TLDR: is there any published system OR thing you do that is kind of like my hypothesis below for making satisfying sessions?
ISSUE: My sessions are "thinner" than I'd like. The PCs go from the hook to the conclusion of the adventure fairly quickly, and it doesn't feel as satisfying as it could. I'd like my sessions to feel more full and challenging like fleshed out published scenarios. It's gotten worse the less prep I've done.
HYPOTHESIS: I think that good GMs generate better scenarios by doing some mix of the following
1. Obstacles - in order to achieve their goal (either short term or immediate), setting up a step or series of steps that the players need to do to achieve their goal.
2. Random Events - having things that just happens, such as bumping into NPCs with their own agendas, encounters, etc
3. Responses - the players do something, so an NPC and Faction responds with something.
What I do:
1. Obstacles - I usually come up with only 1 or 2 steps or just say "okay, that happens."
2. Random Events - I don't usually have any of these
3. Responses - other than having the NPCs attack the PCs, I usually can't think of anything else the NPCs might do.
OTHER INFORMATION:
1. I'm not railroading the players. I have no planned outcome or set of defined scenes. Sometimes the goal that the players are trying to achieve is something that they've come up with *ex nihilo*.
2. I don't think that *everything* PCs try to do should be an obstacle. Much of the time you can just say "okay, that happens."
Quote from: PencilBoy99;1081303TLDR: is there any published system OR thing you do that is kind of like my hypothesis below for making satisfying sessions?
ISSUE: My sessions are "thinner" than I'd like. The PCs go from the hook to the conclusion of the adventure fairly quickly, and it doesn't feel as satisfying as it could. I'd like my sessions to feel more full and challenging like fleshed out published scenarios. It's gotten worse the less prep I've done.
HYPOTHESIS: I think that good GMs generate better scenarios by doing some mix of the following
1. Obstacles - in order to achieve their goal (either short term or immediate), setting up a step or series of steps that the players need to do to achieve their goal.
2. Random Events - having things that just happens, such as bumping into NPCs with their own agendas, encounters, etc
3. Responses - the players do something, so an NPC and Faction responds with something.
What I do:
1. Obstacles - I usually come up with only 1 or 2 steps or just say "okay, that happens."
2. Random Events - I don't usually have any of these
3. Responses - other than having the NPCs attack the PCs, I usually can't think of anything else the NPCs might do.
Sounds like Dr. Rotwang's idea of an Adventure Funnel. (http://xbowvsbuddha.blogspot.com/2006/10/adventure-funnel.html)
QuoteOTHER INFORMATION:
1. I'm not railroading the players. I have no planned outcome or set of defined scenes. Sometimes the goal that the players are trying to achieve is something that they've come up with *ex nihilo*.
2. I don't think that *everything* PCs try to do should be an obstacle. Much of the time you can just say "okay, that happens."
1. While railroading is bad, I found myself getting tied up in knots trying to avoid it. You have to have some assumptions, but be flexible.
2. This is part of my process. When setting up a scenario, I ask myself "Can the players make a meaningful decision about this?"
If they can't, or I can't think of one, I minimize it as much as possible. We want to get to the parts where players are interacting with things.
IT's better to say "ok, that happens" than to ruin an encounter by trying to make an obstacle out of everything.
Risk management. There is an article about it in the Savage Worlds World Builders guide, but I thought it was pretty insightful.
You need to create moments of high and low risk and risk is more than just physical danger. Official adventures tend to be written by professional writers who know how to put things like risk reversal and pacing to keep people engaged in a work.
Quote from: PencilBoy99;1081303HYPOTHESIS: I think that good GMs generate better scenarios by doing some mix of the following
1. Obstacles - in order to achieve their goal (either short term or immediate), setting up a step or series of steps that the players need to do to achieve their goal.
2. Random Events - having things that just happens, such as bumping into NPCs with their own agendas, encounters, etc
3. Responses - the players do something, so an NPC and Faction responds with something.
I don't put a lot of stock in obstacles. Often obstacles just feel like hoops that the players are being made to jump through.
I think the more interesting questions are player choices - especially meaningful, informed choices. The more meaningful decisions that players engage in, the more interesting the game is. I find the usual cool point isn't about achieving or not achieving goals - it's about once the goals are met, and deciding on what else to try.
Of course, meaningful choices require that obstacles exist - but I think it's helpful to see the adventure as making choices and then dealing with the consequences - rather than goals and obstacles.
In my experience, if the players REALLY think that at least one PC may die but none actually do -- that makes a great session. No matter what challenges are set before the players, if they don't feel fear that they may lose a character or two it's not as exciting as it ought to be.
Also, variety is key. Some adventures feature puzzles, other feature combat, still others focus on social interaction. You don't want them all to be the same. Sadly, that's not a "what makes one adventure great" thing but more of a long-term effect.
