.

[Toadmaster]

1) Do you understand the style of roleplaying I'm trying to get at?

2) Do you roleplay in this way?

3) Would you want to roleplay in this way?


Definately like this style although it is not that common in my opinion.

This is actually one of the reasons I so dislike "rules lite" storyteller style games, some of my best gaming experiences have occured after the rules (through funky rolls) have "screwed up" the story and taken it far from the path. One I recall was based on the old D&D Village of Hamlet, there is a minor villian NPC who through pure bad luck beat the party down in the final fight, the GM ended up fleshing this character out and he became a long running enemy thoughout the campaign.

In another game the party eneded up in the wilderness looking for a sage, I don't recall how it happened but it was a very minor plot device that we glommed onto and spent the next 2 or 3 sessions trekking through the wilderness we had a blast and later found out it was supposed to be a small diversion lasting maybe an hour but we were having such a good time the GM just went with it.

This also fits with my choice of CRPG's I hate games that go from A to B to C, give me something like Diablo 2 with all kinds of optional side stories, sure you could just complete the 6 missions in each stage but there are so many extras that you would miss.

[Supreme Serpent]

What they said. :)

I'm pretty goal-oriented as a player. ID bad guy, stop plot, rescue hostages, capture/kill bad guy. Adjust to plot/genre. I try to identify the GM's plot and move myself and the rest of the group into it. I don't want to ignore a story a GM has put a lot of work into if I can help it. We probably won't do it in the way the GM expected, but who has players that do that?

Left without a GM-generated plot, I am more than happy to go after my own/the group's goals. Mind, this could be as simple as "enjoy a day out on the town" or as long-term as "forge a kingdom out of the Shattered Lands". This type of player-driven plot requires a well-developed campaign universe, as people will need to know what's out there in order to know what they might want to interact with without having to ask the GM endless questions.

Either way, GM-player communication is crucial. If dealing with a group of players that needs a little more nudging, nudge. Nudge less as they catch on on their own. I have a friend who has come up with signs he holds up sometimes with a more passive group when he's giving information to ensure they don't go too far off track - "CLUE" "Flavor Text" "Red Herring" etc.

[Just Joe]

I'm pleased to see that I didn't accidentally kill my own thread by posting several times in a row. There are a bunch of new things I want to respond to, but I'll pick just a few now, and try to get to the others later.



I don't care. I don't know if the players will remain in the valley . . . I'm not letting myself get invested in the valley. So, I don't want to overly influence the players.

This is the whole point of this campaign arc. To give as much control as I can to the players. I'm not expecting the PCs to stay in the valley. They might choose to do so... not sure.

OK, I see now. I thought you had the dual goals of thoroughly developing a small region and giving the players control within that initial framework (That's what I'd like to try sometime). Rereading your initial post, I now better understand some of your suggested PC options that I thought might have insufficient ties to the valley.



I know what you mean here... but what about this.

You have planned to have a local warlord trying to control a town... but the players aren't really heading toward that town, but toward the mountains...

... ok... suddenly, there is a village in the foothills and the local bandit lord is trying to occupy it.

Same plot... change the names on some characters, a couple of skills, and you are running the same game you intended to all along, only the players feel like they are "driving" the campaign and that the world is organic and complete.
This is an interesting suggestion. In some ways, it is the antithesis of what I'm after -- the world is warping around the PC's rather than being affected by their actions in a natural way. And in some ways the players have only the illusion of freedom. On the other hand, the players do have freedom of a sort, and as long as they are free to respond to the bandit lord as they see fit (including, e.g., by fleeing), I can see this approach as being a good thing. In fact, I've just recently done something a little bit like this, but on a much smaller scale. Still, I would not want to make this my usual modus operandi.



Again... YMMV.
Um . . . sorry . . . what?

[RDU Neil]

YMMV

Your Milage May Vary

Means that you may not agree with what I'm saying, but hey, that's ok! Or... you may get a different result than I did, but that's to be expected. :)

Just a way of saying "I'm not telling you the RIGHT way to game... just making suggestions."

[Kirby]

1) Do you understand the style of roleplaying I'm trying to get at?

2) Do you roleplay in this way?

3) Would you want to roleplay in this way?
1) Yes.

2) Not with my current group, but I have been in two campaign that were like this (HERO Deadlands, and D&D Birthright).

3) I wouldn't mind, but it would have to be with a group that is pretty good at the role playing aspect. I definitely wouldn't have been able to do this my first 5-10 years of gaming, though. (But then again, I started when I was 13-14 years old.)

