Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;334450I don't see RPG play as akin to TV, film, comics or any other medium.  I see them as being nothing less than life itself, and the reason is because of the aforementioned known phenomenon of common gamers doing all that they can to avoid doing dumb shit even if it would be dramatic.  Why?  Because that's what real people do in daily life, as best that their abilities and knowledge allow.

I have no idea why you think that PCs would do dumb shit because they think it's "dramatic" . Maybe in storygames, where people actually think of creating dramatic situations, but in regular games most gamers just go with the flow and the drama happens spontaneously. It's unscripted. Also, most players create characters who are extremely heroic which is hardly a reflection (most times) of how they are in real life. At the end of the day, the medium is about escapism which means anything is possible.

Regards,
David R

I first encountered this idea in the Mekton version of Jovian Chronicles (1993) and have found it a useful conceit for blocking out adventures and campaigns. Nothing like Scene 1, Scene 2, Scene 3. That's just a railroading with a pretentious frock. I come up with one or two season arcs, decide how many episodes will be in the season, and distribute steps in the arc among episodes. Some episodes may be unrelated to the season arc; one-offs to vary the pace. Every episode needs a beginning middle and end. Something must be achieved in every episode. The various NPCs are given motivations, goals, and times on the episode list they want to meet those goals by. A session is not directly analogous to an episode. An episode may take one or two sessions to play. Three at the outside. Every session should end with either a sub-resolution (e.g. the player characters have caught the person/creature that has been harassing them, but have not questioned him/her/it) or a cliffhanger. Every episode should end with a resolution of the episode arc, although season arc threads may be left dangling.

I find the TV Series metaphor helps me keep interest up and the pace moving. If we haven't addressed the season arc for a few sessions, i'll rearrange the episodes so the season arc takes centre stage again. Or in sandbox games with no imposed arc, i'll keep track of how many episodes ago recurring storyline X was last visited.

I remember playing (and running, if i'm honest) games in which the party loaded up on equipment, entered the dungeon, walked down some corridor and explored a couple of rooms in the first session. The next session we explored another six rooms. The next session there was a big fight and we only explored three rooms. The big fight was in the second room, so the session opened with nothing, had a climax in the middle, and ended with nothing. There was no structure, just a time limit.

Welcome, Gordon! Nice avatar!

Quote from: Gordon Horne;334479The big fight was in the second room, so the session opened with nothing, had a climax in the middle, and ended with nothing. There was no structure, just a time limit.

Do you consider this to be a bad thing?

Quote from: The Shaman;334525Do you consider this to be a bad thing?

Yes.

It's a matter of taste, but if the first room doesn't set up the fight and the third room does follow on from the fight, why have them on either side of the fight? I like at least a little cause and effect and interconnectedness. Also, the third room was a boring point to finish the night on compared to the conclusion of the fight. Maybe these attitudes are why i tend to block out campaigns as TV seasons and episodes.

Quote from: Gordon Horne;334534Yes.

It's a matter of taste, but if the first room doesn't set up the fight and the third room does follow on from the fight, why have them on either side of the fight? I like at least a little cause and effect and interconnectedness.

Perhaps because whatever was in the second room cleared out the other two rooms and nothing else was willing to move in again due to the presence of the whatever. Killing off the whatever may help the adventurers to make allies of the humanoids on which it used to prey.

Or because another group of NPC adventurers cleared the third room, approaching from a different direction, and now they've been turned into undead a room or two beyond. Should the adventurers return a magic sword belonging to one of undead adventurers to his son and heir, the player characters may make an important ally.

In both cases there's cause-and-effect, but it's not necessarily apparent to the adventurers yet.

Quote from: Gordon HorneAlso, the third room was a boring point to finish the night on compared to the conclusion of the fight. Maybe these attitudes are why i tend to block out campaigns as TV seasons and episodes.

I don't consider a night 'boring' if it doesn't end in a bang. A succession of nights with no bang is boring, but what happens on any single night is part of a larger series of events against which I measure my enjoyment of the game.

I guarantee that if the fight in the middle room was cool, that's what I'll be talking about at the end of the night, not the empty room where we suspended play until the next get-together. A good encounter is a good encounter, regardless of when it happens in the course of an evening.

Quote from: The Shaman;334539Perhaps because whatever was in the second room cleared out the other two rooms and nothing else was willing to move in again due to the presence of the whatever. Killing off the whatever may help the adventurers to make allies of the humanoids on which it used to prey.

I never said the other rooms were empty, just most of the session was taken up with a big fight in the second room. Anyway, it was a general example combining characteristics of many different games.

I think my basic preference is for games organized around events and motivations rather than squares on a map. Every session does not have to end with a bang, but i prefer sessions to end rather than peter out.

