PDA

View Full Version : Best of both worlds? Episodic play and open worlds



Yora
2016-09-03, 06:15 AM
I want to eat my cake and have it, too. I am a big fan of Sword & Sorcery like Conan, Elric, Kane, or the first two Witcher books. I also think the ideal kind of campaign is one where the players can determine their goals to some extent and creating relationships with the people they meet, be it as allies or enemies. They also have a sense of continuity that makes the goals and survival of the characters more meaningful.
But classic Sword & Sorcery tales tend to cover a few days at most and see the hero ride off into the sunset, with the next tale taking places some months or years later in a completely different part of the world. A great thing about it in an RPG is that people can drop in and out quite easily and you get a lot of excitement and action into every session. But it's the opposite of an open world. You can't have both things at the same time.

I am looking for some way to run a campaign that instead would attempt to capture most of the positive aspects and make them work together. And I am not quite sure how.
I think that it's usually a good idea to not attempt to emulate episodic Sword & Sorcery stories too closely in an RPG. Many of these stories start right were the action begins but they also have some backstory on how the heroes came to the place and what is motivating them to poke around despite the clear danger. Stories tend to skip that part to get the maximum amount of excitement on a limited amount of pages, but I think in an RPG it's important that players play that part themselves instead of the GM giving them a summary of their character's previous actions. Even if the action is reduced to 3 hours instead of 4, that one hour of buildup makes he rest much more meaningful to the players.

What I find the most challenging is how to include NPCs the players already know and who mean something to them. If the adventures take place in different locations in a large region it would be implausible to regularly run into the same people.
One option might be to regularly use rival adventurers and keep track of which ones the players had significant interaction and who survived the adventure. But that would only be recognizing NPCs they randomly run into. .This would not allow the players to use them as contacts they could call on.
Maybe have each player create a hadful of NPCs their characters already know which the GM then flashes out and puts into the game when an opportunity shows up?

Another thing would be decision making. In episodic play you usually create a situation that is presented to the players and then they have to explore or investigate until they find what they are meant to find. It tends to be a very reactive approach as the players are concerned, with them waiting until an obvious plot hook falls into their lap. It's okay, but I always find campaigns much more engaging when the players have considerable control over what kind of things they are doing. The heroes in Sword & Sorcery tales do just that, but it's what's happening between the stories. To these heroes the setting is an open world and their decisions determine the adventures they run into. To capture the spirit of these stories I think the players need to have some control over this. But I really have no idea how to do that in practice.

Cluedrew
2016-09-03, 11:02 AM
OK a few thoughts:

Let the between episode story be decided by the players. So they save the day and ride off into the sunset. Then they can decide they travel north, following the river of wolves, chasing rumours of a necromancer who is fleeting the Knights of the Moon. The next episode might not even be necromancer depending on how much overarching plot you want. But the next episode will probably start them asking questions about her in a tavern in a small fishing village.

As for re-occurring NPCs. Maybe they travel with people? There may be supernatural beings that can just be wherever they need to be that they might run into. Or use organizations instead of individuals. Maybe a character wins respect from a particular religion, or has worked with a wide spread trading company enough times that even the members that have never met them know about them.

That is all I have for now.

Yora
2016-09-03, 11:48 AM
Organizations instead of individuals is a great idea. Not quite the same thing, but still quite close and very easy to implement. Then you can have NPCs of that group mention that an NPC from a previous adventure has told them about what the party did for them. Or to them.
When a town has a base of an organization, it also makes a pretty good excuse when the party runs into NPCs they last met in a completely different place. They are there on business for their group or have been redeployed there in the meantime.

Another thing I've been thinking about today is to perhaps prepare such a campaign in a very modular way. For example, after the first adventure is over and the PC's job is done, the GM gives them three rumors about places that have some kind of trouble the party might be able to deal with. If you have a regular group you can have them make the choice at the end of the session so you have more time to prepare the one they picked, but if you run a campaign with alternating players they can also make the choice at the start of the next session. Once that second scenario is done the GM prepares a new one so that there are again three choices for the next one. If one rumor isn't followed up on by the players more than two or three times you can update it for a higher level party and come up with a new rumor, and maybe switch some of the factions to groups that the players have come to care about.

It requires a bit more preparation than a linear series of one shots but you still have to prepare less than for a sandbox campaign and end up with much less content that ends up completely unused.

