TheRPGSite

Structurally, I mean. Do you envision it like it could be an episodic TV show?

I don't for most of my games, particularly the "sandbox" type ones; but for some I undoubtedly do. Most notably the Legion of Superheros campaign, which I realize now comes complete with sound-track, two part episodes, and season finales.

RPGPundit

After I was a year or more into it - the campaign made more sense that way.

In 20/20 hindsight.....

We always had a slight 'lull' in the summer months, there were sometimes two or three sessions in a row that felt like big "Sweeps Month" episode arcs.

 At times there were definite sessions that felt like season cliffhangers.

Amongst the NPCS - there was the vibe like they were recurring characters and some worked much better with the audience than others did.


- Ed C.

A good long campaign would run like Babylon 5. An over all plot/theme with enough small 'single episode' things to break up the overplot. Yet still have a good continuity.  

A shorter game might run more like Stargate or any of the Treks.




"Tonight on a very special The Gaming! Someone. Will. Die!....... But then after a half a session of rules bitching a whining, you let the torch bearer/ensign/sidekick take the hit and die instead......" ;)

Quote from: Koltar;334034After I was a year or more into it - the campaign made more sense that way.

In 20/20 hindsight.....

- Ed C.

Yea in hindsight it look like that. I've never seen a game that set off "To run just like X TV show" come out as anything other than crap.

I'd say it was a good analogy, but not a pattern to be rigorously followed. After all, no plot survives contact with the enemy... I mean, the players...

My games would have to be on HBO.   Way too much tits, ass, profanity and bloodshed to ever be shown on the free channels.

I prefer short arc, high octane fast moving campaigns so mine probably look more like mini-series, because we are driving toward the climax from the first session knowing that the end is approaching fast.

I tend to view mine as soap opera's, a bunch of loosely related folks have an unfeasably high number of dramatic incidents in their lives, sometimes someone dies or leaves the series and new folks join, but the series keeps on going.

No fully discrete episodes as such, they tend to roll into each other, along with side plots and red herrings.


Vadrus

Like Pundit, not so much with the "sandbox" ones, though we still have "seasons".

Quote from: RPGPundit;334031Structurally, I mean. Do you envision it like it could be an episodic TV show?

I don't for most of my games, particularly the "sandbox" type ones; but for some I undoubtedly do. Most notably the Legion of Superheros campaign, which I realize now comes complete with sound-track, two part episodes, and season finales.

RPGPundit

For most games of mine (exception made of sandboxes), TV series is convenient for me. I don't do as much as a plot, but each 'season' is centered around a problem the PCs want to solve. I usually have some overarching problem or situation, a la Babylon 5.

Quote from: Nazgul;334035A good long campaign would run like Babylon 5. An over all plot/theme with enough small 'single episode' things to break up the overplot. Yet still have a good continuity.

My point, exactly.

Quote from: Spinachcat;334048My games would have to be on HBO.   Way too much tits, ass, profanity and bloodshed to ever be shown on the free channels.

Now that I think of it, and after starting with True Blood yesterday night, yes, I should be also on HBO.

Quote from: Nazgul;334035A good long campaign would run like Babylon 5. An over all plot/theme with enough small 'single episode' things to break up the overplot. Yet still have a good continuity.  

A shorter game might run more like Stargate or any of the Treks.

Agreed, although I would use Buffy and Angel as my own models. :)

-O

Well yes. Most of my games are either series or miniseries.

This is the theme song of my current Osere : No Comebacks (set in a fictional South African city), game.

(originally slated for another campaign) :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeZLSomwuLw

Regards,
David R

My 4E sandbox game run with "convention" style adventures, probably resembles television shows which hit the reset button every episode such as "Law and Order" or CSI.  I suppose this is inevitable when playing "convention" style adventures which move fast and conclude at the end of a game session (or every second game session), with a loose overall plot line.

Quote from: RPGPundit;334031Structurally, I mean. Do you envision it like it could be an episodic TV show?

Generally, yes. Like a TV show or a pulp movie serial.

That being said, the show leans towards B5 (story arcs and subplots stretching over several episodes, but with each episode/session usually being a coherent story or part of a story on its own) more than classic Star Trek (mostly "done-in-one").

Quote from: Nazgul;334035A good long campaign would run like Babylon 5. An over all plot/theme with enough small 'single episode' things to break up the overplot. Yet still have a good continuity.  

Yup.  I'll add that the PCs might not even discover the "plot" until halfway through the campaign, but looking back they'll be able to understand why certain things happened the way they did.  

