How to run a story based game

[Dark Ass4ssin 1]

So my group has just concluded what we all agreed to be the final (for now) arc of a sort of sandbox game. They all wanted to build new characters and have a new world to explore. I have no problem DMing games, in fact, I enjoy doing it. The problem is I want to tell a long story that the player follow from a low level all the defeat of the BBEG. A simple, tried and true idea, but I have always ran sandbox games and the transition seems daunting. In sandbox arcs are chased at the players leisure until something hits the fan and they have to conclude it on a timer. In story based games the fan is always hit. I just need to know how to properly progress the story and keep it interesting.

Thankyou guys.

[Finieous]

Run a sandbox but add events that pose a dramatic question (or questions) that will take all campaign to answer. Then create plot hooks for your sandbox that intersect with that dramatic question in various ways. Give the PCs a stake in the answer, and then let them figure out how to answer it.

[OrlockDelesian]

Writting a timeline of events always helped me. For example at the fourth day of october the bbg will raze a village. If the pcs are far away they eill see the smoke. If they are there they will fight his minions and might save the town. Do this for a full campaign, but remember to leave a few downtime activities between events else your playersmight feel trapped

[Specter]

One thing I can say is to leave some hooks open and see where they'll bite, especially at first. Sometimes DMs make only one path in their campaign, only to find players want to go elsewhere.

[Dark Ass4ssin 1]

Thanks for the responses

Ok so I will keep a few hooks out there, and the idea of keeping a closer look on time seem really cool. I think the time thing would really add a missing element from my sandbox as far as making the world a living breathing place even if the players aren't there to activate it.

The thing I still want help on is the transition from smaller hooks to the big story, and how often the main arc should be interrupted tp follow fun plots. I also would plan for many of the smaller hooks to inadvertently play a role in the bigger crisis, benefiting the players if they did or did not do something, and showing them what could have been on the other hand.

[kyoryu]

Run a sandbox but add events that pose a dramatic question (or questions) that will take all campaign to answer. Then create plot hooks for your sandbox that intersect with that dramatic question in various ways. Give the PCs a stake in the answer, and then let them figure out how to answer it.

This, except I prefer plot grenades to plot hooks.

[Temperjoke]

Having an open sandbox world is fine, you can have that and a story line focus. The trick of it is is to have a story compelling enough to keep the players focused on it. Make the main story personal to each of them. Tie the story to their backgrounds. To help keep them focused, don't go into overwhelming detail on the places they visit. Don't create lots of openings at every small village; if it doesn't relate to the main story somehow, then it's not important. Don't let the villain be some abstract thing out "there", keep the villain a part of everything they do; tantalize the players, tease them. Leave clues hidden on defeated minions, bigger clues on more important minions. You're used to creating sandboxes, use that. A BBEG usually doesn't exist in a vacuum, he has a network of spies, of cannon fodder, important lieutenants. He (or she) will have smaller goals in various areas that all relate to a larger objective. Regular people will know things too, or at least, know where to not poke their noses.

[Finieous]

Just wanted to add that the dramatic question doesn't have to be "Can the BBEG be stopped?" or "Can the world be saved from the BBEG?" There may be no BBEG. Maybe the dramatic question is: "The king, who some considered a usurper, has been poisoned by his incestuous wife and a war of succession is brewing among the great houses. Who will prevail, and can the kingdom survive?" Someone could probably make a decent fantasy story out of that dramatic question.

[Temperjoke]

Just wanted to add that the dramatic question doesn't have to be "Can the BBEG be stopped?" or "Can the world be saved from the BBEG?" There may be no BBEG. Maybe the dramatic question is: "The king, who some considered a usurper, has been poisoned by his incestuous wife and a war of succession is brewing among the great houses. Who will prevail, and can the kingdom survive?" Someone could probably make a decent fantasy story out of that dramatic question.

Meh, it's been done. I think that also tends to be a little too close to sandbox-style too, since there's less focus on a central thread.

[Finieous]

Meh, it's been done.

:smallbiggrin:

It's all been done. The question is how you do it, or rather, how you set it up and how the players do it.