[RDU Neil]

3) I wouldn't mind, but it would have to be with a group that is pretty good at the role playing aspect. I definitely wouldn't have been able to do this my first 5-10 years of gaming, though. (But then again, I started when I was 13-14 years old.)

This is a good point. No matter what your preferences might be... it takes a level of experience with RPGs in general... plus maturity of experience in LIFE to really start expressing your preference well.

It didn't hit me "consciously" until a conversation during college. One friend ran a game while I wasn't there to GM... and the other friends HATED it... because nothing they did seemed to work, and they just got shafted. We actually talked with the friend-GM, and he stated, "No. I had written down exactly what needed to be done to figure out the plot, and they didn't do it, so they failed! I laid out clues and they missed them!"

"Missed a clue!" was our rallying cry for any time we thought we were getting screwed by a GM in the future.

I was flabbergasted at this comment... because it was so counter to my natural thinking... but I'd never had to really THINK about or EXPLAIN my thoughts before. We had an eight hour conversation until about 4:00 in the morning, arguing what was in retrospect, a very "P" vs. "J" issue.

These more extreme divisions are often an example of just lack of development in basic communication and differing POV, but they can shatter a game or a gaming group. The worst part is, it can take gamers a longn time to develop a conscious style. They may like one game, and not like another... but they can't really tell you why. It is hard to have a conversation like, "What do you want out of gaming? What is fun for you?" because they really haven't thought about it, and that kind of introspection isn't easy... and takes time to develop.

Best thing you can do is be aware of your preferences, and be alert to when your style is clashing with someone else.

(At the heart of it, this is what GNS is all about... but that's another thread.)

[Vengeance]

One friend ran a game while I wasn't there to GM... and the other friends HATED it... because nothing they did seemed to work, and they just got shafted. We actually talked with the friend-GM, and he stated, "No. I had written down exactly what needed to be done to figure out the plot, and they didn't do it, so they failed! I laid out clues and they missed them!"

"Missed a clue!" was our rallying cry for any time we thought we were getting screwed by a GM in the future.

Neil -- you failed to mention that we did not hate the game just because we "missed a clue", but also because Shawn created an entire team of supervillians to take advantage of every weakness our characters had. TJ takes 2x stun from sound attacks? Let's create a sonic energy blaster! Nobody has mental defense? Here's Pineal Hellfire, a flying mentalist! And, by they way, you're being evicted from your headquarters! That will teach you to "miss a clue"! :tsk:

But, on the other hand, at least he never ran an adventure where the GM transformed the entire team into characters with completely different powers and then, later, had to retract the entire adventure and say just forget it. Who did that one again? :stupid: Oh yeah, that was me.

Anyway, we're not all cut out to be good GMs. But some of us are lucky enough to play with good GMs like RDU Neil.

[tancred]

See the second half of my sig.

No, seriously. I learned a long time ago that I absolutely could NOT count on the players doing what I expected. No matter how obvious I thought my clues, the important ones would invariably be missed. And the little red herrings would nearly always be seized upon.

Our group's current Post-Apocalyptic Hero game is a classic example of precisely what you've described.
I have a bunch of important NPCs worked up, including what is about to become a recurring enemy. I have descriptions for their immediate surroundings, and sketchy notes on what's outside that.

Everything else is improvised, because I absolutely know my players will go off on a tangent with absolutely no warning to me. There's no point in over-planning this game, because it absolutely will not go precisely as I plan it.
The exceptions, of course, are for certain encounters. I can make sure that specific encounters will occur when I want them to. What I cannot control is how the players will react to them.

So the short version is, what you've described is how the majority of my games are run.

[Mike W]

I kinda know what you mean, Joe. When I GM I try to mix it up a bit. There are certain times where I use a very basic plothook just to get everyone together/going in a certain direction, whatever. Sometimes out of necessity(like a player misses a session in the middle of a multipart story and I have to either wait for them to get back or give the other players a very strong reason to go off in a different for a night). Other times, I just throw out different possibilities and see what happens. In the Champs game, the newspaper is good for this. I can throw out two or three stories that could lead to plots/fights/events and then see what the players latch onto. In that way, I suppose I'm still using plot hooks - but I'm giving the players an option of which hook they want to take.

[Just Joe]

We've talked a lot about PC control vs. GM control. How about the role of the rules and (especially) the dice? What I have in mind is not primarily cases in which the GM decides a roll is unnecessary because a task is too easy or unimportant, or makes a similar judgement call. What I do have in mind is when the GM fudges a roll because the roll was not what he wanted (e.g., a PC or major NPC would be killed in an insufficiently dramatic manner or at a time not to his liking) or suddenly decides not to use the optional bleeding rules he had been using all along for a similar reason.

