I’ve been enjoying reading some of Justin Alexander’s articles over at his site “The Alexandrian” and I especially like his article on Prepping Without Plots.

In his words a plot is a sequence of events: A happens, then B happens, then C happens. (In more complicated forms, the sequence of events might fork like a Choose Your Own Adventure book, but the principle remains the same.)

“On their voyage they will spot a derelict. They will board the derelict and discover that one of the villains has transformed into a monster and killed the entire crew… except for one lone survivor. They will fight the monster and rescue the survivor. While they’re fighting the monster, the derelict will have floated into the territorial waters of Tharsis.“

A situation, on the other hand, is merely a set of circumstances. The events that happen as a result of that situation will depend on the actions the PCs take.

“A situation, on the other hand, looks like this: ‘The villains have escaped on two ships heading towards Tharsis. One of the villains transforms during the voyage into a terrible monster and kills the crew, leaving the ship floating as a derelict outside the coastal waters of Tharsis. At such-and-such a time, the ship will be spotted by the Tharsis navy.’“

He goes on to say that in a plotted adventure we are looking at a chain of potential points of failure. Opportunities for the players to break away from the plotted action and if that happens the GM is expected to railroad the players back on track.

I agree with most of what he says, but rather than always have three possible clues (or paths) at choke points I would recommend assuming that the players might fail or avoid the choke point. Either remove the choke point (and to be fair Mr Alexander talks about this in his Three Clue Rule article) or be prepared that they might miss it and so skip certain events. This unpredictability should be welcomed. It keeps things uncertain and the players know that there are no guarantees. This motivates the players to carefully consider their actions and gives them a greater sense of freedom and control over their lives. As a GM it might be hard to accept that a lot of hard work and planning might be skipped. There are three solutions to this that come immediately to mind.

1. Avoid choke points and points of no return as much as possible.

2. Don’t put too much effort into any one challenge, conflict or NPC as it might never come to pass.

3. When preparing keep in mind that the players might not be directly involved and consider how the events might affect them second hand. Perhaps they will get to explore the aftermath?

I totally agree about goal-oriented opponents though!

“Instead of trying to second-guess what your PCs will do and then trying to plan out specific reactions to each possibility, simply ask yourself, ‘What is the bad guy trying to do?’“

To his list of objectives and timeline I would also suggest a relationship map as described previously. I really like this article and just have to quote this bit which I wish I’d read when I was a young an overly ambitious GM.

“But you’re not programming a computer game. You’re prepping a scenario for a roleplaying game. When the PCs choose to do X or Y or Z (or A or B or C), you don’t need a pre-programmed reaction. You’re sitting right there at the table with them. You can just react.“

As a corollary I note that Mr Alexander’s “Proactive Clues” (A.K.A. Bash Them On the Head With It. ) is in direct conflict with Mr Raggi’s advice on pacing which can be distilled as “Do nothing and force the players to come up with something”. Personally I think there is a time for both approaches, but I feel like a coward for taking that road. Instead let me suggest that leaving the players bored and stranded is never a good thing, but when you do present “proactive clues” they should come at a cost.

Over at Observations of the Fox there is an interesting read about Pulling on the Strings where he talks about how have many choices can be likened with being pulled in different directions by forces of varying power. It is a good read and so shall not be repeated here, but shows how important it is to have many ongoing plots and potential paths for the players to take.

The players can of course go in any direction, but if you design a few interesting choices and hint at further vague opportunities they are likely to follow one of those paths. The more choices you give them the more they will feel like masters of their own fate. As they realise that they can take the game in any direction they like they will get more invested. When they also realise that they can miss opportunities, plots and rewards, or walk into impossible odds, they will start paying careful attention too.

After all the posts on adventure writing it might be time to think about the place of random encounters. Do they have a place or do they just get in the way of the “real” adventure?

Well, that depends…

Sometimes it is fun to inject an unconnected and more or less random encounter, but only when interesting and it adds to the drama. A random encounter should spice things up, make the world come alive or at least provide an entertaining diversion or worthwile challenge.  Thus they cannot be entirely random. Also, the encounter must be tailored to the location so as to make sense according to the setting and game genre (although it does not have to make sense to the players at the time of the encounter).

These semi-random encounters can be inspired from a random encounter table, drawn from a stack of pre-sketched scenes or be a spur of the moment thing. Regardless how they come about they should never be allowed to trip up the momentum of the story. Don’t bog down a game session with pointless obstacles that prevent the players from pursuing their goals. However, random encounters such as these can help to dispel any feeling the players have that everything is pre-planned and has a “purpose” that they must discover.

Finally, be creative with random encounters. Allies, opportunities and good fortune should be as likely as enemies, challenges and bad luck, unless of course they are travelling through “the valley of despair” and you want to hammer home that point. Try to introduce encounters as events already unfolding and most of the time leave the players a choice whether to engage or not. So, if they are going to be ambushed by bandits then those bandits should be an interesting band of men. Perhaps, for example, led by a jovial man with some peculiar etiquette of honour that may lead to a match of wits instead of the expected bloodshed. They might come upon the bandits as they are torturing some captives and if the players intervene it may turn out that the bandits are actually spies in disguise scouting ahead of a larger invasion. Go for the spectacular and memorable with random encounters and don’t force them on the players.

James Edward Raggi writes in his Guide to Adventure Writing that floating locations are worse than railroading because they are dishonest in their method.

An example of a floating location is an adventure that unfolds in whichever inn the characters stop at.

While this is a valid concern it should not be a big problem if not used to force players down a path. A floating location (or event) that will give the players a choice and does not railroad them towards a specific outcome should be fine as long as it is not overused. However, do not use this to block the players or force them down a certain path. Also, be prepared that they can ignore the plot hook and once the “floating location” has been established in one location it has become corporeal and real. It is now associated with that place.