PDA

View Full Version : DM Help How do you turn an idea into a game?



richardj
2017-01-26, 01:46 PM
I'm a fairly inexperienced DM, and have been roleplaying for only about 3 years, almost always as a player. The few times I've DM'd it's been from pre-written adventures, or adventure ideas given to me by other people.

I've got a vague idea/concept floating around in my head, but I'm unsure about how (or even if) I should use it to generate a game story. I've read a few things about story structure when writing non-interactive fiction (e.g. Joseph Campbell's The Hero With A Thousand Faces) but I don't know to what extent that applies when writing adventures/campaigns.

So, how do you turn your ideas into roleplaying games?

WbtE
2017-01-26, 01:52 PM
It depends on what sort of game you're trying to make. The old school D&D approach is to draw up a site and let the players tell their story there. You need some sort of reason for the characters to go to the site (D&D had the lure of Fabulous Prizes!) and some perils for them to overcome.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-01-26, 01:58 PM
I'd be pretty wary about approaching this from the angle of a story that you want to tell. That's one of the bigger mistakes new DMs make. Your job isn't to tell a story, it's to give the players the materials they need to make their own story. If you focus in too hard on something then you're liable to railroad everyone in service of it. A lot of published modules are notoriously bad at teaching DMs bad habits like this.

That being said, a useful place to start is to talk with your players and figure out together what you want the game to be about. Don't dictate something to them, discuss together what you want to focus the premise of the game on so you can start thinking about stuff you can put together related to that. It also reduces the chances of you presenting something and them being totally uninterested in it and wandering off to do something else.

JNAProductions
2017-01-26, 02:20 PM
I'm a fairly inexperienced DM, and have been roleplaying for only about 3 years, almost always as a player. The few times I've DM'd it's been from pre-written adventures, or adventure ideas given to me by other people.

I've got a vague idea/concept floating around in my head, but I'm unsure about how (or even if) I should use it to generate a game story. I've read a few things about story structure when writing non-interactive fiction (e.g. Joseph Campbell's The Hero With A Thousand Faces) but I don't know to what extent that applies when writing adventures/campaigns.

So, how do you turn your ideas into roleplaying games?

Black magic. I recommend sacrificing some d20s. :P

In reality, I tend to have basic ideas, and just think of a cool intro, then let the story develop from there with player assistance.

Yukitsu
2017-01-26, 02:51 PM
I like reading when I have a core concept. So for example, I made a horror setting which I figured would make a decent campaign which was centered around the idea of an island that was a sleeping elder God. I fleshed out everything by reading the Mountains of Madness, Junji Ito manga and by playing silent hill, drew some inspiration and used that to create the set pieces of the setting and the people in it. I asked the players if this would be something they'd be interested in playing and when they said yes, I went ahead with it.

Note that I used my inspiration to create the set pieces and scenario. I didn't write a specific story.

richardj
2017-01-26, 03:09 PM
I'd be pretty wary about approaching this from the angle of a story that you want to tell.
That's exactly why I've kept my idea as just that so far. If I wanted to tell a story, I'd tell a story! It is difficult to think about without automatically slipping into "and wouldn't it be cool if this happened!" railroad-y ideas, though...

CharonsHelper
2017-01-26, 03:22 PM
That's exactly why I've kept my idea as just that so far. If I wanted to tell a story, I'd tell a story! It is difficult to think about without automatically slipping into "and wouldn't it be cool if this happened!" railroad-y ideas, though...

One trick I've found is to plan each individual session as a bit more linear ('railroady' to some) and then have the big story defining choices be made at the end of the session so that I have time to incorporate them into the next week's session.


the idea of an island that was a sleeping elder God god.

Sorry - pet peeve.

Knaight
2017-01-26, 03:27 PM
I tend to incorporate this sort of thing into setting design - certain settings are much better for the emergence of certain conflicts and the display of certain themes than others, so I fit my setting to the conflicts and themes of interest, restrict character creation such that it fits that, then pitch it to my players. If it's something they're interested in, great. If not, there are other options. If I don't have something in particular I'll instead get a consensus on genre interest, get the themes and such the players are interested in, and then build a setting around them. It is pretty key to be good at building a skeleton of a setting fast and fleshing it out later; if you need everything designed beforehand these methods will crash and burn horribly for you. It works well for some though, and I'm in that category.

Toilet Cobra
2017-01-26, 03:41 PM
I try to think of the cool moments I want to play, decide what sort of game you would find those moments in naturally, and then pitch that game to my players.

Example: I want to portray a group of desert adventurers trying to survive in a vast, hellish wasteland, where they battle sphinxes and giant scorpions and blue dragons. They tangle with bandits and desert fauna over water sources, and confront mummies while exploring ancient temples hidden by shifting sands for millennia!

So I say to my players: "What would you think about a game in an apocalyptic desert, where resource management and city-building are primary to the campaign? Very few towns, lots of sand, mostly nomadic tribes trying to eke out a living alongside tons of desert monsters. Probably lower-than-average WBL."

You may eventually have to veer away from the ideas you had at the beginning, but it helps guarantee that everybody is on board for the type of game and the tone you're trying to set. If you can shoehorn in some of those neat set pieces you were imagining later, so much the better.

Yukitsu
2017-01-26, 04:09 PM
Sorry - pet peeve.

Depends, I believe it's correct in this context due to precedent, though I forgot to capitalize "Elder".

Actually, we don't only capitalize "God" because it's a proper name, we also capitalize "His" for example despite it clearly not being a proper name. Capitalization in both cases is more to do with deference to something which is supposedly greater than ourselves or as means of emphasis. Either way it is untrue that we only capitalize proper names.

Similarly, in the Lovecraft sense, Elder Gods is often capitalized. Elder Things and "The Elder Ones" is also capitalized, being even further from a proper name. This is acceptable convention and does not need to be corrected.

CharonsHelper
2017-01-26, 05:37 PM
Depends, I believe it's correct in this context due to precedent, though I forgot to capitalize "Elder".

'God' is only capitalized when referring to a monotheistic deity because it's being used as a name. In the same way, if speaking to your father you would write "Hi Dad, let's go bowling.", while when talking about him without using it as a name you would write "My dad and I went bowling."

Beans
2017-01-27, 11:03 AM
I agree with Toilet Cobra.

From there, I tend to lean toward not designing a storyline for the players to follow, but creating an area and people in the area and then laying out a timeline of "things that will happen if the players happened not to show up". The players, of course, do show up, and the storyline grows organically from the things they do and the reactions and consequences associated with the events.

Aetis
2017-01-27, 11:22 AM
I generally start by going on image searches and look at fantasy pictures for inspiration.

Then, I work out a major event in the past (war, rise of a powerful monster, start of a religion, etc), and how the dungeon/city/town/playing area have developed since.

Then, I start writing up various NPCs that currently live in the area and what their motivations are.

Then, I draw up grid maps for all of the possible locations in the playing area that PCs can potentially visit.

Finally, I work out a timeline of things that will happen without PC interference, and a hook for the PCs.

Mutazoia
2017-01-27, 12:10 PM
First piece of advice: Ignore anybody who tells you not to try to tell a story with your campaign. It is perfectly acceptable to tell a story with a campaign. Now, the nay sayers will throw the term "railroading" around a lot to make you feel like trying to have actual control over the game you are supposed to be "master" of is a bad thing. But simply giving players a sandbox to play in, and letting them do what-ever they want, is actually bad DM'ing. Okay, maybe bad is too strong a term. Lazy DMing would be more the thing. Or perhaps lax DM'ing. It depends on the individual.

You see, if you just plop down a sandbox and let the players run wild, the players are in control. They tell you what's going on and where. The DM does little more than roll dice and "role play" the hapless peasants the murder hobo's sell their unwanted loot to. This, of course, will be fun for the players for a while, sure, but with out any central motivation, it's basically group based ego stroking after a while. And the DM doesn't learn to be a DM. Remember, even sandboxes have walls.

So, you CAN try to tell a story with your campaign. The easiest way to do that is to start with your end game, and work backwards. Figure out where you want your characters to be and what they should be doing at the end of the story. That's the only real specific you need to keep track of. Everything else is painted in broad strokes. Like an impressionist painting, the players will see what they want to see (and will probably come up with some good ideas that you didn't consider), and have a good time doing it.

Have a few details planned out that you can drop anywhere in your game world, so that your players can get the information you want them to have, no matter where they decide to go. If they need to talk to farmer Fred at the far side of the Forest of Fur about the five furiously fiddling firblogs the fought on Friday, but head off to the Deadly Desert, then farmer Fred becomes Honest Achmed, the used camel salesmen. They still get to go where they want, and you still get to give them the next bit of the story.

You can have a mix of adventures for your players. Some progress the story, some don't. The one's that progress the story don't have to have an obvious link to one another at first, but once you get close to the end game, your players may be able to look back (if they care to) and see the big picture. Like a jig-saw puzzle, each individual piece doesn't look like anything by itself. It's only when you get a bunch of them together that they start to form a pattern, and you can't see the whole thing until your almost done.

Sure, you will eventually start leading then toward your end game, but as long as you keep the players interested and invested in the main plot, they will eventually want to go there all by themselves.

Make a general outline of your story, and have a general idea of where you want your PC's to be, plot wise, by what level. This way, you can stop feeding them story bits for a while, and let them run amuck for a while before moving the story along. This will also help you prepare a few good "mini-boss fights" ahead of time, and present them to the players at a time when the will still be challenging (and avoid the blaster wizard from one-shotting your mini-boss while he's monologuing).

Done this way, you get the best of both worlds. You get to tell your story, the players are not "railroaded" down specific paths, since they don't "have to" go anywhere. The story comes to them, no matter where they go.