Quote from: jhkim;1081315I think the more interesting questions are player choices - especially meaningful, informed choices. The more meaningful decisions that players engage in, the more interesting the game is. I find the usual cool point isn't about achieving or not achieving goals - it's about once the goals are met, and deciding on what else to try.
I'd agree with that. Choice is definitely of the essence.
RE: Random encounters; This is where a lot of OSR games really shine --> lots of generators!
I would looks at some resources for random generators and use one in your next session. Once you get the hang of it, you can generate your own.
RE: What I do to "prep"; I created this undead adventure scenario around one of 0one's blueprints for a ruined town. I listed out about 12 things I wanted as potential encounters. Then I structured them into a random table where the easiest encounter might come up more often while the real dangerous ones were at the edges. Then I created another table of random "things" like sounds, sights, that the PCs might encounters. IIRC I also had a table of "mundane" encounters where they meet a friendly ghost or non-threatening creature/NPC.
During game play I'm rolling on these tables to generate encounters when the action slowed down. I can quickly shift to player priorities as they explore. I can also just put an encounter in a place the PCs seem to believe something important should happen. Clues about how to stop the "Big Evil Bad Guy" were prepped INTO the encounters, so I can ensure (based on time and progress) that the PCs discover enough clues to figure out what's going on (by throwing in an important encounter before time runs out).
RE: Games that support this; I mentioned plenty of OSR games seem to be designed to help the GM come up with random encounters and cool things that are going on. Some of the Savage Worlds plot points are more "sandbox" like and would support this (like Solomon Kane) but others are more linear, so you need to do a little research before you buy one.
I would look at how your players are playing in your game, are they doing things like looking at their iphones during play or are they attentive. You might want to also consider what type of players you have on your hands, a large group of introverts are not going to be doing any fancy voice acting or anything dramatic, they might just want to get to the point.
You might want to consider handicapping the group with anti-magic areas and traps or something.
If you use miniatures have the opponents use formation and ambush tactics. Give them reasonable weapons that will mess them up a bit, especially if your rules system takes such things into account.
Sometimes I do play the role of a killer DM just so the players don't get too comfy with the perceived kindness I have given them in previous sessions.
HYPOTHESIS: I think that good GMs generate better scenarios by doing some mix of the following
1. Explosive situations - I set up powder kegs of status quos; extremely volatile. I try to envision at least 3-4 possible/likely replacement status quos, knowing that another half-dozen possible outcomes will occur to me in the middle of play, anyway.
2. Random Events - having things that just happens, such as bumping into NPCs with their own agendas, encounters, etc
3. Responses - Once PCs start breaking things, the change cascades as others start looking out for their self-interests in response.
4. Play continues until a new status quo is established, PCs seek different environments, or both.
Quote from: jhkim;1081315I think the more interesting questions are player choices - especially meaningful, informed choices. The more meaningful decisions that players engage in, the more interesting the game is.
This.
Sid Meier (of Civilization fame) has a saying for this: "A good game is a bunch of interesting choices", or something to that effect.
I definitely buy the "interesting choices" thing, but i'm not sure how to come up with them.
Quote from: PencilBoy99;1081595I definitely buy the "interesting choices" thing, but i'm not sure how to come up with them.
1) Create a set of choices where each choice results in some different, meaningful outcome. Ex. The PCs are strangers to Verona and they must (for good reasons) choose to support the Montagues or the Capulets. Supporting one family gives the PCs allies and automatically gives them enemies so the outcome is meaningful.
2) Create a set of choices where the players MUST select one choice and not the other(s). Or alternately where they must select a choice that they won't do or have. Ex. same as #1. Since the Montagues hate the Capulets and vice versa, the PCs can't support both families so they must choose one and not the other. And since the PCs are strangers they need the support of one family or the other to survive and prosper in Verona. If they try to do it all on their own (another interesting choice) then both the Montagues and the Capulets will consider them to be enemies. Because you are either with me or against me.
3) Don't waste time creating choices between something good for the PCs and something bad for the PCs. Such a choice is trivial, hence uninteresting. Interesting choices are often the result of need to select the lesser of two or more evils or the best of two or more goods. Ex. same as #1. Since neither the Montagues nor the Capulets are all evil or all good the choice is between two different shades of gray.
At the risk of repeating Bren ...
If you are having trouble getting meaningful choices, a useful way to start is to think in terms of meaningful complications. To use his example, let's say that the players arrive in the city. You have set up a PC to be their patron. They can accept this opportunity or not. Either way, not very interesting.
So complicate the element. Instead of a single NPC, you have an organization, such as a family. It might still be mostly a good idea to accept the patronage, but there are definitely some family members with drawbacks. That complicates the choice of whether or not the players want to get embroil with that family.