Pete

I tend to, yes.

Quote from: RPGPundit;334031Structurally, I mean. Do you envision it like it could be an episodic TV show?

I don't for most of my games, particularly the "sandbox" type ones; but for some I undoubtedly do. Most notably the Legion of Superheros campaign, which I realize now comes complete with sound-track, two part episodes, and season finales.

RPGPundit

That happened to me, yes. Particularly when running In Nomine Satanis/Magna Veritas. To some extent, the Ballade of the Hanged, my Paris by Night WoD Chronicle, could be viewed as a long running soap opera with no end in sight.

I think these kinds of comparisons only go so far, though. Role-playing games are a medium of their own. I don't think there are long lasting benefits in endlessly comparing them to other, completely different forms of media, like literature, television or cinema.

Quote from: Nazgul;334035A good long campaign would run like Babylon 5. An over all plot/theme with enough small 'single episode' things to break up the overplot. Yet still have a good continuity.  

I didn't care much for B5, but I get your point about the story arc; most of my campaigns have timelines but DON'T have story-arcs, and that makes them not a lot like TV shows.
The Legion, on the other hand, was planned from the start to detail the story of the LSH from its origins as a bunch of teenage superheroes, to their rise in prominence, to their "golden age" in the 80s, to their decline and collapse in the early 90s, to their rebirth and return to glory in the late 90s. So the Story Arc is basically a story about growing up, disillusionment, and redemption.

Of course, its far from finished yet (the current year in the game is 2990, in the middle of the "decline" period), so we've yet to see if it will all pan out, but so far so good.

RPGPundit

Yes, absolutely for the last campaign - it had explicit seasons (each themed) and explicit episodes (including two-parters) and season finales and such.  The plan - which we didn't always quite stick to - was 13 eps per season, four seasons, and done.

We didn't have a theme song, but certain episodes definitely had theme songs (the flashback-70s blaxploitation episode had one sweet soundtrack).

Most of mine I see more like well done comic books. Even the fantasy games are just a detailed and lovingly painted water color or oil graphic novel.

Yes. I've split my modern horror campaign into five "seasons," and when we talk about the characters, we tend to use TV series parlance as others have said (season finale, "to be continued," etc.) I've even sat down with my players and talked about what "themes" I wanted to do for a particular season -- my group has been very much on board with this, and it's worked out well.

One of my players has even made a video "opening credits" featuring some animations and the names of the players. One weekend, he actually had a friend of his record a "director's commentary" (which floored everyone, because it was almost entirely taking potshots at our gaming group -- it was absolutely hysterical).

I tend not to run sandbox games, at least not for long.

And I will agree that there are very big limitations on how much RPing can emulate TV shows or movies, but after five years of play our group has found those break points and learned how to deal with them.

Quote from: ticopelp;334182One of my players has even made a video "opening credits" featuring some animations and the names of the players. One weekend, he actually had a friend of his record a "director's commentary" (which floored everyone, because it was almost entirely taking potshots at our gaming group -- it was absolutely hysterical).

I don't suppose that he put that on youtube or something? I've seen one or two other vids that people did for their group and they were rather interesting.

Quote from: ticopelp;334182And I will agree that there are very big limitations on how much RPing can emulate TV shows or movies, but after five years of play our group has found those break points and learned how to deal with them.

Care to share with the rest of the class? :)

Quote from: Nazgul;334193I don't suppose that he put that on youtube or something? I've seen one or two other vids that people did for their group and they were rather interesting.

I have the video files, but they're not anywhere public. If you really are interested, I could probably upload it on Photobucket or something.

Quote from: Nazgul;334193Care to share with the rest of the class? :)

Sure -- a couple of examples. One was that our group didn't have the right chemistry to bicker constantly. We tried to set up a team where people disagreed about leadership and got into a lot of disagreements about things -- this can work on TV, but in our game it just brought gameplay to a halt most of the time while people argued. That's not to say that a lot of inter-character conflict can never work, just that it didn't work in this game. So people reconciled their in-character differences and moved on.

Another was having characters change slowly over time, if the player makes a deliberate decision to make that happen. That didn't work for us either. On television, since things are often planned months in advance, you can see characters dropping little hints that they're changing in some way, perhaps eventually leading up to some epiphany or surprising action. In an RPG, where most things are improvised, it's really hard to do that over long periods. Players would just forget to follow up on whatever they were trying to foreshadow, or (much worse) vacillate and noodle over the same plot point, trying to find the "perfect moment" to reveal whatever. It's better to just give players a single focal point on which they can hinge a "big decision" and then just flip the switch -- no angst, no screwing around.