[Knaight]

From a practical perspective, story games require a fundamentally different type of prep work. You still want to know the setting, but what matters in it varies. There are two big ways to do this, one of which is way more railroady than the other.

Event Mapping - In this one (the more railroady one), you basically have a series of distinct events that happen planned out, involving what goes on with the various sides. These events can be graphically represented by little bubbles. Then, you figure out paths between the events, which are conditional states influenced by the PCs. As an example, lets take the really basic fantasy trope of some great evil building an army and invading a bunch of kingdoms that don't get along with each other particularly well. Somewhere in that event map might be the event - "Somewhereton loses a great battle against Badguyplace". It could then branch in a few directions. One branch might be "News of King Somebody of Somewhereton's death reaches Somewhereton, and a succession war starts". The link between these could be the king dying, and that information getting to Somewhereton, and that link could easily be affected by the PCs. Another link could be "King Somebody is returned home quickly, and prepares for a defensive war", which would have a link where he doens't die, and whatever was preventing him from getting home quickly goes away. Yet another link could be him escaping to some neutral territory. All of these can terminate in different areas, and all can continue the fight against the BBEG.

To minimize the railroad potential of this, it's worth remembering that your events and especially your links aren't the only things that can happen. If the players find a shortcut that would get to an event through an unexpected path, don't squelch it. If they do something which you don't have an event for, make a new event, figure out how it ties in, and move on. The point is, you're basically building a network of events for which any path through is a story, and that leads to a story based game.

Actor Networks - This is basically the thing I've been explaining occasionally that I call Roster Response, but the short version is that you have a bunch of people, significant organizations, and basically other things that are either significant actors that affect what happens in a setting, or aspects of a setting that drive conflict. Then, you assign them all goals, figure out how they are all connected, and just get something going. You want at least some of them to be doing active things and not passively responding, and all of them to at least have the potential to do that if things change. Then, you work in the PCs, and let the players go, while having all of the actors advancing their agendas simultaneously. It's a bit messier and harder to operate, and the story that comes out is emergent, but it avoids the railroad problem. You can bring in some of the event mapping structure as well if you work better with a more structured game, by having defined trigger conditions for actors doing things. For instance, if King Somebody dies, Somewhereton experiences a succession crisis. Maybe he dies, maybe he doesn't. Maybe they experience a succession crisis anyways because of something else. Maybe that particular trigger condition is disarmed somehow, because whatever could cause the succession crisis is gone, or something else is caused that prevents it.

[2D8HP]

Just wanted to add that the dramatic question doesn't have to be "Can the BBEG be stopped?" or "Can the world be saved from the BBEG?" There may be no BBEG. Maybe the dramatic question is: "The king, who some considered a usurper, has been poisoned by his incestuous wife and a war of succession is brewing among the great houses. Who will prevail, and can the kingdom survive?" Someone could probably make a decent fantasy story out of that dramatic question.
I think it needs Dragons in it, because everything is better with dragons!
Just sayin'. :smallsmile:

[kyoryu]

I think it needs Dragons in it, because everything is better with dragons!
Just sayin'. :smallsmile:

But no other races. No elves, no dwarfs.

Okay, one dwarf.

[kyoryu]

On topic: This was written for Fate, but it's mostly applicable here as well.

https://plus.google.com/+RobertHanz/posts/K2E4ivswdQZ

[Grod_The_Giant]

excellent advice
Listen to this man, he knows what's up.

When I do a game, I try to plot out roughly what the factions are and what they're up to. Then I drop my players right in front of a plot hook and start rolling.

I have a few ideas of where I want to go, things I want to foreshadow, but I never write more than a session ahead. For each individual game, I come up with a few key scenes (fights, confrontations, etc), but intentionally leave the connections black-- I'll have notes like "after some investigating, the players find X." I try to leave the end of each season open. The game goes, the players reach the end and make a decision, and we break for a week while I work out the next thing that happens. It's worked for years no and no-one's figured it out yet :p

[Theodoxus]

Listen to this man, he knows what's up.

When I do a game, I try to plot out roughly what the factions are and what they're up to. Then I drop my players right in front of a plot hook and start rolling.