All in all, I would say that a good central plot is almost vital to a good campaign. After all, what would the Lord of the Rings trilogy been like if, Frodo just left the One Ring on his mantle?

Jay R
2017-01-27, 12:23 PM
I'd be pretty wary about approaching this from the angle of a story that you want to tell. That's one of the bigger mistakes new DMs make. Your job isn't to tell a story, it's to give the players the materials they need to make their own story. If you focus in too hard on something then you're liable to railroad everyone in service of it. A lot of published modules are notoriously bad at teaching DMs bad habits like this.

Absolutely correct. You are not providing a story. You are providing a situation. The characters then write a story.

But don't worry about it. Your story idea won't often survive contact by the PCs anyway.

If you plan an attack by orcs that can only be stopped with the special power of the Fighter's sword, and they use the sword to win, then you wrote a story and they just filled in the role.

But if you plan an attack by orcs that can only be stopped with the special power of the Fighter's sword, and they bribed the orcs with Hostess Fruit Pies, then they wrote a story themselves.

Just be sure that you respond to their actual actions, rather than just to your own story.

WbtE
2017-01-27, 12:28 PM
First piece of advice: Ignore anybody who tells you not to try to tell a story with your campaign. It is perfectly acceptable to tell a story with a campaign. Now, the nay sayers will throw the term "railroading" around a lot to make you feel like trying to have actual control over the game you are supposed to be "master" of is a bad thing. But simply giving players a sandbox to play in, and letting them do what-ever they want, is actually bad DM'ing. Okay, maybe bad is too strong a term. Lazy DMing would be more the thing. Or perhaps lax DM'ing. It depends on the individual.

I think you might have over-run your point here. :smallfrown: Whether you meant to come across as belligerent or not, I can't help but read you that way and it makes a reasonable discussion difficult. Maybe I'm just interpreting you wrongly? Anyway, I'll do my best to be objective.

There is a continuum of DM styles between strict control of the story and passive refereeing of the environment. None of these are necessarily bad, lazy, or lax - they simply have a better fit to the preferences of different groups. With that said, my experience is that role-playing is most satisfying when the players and DM share responsibility for directing the action: the DM's scenarios include developing events set in motion by NPCs, but the PCs are free to interact with these events in accordance with their temperament and preferences.

As far as advice goes, there are many reasons for new DMs being steered towards the passive side of things. The first is that it's easier to add major events to an established game than it is to subtract or minimise them. Secondly, it's fairly common that a character won't really emerge until several sessions have gone by - leading to the meme "What I made, what the DM saw, what I actually played" - so it may be better to wait to see what the party's really like before working out or emphasising a storyline that would engage them.

Jay R
2017-01-27, 01:16 PM
First piece of advice: Ignore anybody who tells you not to try to tell a story with your campaign. It is perfectly acceptable to tell a story with a campaign. Now, the nay sayers will throw the term "railroading" around a lot to make you feel like trying to have actual control over the game you are supposed to be "master" of is a bad thing. But simply giving players a sandbox to play in, and letting them do what-ever they want, is actually bad DM'ing. Okay, maybe bad is too strong a term. Lazy DMing would be more the thing. Or perhaps lax DM'ing. It depends on the individual.

Well, there you have it. Ignore anybody who disagrees with Mutazoia. Playing any other way than his is some version of bad DM'ing, lazy DM'ing, or perhaps lax DM'ing.

[Or maybe, just maybe, the people suggesting that you not plan the entire story are suggesting something a little bit more nuanced than Mutazoia's simplistic phrase "simply giving players a sandbox to play in, and letting them do what-ever they want".]

Stryyke
2017-01-27, 01:33 PM
I've had some success mixing sandboxing and storytelling. It's a crap-ton of work, and involves obscene amounts of improvising. The gist is this, the players aren't the main heroes that the book series/movies tell about. They are nobodies at the beginning, and grow to be heroes in their own right.

I have the campaign running chronologically parallel to the events in the written story. This makes it easy/hard. The main characters in the story are certain places at certain times, so you need to have a solid time-line and chronological map done up of everywhere the main story goes. You also need to be familiar with basically every notable NPC type character in the written story-line, and know where and when they are too. In addition, you have to be prepared to play-act all of the people found in the written story.

Once you feel comfortable with all of that, you decide how you want your game to go. Do you want it to be story-driven, or sandbox, or some mix? For me, I take some event that happens at the end of the written story, one that would be obvious, and build from there. For instance, if the end of the story ends with a giant battle between the armies of good and evil, I simply figure out how much time passes between the beginning of the campaign and that event.

You should now have a firm concept of the chronology of events, how long the campaign should be, and the major NPCs for your campaign. For me, I'm a fan of sandboxing a lot at first. This is where you really need to be good at improv. At the beginning, I just drop my characters into a random location in the world, provide some story event to get everyone together, and then just let them sandbox until they run across some event from the written story. If it's been too long and they seem to be aimless, I'll start dropping very subtle hints that the "story" is over there. Emphasis on subtle. Maybe some random encounter leads them to within sight of a city where some event is going to happen, or a bandit drops an item that is of significant value that is tied to the "story."

And the tough part is, if they don't bite, that's fine. Let them go off and do whatever they want. If the events that conclude the written story happen and the PCs aren't there, you have to be ok with that. I find, though, that if you just introduce the game in the right way, people will find their way to the final event on their own. The PCs tend to chase adventure, so as long as the adventure leads them to the final arena, they'll be there. The only real question is "Can you improv a good chunk of the campaign, keeping it fun, sprinkling in SUBTLE hints about where the "story" is, and be able to accept that the PCs may not bite." You already have the entire setting settled, so improv should be easier; and it should be easier for you to drop appropriate hints in subtle ways.

I prefer to give the players knowledge in the intro. "The final battle will happen in 5 years." Then the people responding will already dig that type of situation. Then you draw up characters, drop them into the world, and sandbox for 5 years in-game-time. If the players already know that the story is going towards "The Final Battle" then they will be free to do whatever they want, but what they will want to do will be to prepare for the final battle. Gain some gear, skills, advanced combat techniques. So each adventure will have two purposes in their mind 1) whatever the adventure is about and 2) preparation for some future fixed event. Then sprinkle in some adventures that are not setting dependent, and start.

I actually find using an existing story much more difficult, because you have to worry about your own story AND account for the events of that other story simultaneously. Also, the main story introduces enough NPCs that it can be annoying. If the main characters in the written story go to a shop to buy some herbs, then that shop and that NPC needs to remain what they were in the written story. I find making my own NPCs much easier than trying to replicate someone else's idea of an NPC.

Anyway, these are just a few thoughts about the process I use when doing a campaign based off an existing story. This may not be the best way, but I've had success doing it this way in the past.

G'dir
2017-01-27, 07:21 PM
As an experienced GM I usually start out with a concept (an example below) that I then create sub-parts or chapters for. These are usually set up based on Character level (challenge rating) and I build each session individually though I have a general idea where I want players to go. Please feel free to give a brief example of how you would start the adventure example below. This may help newer GM's gain ideas (or burnt out ones with little time) to begin their adventures.

"I need some ideas to start the PC's off in my upcoming campaign.* I am looking for the opening/starting scene here.

Background Idea:
The PC's are part of recurring souls, repeatedly reincarnated throughout time.* Each PC has an Elemental affinity and an Alignment affinity.* The PC's are always inexorably drawn together through fate, circumstances and happenstance.* The PC's remember few details about their former incarnations, which happen sometimes millennia apart.* They realize they are different however as they retain their race/types each time, adding to their new ones (sometimes bringing old vulnerabilities with each incarnation).* They retain a "feel" for their former selves.* Sometimes their affinities match, sometimes they do not.* The PC's don't have an idea why this is occurring but a Pattern is there. [Think along lines of Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series].
*
The PC's will have to figure out who the chief villain is, what he's up to, and what their part is in this.* The PC's will initially be dealing with flunkies sent to destroy them and will work their way up in level to fight the "master villain"--only to find it is a Simulacrum; the real villain is still out there.

DM Plot Background:
A powerful Verminlord (MM3) has created simulacrum's of himself and placed them throughout the lands in guilds and other positions of power.* They coordinate to bring Chaos/strife to all lands and attempt to subvert the elements to further their nefarious plans.* The Chief villain is actually another one of these recurring souls.* His affinities are Time/Chaos/Fire.* His previous incarnations were Phaethon and Phane.* He has the Templates of Paragon (EPH), Worm that Walks (EPH), and Monster of Legend.

Obviously, the Chief villain is Epic and so the PC's won't be dealing with him for some time.* He is currently preoccupied with attempting to find ways to regain his previous powers from former incarnations while retaining his current ones.* I imagine that he views the PC's as little more than bugs to be squashed (though he really likes bugs, lol!) and beneath his notice.* He likely will just ignore them and let his Simulacrums deal with them.


I envision some role for each element in this--which PC's represent.
Players can choose any element (except time), all 4 must be represented, though one can be duplicated.
Players will represent 1 elemental affinity and 1 alignment affinity in their incarnations.
I'm assuming at the start that the Chief villain knows about the PC's but they don't know about him--maybe as myth? Fable? eg. devil/dark one?