For example. One of my PCs was duped by a major villain into planting a magical "bomb" in his team's base of operations. The explosion killed a lot of people and put the PCs on the run from the law for awhile. I set this up because the player was constantly telling me he wanted something "dramatically strong" to make things interesting... but then he refused to deal with it for over two years of gameplay time, covering his tracks perfectly and pretending it never happened. By the time he worked up to his "big confession," no one cared anymore, and the plot point was long gone. So, a chance for interesting narrative, wasted.

And that's why you can't (IMO) get too ambitious when it comes to storytelling in gaming... because there's a limit to how much you can plan ahead, or how complicated you can get. Because it's gaming, not writing. You can still have cool, dramatic stuff happen, but in general I find it works best when it's straightforward, a bit over-the-top, and slightly formulaic.

I think S. John Ross said it best: "if you want Shakespearean five-act hoozits, plot trees, Man Versus Himself and other serious literary bunkum, try Writer's Digest . This ain't Oxford, baby."

Quote from: Silverlion;334176Most of mine I see more like well done comic books. Even the fantasy games are just a detailed and lovingly painted water color or oil graphic novel.

Couldn't have put it better. Did think a bit like TV shows with cliffhangers at the end of game sessions and regular arch-eneemies . . . until I read Scott McCloud's I think it's 'Understanding Comics', which kind of brought a more visual/ cinematic spin. Happened to see Persopolis as a movie last week and it does a great job of showing how graphic novels are a lot more than cartoons.

Quote from: RPGPundit;334031Structurally, I mean. Do you envision it like it could be an episodic TV show?

I don't for most of my games, particularly the "sandbox" type ones; but for some I undoubtedly do. Most notably the Legion of Superheros campaign, which I realize now comes complete with sound-track, two part episodes, and season finales.

RPGPundit

No. I try to avoid imitating other story-telling media in my games beyond using the basic structures of Western story-telling (rising actions, set-backs, climaxes, denouements) and then only when necessary. The only exception to that is that I will sometimes use "camera shot descriptions" to describe particular scenes (e.g. "The camera pans around and you see... the Dracomeister!") but I've been steering away from that in recent years. I'm more likely to use that style in a modern game than in a fantasy game though.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;334267No. I try to avoid imitating other story-telling media in my games beyond using the basic structures of Western story-telling (rising actions, set-backs, climaxes, denouements) and then only when necessary. The only exception to that is that I will sometimes use "camera shot descriptions" to describe particular scenes (e.g. "The camera pans around and you see... the Dracomeister!") but I've been steering away from that in recent years. I'm more likely to use that style in a modern game than in a fantasy game though.

Why the avoidance, Pseudoephedrine ?

Regards,
David R

Another reason I think RPGs can't emulate TV or movies very well is because TV and movies often work best when protagonists make bad choices, put themselves in bad situations, and otherwise get themselves in trouble. A lot of players will not willingly put themselves in bad situations or make wrong choices that also happen to be dramatically interesting.

Heroes getting captured, tortured, victimized, or left for dead can also be great dramatic stuff in a movie or show, but a gamer will often only find that irritating. And, depending on the circumstances, rightfully so. So there's another whole area of storytelling that's potentially off-limits, depending on what your play group likes.

Let's just say that after many years of play, I know which of my players will relish and enjoy their PC getting captured and interrogated, and which of them will complain about it for weeks afterward.

It's kinda of tricky. I find the most interesting games ( TV, books and movies) are not about (strictly) bad or good choices but rather choices that conflict with the created personalities of the players.

Regards,
David R

I'm always wary of comparing RPGs to other mediums, but there are some techniques and ideas from TV that I like to use in my GMing.

Firstly, I normally come to each session with at least one thing I want to cover in it - even if it's just PC "housekeeping" - and try to make sure it's covered in the course of the session. And if a suitable cliffhanger or dramatic revelation presents itself towards the end of an evening, I like to say "...and we'll come back to that next week" and wrap things up, so the end of the session stands out in everyone's mind so we have a minimum of "uh... where were we?" at the beginning of the next session.

Secondly, I keep an eye on the development of the main theme, conflict, or event of the "season"; even in sandbox games, a combination of random chance and the natural tendency of player groups to develop a particular long-term agenda usually means that a season theme presents itself (although it can suddenly and violently change without warning, which is also cool). When the season's "gimmick" is wrapped up, I tend to give serious thought as to whether to keep the campaign going (at the risk of diminishing returns, but with the possibility of taking it in a new direction for a new "season"), or finishing it off (at the risk of lacking closure - although a wrap-up session or two can solve that - but with the benefit of ending on a high point, without stagnating or otherwise going sour).

