From: jacobus@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy,rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Do U customize games 4 players?
Date: 14 Aug 92 01:53:38 GMT
Followup-To: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <1992Aug13.134751.58135@cc.usu.edu> sl9b4@cc.usu.edu (Deep Six) writes:
>Now, the campaign is set in TL6, where most of the characters are hired
>mercenaries. To avoid being carbon copies of each other, the players have
>tried to specialize in different skills, and some of the characters are 
>super specialized. The question is, when I write up scenarios, do I write
>different segments in which each character can exhibit his/her talents? Or
>do I just write up plausible scenarios and wait for opportunities (for the
>characters to use their specialties) to present themselves?






Your best bet is not to write "scenarios" so much as situations.


I've been running various rpg campaigns for about 10 years now (which makes
me an intermediate beginner, slightly more experienced than a rank, utter
novice), and I've discovered that the "situational" approach to the campaign
works very well for me.

What is the "situational" approach?  First, what it is not:

It is not plot-driven.  I do not have any predetermined outcome that I want
to foist onto my players.  For that matter, I don't even have a "storyline"
_a-priori_.  (I DO have continuity of campaign, but that's another matter
entirely.)

It is not mood-driven.  I do not have any predetermined emotive state that
I want my players to feel/vicariously experience.

It is about as un-literary as I can get it.  What I mean by this is that I
do not use written, film, poetic, or any other literature as the primary model
for what I run.  My campaign's adventures do not easily fit into the standard
introduction--->exposition--->climax--->(anticlimax)--->denoument
mold.

It is extremely serial.  I do my best to make the entire campaign
chronologically seamless.  Whatever I do, I try to keep the players from
even having the slightest hint that "adventure a" has ended and "adventure b"
is about to begin.  Ideally, I don't have "adventure a" and "adventure b"
as separate entities.


Okay, so that last one wasn't a negative definition, but it is a trait I
try to have in my campaign.


In any case, enough beating around the bush.  What do I mean when I talk
about the situational model for campaign design?


The key is the term "situational".  The heart of this philosophy is that
the entire campaign is an ongoing situation.  It began before the PCs, and
may very well go on beyond them (temporally, spatially, narratively, etc.).
"Adventures", per se, should not exist--at least not in the sense of discrete
stories.  Players may be able to make discrete stories of them, but they will
have to exercise the same sort of selective mnemonic trimming that we have
to use in the real world to make a story of a past situation.  However,
there is no _a-priori_ plotline, there is no _a-priori_ theme.  The plot
and theme of the campaign are determined by the ebb and flow of the world
as it interacts with the player characters.


On a purely rubber-hits-the-road approach, what does this mean?  First, the
GM must have veritable shitloads (deluxe, family size) of background, either
on hand or very close by.  Second, the GM must be able to call upon this 
background at a second's notice.  Third, and most importantly, the GM must
be able to present this background to the players (note, not "his players
or "her players"--this actually is an important distinction) both quickly,
unobtrusively, and without overdoing it.  [On the third other hand...]
I ought to say that by "background" I really should be saying "background,
inhabitants, current events, the weather, the local flora and fauna, who's
coming down the road, what the next festival is, in other words, the entire
dynamic of the world".

It is the GM's command of the background which comes most to the forefront
from the point of view of "scenarios".  In a situational campaign, it is
the PLAYERS who determine what the "adventures" end up being, not the GM.
What do I mean by this?  I'm having a very hard time figuring out how to say
just what I mean.  A few attempts:

When I run my campaign, I have no pre-set plan what my players will do, nor
what they will "run into".  Wherever they go, whatever they do, I try to 
have something there.  This something can be rather mundane, by the way.
If the PCs decide to spend the day at a tailor's shop, all they're likely
to meet are tailors and other customers.  But I avoid steering the players
as much as possible.  My campaign exists as a situation, in which the
PCs are participants.



Now, does this mean that I am entirely passive when I run?  Certainly not.
After all, if the PCs push, the world is likely to push back.  Furthermore,
there are beings in the world who have plans of their own, and they act of
their own accord (given motive force by me, of course).  Anyway, on to
the extremely practical stuff.  What does this situational model require of
a GM?


Flexibility:  First and foremost.  The GM has to be able to handle whatever
the players do.  The lack of _a-priori_ plotline is an aid in this case, 
since the GM doesn't have to worry about the players "screwing up" his plot.
However, the GM does have to be able to pull many many things out of the hat,
especially if the PCs are in a new area.

Consistency:  The world has to be self-consistent.  A lack of plotting
requires greater emphasis on the setting.  

The ability to wing everything if necessary:  After, all, you never know
when a PC might decide to get an attack of the hormones and sleep with
a faerie Lady whom he has mistaken for his goddess, thereby allowing her
minions to steal his dependent son.  (That particular situation took the
players several months of play time to unravel.)


many other things:  Unfortunately, I haven't the time to get into them
right now.
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy