PDA

View Full Version : Mix of main and side plots in an ongoing campaign



VoxRationis
2018-05-22, 02:23 AM
So I have a plan for a campaign in RQ6/Mythras. This campaign, as I envision it, is of a plot similar to that of Jason and the Argonauts, in that the main characters are sent far afield in order to fetch an item (or three, in this case) and will have a number of adventures and encounters along the way. The items will be of somewhat more significance in the grand scheme of things, but the basic structure will be the same.

My question to the Playground is this: how much of the campaign should directly relate to the items, as opposed to side plots or wholly self-contained, episodic plots (of the sort common in both pre-Netflix television series and the epics themselves)? I am concerned that if every adventure is a direct step towards the goals, the campaign will either be unsatisfyingly short, the scale and character of an epic journey lost, or else will introduce too many necessary steps on the path to the players' goals, such that the path becomes frustratingly murky. On the other hand, such frustration could also appear if there is an excess of distraction.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-05-22, 02:46 AM
This seems like the sort of thing you can let the players decide, at least partially. Offer them side quests with compelling hooks and see what they prioritize doing, or if they ignore them and continue after the main quest.

Cespenar
2018-05-22, 03:17 AM
If you think about introducing side plots, I found that the best ones are usually personal plots connected to one or more of the PCs.

Pacing wise, think about how many sessions you want the game to go, and plan from there. The classic pacing comprises highs and lows, gradually going up to a climax, and then a resting period afterwards. Also realize that your plans won't probably hold up, but it always helps to have a skeleton to build around.

Pleh
2018-05-22, 05:22 AM
For one thing, not all side quests need be totally voluntary. I'm not talking about railroading, just sprinkling in a few Ambush sidequests. What starts as a random encounter ambush while the players are camping for the night can quickly become a sidequest if, for example, a few of the monsters run off with something valuable to the party and their main quest (like the fighter's ancestral sword).

Adding sidequests that impose themselves on the players is a delicate balance. A small amount can add some drama and versimilitude, because journeys like this often have this kind of problem in real life. Too much spice and it starts to feel heavy handed. And to avoid actually railroading, it still has to be fine if the players decide to cut their losses and reject the quest.

I aim for a ratio of 1:5 mandatory sidequest to open invitations at most for an open journey campaign. This ratio can be higher in Gritty campaigns that are meant to be more punishing, but even a casual game of D&D can handle about a 1 in 5 hardship ratio. Especially since my games typically handle 1 sidequest per session.

Lastly, best to keep mandatory sidequests brief (unless players are really enjoying them). No need to throw plot twists to extend the narrative; the imposition of the narrative is plenty of twist by itself and a lot of players might not mention if they're unhappy with what's happening because it feels impolite to complain. Let them resolve the mandatory sidequest quickly and get back to letting them have full control. If they really thought the sidequest was worth going any deeper into ("let's hunt down the thieving monsters and put an end to their nightly robberies for good"), they can choose that on their own.

---

Beyind that, it's best to have about 3 sidequests ready to play per session, at least one should be localized and only triggered if the players pursue it and at least one should be planned to deliberately interrupt their progress until they have responded to it (either by pursuing or abandoning the quest).

While these sidequests are about as much work as you probably would ever want to bother with in advance, they can't preclude the spontaneous creation of sidequests the players inspire through play. These organic sidequests very commonly make for some of the best games because it lets the PC show what they really care about (enough to take time and initiative to add something to their bigger quest).

Kaptin Keen
2018-05-22, 07:03 AM
This seems like the sort of thing you can let the players decide, at least partially. Offer them side quests with compelling hooks and see what they prioritize doing, or if they ignore them and continue after the main quest.

This is what I do: Toss out random things, and whenever they show interest, it becomes a side quest of various length and depth. It does tend to ... catch on like wildfire, however. I regularly feel the need to list all current unresolved plot lines.

Honest Tiefling
2018-05-22, 11:38 AM
I would also suggest tying in side quests to the main plot. Crotchety old wizard missing grandchildren? Well, if you rescue them, they might give you scrolls or other aid in return for the sprogs. Dragon being a bit of an issue? Either kill the dragon for some snazzy new armor, or recruit the dragon to aid you, either of which would probably help later on down the line. Political mess brewing? Well, war zones aren't exactly known for being easy to traverse. Bandits might spring upon the opportunity as well, so defusing that might reduce pirate attacks later on.

Basically, if a lot of side quests give information/supplies/loot/minions, then they might not feel like side quests. They are just choices to be made on the main plot on how they choose to do things. What resources they do or do not have later, including several complications.

Nifft
2018-05-27, 01:20 PM
If there's a choice between main-plot vs. side-quest, then you will be introducing a meta-game risk: is it correct to pursue the side-goal? Will there be any negative consequences to deferring the main-plot? Will there ever be negative consequences to deferring the main-plot?

Video games often lack negative consequences to that deferral. They're dishonest about it, in a sadly transparent way.

Without any mechanical urgency to the main-plot, will you be emulating that (bad) aspect of video games?


My suggestions:

- Players aren't stupid, so don't give them bad choices -- if the main-plot is something important, and if it's the main plot it really should be, then they pursue that in preference to side-quests.

- Therefore, main-plot takes precedence when it's available and can be pursued.

- Side-quests are things that happen when the main-plot isn't available / can't be pursued.

- Players get to choose amongst side-quests at those times.

Darth Ultron
2018-05-27, 05:48 PM
It does depend on what you want and what the players want.

A Typical DM Plan is for a Main plot to take a long, but vague, amount of time and have occasional short side plots.

Sadly, the Typical Player Plan is to, at best, Do the Main plot, no matter how hard or complex, in the shortest and quickest way possible and doing nothing else until that is done.

And, way to many players don't want to follow any plot and just want to random do stuff.

So, you will need to get everyone on the same page.