I'm just asking the community:

What should the start scene look like?
How should the Elements fit into this?
How should I approach the role of the Simulacrum's?
Why should the Chief villain care about the PC's?* Should the PC's be manipulated into doing something for the villain that he, for some reason, can't do?"

richardj
2017-01-30, 01:02 PM
A common theme to several answers seems to have been that you create a world and something that's happening, which will hopefully engage the players to create a story about it, which is kind of preparing the ingredients for a story... sorry, I'm thinking about dinner at the same time as posting! So, how do you know when you've got enough story ingredients?
I'll quit being vague. My idea is for a game involving travel between the mundane world and a fantasy-style parallel world. Like Yukitsu suggested, I've been reading a lot of fiction with the same theme, and I've drawn up a small list of major plot points that (hopefully) will engage the as-yet hypothetical players. I've got that the characters will be sent on some small-scale quest that will involve their traveling to the parallel world, perhaps more than one quest. They will discover (somehow) that the parallel world, or the link between the two, is (for some reason) deteriorating but can (somehow) be saved. There may or may not be a third world that watches over the two already mentioned.

If I flesh out the details, is that enough to start a game? Would it help or hinder to work out the ideas more?

CharonsHelper
2017-01-30, 01:30 PM
If I flesh out the details, is that enough to start a game? Would it help or hinder to work out the ideas more?

It depends upon your players if that would be enough of a hook. It seems to vary quite a bit.

It certainly wouldn't hurt to work out more ideas so long as you aren't too committed to getting to them (though if they don't get used they can end up being a lot of wasted work).

Mutazoia
2017-01-30, 11:52 PM
Well, there you have it. Ignore anybody who disagrees with Mutazoia. Playing any other way than his is some version of bad DM'ing, lazy DM'ing, or perhaps lax DM'ing.

[Or maybe, just maybe, the people suggesting that you not plan the entire story are suggesting something a little bit more nuanced than Mutazoia's simplistic phrase "simply giving players a sandbox to play in, and letting them do what-ever they want".]

I'm not suggesting you plan the entire story either. I'm saying that the previous poster that say "Don't have a story" can be ignored, if you want to have a story to your campaign. If you actually took the time to, you know, read beyond the first sentence, you would see that I advise against planing every detail.

Just think how fit you must be, jumping to all those conclusions.

Pugwampy
2017-01-31, 03:32 AM
I've got a vague idea/concept floating around in my head, but I'm unsure about how (or even if) I should use it to generate a game story.

Just write 2 - 3 page story and read to players before the game if you wanna give em story time . Kinda like a bard at a tavern telling tall tales

Then set up a session that has something to do with that story . Its not railroading the bards tale mentioned say a nice goodie in so and so dungeon .
Now say someone offers them a job that is unrelated to this goodie but it happens to be in the same dungeon . Now they have work and a treasure hunt to boot .


Eeezy Peezy

SimonMoon6
2017-01-31, 09:47 AM
That's exactly why I've kept my idea as just that so far. If I wanted to tell a story, I'd tell a story! It is difficult to think about without automatically slipping into "and wouldn't it be cool if this happened!" railroad-y ideas, though...

One of the things I often like to do in such a situation is to prepare for different options. So that if you've got a really cool "if this happens, then that happens, and that's really cool" idea, well, allow for it to happen, but don't force it. If it happens, it happens.

Like "Wouldn't it be cool if the PCs rescued the princess from the dungeon and return her home, only to find out much later that that was actually an evil succubus who was only pretending to be the princess, and now this evil succubus has taken over the kingdom." (Of course, that's not cool. That's a cliche trope. But pretend it's cool.) So, you allow for it to happen. But you don't force it. If the PCs are smart enough to cast detect evil on the "princess," allow them to discover that she's evil. Allow them to discover that she's a succubus. Or if they engage her in conversation, allow clues to sliip out that might point to the fact that she's a succubus not a princess. But if they don't pick up on the clues, fine, they've doomed the kingdom. But if they DO pick up on the clues, allow them to attack the succubus and save the kingdom. Don't be completely wedded to the thought of the succubus winning.

Jay R
2017-01-31, 01:46 PM
I'm not suggesting you plan the entire story either. I'm saying that the previous poster that say "Don't have a story" can be ignored, if you want to have a story to your campaign. If you actually took the time to, you know, read beyond the first sentence, you would see that I advise against planing every detail.

Just think how fit you must be, jumping to all those conclusions.

Don’t be silly. I quoted more than one sentence, and specifically referred to more than the first sentence.

It’s true that I did not quote the paragraphs I had no issue with. I merely quoted your untrue accusations of others.

And it's simply untrue that all you said was that the poster's advice can be ignored. If you had, I'd have no disagreement with you. You also said some very negative things about anybody who DM'ed following that advice. And those negative comments are the subject of my post, despite your attempt to reply by talking about something else.

And in reply you made more untrue accusations.

The current score:
I claimed you accused people of bad DM’ing, lazy, DM’ing, or perhaps lax DM’ing. This is true; you did.

I claimed you accused people of suggesting "simply giving players a sandbox to play in, and letting them do what-ever they want". This is true; you did. It’s an exact quote

You claimed I accused you of “suggesting you plan the entire story either.” This is false; I did not. Nothing in my post addresses directly or implicitly anything about how or what you plan. I have no knowledge of, or interest in, how you run games. I only talked about your false accusations of others.

You claimed I did not read “beyond the first sentence.” This is false. I quoted an entire paragraph, and responded to the contents of most of its sentences.

If I’d made a false accusation, I’d withdraw it, and apologize. But what you accuse me of saying I simply did not say.

Anonymouswizard
2017-01-31, 03:02 PM
The first piece of advice I'm going to give is simple, 'have an idea for a story'.

The second piece is weird, 'be ready to chuck it out at a moment's notice'.

This is to say that having a story in your game isn't bad, just as long as the players are willing to go along with it. This can vary a lot, in one game I got annoyed that my character had spent half a session chasing down a false lead and getting evidence for it only for an NPC to tell us it was all wrong, and in another the entire party had fun going on what turned out to be a wild goose chase. The difference was the second story had given us hooks we were interested in, while the first came off as generic and never really gave me a reason for my character to be involved (heck, I was actively prevented from performing my character's goal in that one, and I'd much rather have had the character vetoed). We also knew that the second story had no 'right' way to solve it and that we could in theory leave it at any time and go somewhere else (something would happen to make it an interesting session, and it might be related to the GM's plot, but we've previously spent a whole session dealing with a character's dad turning up).

So they key piece of advice is, make sure it's something the players want to play. I personally love Transhuman Space, but know practically nobody interested in hard science fiction gaming. However I also like the Red Planet setting for Fate, and know many people who would love to play in a Space Opera adventure, and so I might try running that.

Okay, you've got a setting that people want to play in, and a rough idea for a plot (whether for a campaign or just the first adventure)? Now the most important thing to do is work out some key characters and the campaign's starting point. Making PCs as the first session can be a big help for the latter part, because it can help everyone work out why they are at the campaign's starting point, or you can even start at an earlier or later point in the story if everyone agrees to it. Also don't be afraid to work with the players to add or change some key characters as long as they still fit in the setting.

Got all of that? Now roughly plan your first session or two. How the session starts, the big thing that happens in the session, and some important characters plus mooks should be enough. You want just enough material so that once the players decide on a course of action you can improvise a scene showing the consequences and getting the PCs to the point where they have to decide on how to react to something. Never plan enough that you want to force the PCs down a certain route, but have enough that you don't have to call for a ten minute break to think up a new plot unless the kill the session villain half an hour in.

Oh, and if you don't get to use a cool idea, archive it. I have set pieces and plot elements from old games that went unused, and if needed I'll just pull them out for the current game.

NRSASD
2017-01-31, 03:45 PM
For me at least, railroading occurs when something thwarts player agency because the plot demands it.

In my current campaign that I DM, the party has a friendly antagonist they've run into on multiple occasions. They've fought, cautiously teamed up, and fought again, and currently the party is out for her blood after their last interaction. She is comparable in power to the party, has stats, and can be killed, but has survived so far thanks to a 1/day ring of invisibility and a paranoid streak a mile wide. I'm really enjoying this character as an NPC, and she has a role in the plot, but if the PCs do catch her she is replaceable. If they do manage to take her down, it's totally fair and the story progresses without her.

In the last fight involving her, the party figured out she saves her ring as an escape and so they planned for it. They coated the room in flour so they could track her prints and cut off her escape through the door. If I had railroaded that scene, I could have ruled that the party's plan didn't work cause she figured it out ahead of time, or given her some reinforcements that came through the door they blocked. Instead, I had her jump out of a three story window. She almost died and broke a leg, and therefore wasn't present for a scene I had planned for her, but the story adjusted for her absence and continued without her.

By all means, run your campaign with an overarching plot. Just make sure that the story is interesting to you and your players, and allow player interaction to disrupt the story arc. Plan out what would happen if the players aren't involved, and then improvise the consequences of their actions.

WbtE
2017-01-31, 05:00 PM
A common theme to several answers seems to have been that you create a world and something that's happening, which will hopefully engage the players to create a story about it, which is kind of preparing the ingredients for a story... sorry, I'm thinking about dinner at the same time as posting! So, how do you know when you've got enough story ingredients?
I'll quit being vague. My idea is for a game involving travel between the mundane world and a fantasy-style parallel world. Like Yukitsu suggested, I've been reading a lot of fiction with the same theme, and I've drawn up a small list of major plot points that (hopefully) will engage the as-yet hypothetical players. I've got that the characters will be sent on some small-scale quest that will involve their traveling to the parallel world, perhaps more than one quest. They will discover (somehow) that the parallel world, or the link between the two, is (for some reason) deteriorating but can (somehow) be saved. There may or may not be a third world that watches over the two already mentioned.

If I flesh out the details, is that enough to start a game? Would it help or hinder to work out the ideas more?

In your shoes, I wouldn't work out the ideas much more than that. Mysteries like that often get the players speculating at the table and their ideas might be better than yours!

One point of advice: you don't need to go all in for "quests". The first adventure that the characters undertake can be the assumption for the game. You just tell the players, "You are a band of adventurers who have come into possession of a treasure map," before they make their characters. That puts everyone on the same page when you start the first session and a good treasure hunt could send them back and forward across the dimensional link several times.