Pretty much since I started GMing I've viewed campaigns as TV series.  I'll run 10 adventures to a season but won't start out with an overarcing theme until the players settle into their characters and the world.  In the last campaign, I set up a 3.X D&D version of a Stargate campaign based in Sigil.  The first adventure involved a stolen statuette related to a recently disbanded jaguar-folk (jaguar-humanoid) empire and allowed the PCs to get to know a bit about Sigil and then visit the jag-folk homeworld.

The reactions of the players to the jag-folk baddies told me that I needed to have these as recurring bad guys--one of my favorite parts of serial TV.  I originally never set out to use them again but the PCs' actions made the jags an instant nemesis for the PCs' organization.

I also use season finale cliffhangers and try to have at least one module every season which focuses on one PC backstory (the players usually try to put something plot-hookish into it so I might as well oblige them!).

Quote from: Gordon Horne;334540I never said the other rooms were empty, just most of the session was taken up with a big fight in the second room.

I didn't say the other rooms were empty, either, only that there were no encounters with monsters or the like in them.

You said that you explored the rooms, and that "nothing" happened in them. Can you see where I would make the inference that there were no monsters in them?

Quote from: Gordon Horne;334540Anyway, it was a general example combining characteristics of many different games.

And now you want to walk-back your example by calling it a pastiche.

In any case, my examples were general as well.

Quote from: Gordon HorneI think my basic preference is for games organized around events and motivations rather than squares on a map.

*BZZZT!*

False dichotomy. The presence of one does not mean the absence of the others.

Quote from: Gordon HorneEvery session does not have to end with a bang, but i prefer sessions to end rather than peter out.

And you're welcome to your preferences, of course.

Quote from: The Shaman;334544I didn't say the other rooms were empty, either, only that there were no encounters with monsters or the like in them.

You said that you explored the rooms, and that "nothing" happened in them. Can you see where I would make the inference that there were no monsters in them?And now you want to walk-back your example by calling it a pastiche.

The relevant portion of my original post:

Quote from: Gordon Horne;334479I remember playing (and running, if i'm honest) games in which the party loaded up on equipment, entered the dungeon, walked down some corridor and explored a couple of rooms in the first session. The next session we explored another six rooms. The next session there was a big fight and we only explored three rooms. The big fight was in the second room, so the session opened with nothing, had a climax in the middle, and ended with nothing. There was no structure, just a time limit.

I did not say we explored the first and third rooms. I did not say nothing happened in the first and third rooms. I said "the session opened with nothing, had a climax in the middle, and ended with nothing". If you infer there were no monsters, that's fair, but it's not the only possible inference. First room: 2 goblins that took less than 10 minutes real time to defeat. Second room: 40 goblins, 12 orcs, and a hobgoblin chieftain that take 2 hours real time to defeat. Third room: 3 wounded goblins from the second room fight. That's an interpretation that would fit my definitions of nothing, climax, nothing. The smaller fights are nothing compared to the climax fight.

At the beginning of the passage, i said "playing games"—plural—and "running games"—a different plural. Plural plus. Obviously i'm not talking about one specific campaign. Therefore i'm not walking back anything.

Quote from: The Shaman;334544

Quote from: Gordon Horne;334540I think my basic preference is for games organized around events and motivations rather than squares on a map.

*BZZZT!*

False dichotomy. The presence of one does not mean the absence of the others.

My preference. My personal preference. My personal preference which makes no claims how you or any else should play their games. My personal preference which doesn't even consider your existence.

If i said, "I prefer vanilla to chocolate," would you feel compelled to shriek "false dichotomy, the presence of vanilla does not mean the absence of chocolate"? I hope not.

Quote from: The Shaman;334544And you're welcome to your preferences, of course.

And, yet, you seem oddly incapable of leaving me to my preference.

Quote from: Gordon Horne;334564I said "the session opened with nothing, had a climax in the middle, and ended with nothing". If you infer there were no monsters, that's fair, but it's not the only possible inference. First room: 2 goblins that took less than 10 minutes real time to defeat. Second room: 40 goblins, 12 orcs, and a hobgoblin chieftain that take 2 hours real time to defeat. Third room: 3 wounded goblins from the second room fight. That's an interpretation that would fit my definitions of nothing, climax, nothing. The smaller fights are nothing compared to the climax fight.

Please forgive me for not understanding that you have you own special definition of 'nothing.' I was relying on the plain ol' ordinary definition of 'nothing' as 'the absence of something.'

So, now that I have a better understanding of what you consider 'nothing,' let's take a look at that series of encounters again. A fight with a pair of goblins, a fight with a variety of humanoids including a boss, and an encounter (the exact nature of which isn't spelled out here) with three wounded goblins who apparently escaped the major fight and were caught by the party.

Now I want to make sure I'm not misreading you here, so let's go back to your words one more time.

Quote from: Gordon HorneIt's a matter of taste, but if the first room doesn't set up the fight and the third room does follow on from the fight, why have them on either side of the fight? I like at least a little cause and effect and interconnectedness.

Okay, you encountered two goblins, then encountered more goblins plus some other humanoids and a leader, and then encountered goblin survivors from the second encounter.