Quote from: RPGPundit;334031Structurally, I mean. Do you envision it like it could be an episodic TV show?

It's certainly not how I plan for a game, though the end result may sometimes come to resemble one a bit, like an ensemble dramedy perhaps.

I 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.

Treat the milieu and characters as if it were reality.  Would you really want to run with that loser dipshit that kept fucking things up, especially if you had the means to get rid of him permanently?  Yes, you would- in a heartbeat if your life depended on it (and in most RPGs, it does).  That's the strength of TRPGs, and why trying to ape other media means setting sail for Fail.

TV series are sickeningly predictable. Unless a game is trying to deliberately emulate the structure of another form, I don't try to shoehorn a game into that structure.

The exception would be Hong Kong Action Theater!, where the game itself is emulating a series of movies.

In fact, if I'm playing something based on a popular property--Star Trek, for instance--I pay particular attention to re-imagining the material independently from the show. If a player says, "That's not how they would do it on TV," I say, "It isn't them; it's you," or "You're not watching TV."

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.

Quote from: Silverlion;334176Most of mine I see more like well done comic books. Even the fantasy games are just a detailed and lovingly painted water color or oil graphic novel.

This is how I see my best games, somewhat.

I run sandbox games, but I try to give them a strong momentum or potential energy. Basically I try to set up a strongly flavored setting, some situations in motion, then drop the players in to muck up the works. I run with whatever they change, and the game flows from there.

At my worst it's been pretty lame (a game that went nowhere), but at my best it's been awesome; the events of the game occur in a way that makes dramatic sense without my hand forcing anything beyond setting up dominoes before the game.

My absolute favorite campaign is the basis for a series I hope to publish some day. I have permission from the players involved to run with it.

Quote from: Koltar;334628It 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.

I'd agree with that. Archetypes are archetypes for a reason.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;334589In 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.

Well dumbass players and drama creation aside, I think the basic structure of TV shows - pacing, character arcs, etc - could be applied to RPGs. Of course all this is a matter of preference.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;334643Well dumbass players and drama creation aside, I think the basic structure of TV shows - pacing, character arcs, etc - could be applied to RPGs. Of course all this is a matter of preference.

Regards,
David R

It doesn't work well if you don't have a hook on the player's via their characters.

For example, Hercules easily could be an RPG campaign (PC's Hercules, Aeolus, and sometimes Joxer, guest appearances by Xena and her sidekick). But, if Herc isn't driven by the psych lims requiring him to help others and oppose Hera, you're not going to be able to impose the 3 or 5 act models of TV. Their players did (the writers).

If Herc wasn't constrained by that psych lim about Hera, he could simply jump out when Hera starts f*ing about with him in act II, tell the guy in need from act I "Sorry, Mom's mad; good luck, you're on your own" and you never get to act III.

Which is why not all TV genres work well in RPG's with that same model... the rails engage their disads and obligations and hold them too those rails. (mind you, I've had players turn a 3 act Trek adventure into a 10-act, by going off rails in strange and interesting ways, leading to further complications, but that's another matter.)

Quote from: David R;334298Why the avoidance, Pseudoephedrine ?

Regards,
David R

The characters is most media lack agency. Only the creator has it. Relying on tropes from them can mislead a group, since those tropes would fall apart if the individuals involved had agency. I've seen games go bad quite due to miscommunication about how tropes are being deployed because players may feel that control of their characters is being taken away, and DMs may be frustrated because they designed their sessions to rely on those tropes. I know that it's even an issue sometimes in my well-functioning regular group.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;334799The characters is most media lack agency. Only the creator has it. Relying on tropes from them can mislead a group, since those tropes would fall apart if the individuals involved had agency. I've seen games go bad quite due to miscommunication about how tropes are being deployed because players may feel that control of their characters is being taken away, and DMs may be frustrated because they designed their sessions to rely on those tropes. I know that it's even an issue sometimes in my well-functioning regular group.

Could you be a little more specific on TV "tropes" conflicting with character agency. IME most games which borrow certain structures/tropes from TV end up like aramis's Trek example. I think when people say their sessions are "episodic" in nature, they mean that the adventure is part of a larger narrative (and could be played out in a couple of sessions) rather than something which is rigidly plotted.