HidesHisEyes
2017-02-01, 03:10 AM
One trick I've found is to plan each individual session as a bit more linear ('railroady' to some) and then have the big story defining choices be made at the end of the session so that I have time to incorporate them into the next week's session.


I strongly agree, this is a really good approach. Trying to give the players total story-defining freedom even within individual sessions forces you to improvise to an unmanageable level, in my experience.

Other than that - mindmaps. I usually start by making a big directionless mindmap to visualise the various elements of my idea, all of the events, NPCs, factions, McGuffins and locations so I can see how they interconnect. You can put the PCs on here as well so you can see where they fit in at the beginning of the story. This doesn't tell you what is actually going to happen over the course of the adventure or campaign (although it's perfectly possible to have a vague idea without getting too railroady).

Then I think about what will actually be in the first session (or first few sessions - the first adventure anyway) and I make a mindmap that looks more like a flow chart. This will include specific encounters, flavour text, the present-moment motivations of NPCs that would affect things like persuasion checks and so on. This is what I have in front of me when I actually run the session.

I use a mindmapping app called Total Recall which makes the mindmaps very fluid and editable so if the PCs' actions change things in a big way I can easily amend my overview of the campaign to reflect the changes. The overview mindmap isn't something I create in advance and then adhere to, but a sort of story hub that I use to keep track of what's going on.

Finally, if Campbellian ideas about story structure are your bag (they certainly are mine) then don't let fear of railroading stop you from making use of them. Structure and railroading are not the same thing. One more thing my campaign overview mindmap has is a circular diagram of everything that has happened so far, plus very vague ideas of what I foresee happening, arranged into a hero's journey structure. This will get fleshed out or even completely altered as the campaign progresses, but it will always be the same magical storytelling shape.

Good luck with your campaign OP :)

HidesHisEyes
2017-02-01, 07:45 AM
Well, there you have it. Ignore anybody who disagrees with Mutazoia. Playing any other way than his is some version of bad DM'ing, lazy DM'ing, or perhaps lax DM'ing.

[Or maybe, just maybe, the people suggesting that you not plan the entire story are suggesting something a little bit more nuanced than Mutazoia's simplistic phrase "simply giving players a sandbox to play in, and letting them do what-ever they want".]

My Darth Ultron sense is tingling.

Stealth Marmot
2017-02-01, 08:32 AM
So, how do you turn your ideas into roleplaying games?

I suppose you are looking for something a little more involved than "I bet my players would get a kick out of X!"

Since you have done some reading on story writing let me bring up the core concept that is where storytelling and gaming overlaps:

Conflict.

The first thing you need to ask is "What is the central conflict of this story?" Usually this centers around a villain of some sort. The conflict is that a villain wants to take over the world (OF COURSE!) is the most basic, but still workable story around. But why is it a conflict? Well, they are evil, and people don't want to be under the power of an evil ruler. Alternatively, in order to do it he has to allow dark forces to enter the world. In other situations, there could be a giant dragon about to destroy a city. The city likes being a city so the players need to help defend it somehow. There could be a murderer on the loose, and the conflict is murderer verse lawmen/players trying to bring them in. It could even be as simple as there is a treasure the party wants and there is a mummy's tomb full of bad stuff between them.

These are all examples of conflicts. Ask yourself, "what is the core conflict of the story?" Then after that, ask the follow up: "What can the players do to resolve the conflict?" Usually it involves stabbing something, but there should be multiple ideas you come up with.

Keep in mind that you can't think of everything, but try to think about the major ideas in the more generic sense.

After that, ask the question "What do the players need in order to resolve the conflict?" and "What obstacles will be in their way to resolving the conflict?" This should give you some ideas for what you need to create for the players to do during their adventure.

From there, it is a matter of figuring out how to make those obstacles and acquisitions interesting.

Take for example my recent game. I based my adventure plot on the classic Seven Samurai and the remake The Magnificent Seven. That being, small town, not really able to fight, being ravaged by a bunch of bandits, the adventurers need to rally a defense against them.

The central conflict is that a bunch of bandits want to destroy a town. The players need to find things that will help them defend the town. One of these I decided was a druid enclave they could talk into assisting (a few low level druids). So I asked what sorts of obstacles would be in their way. Well the druid's leader wasn't initially inclined to help, unless the players did something for him, and that was go on a spiritual journey since he was well, spiritual. The players had to go ahead and drink a spirit drink to go on the journey.

You can see where this is going. They had what was essentially a peyote fueled journey in the dream world. It was as weird as you can expect. I had them accompanied by a floating pomeranian in a fine robe, with a wine glass who spoke condescendingly towards them, and a pseudodragon who hung from the ceiling with an inverted head and his mouth was on his tail instead of his face. They were sort of a Statler and Waldorf during the whole thing.

During the journey, I had them have to deal with puzzles and creatures and eventually faced a creature that actually beat them senseless called the Saint and they ended up waking up. After explaining what they went through, the druid liked them and agreed to help.

So we had a conflict: The bandits were coming, we had a potential resolution (or part of one), get the druids to help, and we had an obstacle, He would only do it if the players did a spirit journey. The interesting bits were just what I added to each of the steps along the way as I asked "What could make doing this fun or interesting or engaging?"

A side note, the players can come up with good ideas that you should run with. For example, they couldn't figure out a puzzle, so i said that the pseudodragon had an idea. I figured they would try to diplomify it, but instead they offered to gamble with it. So we played Liars Dice.

I am hoping this is helpful towards your attempts to make a fun and engaging game for your players while keeping your story ideas intact.

GungHo
2017-02-01, 10:41 AM
I've got a vague idea/concept floating around in my head, but I'm unsure about how (or even if) I should use it to generate a game story. I've read a few things about story structure when writing non-interactive fiction (e.g. Joseph Campbell's The Hero With A Thousand Faces) but I don't know to what extent that applies when writing adventures/campaigns.
The problem is that you're not writing fiction, you're running an improv. You may want to look at the Upright Citizens Brigade Comedy Improvisation Manual or How to be the Greatest Improviser on Earth. The rules of an RPG establish a lot of rules for the improv, but ultimately you're telling a story along with others rather than to others. You're not looking to be funny, so some of the comedy items may seem to be irrelevant, but you are looking to capture attention and keep the story moving.

Jay R
2017-02-01, 11:19 AM
One other thing - it's not your job to invent the solution. You invent the problem, and the players invent the solution.

If you invent a deathtrap with only one way out, then they have to figure out your one way, or they'll die. But if you invent a deathtrap with no way out, then their imaginations can come up with any number of solutions.

Mutazoia
2017-02-01, 12:11 PM
One other thing - it's not your job to invent the solution. You invent the problem, and the players invent the solution.

If you invent a deathtrap with only one way out, then they have to figure out your one way, or they'll die. But if you invent a deathtrap with no way out, then their imaginations can come up with any number of solutions.

This sentiment goes back to what I said earlier. (And I'll try to be less verbose as to hopefully avoid confusing Jay R again.)

Technically, if you invent a deathtrap with no way out, it won't matter how many solutions your player's come up with. As there is no way out, nothing the players come up with would work. (Couldn't help nit-picking there.)

There is nothing wrong with making your players try to find your solution. Riddles have only one answer, they are not multiple choice. You don't graduate from High School or earn a degree, by throwing out a bunch of random answers, and hoping the teacher just picks one at random, do you? Nope.

Sure, you CAN do things this way, but the more you do, the less opportunity you have to develop your skills as a DM. You take on the passive role, reacting to what your players present you, rather than the other way around, as it should be. A lot of would be DM's get caught in this trap, and never really learn how to craft an epic campaign, full of subtle details, clever puzzles, and the like. Instead, your players are in charge. They go where they want, do what they want, and you only react. This can lead to lax behavior as a DM, in that you develop the habit of catering to your players whims (and can even lead to your players making calls on rules, rather than the DM (I've seen this countless times). You don't learn to guide your players, they learn to guide you.

Getting too verbose again.

Cliff notes version of my points

1. If you want to tell a story with your campaign, then tell one. Don't worry if some one tells you that you shouldn't. It's YOUR campaign, not theirs. They can run their games how they please, you run yours how you please.
2. Don't let the players take control of the game. Letting them run around is fine, but still be proactive, rather than reactive. Be prepared to move the plot along every now and then, and to get them back on track if they start going too far off the reservation. Sure, they'll have fun, but who wouldn't when they get to do what ever they want? It will get old.
3. Try to keep your players interested and invested in your plot, so that they WANT to help tell your story. If you can't keep their interest for long, ask them what you could have done better to hold their interest in the plot. THEN you can all decide if you want to scrap the campaign and start fresh, or just go with the free-form style, with no central plot. Try a new story with the next campaign. Learn and develop your skills as a GM.
4. Make certain elements of your plot modular, so that they can be dropped anywhere in your game world when needed. Keep most details fluid, and only plan the 5 W's and an H of your end game.

Even this doesn't come out quite how I wanted it to, but trying to elucidate my point after working a 16 hour shift on 5 hours of sleep is more difficult than it sounds.

Yukitsu
2017-02-01, 01:58 PM
You're still telling us the only way to DM is to give the players only one way to get through your scenario: do what you wanted them to do. Why would I even bother playing that?

Stryyke
2017-02-01, 02:50 PM
You're still telling us the only way to DM is to give the players only one way to get through your scenario: do what you wanted them to do. Why would I even bother playing that?

Simple, YOU wouldn't. But there are many people who would. Their wants are just as valid as yours.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-02-01, 02:54 PM
You don't always have to give players multiple routes to solve a problem. The key point is that you have to be open to other routes to solve a problem, even if you didn't envision them yourself.