Does it go into quantum ogre territory? Yes, it does a bit. If you keep giving the players always new rumors to get them to visit the same dungeon they didn't want to go to in the past it is in some way negating their choices. But these aren't really meaningful choices. It's not that the players know about the dungeon layout and its inhabitants and decide that they don't want that. When they pick a rumor to investigate they pick what kind of adventure they are feeling like right now and what their character's motivations are to do so. Two groups going into an identical dungeon will have quite different experiences based on what they assume they will find and what they hope to accomplish there. If you have location based modules the players have considerable influence over what kind of adventure their characters will be going on. The players gain agency to determine the mood and purpose of their expedition, even if the floorplans, treasure, and monster placement are the same regardless. If the GM prepares a situation instead of a plot it's also quite easy to make some of the factions more friendly or hostile towards the players to accomodate their wishes what kind of adventure they want to go on.

To get the Sword & Sorcery atmosphere of traveling an exotic world there would not be a single home base but instead the party travels between towns that can be in vastly different and removed regions of the setting with a time skip of a few month inbetween. But to also get some continuity, not every single module would have to have it's own town. Sometimes rumors the players get at the end of the last adventure might be about something in the same region or even in a region where they have been before in the past.

Regarding the actual modules themselves, I would go pretty oldschool. Simple one dungeon, castle, or small island that can be fully explored in one to three sessions. Each one has multiple groups of inhabitants that are in some kind of conflicts and might be hostile or helpful to the party depending on how the first encounter goes.
The rumors would be things like "There have been reports that a town is under attack by monsters from the forest and the lord has send out a call for heroes to help them", "an old adventurer tells a story of how he once found a ruin but had to flee for his life and never went back despite the signs of treasures", or "smoke has been rising from behind the mountains for three days".

Thrudd
2016-09-03, 01:44 PM
The episodic modular approach I think is the best way. I would use a central home location for the characters, a city or a connected series of settlements, to which they always return in between adventures.

One way to address the changing roster of players is to have a pool of characters available for each player to choose from. In world, this may be represented as an adventurers guild or a band of explorers or a loose confederation of acquainted adventurers who fund and plan expeditions when they have the opportunity. The organization would also function as an information gathering service, collecting rumors and information. If it is a guild, of sorts, you may even allow characters to share recovered treasure between them. Each game session, whatever players are in attendance decide which characters they will choose for the adventure, as well as choosing from the information and rumors they have the target of their expedition. The benefit of this is twofold. For one, because different players may be present for each adventure, they will not be forced to have a party which lacks certain tactical abilities they may want. Second, it allows players to have some variety and experience playing different classes and roles.

I would have each player roll up maybe three different characters. Whenever one levels up, the player may choose a second to level up as well. It is up to you and the players if all the characters should be available to all the players, or if each only chooses from those they created. If players are not sharing characters, I would allow them to trade characters at the time they are rolled up so everyone has the ability to choose from classes they are interested in. (obviously, I say this assuming old D&D style rolling of abilities and requisites for the classes)

Darth Ultron
2016-09-03, 04:47 PM
I don't think this is possible, unless you make the definitions of ''episodic'' and ''open'' to mean ''whatever you like''.

Take the ''open'' world, what is it? Is it where the players are DM's too? Can they say ''we go slay the red dragon..and oh, on the way we stop at the tree of red dragon slaying and get a bunch of red dragon slaying swords''. Are the players ''mini DM''s so they can create somethings, but not others? What is the limit? Can the players force a DM to do something? Is what a player says a suggestion or a demand?

Like say the Dm makes a world and tells the players all about it and it is full of details, but no ''episodic adventure''. So, eventually the players randomly pick something the DM said and will be like ''we want to go stop demon lord Orz from taking over the land of Zordou''. So then the DM describes all the details about Orz and Zordou, and again the players will listen and randomly pick something to do based off of what they were told. So the players pick the amazing choice of ''attack the demon'' and ''but first we will go find the lost demon slaying weapons of Irtho in Swamp Doom.'' So the first adventure will finally get down to ''attack the temple of the frog, deep in Swamp doom, to get the demon slaying weapons from the bullywugs."