I have a few ideas of where I want to go, things I want to foreshadow, but I never write more than a session ahead. For each individual game, I come up with a few key scenes (fights, confrontations, etc), but intentionally leave the connections black-- I'll have notes like "after some investigating, the players find X." I try to leave the end of each season open. The game goes, the players reach the end and make a decision, and we break for a week while I work out the next thing that happens. It's worked for years no and no-one's figured it out yet :p

Grod, you are my doppleganger :)

[2D8HP]

I try to leave the end of each season open. The game goes, the players reach the end and make a decision, and we break for a week while I work out the next thing that happens. It's worked for years no and no-one's figured it out yet :p
Since Im mostly using published adventures now that I've retuned to the hobby so I don't know if it would still be true, but long ago I found that the less I prepaid and mapped out, and the more I improvised on the spot, the more my players liked it.

[Dark Ass4ssin 1]

From a practical perspective, story games require a fundamentally different type of prep work. You still want to know the setting, but what matters in it varies. There are two big ways to do this, one of which is way more railroady than the other.

Event Mapping - In this one (the more railroady one), you basically have a series of distinct events that happen planned out, involving what goes on with the various sides. These events can be graphically represented by little bubbles. Then, you figure out paths between the events, which are conditional states influenced by the PCs. As an example, lets take the really basic fantasy trope of some great evil building an army and invading a bunch of kingdoms that don't get along with each other particularly well. Somewhere in that event map might be the event - "Somewhereton loses a great battle against Badguyplace". It could then branch in a few directions. One branch might be "News of King Somebody of Somewhereton's death reaches Somewhereton, and a succession war starts". The link between these could be the king dying, and that information getting to Somewhereton, and that link could easily be affected by the PCs. Another link could be "King Somebody is returned home quickly, and prepares for a defensive war", which would have a link where he doens't die, and whatever was preventing him from getting home quickly goes away. Yet another link could be him escaping to some neutral territory. All of these can terminate in different areas, and all can continue the fight against the BBEG.

To minimize the railroad potential of this, it's worth remembering that your events and especially your links aren't the only things that can happen. If the players find a shortcut that would get to an event through an unexpected path, don't squelch it. If they do something which you don't have an event for, make a new event, figure out how it ties in, and move on. The point is, you're basically building a network of events for which any path through is a story, and that leads to a story based game.

Actor Networks - This is basically the thing I've been explaining occasionally that I call Roster Response, but the short version is that you have a bunch of people, significant organizations, and basically other things that are either significant actors that affect what happens in a setting, or aspects of a setting that drive conflict. Then, you assign them all goals, figure out how they are all connected, and just get something going. You want at least some of them to be doing active things and not passively responding, and all of them to at least have the potential to do that if things change. Then, you work in the PCs, and let the players go, while having all of the actors advancing their agendas simultaneously. It's a bit messier and harder to operate, and the story that comes out is emergent, but it avoids the railroad problem. You can bring in some of the event mapping structure as well if you work better with a more structured game, by having defined trigger conditions for actors doing things. For instance, if King Somebody dies, Somewhereton experiences a succession crisis. Maybe he dies, maybe he doesn't. Maybe they experience a succession crisis anyways because of something else. Maybe that particular trigger condition is disarmed somehow, because whatever could cause the succession crisis is gone, or something else is caused that prevents it.

This was a very helpful post thankyou!

I think I will try to plan around the latter option as it seems to play more to the strengths of my dm style. I also love the idea of several things coming together in real time after the players impact, or lack thereof, on that thing.

One more thing I was wondering was how often should the players have these hooks shown to them? Should they all be there all the time, progressing on their own meaning the players have to tackle what they see as important, or should they be revealed in smaller amounts sequentially giving the players more control over everything that happens?

[Theodoxus]

This was a very helpful post thankyou!

I think I will try to plan around the latter option as it seems to play more to the strengths of my dm style. I also love the idea of several things coming together in real time after the players impact, or lack thereof, on that thing.

One more thing I was wondering was how often should the players have these hooks shown to them? Should they all be there all the time, progressing on their own meaning the players have to tackle what they see as important, or should they be revealed in smaller amounts sequentially giving the players more control over everything that happens?

