If you have 60 seconds, you can come up with the plot for your next adventure.
First, let’s define three terms:
• A is the party — your group’s PCs.
• Z is one of the party’s adversaries (new or old, it doesn’t matter).
• W is something either A or Z wants, and that is bad for the other group.
Here’s the formula — there are two ways you can express it:
(A + W) + Z = Plot
or…
(Z + W) + A = Plot
In other words, the party (A) wants something (W) that, if they were to get it (if it’s an object) or achieve it (if it’s a goal), would harm one of their enemies (Z). The steps they undertake to get what they want — which are opposed by the bad guys, creating conflict — become the plot for your adventure.
You can also start from the other end: One of the party’s foes wants something that would be detrimental to the PCs, and the party’s efforts to stop them become the plot of the adventure.
If you know the PCs desperately want something, use the first version. If you’re not sure what the PCs want at the moment (you just began a new campaign, you run a reactive game, etc.), use the second version; you’ll always be able to find something the bad guys want.
When it comes to driving action, want is one of the most powerful and dynamic engines out there. By the time your adventure is written up, you might not be able to tell that this formula was its starting point — but it’s in there somewhere. In fact, if you look closely enough, it’s everywhere. Like dust mites. (Okay, bad example…)
These formulas are great if you are playing a very player-centric campaign, where the players goals, as a group, or individuals are the core of the game. I tend to run all my campaigns this way.
I think that, while somewhat simple, the formulas represent is a good way to look at the core of most player-centric adventures. The real trick then becomes dressing up the adventures/sessions such that even though they mostly fall into one of these two formulas, that they do not feel like they fall into one of these two formulas.
I like your idea, but man, that formula is terrible.
I sat there for a good minute or two trying to figure out what the formula meant before I just read your description. All the formula does is just muddy the waters.
Maybe it’s easier to forego the terms and just say:
(PCs + goal) + opponents = plot
-or-
(Opponents + evil plan) + PCs = plot
Whenever I was in a pinch, I’d use the stock “A-Team” plot (and by A-Team I mean Mr. T and a black van with a red stripe).
1. Someone comes to the PCs for help.
2. The PCs beat off the lackeys.
3. The Villain shows up and delivers a nosebleed.
4. The PCs work out a battleplan.
5. The PCs take the fight to the Villain.
In the actual TV series, the “nosebleed” was usually “capture the good guys so that they could make use of the tools available and defeat the villain.” In RPGs, it’s enough for the villain to do something that harms or upsets the PCs.
Here’s an example with outline numbers: The PCs are on their way to the Dungeon of Horrible Death. They stop at a remote village and learn that the villagers are being harassed by an orc tribe. As the orcs are due within a day, they ask the PCs for help (#1). The PCs set up an ambush and beat off the orcs (#2). After receiving thanks and possibly rewards from the villagers, the PCs move on to the Dungeon. On their way back from the Dungeon, the PCs find the village destroyed. An injured survivor explains that the Orc Chief returned with greater numbers and enslaved the villagers (#3). Feeling partially guilty, the PCs scout ahead and find the orcs’ hill stronghold. They make a plan to attack (#4). The PCs attack, slay the Orc Chief and rescue the surviving villagers (#5).
Walt C. If that is the plan of the plot, then what happens if they (players) don’t (defeat the orc tribe, feel quilty, scout ahead)?
It seems to me the simplest formula for adventures would be A=Plot, where A is something fun.
…But yours is probably more useful 🙂
Discordian… oh nevermind. The name says it all… 🙂
(FTR, I like Mr. Games forumula… )
Discordian,
Being an RPG, you can’t account for all variables. However, you can adjust accordingly. The A-Team Approach is a rough guide, not a straightjacket.
As to your three questions:
1. If the tribe beats them, then the PCs will probably want a rematch. They’ll either have to overcome the orcs a second time or learn about the stronghold.
2. Hopefully by this point you’ve bought yourself enough time to prep the next adventure (since they just spent several sessions in the Dungeon of Horrible Death). In this case, move on. If you want to salvage the adventure but the PCs aren’t budging, throw in additional motivation (the Orc Chief has something shiny and magical; the PCs get waylaid by another band of orcs looking for a rematch, etc).
3. If the PCs don’t scout ahead, then they’ll launch right into the assault (and probably get smacked down).
The problem with those formulas is that in math terms, they mean the exact same thing.
Hey, I’m a writing guy, not a math guy. I hate math. 😉
The reason I opted not to just write it out (like I did with the encounter formula) was that the key element, want, would have required so much description that it wouldn’t have looked much like a formula in the end.
One thing you can do with the letters is denote how close the goal (W) is to either the PCs or the ENEMY. If the PCs (A) are going after (F) and the bad guy (Z) is going to be working harder to get to F. It kind of denotes who will be doing the majority of the work to get to the thing, or who will have to defend. If the PCs (A) are going after (W), then the bad guy (Z) is on defense, and it is more “like” a classic dungeon crawl scenario.
I think the one update I would make to the formula would be to make the sign outside the parentheses an * or x multiplication sign. That indicates more to me how the scenario flows. A * (Z + W) = plot, or (A+ W) * Z.
The last game I ran was more like A * (Z + W(N))^2.