Is this ''open'' play to you? Does it feel better somehow then episodic play? How is it a major improvement of the DM just having an ''episodic oracle npc'' say ''guys to fight the demon go get the weapons first''? If having the players make one or two ''open'' choices, and then just have an episodic game sounds good to you, then go ahead and do it.

All heroes are reactive, where do you see proactive heroes? The heroes have no ''open control'', they are always on the Railroad.

The bunch of NPC buddies might work....but any more then three and the players won't know them very well. You'd be forever bogged down with ''Hey player number two, your character knows NPC 887, remember?''.

A trick that does work is a festival, and even better a festival adventure. This lets the players meet people from all the lands and make friends and enemies. This also can work with a royal court, guild or such too.

And you can't beat the old ''just have the players go on more adventures''. More adventures so they can meet more NPCs.

Also, I get the feeling you have never done a player inspired game? Like where the players say ''we want to build an undead army and take over the world'' or ''we want to build a massive Temple of Light on a cloud''. Then you have them come up with a plan, and play episodic adventures until they do the set goal.

mephnick
2016-09-03, 05:27 PM
It sounds a lot like a "West Marches" style of campaign with a smaller roster of players and a few changes. There's a few articles about Ben Robbins' stuff, who made the style popular about a decade ago, if you want to look them up. I believe the guys at itmejp.com also run a youtube West Marches series with some modern changes.

It might not be exactly what you want, but I think the theory is similar.

Milo v3
2016-09-03, 07:05 PM
My next campaign is an oceanic tropical one where it's a sandbox and players can do what they want, but the fact that each island will have separate isolated events that they can just sail from one to another once their adventures on one island is over means it should be able to give some of the benefits of episodic games.

Yora
2016-09-04, 03:26 AM
The episodic modular approach I think is the best way. I would use a central home location for the characters, a city or a connected series of settlements, to which they always return in between adventures.

One way to address the changing roster of players is to have a pool of characters available for each player to choose from. In world, this may be represented as an adventurers guild or a band of explorers or a loose confederation of acquainted adventurers who fund and plan expeditions when they have the opportunity. The organization would also function as an information gathering service, collecting rumors and information. If it is a guild, of sorts, you may even allow characters to share recovered treasure between them.

...

I would have each player roll up maybe three different characters. Whenever one levels up, the player may choose a second to level up as well. It is up to you and the players if all the characters should be available to all the players, or if each only chooses from those they created. If players are not sharing characters, I would allow them to trade characters at the time they are rolled up so everyone has the ability to choose from classes they are interested in. (obviously, I say this assuming old D&D style rolling of abilities and requisites for the classes)
This is something I've also been considering. In some situations it might quite helpful, such as one adventure not getting wrapped up and the players of that sessions not all being able to continue the next time. With more than one character that adventure can be kept frozen for later and those players who do show up the next session can play it with a different PC.
I think I probably prefer to give players full XP for the character that came on the adventure and half XP for any other characters they have.

My setting is inspired by Wuxia and like it has a relatively small number of highly skilled warriors who are travelling the world but form some network of contacts. Even if they never met, most of them have heard about each other from common friends or rivals or picked up tales of their deeds in places they came through. When remote towns have trouble their own militia can't handle they try to get some of these warriors that might currently be in the area. Even though the world is big, settlements are mostly clusterd along a few major trade routes so the people who travel a lot keep running into each other all the time.


I don't think this is possible, unless you make the definitions of ''episodic'' and ''open'' to mean ''whatever you like''.
Yes, you can't have an episodic open world campaign. That's why I made this thread to develop a concept that combines some of the best elements of both of them.


It sounds a lot like a "West Marches" style of campaign with a smaller roster of players and a few changes. There's a few articles about Ben Robbins' stuff, who made the style popular about a decade ago, if you want to look them up. I believe the guys at itmejp.com also run a youtube West Marches series with some modern changes.
Isn't West Marches the prime example for a straight up open world sandbox?


My next campaign is an oceanic tropical one where it's a sandbox and players can do what they want, but the fact that each island will have separate isolated events that they can just sail from one to another once their adventures on one island is over means it should be able to give some of the benefits of episodic games.
Islands are a good way to visualize the concept of modules, even when they are on the mainland. Once the adventure is done the party leaves and ends up in a different part of the world where again they find a town with one to three dungeons in which stuff is going on.

