Over-arching plot or many mini plots? Which is better?

[KittenEV]

So, I'm at the point of the campaign I'm running where the first "bring the party together" mission has happened and now of course they're asking that age old "why are we sticking together" question. Completely understandable.

So, my question to all the way more experienced and entirely more capable DMs out there is, what has gotten better results from your campaigns? Having an over-arching plot with a big baddie that spans many levels with 'mini' plots to reach that end goal of probably stopping or killing said bad guy OR just having a bunch of mini plots that maybe span a level or two with different bad guys?

What are your thoughts? :smallfrown:

[Cespenar]

Depends on your players' taste, really.

Overarching plots are somewhat more fitting to people who don't know each other well (at first).

Many mini-adventures are more fitting after people have started to get along with each other, and don't need that strong of an outside influence to stay together. Stakes don't have to be as high, but things are more personal and character-driven.

Having played both excessively, I'm more partial to the mini-adventures. It gives the "professional adventurer" vibe better, and allows the characters to further develop themselves rather than just be reactionaries which happen more commonly with overarching epic plots.

[mephnick]

I prefer tighter, more specific mini-adventures with characters crafted to be together. "Why you're sticking together" should be answered before the first session ever starts. You can throw random people together and just go with the flow for the sake of the game, but really there's no reason why 5 strangers would stick together for a year long adventure. It's much easier to believe that 5 people from the same guild/faction/army/cult/small town would undertake a long mission together. What I like best as a DM is to have two or three active parties going in the world and us jumping between them for mini-arcs like you get in good fantasy novels. We're the monster hunters in the North for a few levels, then the pirates for a few levels, then the shining knights, then back to the monster hunters. I find I get burnt out on long campaigns with the same characters.

[Sception]

depends on the players in question. Half of my group get bored super easily and are always looking to make new characters after about four or five sessions. Ongoing plots become essentially unworkable.

[Puh Laden]

Should have just started with the characters already being a party :P

I prefer the string of mini adventures, if only because of how many different things I want to do. One week it's a werewolf, next two weeks it's the underdark with the party acting as security for the drow's mom's art auction, then the party heading into the feywild to revive the river for the dragonborn's clan.

[Cybren]

No plot, but a set of compelling characters & a world that speaks to what the player characters may want to do, guided at first by more explicit objective based quests slowly giving way to just reacting and watching the whims of the players.

[The Shadowdove]

Two or three miniplots that seem separate, that unexpectedly come together as a bigger puzzle during the last couple of story archs.

Each small plot has a bbeg that doesn't appear related to the next. After a few there's a strange link discovered between them all and an ultimate BBEG that has been the true source of all the adventurer's misfortune.

Even worse, the BBEG boss manipulated the party into taking care of underlings who would have been potential rivals later.

[Chaosvii7]

In the words of a wise young woman with a hunger for equality (and tacos), por que no los dos? My Roll20 game is basically that - they pick which area they want to go to, and each area connects back to elements of their charatcters' backstories, while gradually building up political tension and conflicts between two warring nations. Each mini-plot is character focused, and each story we complete inches us closer to the resolution of a larger overarching plot that's been brewing for some time in-game.

It really depends on how much the players characterize their characters - those with decently sized backstories, or players who are receptive to being given backstory elements of your choosing, will make the approach go a lot more smoothly. Each character's past doesn't necessarily have to worm it's way into the story of the camapaign (mine did moreso because there's a very heavy implication of fate guiding these people together through carefully orchestrated actions by some of the more important NPCs), but if each player character brings at least one mini-plot to explore then you can easily build upon them in a way that lets you break one great story into smaller, focused pieces.

[Beleriphon]

I'm partial to semi-serialized, like TV shows. The Flash for example has a season long story, but each episode has its own plot resolved in an hour of TV, but also progresses the season long story at least a little bit.

[Desamir]

So, I'm at the point of the campaign I'm running where the first "bring the party together" mission has happened and now of course they're asking that age old "why are we sticking together" question. Completely understandable.

Personally, whenever I DM, I ask the players that question before the first session. I give them the responsibility of figuring out why their characters are working together (with my help if they want it, of course).

The players like it a lot more, too, by the way. They get the agency of establishing the party dynamic and coming up with interconnected backstories. It's more fun for everyone than trying to tie them together with deus ex machina.

[KittenEV]

Well then how do I bring them together now that I've already messed that part up by them not being together at the start of the campaign?

[Sigreid]

Since I do sand box type campaigns, I toss out hooks for the various characters where it's clear they will need reliable and skilled help. Hmmm, where would they find that? :smallbiggrin:

In the end though, it really boils down to the players already know the game only works if they go along with each other so it's not even an issue.