That really depends on how much agency you describe to the heroes of your story. Do they have free will or they constrained by fate/destiny? Personally, I like running games akin to Baldur's Gate, where the players are (generally unbeknownst to them) the agents of some powerful godlike entity(s). But I also like bringing in gods to mess with players - sometimes minor godlings, sometimes greater... I find it more fun to be Percy Jackson rather than Samwise Gamgee... but that's me - you'll need to answer this for your own group...

[Ronnoc]

When it comes to running story focused games I always find it helps to remember that your big bad is a character too. What I mean by that is the big bad should not just be the face for the gm's plot, instead try plotting your campaign in reverse. If the big bad wants to achieve his goals what steps does he or she have to take? What are their strengths and weaknesses. Who are their rivals? Allies? Who do they care about, what are they willing (or not) to sacrifice to achieve their goals. Once you have the answers to those questions start dropping rumors and other plot hooks for the players that will guide them towards confrontation along one of threads.

[Gtdead]

I think the most important thing is having constraints. Since this is a transition to a different type of game, perhaps there will be some lag till the players come to terms with it.
One thing that my DM does is creating chaos with multiple arcs and angles, but keeps us on the straight and narrow. This way there are a lot of things happening, but we don't bother with all of them.

For a session 0, I created a small prologue for the DM that will bring our party together.

The story was linear and singular.
I was a cleric on an exploration ship that was caring for the patient zero of an eventual epidemic outbreak. Those inflicted would seemingly become zombies.
Our necromancer wizard would take notice and start inspecting the victims. It would turn out that they weren't zombies, but instead possessed bodies that mumbled prayers.
Then, when we were finished containing the outbreak, we would go to the island that my team was exploring, and we would find out that there was a dead god, who's followers created a plague that possessed bodies and made them followers of their god. This way they hoped to ressurect him.

We played this for a bit, mostly to get a grip on the new mechanics and introduce the game to new players.


Then the DM took that story, reseted it, made the plague a random event, added 4 factions, 2 that tried to contain it, 1 was a bunch of cultists that tried to use it for malevolent reasons, and 1 that tried to use it to destabilize the government. Made the High Cleric the leader of the cultists, added a random artifact on the island that would eventually lead to a completely different ark, but we find it "by luck" and leads us searching for the remains of an ancient civilization. It's still pretty much linear, but it's chaotic enough to trick us into thinking that we have many more options that we actually have. The real issue here is that while we could pursue all of these arks, we have time constraints, because the government progressively destabilizes, a riot erupts, we are be under constant threat and in the mean time, there is an army marching at the gates. We are under pressure all the time, getting grimmer and grimmer news, forcing us to deal with what seems more pressing at this particular time. We don't have time to hunt down the High Cleric, or bother with ancient civilizations, if we want to retain our connections, survive the approaching battle etc.

[Knaight]

One more thing I was wondering was how often should the players have these hooks shown to them? Should they all be there all the time, progressing on their own meaning the players have to tackle what they see as important, or should they be revealed in smaller amounts sequentially giving the players more control over everything that happens?

It depends. If they decide to closely monitor some organization or individual or other, they're likely to catch a great deal of them, particularly anything that isn't explicitly covert in the first place. If they're not paying attention, they might only notice after the fact, if at all. As an example, I ran a game once where the PCs were basically the irregulars associated with a merchants guild. They were paying a decent amount of attention to the nobles, and so picked up on some of their politicking and were able to warn the merchants guild to adjust for the trade changes. Meanwhile, about half of what they saw as bizarre and unexplained changes was caused by a smugglers group that they knew existed, but which pretty much sailed under their noses until a chance meeting.

That chance meeting? That would be a GM decision, and I do think it's useful to consider coincidences one of your tools. It also helps with things feeling too deterministic, where everything is caused by one of the actors or other. Sometimes the leader of the nearby mercenary company just has a heart attack, abruptly changing the situation in a way nobody saw coming. Sometimes there's a sudden storm, with all that implies. These are essentially your main tools to try and couple your world simulation task with your narrative flow task, as is choosing which of several viable options the actors take. If they could go either way, pick the one that gets the PCs more involved and is more interesting.