Add alternate elements. Add another patron, or family of patrons, or even a somewhat different organization. The players can't work for two opposing families, but maybe they can work for one family and the city guard--most of the time, anyway. It's the other times that it gets interesting.
Make most of your elements be what they seem, but have a minority be slightly different, and occasionally 1 or 2 be very different. It's a bad GM habit to have every NPC the players meet be untrustworthy, because that essentially removes an element of play. By complicating thing, you add enough variety to reinforce that most NPCs can be somewhat trusted, and thus leave room for a few that are not. Or at least not in some ways. Most of the family they pick is trustworthy, but 1 NPC in each family is at least unreliable. And each is unreliable in a different way, making their choice of family patron that much more meaningful.
That may sound like a lot of trouble, but it is not with practice. Fairly soon, you skip all the reasoning, and simply automatically realize that if one NPC patron is good, an organization is much better. If one organization is good, two is at least 4 times as effective at generating meaningful choices. And you don't need to make every NPC in every organization different. You need most of them to fit the organization clearly, and then have an outlier or two. Those kind of choices become the new habit, and thus you get interesting choices almost by reflex.
Quote from: PencilBoy99;1081595I definitely buy the "interesting choices" thing, but i'm not sure how to come up with them.
Now we have to define what is a meaningful decision! :D
There's a moment in the first Mass Effect series that's pretty famous/infamous in the community of people who've played it.
https://masseffect.fandom.com/wiki/Rachni_Queen
In my opinion, the choice to kill or spare the Rachni Queen is an elegant choice, illustrated by how people argue what is the "correct" choice.
It's an incomplete information problem. The player/character doesn't have an assurance that the Queen is telling the truth. The choice reflects the character's personality. Is your character the type to show mercy and have faith in others? Is your character a no-nonsense judgemental type?
It's important because the decision made tells us something about the character.
Now, the decision has an impact later on in the sequels, which is also a part of making a meaningful decision, but I think it also stands on it's own merit.
Also, here's a video from Extra Credits (back when they were good) about choice in video games, which I've applied to TTRPGs, when I'm designing a scenario.
[video=youtube;lg8fVtKyYxY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lg8fVtKyYxY[/youtube]
To summarize it, an interesting choice involves some kind of conflict in the player's mind.
"To summarize it, an interesting choice involves some kind of conflict in the player's mind."
Put another way: if the players regret the choice whichever they made, and hate the GM for making them choose, it was a good setup.
Quote from: PencilBoy99I definitely buy the "interesting choices" thing, but i'm not sure how to come up with them.
Bren, Steven Mitchell, and Ratman_tf have all given good advice.
I have a simpler one to add to that - give players more information.
The logic behind this is that a lot of scenarios already have choices, but they aren't interesting for the players. A classic is when they have the choice to go right or left in a dungeon. In many dungeons, the players have no idea what is off in each direction - so their choice is arbitrary and uninteresting. On the other hand, if they have information, then this could be a tactical choice. Do they take on the vampire before they have a chance to get worn down - or do they wipe out the ghoul servants first and possibly get more information and resources? The information doesn't have to be complete or perfect, but it should be reliable enough to base decisions on.
There should absolutely be some surprises, but I go as far as trying to make it a rule that the PCs are always better informed than any single NPC they encounter.
As long as you have multiple points to go to, then you have decisions. The key is giving players enough information that those are informed, meaningful choices.
Don't try to create choices beforehand though. The best choices emerge through play.
One way to provoke that is to make play about things the players care for. Usually this comes in the form of stuff they own or have some responsibility over: a fief, a gang, a community, a close NPC, etc. If the game by default don't provide those things, ask for them yourself. Incentive them to create and bring those things to the fore of play, to risk them, wager them. The more they feel like the fiction you're creating together is theirs, the more they will invest. Then you challenge or threaten those things and see what they do.
P.S: some games that do this by default, or at least help you do it..
- Apocalypse Word: the classes/playbooks have stuff they must take care or manage (the Hardholder and his community, the Chopper and his gang, the Operator and his crew, etc) and the GM is supposed to challenge those through play, thus prompting hard choices on the players. The book has golden advice for this playstyle.
- Pendragon: makes players responsible for a whole lot of things by default: their families, fiefs, reputation, the kingdom. Even their passions and personalities. Then the GM challenge those through adventures. Voi là!
- Beyond the Wall: similar to above. Players have a say in creating their community, their history and close NPCs, so they automatically are invested and care for it.
Quote from: Itachi;1082118Don't try to create choices beforehand though. The best choices emerge through play.
I think it's ok to visualise some possibilities, but yes don't try to constrain it to either/or. Create a situation, leave the resolution open.