I can't say with confidence that I never do this, but am extremely loathe to do so, and do not recall having done so in the past decade or so. I regard my dislike of fudging rolls as being related to my original post that started this thread, but I am not certain that all of you who have generally agreed with me so far share my opinion on this matter.

Do you?

[Mike W]

I try not to fudge rolls, however, when adapting a character from the comics, I have been known to fudge character sheets - either I realize I forgot to put something on the rough draft or I just upgrade something mid fight(usually defenses) because the character isn't quite performing the way he/she should in some way.

[RDU Neil]

I try not to fudge rolls, however, when adapting a character from the comics, I have been known to fudge character sheets - either I realize I forgot to put something on the rough draft or I just upgrade something mid fight(usually defenses) because the character isn't quite performing the way he/she should in some way.

Amen to all of that. NPCs get raised and lowered on the spot all the time. Dishing out too much damage... I just reduce it. Not sucking up damage like I thought? More stun and maybe Damage Reduction... on the spot. Experience with Hero means being able to flex like this in simple ways, invisible to the players.

Fudging rolls... ever since introducing my Luck Chit system, I've rarely needed to. With this system, rerolls can be controlled openly... special circumstances happen by spending a limited resource (a luck chit) and so are not "fudging" but part of the rules. In a gritty Heroic level game, players learn to save them for throwing that block they would have otherwised not been able to throw... or to stabilize when they would otherwise bleed out.

You can do a search for my Luck Chit rules. They've been posted a number of times, and many people have adapted them to their own games. I highly recommend it, as it takes a lot of the "crap, the dice just aren't helping the story" elements out of the game... but still leave all the elements of chance... just reducing the really extreme stuff.

[Agemegos]

1) Do you understand the style of roleplaying I'm trying to get at?

Yes, I think so.


2) Do you roleplay in this way?

Sometimes. One of my friends (Anthony) sometimes runs campaigns in which we just explore the rich social and historical detail with which he lards his settings. I remember one in which we went in to a tribal part of Mars to help the Martians defend themselves against the Belgians, and had a very fine time for many weeks without so much as seeing a Belgian. Just discovering how that tribe did things, and what problems they had, and what their territory was like was quite fascinating.

I tend, however, not to run things that way: I have a different plotless approach. I structure my adventures by choosing an antagonist for the PCs, a conflict, and a crucible, and then turning up the pressure, bearing in mind that incident arises out of character, and seeing what emerges. The adventures end up in dramatic form, but the plot is improvised between me and the character-players as we go along.

However, I have run one successful and well-received adventure in the format you describe. One of the the PCs bought a peculiar sword in a pawn-shop in Tau Ceti, and the PCs had quite some adventures discovering the anthropological curiosities of Paradise II before they managed to establish its provenance (it had been made on Old Earth by a master swordsmith of the 21st century as a prop for the first holovision remake of The Princess Bride.)


3) Would you want to roleplay in this way?

I enjoy it as a character-player, but I don't think it is my forte as GM.

[BNakagawa]

1 sure

2 sure

3 sure

I love playing characters for the sake of playing them. I like it if my Pc has a purpose in life, but I don't mind it if the game doesn't revolve around it. Some of them, in fact, I would prefer if they never achieve their goals. Searching and questing is often more satisfying than finding and completing, IMO.

[zornwil]

1) Do you understand the style of roleplaying I'm trying to get at?

Absolutely, see below.


2) Do you roleplay in this way?

This is how I played as well coming out of D&D. Very much the same path, so I extended this as GM. However, I don't do so now so much, see below.


3) Would you want to roleplay in this way?

Depends, I certainly would depending on the game.

However, running entirely with plot threads created just from acting out as one goes along do lack some thematic coherency. In a very broad way, I can tell you how I have played this out across 3 major Champions campaigns:

Campaign 1 - made up a world background that was thin/simple, just made up stories as it went along; fun, chaotic, more Hack n Slash, stories grew out of events as we went along and came to a satisfying climax

Campaign 2 - made up a more extensive world, presented a simple plot to kick off the game, made up some choices as we went along, grew the larger plots more "ground-up" through events; very good game, enjoyed, ended just due to moving and all that; theme developed as it went along, became more coherent on that front

Campaign 3 (current) - more plot-intensive but also very fluid; heavy mutants theme

I think it just depends on how thematic and how "coherent" you want it to be across time. Of course it's both a matter of degree as well as working the details to keep some coherency no matter which way you go, I'm not suggesting you can't have a coherent "non-plot" game but I do think that any well-run game like this will quickly develop several plots that become dominant, perhaps even a central theme. It is fun to evolve it rather than plan it. This current campaign is the one where I've most engineered a meta-plot and I'm glad I've done it but wouldn't always do so.