Yukitsu
2017-02-01, 02:55 PM
Simple, YOU wouldn't. But there are many people who would. Their wants are just as valid as yours.

Do exactly what the DM wants without any relevant input of their own? Maybe there are players that prefer that, but I honestly haven't heard any players that enjoy that around the forums. Plenty of DMs that insist that their players do, but a strange dearth of players willing to defend that. And far, far more players that come here asking how to get out of a game where their DM has that attitude.

Mutazoia
2017-02-02, 03:11 AM
Do exactly what the DM wants without any relevant input of their own? Maybe there are players that prefer that, but I honestly haven't heard any players that enjoy that around the forums. Plenty of DMs that insist that their players do, but a strange dearth of players willing to defend that. And far, far more players that come here asking how to get out of a game where their DM has that attitude.

You seem to be confusing situations that have only one correct solution, such as a riddle, with being "railroaded" along an entire plot line. There is a difference.

And for every player posting here against something, there are other players (even in the same game) who are enjoying things as they are. You see this IRL a lot...people complain to all and sundry, at the drop of a hat, but do something good or even great, and they'll rarely tell a soul. They may tell YOU if you do a good job, but that will be the end of it. Think about it. How many times have you gone shopping, had the sales person really work their ass off to help you, and then asked you to fill out the survey on the receipt...and you've just tossed the thing with out a second thought?

Yukitsu
2017-02-02, 03:49 AM
You seem to be confusing situations that have only one correct solution, such as a riddle, with being "railroaded" along an entire plot line. There is a difference.

And for every player posting here against something, there are other players (even in the same game) who are enjoying things as they are. You see this IRL a lot...people complain to all and sundry, at the drop of a hat, but do something good or even great, and they'll rarely tell a soul. They may tell YOU if you do a good job, but that will be the end of it. Think about it. How many times have you gone shopping, had the sales person really work their ass off to help you, and then asked you to fill out the survey on the receipt...and you've just tossed the thing with out a second thought?

Riddles are terrible though. Many have multiple correct answers, but the asker only lets you get by if you pick the one they were thinking of. Which does make it a good analogue for a campaign where I can't pick what I'm doing even though there are many valid things that I should be able to do.

I'd like to note that there are a minefield of players that complain about DMs that do not allow player agency or railroad, but I don't think I've seen any complaints that a DM lets the players dictate the direction that their characters go. While only a small percentage of people whine about any given issue, it is still noticeable that plenty of people complain about DMs that dictate a story at them and you do not see that small percentage of the reverse. At any rate, I wouldn't say that the advice you're giving given an average sample is helpful.

And for the question that you were asking, never, the grocer I go to gives me free things if I fill those out.

Mutazoia
2017-02-02, 04:53 AM
Riddles are terrible though. Many have multiple correct answers, but the asker only lets you get by if you pick the one they were thinking of. Which does make it a good analogue for a campaign where I can't pick what I'm doing even though there are many valid things that I should be able to do.

Again, you are confusing the "here is a specific puzzle with one correct solution" with "The DM might as well be playing my character for the entire campign for all the free will I seem to have."

Yes, a good campaign will give you lots of valid choices when it comes with what to do and where to go. And sometimes, those choices will be equally sucky, and you get to pick the lesser of all available evils, because drama and challenge make a game more interesting than "everythings coming up roses".


I'd like to note that there are a minefield of players that complain about DMs that do not allow player agency or railroad, but I don't think I've seen any complaints that a DM lets the players dictate the direction that their characters go. While only a small percentage of people whine about any given issue, it is still noticeable that plenty of people complain about DMs that dictate a story at them and you do not see that small percentage of the reverse.

Of course not. Who is going to complain when they get to do what ever they want, when ever they want? The only time you hear them complain is when a DM tries to reign them in a bit.

For example, I work in a print shop. When customers come in and want stuff now (ahead of everything else that is already scheduled) and one of the others drops everything to do their job, they get what they want and leave. The next time they come in, when you tell them that there is too much work backed up, and they have to wait, they get all pissy and throw temper tantrums.

One way, they get their way and rarely even say thank you. The other way they don't get their way, and turn into spoiled 4 year olds and complain (loudly) about how "this place sucks".

Also, keep in mind that when people complain, especially in a forum such as this one, they tend to exaggerate details. They believe they are in the right, and want to elicit sympathy, and want people to side with them.



And for the question that you were asking, never, the grocer I go to gives me free things if I fill those out.

Yes...you are bribed. But what if you got nothing out of it? There are surveys at the bottom of the receipt for pretty much every business now days. Do you fill them ALL out, or only when you get free stuff for it? Because one way is celebrating good service, the other is just being mercenary.

Yukitsu
2017-02-02, 05:07 AM
Again, you are confusing the "here is a specific puzzle with one correct solution" with "The DM might as well be playing my character for the entire campign for all the free will I seem to have."


That's what a story is. If you are writing something from beginning to end, you kind of need to know what the characters will be doing in the general sense unless you have no intention of letting the player's actions mean anything.

Mutazoia
2017-02-02, 05:51 AM
That's what a story is. If you are writing something from beginning to end, you kind of need to know what the characters will be doing in the general sense unless you have no intention of letting the player's actions mean anything.

Um....no.

If you are writing a novel, yes.

If you are writing a campaign (and you can go back to my first post and re-read this part if necesary) you only need to know where the end game is, and you can leave the rest fluid. You can...well you can re-read my first post on this thread, I'm not going to type it all out again for you.

You CAN have a story with out railroading. Anybody who tells you otherwise is selling something.

Railroading is when your players want to go shopping. While they are out you mention that they hear a rumor about the Dark Dunjon of Darkness (where you have placed a plot hook), and then tell tell them they are standing at the enterance to the Dark Dunjon of Darkness.

Having a story, is placing a plot hook in the Dark Dunjon of Darkness, and then having the players decide to ignore the rumor, and then you place the plot hook where they DO decide to go.

But, as I've also said previously, you still have to create a story that keeps your players interested and invested, so that they WANT to follow up on plot hooks.

But again, that's a completely different point from "here is a specific puzzle, solve it corretly" vs. "here is a puzzle, solve it any way you want to."

To illustrate that style, just think of how the final scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark would have been if Belloch and the Nazi's just kept throwing ideas out until one worked.

Belloch: Okay, I do [crazy idea] and open the Ark. What do I see
DM: Okay...um...you find the pieces of the 10 comandments, talk to God and the Nazi's take over the world.
Belloch: Okay, I kill Indy, and all the Nazi's have their way with Marrion before we sell her to a brothel.

Honestly though, this line of discussion should really have it's own thread, as it has become less and less about how to turn your story idea into a campaign, and more about the pro's and con's of to divergent styles of DMing.

Yukitsu
2017-02-02, 06:05 AM
Um....no.

If you are writing a novel, yes.


A novel is just a long story. :smallconfused:


Having a story, is placing a plot hook in the Dark Dunjon of Darkness, and then having the players decide to ignore the rumor, and then you place the plot hook where they DO decide to go.

That isn't a story, that's a passage from a story that you didn't write. And the problem isn't if they get your plot hook or not, it's when inevitably they reject your plot hook and this will happen. No DM is going to have a perfect track record even over the course of a single campaign in this regard and telling a DM to write a campaign as though it will be perfect is bad advice.


But, as I've also said previously, you still have to create a story that keeps your players interested and invested, so that they WANT to follow up on plot hooks.

Maybe if the DM asking for advice is a professional novelist but in all odds if it's telling me a story you want to do I'd hazard a guess that an actual writer would have done better. And even ignoring that, there's going to be some point in time that you simply want the story to go in one way but failed to get the players to go along with it. If you run long enough it happens. At that point, the idea of having a set story is kind of bunk, or you need to keep the players on that track or throw out the story that the players didn't want told.

I mean if your advice to the OP is literally "Be such a good story teller that your players never try to jump the rails" you're deliberately leading them down a pretty destructive path.

Mutazoia
2017-02-02, 06:23 AM
A novel is just a long story. :smallconfused:

A Novel isn't interactive. A campaign is. I fail to see your point here.




That isn't a story, that's a passage from a story that you didn't write. And the problem isn't if they get your plot hook or not, it's when inevitably they reject your plot hook and this will happen. No DM is going to have a perfect track record even over the course of a single campaign in this regard and telling a DM to write a campaign as though it will be perfect is bad advice.

I never said a DM has to have a perfect track record. I even suggested havig non plot related stuff on hand just in case. But these things are all situations that you learn to deal with by having them happen. You don't learn to overcome these things, if all you ever do is let your players do what ever hey want, when ever they want.




Maybe if the DM asking for advice is a professional novelist but in all odds if it's telling me a story you want to do I'd hazard a guess that an actual writer would have done better.
Obviously. This isn't novel writing 101, it's how to turn an idea into a campaign with actual goals.


And even ignoring that, there's going to be some point in time that you simply want the story to go in one way but failed to get the players to go along with it. If you run long enough it happens. At that point, the idea of having a set story is kind of bunk, or you need to keep the players on that track or throw out the story that the players didn't want told.

Yup. Which is why I have also suggested (as you can read just a few short inches above this) having other stuff ready, be ready to throw out the story idea, and discuss thigs with your players to find out what they felt could have gone better with your general idea. And use this info to learn and grow as a DM. This is how you learn to be a good DM.

"Why do we fall down, Bruce? So we can learn to pick ourselves back up again."


I mean if your advice to the OP is literally "Be such a good story teller that your players never try to jump the rails" you're deliberately leading them down a pretty destructive path.