I think I might do something like a world map in videogames, especially various Bioware games. Throughout the campaign new locations are added to the map but the players can return to places they previously cleared. Not every newly opened module has to be based in a completely new town.

Here is what I imagine:
http://spriggans-den.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/modcamp01.jpg

Situation at the start of the campaign. Two towns and three adventure sites to choose from.

http://spriggans-den.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/modcamp02.jpg

Three adventures later two new town have been added to the map with two new adventure, and a new adventure has been added to an already visited town.

http://spriggans-den.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/modcamp03.jpg

Much later in the campaign there a many new towns on the map as well as cleared modules. There's still one town that has never been visited and two other towns where there's currently something to do.

Cluedrew
2016-09-04, 05:36 PM
I don't think this is possible, unless you make the definitions of ''episodic'' and ''open'' to mean ''whatever you like''.
Yes, you can't have an episodic open world campaign. That's why I made this thread to develop a concept that combines some of the best elements of both of them.Really? I thought that these two types of campaigns where pretty combatable. At least as I understand them.

Both tend to be rather weak on overarching plot, many smaller arks create the majority of the plot. In episodic the arks are more connected to time, in open world they are more tied to location. If you are changing both, then you could be doing either type of campaign. The other major difference is how the arks are connected. In episodic it is usually just skipped, in open world wandering fills the gaps.

There are very few tweaks you have to make to either to make them fit together. The narration style wondering I thought was enough to do it.

Darth Ultron
2016-09-05, 03:33 PM
Really? I thought that these two types of campaigns where pretty combatable. At least as I understand them.


How can you combine episodic and random openness? Episodic has a plot, randomness does not.

You have a plot or you don't....there is no middle.

Milo v3
2016-09-05, 05:26 PM
How can you combine episodic and random openness? Episodic has a plot, randomness does not.

You have a plot or you don't....there is no middle.

I don't think you're using the same definition of Episodic as the rest of us. Generally episodic Doesn't have a plot. It's based on the definition of "made up of separate especially loosely connected episodes" or "divided into separate or tenuously related parts or sections".

Also sandbox doesn't equal random unless you're using dice rolls to determine everything.

Darth Ultron
2016-09-05, 09:21 PM
I don't think you're using the same definition of Episodic as the rest of us. Generally episodic Doesn't have a plot. It's based on the definition of "made up of separate especially loosely connected episodes" or "divided into separate or tenuously related parts or sections".


But that is a plot?

Once you ''loosely connect things'', that is a plot.

Or is your definition of plot just the tyrant DM saying ''players do this, now!"

oxybe
2016-09-05, 09:26 PM
How can you combine episodic and random openness? Episodic has a plot, randomness does not.

You have a plot or you don't....there is no middle.

Episodic, for the most part, means short and self-contained arcs that are somewhat tied to each other. Or to borrow a rather dry dictionary term: "containing or consisting of a series of loosely connected parts or events".

Think of it like a TV show. There may be an overarching plot or show concept, but each episode is generally a self-contained entity containing the same general cast of characters.

Generally it starts off establishing the status quo, something interferes it and it gets wrapped up at the end, status quo being re-established or tweaked somewhat due to changes.

Think of something like the old Ducktales cartoon: the status quo, for the most part, is "Scrooge McDuck is the richest duck in Duckburg, and looking to keep it that way"

Most plots revolving around Scrooge is usually him trying to make more money in some fashion to keep his title of richest, or someone coming along to challenge him on it (either by claiming they're the richest or stealing his money).

Alternatively it could be something affecting his extended family (Nephews Donald, Huey, Dewey and Louis) or even his servants/workers (his valet Duckworth, maid Ms.Beakley/her daughter Webbigail, Pilot Launchpad McQuack, Engineer/Techie Gyro Gearloose, etc...) and Scrooge has to deal with it somehow within a 20-some minute TV episode.

The timeline for these episodes, barring the ones that showcase a change in the status quo, aren't really described.

Alternatively we can look at the classic Canadian TV series, The Littlest Hobo.

It's a show about a dog, London, who goes from town to town, cozies up to a kid who's dealing with some sort of problem and through the power of being a boss german shepard, solves it and then leaves town to go solve some other kid's problem.

the status quo is "London doesn't have a permanent home and solves someone's problem on a weekly basis, then leaves."