How is there no cause-and-effect here? How are these encounters not interconnected?

Quote from: Gordon HorneTherefore i'm not walking back anything.

Okay.

Quote from: Gordon HorneMy preference. My personal preference. My personal preference which makes no claims how you or any else should play their games. My personal preference which doesn't even consider your existence.

As I said immediately following, your preferences are your own, and I'm not in any way calling them into question as such.

What I'm suggesting is that for other gamers, that is, gamers who are not you, organizing around "motivations and events" and "squares on a map" are not necessarily distinct and separate from one another.

My preference, my personal preference, my personal preference which makes no claims how you or any else should play their games, my personal preference which doesn't even consider your existence, is for adventure locales that are intertwined with the motivations and events of the adventurers.

Quote from: Gordon HorneAnd, yet, you seem oddly incapable of leaving me to my preference.

If you want to be left alone with your preferences, don't share them on a public forum.

Quote from: David R;334466I have no idea why you think that PCs would do dumb shit because they think it's "dramatic" . Maybe in storygames, where people actually think of creating dramatic situations, but in regular games most gamers just go with the flow and the drama happens spontaneously. It's unscripted. Also, most players create characters who are extremely heroic which is hardly a reflection (most times) of how they are in real life. At the end of the day, the medium is about escapism which means anything is possible.

In practice, when I see players do dumb shit on purpose that's what they say they're doing- and most of the time, they mean it.  (The rest of the time, they're lying assholes.)  No thought of how it would fuck things up for anyone else, or how it might ruin the night for others, ever enters the thought process- which is in part why I've come to hate the entire idea.

For me, some settings work in an episodic manner, and even with a three act model.

The settings where this works are Trek...
Bumper: introduce the mission
Act 1: find out the situation
Act 2: plot twist happens; players must resolve it before act 3....
Act 3: work towards the solution; ends with the intro to the final conflict...
Final Conflict: THis is what was implied in Act 1, but interrupted.

And Buffy
Bumper: Find the results of the monster of the week
Act I: find out about the monster, make plans
Act II option a: real-life gets in the way
Act II option b: season bigbad gets in the way
Act II option c: second monster of the week gets in the way
Act II option d: dnpc gets into trouble
Act III: track down the monster of the week
Final Conflict: Fight the bigbad

Act I continues until the players start the hunt. Then, you slam act II on them, and make it immanent. Once they resolve that, let them go back to the quest for the final conflict, and then when they get there, take a 5 minute break, and go for it!

It also works well in any "find the big bad, kill the big bad" settings. Like Champions, CoC, prime directive, and Dark Heresy. Why? Because the players have a mandate to get the bigbad/solve the issue.

A 5 act model also works:
Bumper: Intro
Act I: discover task
Act II: Plot twist 1
Act III: back on task
Act IV: plot twist 2
Act V: Back to task, and into...
Resolution: big conflict and cooldown.

Playing it doesn't feel the same as watching it, but it does, in fact, resemble an episode once played, especially when written up as an AP report. But you definitely need that mandate from the setting logic to actually keep the players focused upon the goal.

Several posters have remarked they use the TV series metaphor to structure campaigns and adventures based on TV series. That makes perfect sense, but it got me thinking of the more general case. Which genres have TV models? Which don't? Does it make any difference to the utility of the TV series metaphor in structuring campaigns or adventures?

Space Opera: Star Trek, Babylon 5, Stargate

Gritty Sci-fi: Firefly

Modern Fantasy: Buffy, Angel

Modern Sci-fi: X Files, The Middleman

Gonzo Espionage: The Man From U.N.C.L.E., Mission Impossible

Superhero: Heroes, Smallville, Mutant X
(A lot of the superhero shows focus on the singular hero. Not a great help for modelling game sessions.)

High Fantasy: Hercules, Xena
(I'm sure i'm forgetting shows i've watched and enjoyed. The lone hero model seems even stronger in this genre than with superheroes.)

Low Fantasy: Cadfael

Can anyone think of a game genre that isn't represented by a TV show? Does that make it harder to use the TV series metaphor to structure campaigns or adventures? Or are stories stories and X Files can be used as a template for a D&D campaign?

It really doesn't have to  split into so many categories.

Let's just call it 3 to 5 Hero/good guy/protagonist characters get involved in action that involves combat quite often, with every 3rd or 4th 'episode' being more relaxed or slower as it builds up to the action-oriented ones.

 With that description you can describe all of these :

STAR TREK, "Firefly", NCIS, Battlestar Galactica, HEROES, "FRINGE", "LOST", "BUFFY :The Vampire Slayer",  BABYLON 5, "ANGEL". CRUSADE, STAR TREK: Deep Space Nine, XENA: The Warrior Princess, "JAG", ROCKY JONES: Space Ranger, "Charmed", "Ark II", TORCHWOOD,  JERICHO, STARGATE: SG-1, .....etc

- Ed C.