I'm not saying a campaign story has to be Shakespear, but don't make it a Steven Seagal movie either. You know..where the main character is the baddest bad ass in all badassdom, and then the guys who don't know just how bad his ass really is mess with him, and then he spends the rest of the time shooting people and doing the same 3 or 4 pseudo martial arts moves that he does in every movie (which takes down everybody instantly), and the hot chick who he's known for like 5 minutes is ready to rip off her panties and sit on his face, and even if he gets a slight scratch, the hot chick kisses his boo boo and makes it all better and he's back running around like it never happened, and kills all the bad guys in such a cool way and saves the world, and all he girls love him, and all the guys want to be him, but they don't envy him, because he's too cool for them to even consider being as good as he is.....

Because, what some people have suggested is running games like that.

I should point out, that a big chunk of this debate can be chalked up to the old "roll playing vs role playing" debate. If your players are the type that just want to roll the dice and kill stuff, who get upset if every character in the party isn't "optomized" and the like, then trying to have a central plot for your campaign is going to be a waste of time...you're never going to hold their interest.

If your players are the type who enjoy role playing, creating elaborate back stories for their characters, giving them character flawss and the like, then you'll have a much better time of keeping them interested in a central plot.

So I guess, technically, the first bit of advice for turning an idea into a campaign, is to know your players, and know what kind of game they prefer.

Stryyke
2017-02-02, 07:36 AM
@Yukitsu

It sounds as though you are suggesting that the DM never have goals. At the end of the day, there have to be goals in a campaign. Without goals, all you have is random people being forced together by OOC considerations. If you enjoy that kind of game, all the more power to you. I am somewhat astounded that you can't seem to understand that other people want different things. One of two things is happening here:

A) You are trolling the thread, or
B) You honestly don't believe that other people could feel differently from you

In neither instance are you ever going to admit that you could be wrong, so further engagement in this thread is pointless.

@OP

There are generally three different types of game. The story focused campaign is like the modules. They are written out in their entirety and the players just go along for the ride. The pure sandbox is literally just a setting with no goals. Most games are a mix of the two. There are story points, and players sandbox between them.

The pure sandbox can be fun, but it can also be problematic. First, with no goals to follow, it's extremely difficult to have PCs stick together. You are literally just dropping 5 people into a setting, and saying "Go." Each character will have their own drives, and you will end up with a split group for a large portion of time. It then becomes difficult for myriad reasons; not the least of which is that you have to improvise between 2 & 5 different stories at a time.

The story focused campaign does suffer from many of the issues that Yukitsu has brought up. Less player agency being the problem most people dislike.

The story driven campaign has plot points, but not necessarily a pre-written story. The more plot points it has, the more "railroady" it will feel. The toughest part of any original work is pacing, and this is no different. Having enough plot points so the story feels like it's progressing regularly, without having so many that players don't feel as though they effect the story with their decisions.

It's tough, and you will screw up. Just accept that from the word go. Like any written work, no one gets their first draft published. The biggest thing is to be up front when you start the campaign about what you are doing. Online, you can find people for any sort of campaign style, so the most important thing is to make it fun for you; and then recruit the type of people who will enjoy what you are doing. In face-to-face games, you have to be a bit more flexible. Especially if you have a group with rotating GMs. In this style game, a "campaign" could be the same size as a single adventure in a long-form, story driven game.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-02-02, 11:00 AM
You CAN have a story with out railroading. Anybody who tells you otherwise is selling something.

The story is a retroactive thing. If you look back over the campaign once it's been played you see what the story was. The story is something that everyone in the group made together with their playing. That's a distinct thing from a GM setting out to create a specific story in advance, which is bad. If you're doing that, you're messing up. If you're going into a campaign with the final scene planned, you're messing up.

That's not to say the GM can't bring their own ideas into things. A good way to do it is to throw down a bunch of things in the world that are progressing at their own pace. You can plan what will happen in a world in which the PCs don't exist. PCs can then choose to disrupt none/some/all of those things based on their inclination/competence/luck and you react accordingly.

Which, I guess is my advice to the OP. Take your ideas, plan out the steps for what it will take for the "antagonists" to accomplish them and what will happen if they're left to their own devices, and then let the PCs interact with those things as they will.

Yukitsu
2017-02-02, 02:29 PM
@Yukitsu

It sounds as though you are suggesting that the DM never have goals. At the end of the day, there have to be goals in a campaign. Without goals, all you have is random people being forced together by OOC considerations. If you enjoy that kind of game, all the more power to you. I am somewhat astounded that you can't seem to understand that other people want different things. One of two things is happening here:

A) You are trolling the thread, or
B) You honestly don't believe that other people could feel differently from you

In neither instance are you ever going to admit that you could be wrong, so further engagement in this thread is pointless.

"Goals" are fine. A goal is a short term thing that is easy to put together, easy to throw away and which anything is going to have to rely on, even if the DM isn't writing the story. The problem I'd have is in assuming that the players will have the same "end goal" in mind as you many sessions before it's even revealed to them. Mutazoi is recommending that the DM create a story against the general advice of the thread. A story isn't one goal, especially not a story that has multiple protagonists. A story often has smaller plots running through it and those have short term or immediate goals, even in a sandbox environment.


@OP

There are generally three different types of game. The story focused campaign is like the modules. They are written out in their entirety and the players just go along for the ride. The pure sandbox is literally just a setting with no goals. Most games are a mix of the two. There are story points, and players sandbox between them.

The story focused campaign does suffer from many of the issues that Yukitsu has brought up. Less player agency being the problem most people dislike.

A story driven campaign doesn't have to be like this or have as many of those issues. Most DMs and especially new ones can't wing an entire session that easily and need some structure to help them along and a lot of experienced DMs that I know prefer having that to rely on. Those issues come most strongly when you write the entire story and assume it will be followed. Instead, you can write it session by session and let the player's actions have more direct consequences and impact. If they don't want to follow along with a planned session, it's not so hard to recover from this and when they make a decision that you didn't plan for, when they kill your antagonist chapters ahead of what you planned you can just write the next session with new story threads without having wasted your time.

What's worse is, I often see newbie DMs panic when it looks like a campaign might go off the rails of their story, and it's easy to understand why. It's a lot of stress trying to create a campaign when you're new and it's always a lot of work. Having to bin most of it is something I suspect people inherently want to avoid even when it's what you likely need to do, but if you build a story one bit at a time in manageable chunks rather than beginning to end, you don't have to throw out as much in the event of a plot derail. You mention some other alternatives as well, story heavy campaigns simply don't have to rely on the attitude that it's the DMs story being narrated at a passive audience, players should be able to avoid or ignore your plot hooks when they feel they are not interesting or don't fit their characters.

Yukitsu
2017-02-02, 02:38 PM
A Novel isn't interactive. A campaign is. I fail to see your point here.


Stories also aren't interactive and yet that's what you're advocating people make, and a story not being interactive is exactly my criticism of your advice.



I never said a DM has to have a perfect track record. I even suggested havig non plot related stuff on hand just in case. But these things are all situations that you learn to deal with by having them happen. You don't learn to overcome these things, if all you ever do is let your players do what ever hey want, when ever they want.

For a newbie DM, you're recommending they spend potentially ten or more hours writing a story and pre-planning encounters, looking up stats and CRs and then having potentially, to throw away 5 hours of it. That's going to turn off a lot of people from DMing.


Yup. Which is why I have also suggested (as you can read just a few short inches above this) having other stuff ready, be ready to throw out the story idea, and discuss thigs with your players to find out what they felt could have gone better with your general idea. And use this info to learn and grow as a DM. This is how you learn to be a good DM.

"Why do we fall down, Bruce? So we can learn to pick ourselves back up again."

Or they could have asked before they fell over. There was a post a short while back about a new DM running for Talakeal where the new DM was having this problem, the campaign simply died off after the first session. DM wanted to tell a story, player didn't want to hear it, campaign died less than one session in.



I'm not saying a campaign story has to be Shakespear, but don't make it a Steven Seagal movie either. You know..where the main character is the baddest bad ass in all badassdom, and then the guys who don't know just how bad his ass really is mess with him, and then he spends the rest of the time shooting people and doing the same 3 or 4 pseudo martial arts moves that he does in every movie (which takes down everybody instantly), and the hot chick who he's known for like 5 minutes is ready to rip off her panties and sit on his face, and even if he gets a slight scratch, the hot chick kisses his boo boo and makes it all better and he's back running around like it never happened, and kills all the bad guys in such a cool way and saves the world, and all he girls love him, and all the guys want to be him, but they don't envy him, because he's too cool for them to even consider being as good as he is.....

Because, what some people have suggested is running games like that.

I should point out, that a big chunk of this debate can be chalked up to the old "roll playing vs role playing" debate. If your players are the type that just want to roll the dice and kill stuff, who get upset if every character in the party isn't "optomized" and the like, then trying to have a central plot for your campaign is going to be a waste of time...you're never going to hold their interest.

If your players are the type who enjoy role playing, creating elaborate back stories for their characters, giving them character flawss and the like, then you'll have a much better time of keeping them interested in a central plot.

So I guess, technically, the first bit of advice for turning an idea into a campaign, is to know your players, and know what kind of game they prefer.

On the contrary, I'd rather not RP in a story because ultimately what I say or do still leads to the same inexorable conclusion. RP in a story is like playing Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, no matter what I do or say, it doesn't matter. RP is much more interesting when the DM can riff off that. You accidentally offend some noble? That can be added into a story that's more flexible than a completely pre-written story. You RP well in talking to some bad guy early on? Maybe they decide to help you out instead of fighting you later. If it's a set story and you've got it all plotted out, I can say or do whatever I want because it's still moving to the same conclusion.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-02-02, 02:56 PM
To paraphrase a story I once heard John Harper tell:

Back when he was a little baby DM of 12 years old he planned out an epic campaign. The PCs would be mercenaries, fighting the frost giant menace. He meticulously planned out every scene over the entire campaign. "Then they'll go here. Then they'll do this. Then they'll do this. Then they'll do this."