Regard,
David R

Quote from: aramis;334760It doesn't work well if you don't have a hook on the player's via their characters.

For example, Hercules .....
Which is why not all TV genres work well in RPG's with that same model... the rails engage their disads and obligations and hold them too those rails. (mind you,...

I think we are straying into emulation territory here, aramis. I really wasn't talking about genre. I think there's a difference between running a game based on Hercules the TV show and running a game based on the Hercules the myth using certain structures from the medium (TV).

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;334850I think we are straying into emulation territory here, aramis. I really wasn't talking about genre. I think there's a difference between running a game based on Hercules the TV show and running a game based on the Hercules the myth using certain structures from the medium (TV).

Regards,
David R

The structures require the setting tropes and genre support in order to work.

You can't use the three act model without some way to hook the characters to the rails. In the case of the demi-god quasi-greek genre, the inherent psychology of the characters needs to be present in order to hook those rails.

In Trek, it is the implied (or even explicit) duty to overcome the mission briefing obstacle that hooks them to the rails.

In Buffy, it's the duty of the slayer; should the slayer decide to say "Screw it all, I'm done" the episode will fall apart OR the scoobies will take over.

Genre and character psychology are in fact the glue that allows TV-like planning to work.

Traveller doesn't work well on a TV three act model... because it seldom has the obligation to ride those rails. You have to plan a much more neural-net-like adventure plan to cope with the much wider range of genre-acceptable options in Traveller. Of course, if one can rope players into playing an active duty game, you can rope them in with the rails on wheels of military obligations. Or if they are all Noblemen and voluntarily take that as a restriction to duty.

In Superhero fiction (comics, TV), the heroes have a bizarre obsession with stopping the bad guy; it's pathological for them. And that is the wheel that is hooked to the plot-rail. Supervillains, however, have no such compunctions. Run a supervillains game, and the 3-act model usually fails. (If you run a minions of the supervillain game, however, the threat of the boss works to hold it to rails.)

Quote from: aramis;334874The structures require the setting tropes and genre support in order to work.

Not necessarily in gaming. I think when it comes to emulating a specific piece of fiction, translating it to a game, then perhaps. But mostly, most gamers (IME of course) are much more flexibile when it comes to TV tropes/structures.

QuoteYou can't use the three act model without some way to hook the characters to the rails. In the case of the demi-god quasi-greek genre, the inherent psychology of the characters needs to be present in order to hook those rails.

Yes, you can't use the three act model....and I do not think most gamers rigidly follows this. It's a lot more informal I think, which each act evolving into something else (and not necessarily leading into the next) sometimes ending abruptly depending on what the players do.

QuoteIn Trek, it is the implied (or even explicit) duty to overcome the mission briefing obstacle that hooks them to the rails.
In Buffy, it's the duty of the slayer; should the slayer decide to say "Screw it all, I'm done" the episode will fall apart OR the scoobies will take over.

Yes but in a roleplaying game it's different. The crew may decide to something else, the slayer could say "I'm done" and the game could go on but just in a different direction.

QuoteGenre and character psychology are in fact the glue that allows TV-like planning to work.

Not in my experience. Maybe it's because we run games differently. I can honestly say, that I have used many TV tropes - genre and character psychology have played a minimal role or not at all, unless we (the group) wanted it to. What are your thoughts on story/character arcs ?

For instance, character/story arcs as in "this season (the following number of sessions/adventures) the game will revolve around this character and the next "season", on this character".

QuoteTraveller doesn't work well on a TV three act model... because it seldom has the obligation to ride those rails. You have to plan a much more neural-net-like adventure plan to cope with the much wider range of genre-acceptable options in Traveller. Of course, if one can rope players into playing an active duty game, you can rope them in with the rails on wheels of military obligations. Or if they are all Noblemen and voluntarily take that as a restriction to duty.

Like I said, I don't think a TV three act model is rigidly followed - I don't think it can be in a role playing game. I haven't had this problem with Traveller or in fact any game. I do think however that you can vaguely plan out the follwoing - set up , confrontation, resolution and solidify it on the fly, so to speak.

QuoteIn Superhero fiction (comics, TV), the heroes have a bizarre obsession with stopping the bad guy; it's pathological for them. And that is the wheel that is hooked to the plot-rail. Supervillains, however, have no such compunctions.

Well I suppose they have other pathological obsessions, which could be used to hook them to the plot rail. Are we still talking about TV structures and tropes, because I think we are straying off topic here.

Regards,
David R