[GOmezy3k]

I much prefer this kind of game. I like it when the PC's are able to move around, explore, if they need money they go out and thump some bad guys and steal thier stash or get jobs to earn it. If they want to create thier own private little kingdom, great...then comes the part where they have to maintain and keep it from others who want what they have... Lots more plots to work with, and a much more enjoyable game.

I dislike games where the whole purpose is to save the world from some great evil and the PC's must fight overwhelming bad guys to get to the final mega-powered ultimate evil guy and defeat him/her/it to save the world... Yawn...been there, done that in every computer game/game box game/RPG Module I have played...

[Markdoc]

But, on the other hand, at least he never ran an adventure where the GM transformed the entire team into characters with completely different powers and then, later, had to retract the entire adventure and say just forget it.

Ahh, cheer up - once long ago, I did a bad, bad thing. I ran an adventure where all the much loved, cherished characters ended up dead in a variety of nasty ways. The next session (yeah, there was next session) I start with "You wake up..."

Yep, it was all a bad dream - or more accurately, a dream illusion tossed at them by an anguish-eating demon. You could smell the pants-wetting feeling of relief :)

And for me, it reduced the "I'm so tough you can smash rocks on my groin" machismo which some of the players had been developing and which had been interfering with the game.

cheers, Mark

[Nyrath]

Instead of the game master writing the plot, it is possible to have the players effectively writing the plot by using the dramatic hook (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18507) technique.

[Ken Solo]

In my experience one does not need a plot, so much as a setting for good play.
If I can get a campaign to last so long, it should go through three stages. The first is introduction of the world. If this is D&D type fantasy (a continual favorite among players) than this will involve a few On The Road adventures. That is quests that force the PCs to go to different places so I can have the opportunity to describe it to them. In a modern setting where the world is mostly Whats Out The Window, these first plots will involves meeting those institutions that are NOT in the real world. Superheroes quickly meet agents of PRIMUS.
In both these cases I am not necessarily railroading the PC to go to a particular place, I just force them to GO SOMEWHERE!! If the fantasy world, since it is ALL new, where ever they go will need to be described. In Superhero/Modern the world tends to catch up with anyone that causes a rucus.
The next stage of the campaign is to let loose the reigns even more now that the thing has some momentum. The PCs have surely made enemies who will be looking for revenge, and some player will want to follow up on a clue dropped many sessions ago. At a base level, someone will probably want to improve his/her character. Whether it be by developing a new spell, getting training in a skill he did not have, building a stronghold, or siezing political power each of these things can be made into an adventure.
Finally, when the PCs have a good handle on the world and are powerful enough to influence it dramaticly, they almost have to be proactive, and my job is simply to determine how things would pan out given the setting.

From the begining I try to have as many things going on as possible in the world, more than the PCs can ever follow up on. In my Champions game this is easily done by publishing a newspaper with stories ripped from the real world next to game world developments. The paper could also be totaly ignored by the PCs because they have more personal concerns.
By way of example: The most recent Champions campaign started with various minor plots bringing the PCs together at a government lab. Then an alien ship showed up to kidnap the whole lot of 'em. They got to work together against the minor villan who brought them together, then riddle out the reason the ship was depopulated, while getting a crash course in how heavily populated the galaxy is. Once back on Earth, their dramatic reenty attracted the attention of EVERYONE, so they became associated with the U.S. Army, PRIMUS, M.E.T.E., several news people and so on. Then I started a supernatural plot that introduced an NPC hero (and the existance of several supernatural bad guys) After that they discovered they spaceship had been stripped of tech and a mysterious tunnel from there hundreds of miles to Cleveland.
All the while the newspaper was covering the story of Dr. Destroyers mercenary army trying to sieze Argentina, and a new religion sweeping America, and bubbling of trouble from Atlantis. What will the PCs do? I don't have a clue, but it does not matter whatever they decide because it all leads to good gaming fun.
And, it gives a sense that the world is not frozen, waiting for the PCs to arrive. (Like the old D&D dungeons where a monster stays in a room till the PCs open the door?!?)
All I did was create a setting.

[Just Joe]

Instead of the game master writing the plot, it is possible to have the players effectively writing the plot by using the dramatic hook (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18507) technique.Before I checked out the link, I thought it was going to be about the use of ordinary plot hooks, which I regard as a valuable tool in the GM toolkit, but which I fear is too often mis- and over-used. Once I clicked on the link, I got what it was about. I've heard about something like this, and I'm glad it exists for those who want it, but it is nearly the antithesis of what I personally want out of roleplaying.