First session in, the PCs fight some frost giants and get hurt real bad, barely get out alive. They panic and go "Okay maybe this wasn't such a good idea after all. We leave and go do something else." Little baby DM John Harper panics, what about his hours of crafted story? "Uhhh... no, that night, uhh, a snow storm comes. It snows you all in. You can't leave. There's a big snow storm." he says. His friend looks him in the eyes and goes "No there isn't." And John agrees. "No, there isn't."

The PCs leave, they all go on to explore something else that isn't John's planned story, and John learned to be a better GM.

daniel_ream
2017-02-03, 12:58 AM
A good way to do it is to throw down a bunch of things in the world that are progressing at their own pace. You can plan what will happen in a world in which the PCs don't exist. PCs can then choose to disrupt none/some/all of those things based on their inclination/competence/luck and you react accordingly.

I've seen this phrased more tersely as "prep situations, not plots".

To the OP: what this means is to have some things going in your setting that the PCs can interact with - a trade war between guilds, an incursion of goblins in the woods near the trade routes, or a sudden storm that sinks half the village's fishing fleet and destroys their economy. Things that provide opportunity for work. Don't decide how that trade war *must* play out, or how the incursion *will* be defeated, or what happens to the village. There's a danger in prepping too much, in that it's likely wasted effort. Keep it personal - ensure that there are people driving most of the situations, and know what motivates them and how they're likely to react. It's easier to judge how a person will react to PCs messing with their plans and players tend to relate better to specific persons than impersonal events or forces. Once they pick something that holds their interest, you know where to focus your dev time.


My idea is for a game involving travel between the mundane world and a fantasy-style parallel world. [...] I've got that the characters will be sent on some small-scale quest that will involve their traveling to the parallel world, perhaps more than one quest. They will discover (somehow) that the parallel world, or the link between the two, is (for some reason) deteriorating but can (somehow) be saved. There may or may not be a third world that watches over the two already mentioned. If I flesh out the details, is that enough to start a game? Would it help or hinder to work out the ideas more?

What you've got so far could describe anything from The Fionnavar Tapestry to Riftwar to Yrth to Narnia to Witch World to el-Hazard. So right up front I'd say you need more fleshing out to make it clear what the point of this campaign idea is. There are some common tropes: will someone have to decide to close the link to save someone or something, and face the consequence of never going home again? Will someone decide that they are better off in the fantasy world and go native? What interaction will the two worlds have aside from the PCs, and do you want your campaign to deal with that cross-contamination? Are the PCs Chosen Ones? Accidental heroes? Were they summoned for a Mysterious Reason that they might want to uncover? Is the whole campaign an excuse for endless jokes about making Earth equivalent devices out of palm fronds and coconuts?


"Uhhh... no, that night, uhh, a snow storm comes. It snows you all in. You can't leave. There's a big snow storm." he says. His friend looks him in the eyes and goes "No there isn't." And John agrees. "No, there isn't."

Tangentially, this goes to my claim that DMs don't actually have any power. There's nothing a DM can say that can't be overruled by the players just saying "No, there isn't". A DM without any players isn't master of anything.

Uncle Pine
2017-02-03, 05:59 AM
I'm a fairly inexperienced DM, and have been roleplaying for only about 3 years, almost always as a player. The few times I've DM'd it's been from pre-written adventures, or adventure ideas given to me by other people.

I've got a vague idea/concept floating around in my head, but I'm unsure about how (or even if) I should use it to generate a game story. I've read a few things about story structure when writing non-interactive fiction (e.g. Joseph Campbell's The Hero With A Thousand Faces) but I don't know to what extent that applies when writing adventures/campaigns.

So, how do you turn your ideas into roleplaying games?
I generally start thinking from the antagonists. I've almost always been the DM, therefore I put just as much thought into my bosses and villains as my players (and I) put into their characters. If I have a cool idea, I try to find a way to incorporate into the adventure/campaign or just stat it out and add it to my "random one-shot villains" folder. It's a bit like being a player myself, except I'm on the other side of the table and I play all the (not playing) characters. On the other hand, when I don't have an idea for a one-shot and I don't feel like using one of the aforementioned villains, I roll something TV Tropes' story generator (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/storygen.php) and go back to the drawing board.

As far as dungeons/caves/places to explore go, I like to keep it simple and rely on variations of the 5-room dungeon. I feel it keeps things more dynamic. I've mapped and run a couple of big complexes before and while it went rather well, I felt like it forced me to do unnecessarily extra work.

Mutazoia
2017-02-03, 10:42 AM
To paraphrase a story I once heard John Harper tell:

Back when he was a little baby DM of 12 years old he planned out an epic campaign. The PCs would be mercenaries, fighting the frost giant menace. He meticulously planned out every scene over the entire campaign. "Then they'll go here. Then they'll do this. Then they'll do this. Then they'll do this."

First session in, the PCs fight some frost giants and get hurt real bad, barely get out alive. They panic and go "Okay maybe this wasn't such a good idea after all. We leave and go do something else." Little baby DM John Harper panics, what about his hours of crafted story? "Uhhh... no, that night, uhh, a snow storm comes. It snows you all in. You can't leave. There's a big snow storm." he says. His friend looks him in the eyes and goes "No there isn't." And John agrees. "No, there isn't."

The PCs leave, they all go on to explore something else that isn't John's planned story, and John learned to be a better GM.

Yes, because young, inexperienced Johnny tried to plan EVERYTHING and tried to force the players down his little rail tracks. And Jonnny learned to be more fluid in setting up and presenting his story.

You guys seem to be fixated on the concept that a central plot means that the DM HAS to FORCE players to do what they want all the time. That's not how this works...that's not how any of this works. Your just too fixated on your fear of railroads that you think anything with any kind of plot is automatically a railroad. It's not.

But hey, if your style of play is to just have a "DM" who rolls dice and does nothing but run random encounters, while the players just wander around the game world, that's fine. Go right ahead. I'm not trying to stop you. I AM trying to get you to admit that YOUR way, isn't the only way.


Tangentially, this goes to my claim that DMs don't actually have any power. There's nothing a DM can say that can't be overruled by the players just saying "No, there isn't". A DM without any players isn't master of anything.

DM: You enter the cavern and see a large red dragon, perched atop a mountain of gold.
Player: Nope. We just see a mountain of gold
DM: Um...okay....you find a mountain of gold. You can't carry all.
Player: Nope, it's all packed in bags of holding that we can carry back easily
DM: Okay, you can carry the mountain of gold. On your way back to town, 10 bandits -
Player: Nope. We get back to town with out delay.

Yeah...like any game has ever worked like that...ever.

Players with out a DM are just a group of special snowflakes sitting around a table telling themselves how cool they are.

There was a term for games where DM's let the players get away with pretty much anything, didn't give them any real challenges and just dolled out treasure and xp. It was called "Monty Haul" after an old game show host that would give out prizes to the studio audience just for showing up.

If a DM can't challenge his players, isn't allowed to give them a puzzle that doesn't have a million and one solutions (or one that doesn't really have any solution, the players just get to make up some **** to get past it, and ANYTHING will work), you might as well not run a game at all. You might as well just buy a module, and have everybody sit around reading it, giving themselves XP for any monster they see, write all the treasure on their character sheets, and then move on to the next module (if modules were still a thing that is).

Knaight
2017-02-03, 12:47 PM
You guys seem to be fixated on the concept that a central plot means that the DM HAS to FORCE players to do what they want all the time. That's not how this works...that's not how any of this works. Your just too fixated on your fear of railroads that you think anything with any kind of plot is automatically a railroad. It's not.
I actually don't disagree with this, with the notable caveat that even a really flexible plot won't necessarily survive player action unless the term "plot" is being defined so vaguely that it includes any form of a world changing without player input.


But hey, if your style of play is to just have a "DM" who rolls dice and does nothing but run random encounters, while the players just wander around the game world, that's fine. Go right ahead. I'm not trying to stop you. I AM trying to get you to admit that YOUR way, isn't the only way.
This on the other hand is just a dishonest depiction of what people are suggesting. Nobody is saying all the DM should do is roll dice and run random encounters. Just because a game doesn't have a predefined plot doesn't mean it doesn't have DM decision making. Among the things the DM does is runs the actions of NPCs, all of whom can do things - the idea that they just wait around to show up on a random encounter table or have some sort of static role for direct interactions is ludicrous.


If a DM can't challenge his players, isn't allowed to give them a puzzle that doesn't have a million and one solutions (or one that doesn't really have any solution, the players just get to make up some **** to get past it, and ANYTHING will work), you might as well not run a game at all. You might as well just buy a module, and have everybody sit around reading it, giving themselves XP for any monster they see, write all the treasure on their character sheets, and then move on to the next module (if modules were still a thing that is).
This is also a dishonest depiction of what people are saying. The absence of a singular solution doesn't mean that there aren't a whole bunch of actions that end in failure. Similarly the absence of a single defined solution in no way prevents a challenge.

wardeng
2017-02-03, 01:26 PM
You begin with a setting and the central tension. Give the world some problem that concerns most people. Then, think up your story as it concerns the people in the game who aren't the players. If the players weren't there, what would happen. Then, let them happen. If the players stop those happenings, great. If they don't, great. The world continues to turn. Let the players care about the stuff they want to care about and not care about what they don't want to care about.

Certainly, there is something to be said for corralling the players towards the central tension, such as getting their family members involved or directly impacting their own lives.

But, really, just come up with a cool world and maybe seed some adventures and then see what they decide to do and go from there. That's what I do on my show.