It's pretty open and shut. There is only one core character and the rest all come and go over time, but we don't really know how long he's traveled between rests, just that "doge comes into town > finds kid with problem > helps solve problem > doggo leaves"

Finally we have the Supernatural method, where each "season" provides our characters with an overarching goal that's usually in the back of their minds, but isn't necessarily the focus of every episode. Usually one or two parters bookend the "season" but individual episodes could simply be the characters going by their daily lives when something shakes up their status quo or they're on a job for someone, but eventually something occurs and the the party needs to face the monster of the season and when that's done, a new problem occurs that they'll eventually have to deal with.

How long that "eventually" is is pretty vague though. We can have a rough idea, but a strict timeframe isn't necessary.

In a D&D Open World Episodic campaign we can take the Ducktales or Littlest Hobo model and apply it.

In the first, the Ducktales model, we have a core cast of characters and supporting NPCs (or even alternate PCs if you use a troupe style play), usually with some sort of home base (be that a set location, like, say Waterdeep, or a moving location, like an Airship or traveling circus or something). Something occurs that shakes up their status quo, the party solves it and life resumes as normal. In the Ducktales model, the PCs are still able to have goals outside the status quo or choose to change what the status quo is, there can be progress.

If Bolgron the Fat, the party's friar, wants to open a tavern, he can. Nothing is stopping him outside the GM. Overtime he'll get the land, workers and whatnot to pay for it and there could very well be short arcs where Bolgron & the party need to work on it: maybe an adventure to get the land from a shady local lord, or the workers are refusing to work as they see strange lights at night, or maybe their shipment of lumber is being delayed due to monster attacks.

The key thing to an "episodic" campaign is that things generally get wrapped up and status quo is returned in rather short order.

However once Bolgron's tavern is build it doesn't mean the end of the campaign, it just means that the status quo has slightly changed to "Bolgron now needs to manage his tavern" so occasionally stuff will happen to shake up his status quo: bar fights, patrons that skip out on meals, deliveries of food not coming through, fires, etc...

And it also doesn't mean that the whole of the campaign is focused on Bolgron. Saul, the party's fighter, could be trying to reforge his family's sword but needs to find not just a proper smith but also enough mythril, which is rare in this area, to do so. Once Saul manages to get his family's sword reforged after contacting a dwarven smith of skill to reforge the sword with the mythril he got after completing tasks for the elves in return for their trust and access to the precious mythril, the Elves may ask of their trusted friend a favour.

In the Littlest Hobo model, the PCs generally move from area to area, solve it's immediate problems and then leave into the sunset. This could be simply because the PCs are like-minded people affected by wanderlust or because their presence was requested and this is their current job. A few NPCs may reoccur over time, or the PCs may return to an area depending on the nature of their wandering, but for the most part NPCs come and go and aren't developed more then they need be for the short time they're in the limelight.

In the Supernatural model, let's say Bolgron & Saul have a goal to slay the Willywack, a seldom seen or heard of monster that destroyed their old town and left them homeless. Since information and rumors on the Willywack is sparce, Bolgron and Saul keep their ears open while doing their stuff. Going to his new elven allies, Saul gets information on the Willywack's true nature and how his family's mythril sword is one of the few weapons that can slay the beast for good. When Bolgron's tavern is open he eventually hears mention that the Willywack is nesting in a cave by Dobson's Rest. The two then pack up, put a "be back soon-ish" sign on the tavern and go off to kill the Willywack.

Between the "Willywack destroys Bolgron & Saul's hometown" and "Bolgron & Saul kill the Willywack" a few short adventures likely occur, but this model is more of a bookend to the episodes: there is a beginning and end but not everything in the middle is focused on that ending: sometimes you hunt down an ogre because he's stealing sheep, not because it's directly tied to the overarching plot.

This is in contrast to the larger, more overarching campaigns, where there is a clear end-goal and the party's tasks all, or mainly all, focus on that one goal over the course of many, many sessions.

In short, and episodic campaign is one where the tasks the PCs are trying to achieve aren't necessarily done in regard to a larger end-goal (though there may be one, it's not necessary), but rather focused on snippets of their lives in a vague timeline, rather then an ongoing one. Sometimes it focuses on the party doing an adventure at someone's request, sometimes it focuses on them dealing with personal issues, and sometimes it's related to a larger ongoing issue they'll eventually need to deal with.