A good cheat for the future is to insist that they currently live in the same village/city and at least kinda know each other.

[Finback]

If I can offer a good analogy (and one that is enjoyable) - read the Blue Beetle series from 2006, specifically issues 1 to 25. What you'll find is that each individual issue tells a story - each set of five stories is a mini-arc - and they all culminate in one huge mega-arc which you don't even realise is happening, until the end, when plot points, characters from past issues, etc. all come into play together in ways you really didn't expect.

That's why I'm striving for in my games. In 4e, I started off that way, but my group fell apart before I could start up the second arc of story. The first arc was about the group coming together, and finding a mentor, who was revealed to be a dragon. Of course, the group was also being manipulated by the BBEG, and led to their mentor being driven insane. Second arc was about saving their mentor, and hints of the BBEG's world-ending plot. Third arc was going against their mentor for the greater good, and foiling the BBEG plot. So, three parts, with one overarching idea, and smaller storylines within.


(I have to admit, the big conclusion involved *deliberately awakening* the tarrasque, in order to go against the BBEG. Basically, bringing in Godzilla to deal with Cthulhu.)

[CaptainSarathai]

As a DM, I prefer tight, mini-plots. They can be chapters in a larger story, but I never try to span a story from beginning to end over 20 levels. Too much can go wrong, and you run the risk of railroading to prevent it.

I'm usually broke it up by the "adventuring tiers" of roughly 5 levels each, and told a plot that got them through each level. That plot might have hooks and tie ins to the next, but the progression was always loosely defined.

I've even started campaigns with no idea where the next chapter would be headed. So it was simply plotted from 1-5, and then I started building 6-10 as we went along, and then 11-15 started to fall into place. Truly cooperative storytelling at its finest.

[Sigreid]

If I can offer a good analogy (and one that is enjoyable) - read the Blue Beetle series from 2006, specifically issues 1 to 25. What you'll find is that each individual issue tells a story - each set of five stories is a mini-arc - and they all culminate in one huge mega-arc which you don't even realise is happening, until the end, when plot points, characters from past issues, etc. all come into play together in ways you really didn't expect.

That's why I'm striving for in my games. In 4e, I started off that way, but my group fell apart before I could start up the second arc of story. The first arc was about the group coming together, and finding a mentor, who was revealed to be a dragon. Of course, the group was also being manipulated by the BBEG, and led to their mentor being driven insane. Second arc was about saving their mentor, and hints of the BBEG's world-ending plot. Third arc was going against their mentor for the greater good, and foiling the BBEG plot. So, three parts, with one overarching idea, and smaller storylines within.


(I have to admit, the big conclusion involved *deliberately awakening* the tarrasque, in order to go against the BBEG. Basically, bringing in Godzilla to deal with Cthulhu.)

Adventure Time is actually a lot like that. Watch a few episodes and it looks like a silly cartoon spoof of D&D. Watch enough episodes for you to be embarrassed that you watched that many an you realize all of these silly 15 minute cartoons weave together into a story that is surprisingly deep and dark.

[BW022]

So, I'm at the point of the campaign I'm running where the first "bring the party together" mission has happened and now of course they're asking that age old "why are we sticking together" question. Completely understandable.

So, my question to all the way more experienced and entirely more capable DMs out there is, what has gotten better results from your campaigns? Having an over-arching plot with a big baddie that spans many levels with 'mini' plots to reach that end goal of probably stopping or killing said bad guy OR just having a bunch of mini plots that maybe span a level or two with different bad guys?

What are your thoughts? :smallfrown:

Players also need to take some ownership of their game. If they make anti-social characters, write backgrounds which require them to go off, or otherwise can't come up with reasons their characters would stick with the group... then the answer is simple "Because if (character name) can't come up with a reason to stay in the party, (player name) won't be joining us for the rest of the campaign."
The job of the DM is to bring the characters together. It isn't their job to baby-sit them, come up with forcing plots to keep them together, etc. If players don't wish to use the opportunity to come up with some reason why they need to keep adventuring... that isn't your problem. The unwritten rule is that they will either make their own reasons to stay together or else not play the game.

Run whatever plots you want. Personally, I like longer big plots which start small and build up to something. However, I wouldn't run that past maybe 5 or 6 levels -- since otherwise there aren't a lot of big "pay offs" and players can get board over several months without seeing much progress. Even with 5-6 level plot-lines, I tend to have definite goals or milestones where players can see that they are making progress, discovering the larger plot, and/or defeating secondary opponents on their way.