Yukitsu
2017-02-03, 01:41 PM
Yes, because young, inexperienced Johnny tried to plan EVERYTHING and tried to force the players down his little rail tracks. And Jonnny learned to be more fluid in setting up and presenting his story.

You guys seem to be fixated on the concept that a central plot means that the DM HAS to FORCE players to do what they want all the time. That's not how this works...that's not how any of this works. Your just too fixated on your fear of railroads that you think anything with any kind of plot is automatically a railroad. It's not.

But hey, if your style of play is to just have a "DM" who rolls dice and does nothing but run random encounters, while the players just wander around the game world, that's fine. Go right ahead. I'm not trying to stop you. I AM trying to get you to admit that YOUR way, isn't the only way.

I think what we need is what you mean when you say "story" because I'm getting some serious confusing vibes from what you seem to mean by it.

WbtE
2017-02-04, 04:55 AM
Technically, if you invent a deathtrap with no way out, it won't matter how many solutions your player's come up with. As there is no way out, nothing the players come up with would work. (Couldn't help nit-picking there.)

This "nit-picking" isn't a correction, but rather a failure to comprehend. Those arguing for flexibility from the DM would see "a deathtrap with no way out" as what was true within the limits of the DM's imagination, and expect the players (with a greater number of brains at their disposal) to imagine something that didn't occur to the DM. Now, I raise this not because it's particularly hard to understand, but because your failure to grasp the opposing point of view deeply discredits you in this debate. You might think that you're landing telling blows on the other camp, but you're just swinging wildly then congratulating yourself.

In the same vein, when you pronounce that:


Riddles have only one answer, they are not multiple choice.

It's not self-evident. If the riddle is being posed by an inanimate object, then there's not much point in arguing verbally. But we're talking about RPGs, with a (supposedly) intelligent creature interpreting the players' answers. In that light, we ought to consider that if an intelligent creature poses a riddle, then there might be more than one right answer - especially if the questioner and answerer come from different cultures. (Roger Zelazny used this as a set piece in his Amber series.) To give an example, let's take the famous riddle of the sphinx. There's a common version that runs,

"What goes on four feet in the morning, two feet at noon, and three feet in the evening?"

Now, a person who comes from a society in which old people don't hobble about with canes wouldn't give the conventional answer. They might see it as a reference to the movement of shadows, or to a political process with four leaders at the outset, two during the middle, and three towards the end. Are these answers wrong? Surely not. They're just not what the questioner expected, and it's a sign of close-mindedness to declare that there's only one right answer.

Now, I'm not writing this to embarrass you. (To be honest, I don't think that what I write here will change anyone's opinion of you.) These points need to be raised because you've been doing a disservice to the story-oriented school of DMing and making its adherents seem close-minded and arrogant. This certainly isn't true and a great many DMs focus on story in the hopes of providing a better game.

Although stated reasons differ, it strikes me that the best reason for focusing on a story is that many players, and not just new ones, would rather come along for the ride. If the DM lays out the terrain, but doesn't tell them where to go, such players wander around aimlessly and then complain that the campaign had no direction. However, many players are not like that. There are those who develop ambitions for their characters both before and during play, and expect to be able to work towards those goals. It's hard to see how this is misbehaviour in a game about giving life to an imaginary person! People have things they want to do, so making characters with things to do is quite proper. However, once characters have goals, those goals may not intersect with the story that the DM has developed and trying to lead such players by the nose is only going to frustrate them.

Now, the usual situation for a group of players is something in-between and with a new group one never really knows until the game starts. That's why some people in this thread are advocating flexibility from the DM, either starting with a story in mind and being prepared to change tack if the players show signs of wanting to do their own thing, or starting with an open canvas and being prepared to take charge if the players aren't sure what they want to do.

daniel_ream
2017-02-04, 10:49 AM
Some quotes that might help.


You might think that you're landing telling blows on the other camp, but you're just swinging wildly then congratulating yourself.

"It's like playing chess with a pigeon - it knocks over the pieces, ****s all over the board, then struts about like it won."


Although stated reasons differ, it strikes me that the best reason for focusing on a story is that many players, and not just new ones, would rather come along for the ride.

"A lot of players don't mind a railroad as long as the destination is Awesometown."

Tanarii
2017-02-04, 12:12 PM
Don't write a story. Don't think of an RPG as a story. That's a terrible way to approach most RPGs as a DM. Present a situation, have in mind some possible outcomes, and adapt to player in-character choices as they go.

That doesn't mean you can't have some long-term timetable of macro-events, in fact a good campaign absolutely should have that. But that time table should be the 'if players do nothing' version. Not the 'if players do everything I want' version.

Similarly, For an adventure / Villian plot / current scenario, you need to know what the most likely failure and success outcomes look like, and be ready to adapt them. Ditto for individual puzzles, traps, and encounters.

Mutazoia
2017-02-04, 02:20 PM
Now, I raise this not because it's particularly hard to understand, but because your failure to grasp the opposing point of view deeply discredits you in this debate. You might think that you're landing telling blows on the other camp, but you're just swinging wildly then congratulating yourself.

You mean like you taking a bit of a snark seriously, and then proceeding to lecture some one about it?

Got'cha.


I think what we need is what you mean when you say "story" because I'm getting some serious confusing vibes from what you seem to mean by it.

Yes, I realize that I've been using "story" and "central plot" interchangeably.

I'm not advocating wring a novel and making the players play as written.

I'm saying you can have a general plot, and weave it in in bits and pieces, with only the last boss battle being being really planned. You can still let your players run about, but ever now and then you throw in something related to your plot, throw some clues around that start to give them a peak at what the BBEG is up to and let them know that they're in a good position to mess up part of his plan....

Yukitsu
2017-02-05, 12:42 AM
Yes, I realize that I've been using "story" and "central plot" interchangeably.

I'm not advocating wring a novel and making the players play as written.

I'm saying you can have a general plot, and weave it in in bits and pieces, with only the last boss battle being being really planned. You can still let your players run about, but ever now and then you throw in something related to your plot, throw some clues around that start to give them a peak at what the BBEG is up to and let them know that they're in a good position to mess up part of his plan....

Yeah, that would probably have avoided almost all of this conversation since in case you hadn't noticed, all I was complaining about was you consistently telling people to write a story. I don't care if a DM writes or doesn't write a plot outline.

GungHo
2017-02-06, 11:00 AM
It's not self-evident. If the riddle is being posed by an inanimate object, then there's not much point in arguing verbally. But we're talking about RPGs, with a (supposedly) intelligent creature interpreting the players' answers. In that light, we ought to consider that if an intelligent creature poses a riddle, then there might be more than one right answer - especially if the questioner and answerer come from different cultures. (Roger Zelazny used this as a set piece in his Amber series.) To give an example, let's take the famous riddle of the sphinx. There's a common version that runs,

"What goes on four feet in the morning, two feet at noon, and three feet in the evening?"

Now, a person who comes from a society in which old people don't hobble about with canes wouldn't give the conventional answer. They might see it as a reference to the movement of shadows, or to a political process with four leaders at the outset, two during the middle, and three towards the end. Are these answers wrong? Surely not. They're just not what the questioner expected, and it's a sign of close-mindedness to declare that there's only one right answer.
On the other hand, a Sphinx knows nothing about a hoveround, so we may have to give him a break for not mentioning the four wheels.

Thinker
2017-02-06, 11:57 AM
Haven't read the rest of the replies, but here's my go-to method.


Determine the type, genre, and conventions of the game - cyberpunk, medieval fantasy, space opera, modern fantasy, WW2 with zombies, etc.
Figure out how you want the PC's to interact with those conventions - criminals working for corporations, heroes fighting for Good, charting unexplored worlds, fighting back against the beasts that go bump in the night, taking down zombie Hitler, etc.
Communicate both of those things to the players and get buy-in. If no one wants to play, no need to put any more effort into it or you can modify it based on feedback from the players; maybe they like the idea of Nazi zombies, but would prefer it post-WW2 in a Cold War spies type game. If that works for you, then go ahead and run it, if not, go back to the drawing board.
Determine a situation that would be interesting if the types of characters your players will play were to get involved. Maybe Nazi zombies are under the control of a Soviet occultist that is threatening to overrun Italy and turn it Red.
Figure out what would happen in your scenario if the characters never got involved - only a few big things, for example:

Swastikas and other pro-Axis graffiti have started to appear at night.
There's reports in Milan of gangs breaking into the catacombs beneath the city.
People have been mugged at night by people who get bitey and some people have gone missing altogether.
The police start to investigate, but are overrun by zombies.
The city descends into chaos.
The military gets involved, but their equipment has been sabotaged and they are overrun by zombies, too.
The zombie horde spreads across Italy, sending people fleeing and causing a crisis.
NATO moves to intervene, but is challenged by the Iron Curtain.
Soviets intervene on behalf of Italy and the country falls to communism (but at least it's not to zombies, right?)

Come up with some important characters and their agendas - probably in this case, the Soviet occultist, maybe an Italian commando or general, some MI5 and CIA agents, and a few bystanders in Milan. Each of them needs a basic agenda or goal - the Soviet occultist is easy; the bystanders might be more difficult (a baker might just be interested in the safety of his family while a police officer might be interested in promotion). That gives your players levers to use when interacting with the NPCs and gives you as the GM a way to think about how the character will interact with the players.
Whenever there's nothing happening in the game, progress the timeline. If the players have disrupted events thus far, you'll have to modify the timeline.
Follow the players' actions to their conclusion - if the players head into the catacombs, they might be arrested by the police and be sitting in jail when the police are attacked by zombies.


I'm sure there's a lot more advice, but that's a general framework for how I do it.