I believe that's the key thing to these episodic campaigns: time itself don't matter too much outside of individual episodes or adventures in the short term as long as by the end of the adventure, things are resolved until a nebulous amount of time that requires the spotlight to happen onto the PCs again, akin to an episode of an ongoing TV show.

It can still be part of a large sandbox world: you can still have it occur in an existing and vibrant world, you just focus more on small, occasional snippets of the PC's lives and adventures.

man that was far ranty-er then I expected.

Darth Ultron
2016-09-05, 11:59 PM
In short, and episodic campaign is one where the tasks the PCs are trying to achieve aren't necessarily done in regard to a larger end-goal (though there may be one, it's not necessary), but rather focused on snippets of their lives in a vague timeline, rather then an ongoing one. Sometimes it focuses on the party doing an adventure at someone's request, sometimes it focuses on them dealing with personal issues, and sometimes it's related to a larger ongoing issue they'll eventually need to deal with.


I guess a lot of people get caught up in what I'll call the Tyrant Plot of a Bad Tyrant DM. This is where the DM comes in, slams a rule book down and says ''you must follow this plot exactly!''. I guess there must be a lot of DM's like this for it to be so hated. Like the PC's must stop the ''Invasion from the Netherworld'' and every game session is just about that, bit by bit. And nothing else.

Episodic is the more classic way...you could even say the adventure module way. Each game or three the Pc's would go through a module. Each module has a plot, but there is no big tyrant plot forcing everything together.

But it also seems like nitpicking too:
Version one-The DM says for this campaign you must stop the five freed Demons of Chaos! So it's five adventures to get them all.
Version two-The Pc's go through five modules of ''the demon of chaos I'' and ''II'' and so forth.

So it is the same...

Milo v3
2016-09-06, 12:27 AM
I guess a lot of people get caught up in what I'll call the Tyrant Plot of a Bad Tyrant DM. This is where the DM comes in, slams a rule book down and says ''you must follow this plot exactly!''. I guess there must be a lot of DM's like this for it to be so hated. Like the PC's must stop the ''Invasion from the Netherworld'' and every game session is just about that, bit by bit. And nothing else.

Episodic is the more classic way...you could even say the adventure module way. Each game or three the Pc's would go through a module. Each module has a plot, but there is no big tyrant plot forcing everything together.

It's nothing to do with "Tyrant Plot of a Bad Tyrant DM". It's as you say, the more classic way. But it doesn't follow either of these:

Version one-The DM says for this campaign you must stop the five freed Demons of Chaos! So it's five adventures to get them all.
Version two-The Pc's go through five modules of ''the demon of chaos I'' and ''II'' and so forth.
It's more like version three:
PC's go through five modules, "the demons of chaos" "the hunters of darkwood", "the orange farm or whatever", etc.

It'd be the same characters, but no real plot the campaign. Individual episodes might have some plot, but the campaign probably wont, if that makes sense. In a game that takes elements from both episodic and sandbox, the episodes will be based on whatever the players did and where they choose to go in the setting, but it probably wont have much tying the individual episodes together outside of the PC's existing at the new episodes location.

oxybe
2016-09-06, 01:52 AM
I guess a lot of people get caught up in what I'll call the Tyrant Plot of a Bad Tyrant DM. This is where the DM comes in, slams a rule book down and says ''you must follow this plot exactly!''. I guess there must be a lot of DM's like this for it to be so hated. Like the PC's must stop the ''Invasion from the Netherworld'' and every game session is just about that, bit by bit. And nothing else.

Episodic is the more classic way...you could even say the adventure module way. Each game or three the Pc's would go through a module. Each module has a plot, but there is no big tyrant plot forcing everything together.

But it also seems like nitpicking too:
Version one-The DM says for this campaign you must stop the five freed Demons of Chaos! So it's five adventures to get them all.
Version two-The Pc's go through five modules of ''the demon of chaos I'' and ''II'' and so forth.

So it is the same...

Think of it this way: is Tolkien's Lord of the Rings one complete story or three entirely separate stories that just happen to have the same core character cast with no connections between each other outside of that cast?

Of course not.

Lord of the Rings, though split into 3 books, is one complete story and generally would not make sense if you read it going Towers > Fellowship > Return. There is a core narrative at play that requires a certain order to the events.

Your two versions are basically "there is no difference between LotR in one volume or three" to which I agree, you're right. Because that's not episodic play. you've described the adventure path/pre-packaged campaign in two different packaging methods. The first method is D&D5th "Out of the Abyss" method where it's written all at once and sold as one book. The second is what paizo is doing for pathfinder, the monthly slow-release of their interconnected adventure paths. it's the same idea, just packaged differently.

As I said, for the most part episodic play doesn't require much context outside of knowing the general status quo and the characters in question. Yes they (the characters) will probably grow over time, but that's how characterization works, over a longer period of time the status quo will slightly change to accommodate them or the cast will change, but from one adventure to the next there will be generally little connecting the two.

Episodic play focuses less on the bigger picture (or even creating a bigger picture) and tying everything together and more on the smaller adventures, or moments within the party's shared history.

If you had sold me on an episodic play campaign and ran your version 2, basically running paizo's adventure paths, I would quit.

Episodic doesn't mean how the adventure is physically packaged, be it a prewritten module or something the gm pulls out of his backside on the fly, but rather the tone and overall pacing of the campaign.

AMFV
2016-09-06, 08:00 AM
Well, Open World games tend to be rather tightly connected because logistics and travel are a big focus in them. You travel to one point, and that comprises a tight connection between adventures. It can take many many adventures to get from one point to another. The way, I suspect to combine them, is to simplify travel. Maybe just let the PCs pick where they go next and then have them get there uneventfully, or with very limited interruptions (if you want an episodic travel adventure).

That's fitting with what people were describing earlier when they referenced shows like Supernatural or others that feature that sort of travel. The travel from state to state is very rarely a focus in that show, which I think is more what you're going for. As opposed to something like a standard sandbox campaign which usually is a good bit travelogue, because again how you get someplace is critical in that setting.

The only thing you do have to watch for (in both open world and episodic play), is that limited overworld and plot ties between adventures isn't necessarily going to stop players from wanting some. The best way, I think, is to let them have some continuing character plots so that they can feel somewhat connected to characters and the world, even if the overarching plot isn't all that connected.

Edit: Some things that would make this easier as the DM is prepping a variety of different sorts of adventures, so they can pop them into wherever the players want to go that session, and a variety of ready-made NPCs. So that way if the players say, "We want to go Thay!" then you have an adventure dealing with Thayan Politics, or a Heist, stealing something from Thayan Wizards, of a Gladiator thing, or any number of possible things. But if your players say "We want to go to Neverwinter!", you can have a (heavily modified adventure dealing with Neverwinter Politics, or a heist, or an illegal gladiator tournament. Basically you'd have the frameworks of the episodic adventures prepped and then codify them when the players decide where they're going next. This actually sounds like a lot of fun campaign-wise.

Edit 2: As far as your major concerns:

NPCs: The best way to have consistent NPCs over a vast area of adventuring is to tie the NPCs to the players rather than to the actual setting. Make the players a part of some sort of adventuring league or organization. Then you can NPCs that follow the players about or show up from time to time to connect the players more directly to the storyline. You could also give the PCs henchmen or porters or what-not. Basically a support team that doesn't actually participate directly in combat or adventures, but can directly supply exposition and useful information, as well as RP opportunities.

Pro-activity: I would handle this much the same way. Give the PCs an organization. Then basically the challenge for them is the following: "Which missions do I take!" Or "Which items do I try to find." Conan for example was generally always trying to find and steal a set of specific items, this thematically works really well with the idea of pro-activity, if the players have a list of items they could potentially find and sell, then they have the ability to be pro-active and make many choices as they move along.

Yora
2016-09-06, 08:38 AM
I think the defining element of episodic fiction (as opposed to serialized fiction) is that it doesn't really make much difference in which order you watch them. If you miss an episode or get to see it much later won't really interfere with understanding each episode.

Having travel from town to dungeon being part of the adventures but ignoring travel between towns is probably what I'm going to do. Occasionally you might make a whole adventure out of reaching a town that is not easily reachable by standard transportation but that's probably only interesting the first time the party is trying to get there. When moving on and returning to civilization or visiting the town a second town the journey can be skipped. It's routine or at least something the players have already done.
In a sandbox campaign I wouldn't do that since the logistics of transportation and planning your route around known threats is part of the concept and the way you discover hidden places.

A nice idea someone gave me in my thread about wilderness encounters was to treat the path from the town to the dungeon as the first dungeon level. Instead of stocking the random encounter table with wildlife native to the environment you can stock it with encounters that have some connection to the inhabitants of the dungeon. This way any random encounters along the way won't just be pure padding of no relevance to the story that is unfolding but instead serve as forshadowing for what is awaiting them ahead. Using random encounters instead of fixed encounters becomes particularly useful for larger dungeons where the players will make the trip to and back both two or three times. Even if the encounters seem truly random when they happen the players might remember them when they see things in the dungeon and treat it as clues for what's going on.

Having longer story branches that are focused on specific characters is a good idea to have some continuity as the players which it concerns will always be present when something new happens and they won't miss anything important.
People who are running sandboxes often say that this is something you really don't need to plan for. It happens by itself all the time. Having fewer regular NPCs in an episodic campaign probably makes it not quite as frequent. But when you make the campaign modular it shouldn't be too hard to sprinkle in some details that advance a PC's goal.

OACSNY97
2016-09-06, 09:18 AM
Regarding the openness vs. episodic storytelling methods- have you ever read the Mercedes Lackey's Tarma and Kethry stories? They started out as a bunch of loosely connected shorts revolving around the same main characters in the Sword and Sorceress anthologies but were then were collected in the the Vows and Honor novels either directly or referenced. Tarma and Kethry keep running into the same people- especially the annoying bard that keeps following them around, but they do a fair bit of traveling. I think seeing how the stories work as both shorts (episodes) and then joined together as the novels (Oathbound and Oathbreakers) might be worth the time.

Also regarding character development- just this morning I was reading Fate Core's description of how to build a character in that rule set. One thing I liked (and think could be ported to a different RPG) was have the players build their characters at the same time and purposely have them swap ideas about something their characters did "recently". It might help?

-Good luck :)


I want to eat my cake and have it, too. I am a big fan of Sword & Sorcery like Conan, Elric, Kane, or the first two Witcher books. I also think the ideal kind of campaign is one where the players can determine their goals to some extent and creating relationships with the people they meet, be it as allies or enemies. They also have a sense of continuity that makes the goals and survival of the characters more meaningful.
But classic Sword & Sorcery tales tend to cover a few days at most and see the hero ride off into the sunset, with the next tale taking places some months or years later in a completely different part of the world. A great thing about it in an RPG is that people can drop in and out quite easily and you get a lot of excitement and action into every session. But it's the opposite of an open world. You can't have both things at the same time.

I am looking for some way to run a campaign that instead would attempt to capture most of the positive aspects and make them work together. And I am not quite sure how.
I think that it's usually a good idea to not attempt to emulate episodic Sword & Sorcery stories too closely in an RPG. Many of these stories start right were the action begins but they also have some backstory on how the heroes came to the place and what is motivating them to poke around despite the clear danger. Stories tend to skip that part to get the maximum amount of excitement on a limited amount of pages, but I think in an RPG it's important that players play that part themselves instead of the GM giving them a summary of their character's previous actions. Even if the action is reduced to 3 hours instead of 4, that one hour of buildup makes he rest much more meaningful to the players.

What I find the most challenging is how to include NPCs the players already know and who mean something to them. If the adventures take place in different locations in a large region it would be implausible to regularly run into the same people.
One option might be to regularly use rival adventurers and keep track of which ones the players had significant interaction and who survived the adventure. But that would only be recognizing NPCs they randomly run into. .This would not allow the players to use them as contacts they could call on.
Maybe have each player create a hadful of NPCs their characters already know which the GM then flashes out and puts into the game when an opportunity shows up?

Another thing would be decision making. In episodic play you usually create a situation that is presented to the players and then they have to explore or investigate until they find what they are meant to find. It tends to be a very reactive approach as the players are concerned, with them waiting until an obvious plot hook falls into their lap. It's okay, but I always find campaigns much more engaging when the players have considerable control over what kind of things they are doing. The heroes in Sword & Sorcery tales do just that, but it's what's happening between the stories. To these heroes the setting is an open world and their decisions determine the adventures they run into. To capture the spirit of these stories I think the players need to have some control over this. But I really have no idea how to do that in practice.