,
17 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
This is true, but I want to give a challenge:
The *easy* solution is to think of b plots as "hooks for one character".
Those are C plots.
Your B plots should engage *at least* two characters. Don't force it to engage them all - rather, just rely on the ragged edges.
The *easy* solution is to think of b plots as "hooks for one character".
Those are C plots.
Your B plots should engage *at least* two characters. Don't force it to engage them all - rather, just rely on the ragged edges.
Magged edge means using multiple overlapping subgroups to cover the whole.
So if I have characters A, B and C, my A plot should engage all of them, but if I have 3 B Plots that engage AB, BC and AC, then with 4 plots I have just brought a HUGE level of very organic engagement.
So if I have characters A, B and C, my A plot should engage all of them, but if I have 3 B Plots that engage AB, BC and AC, then with 4 plots I have just brought a HUGE level of very organic engagement.
"Plots" being used very loosely here to cover a multitude of gaming elements.
Also, the ABC example is both tidy and comprehensive, but add one more character and it will be messy by necessity, and that's good.
Also, the ABC example is both tidy and comprehensive, but add one more character and it will be messy by necessity, and that's good.
As a GM, you want to be *aware* of your B plot coverage, but also be flexible. Some *players* are, by inclination or talent, suited to being a nexus of plots, while others may just want one thing to dive deep on. This is a very tunable model, to adjust to the individuals in play
One specific trick: When you think of a C plot for one of your players, take a minute to think about what it would take to make it a B plot (which is to say, what it would take for it to involve at least one other character).
Single character plots can work just fine in fiction, but at the table it is almost aways better to engage more people, for a multitude of reasons.
Bonus D&D-ish specific trick:
An entirely valid plot is an excuse to use a weird spell or magic item in a cool way.
Like, I know this is not great literature, but introducing something to validate the player's choice to memorize Comprehend Languages is a golden move.
An entirely valid plot is an excuse to use a weird spell or magic item in a cool way.
Like, I know this is not great literature, but introducing something to validate the player's choice to memorize Comprehend Languages is a golden move.
Hell, in the broader "Character sheets are a love letter to the game" sense, if you are ever hard up for plot ideas, you will very rarely go wrong by looking through the choices the player has made (as expressed on the sheet) and figuring how to challenge or validate them
Though, one warning: There is sometime a temptation to *contradict* those choices, which is not the same thing as challenging them. Contradicting them (usually in the form of *punishing* them for the choice) is poor form.
To flesh that out a little, suppose the player opted to buy down a stat.
You *challenge* that decision when it complicates situations.
You *contradict* that decision with situations which cannot be gotten past because of that decision.
You *challenge* that decision when it complicates situations.
You *contradict* that decision with situations which cannot be gotten past because of that decision.
Concrete example: A low dexterity character gets into a fight in the rigging on the ship.
A *challenge* reduces their mobility and forces them to make more constrained choices, like needing to cling to the mast, or move VERY SLOWLY.
A *contradiction* lets them fall and die.
A *challenge* reduces their mobility and forces them to make more constrained choices, like needing to cling to the mast, or move VERY SLOWLY.
A *contradiction* lets them fall and die.
(I am very happy with this thread, so now it is going to kill me forever that I wrote Ragged as Magged)
Oh, I mentioned this in some adjacent tweets, but I want to call it out:
There are few techniques more potent than looking at one hook on two characters, then imagining what the third thing that connects them might be, and introducing it into the game.
There are few techniques more potent than looking at one hook on two characters, then imagining what the third thing that connects them might be, and introducing it into the game.
That "thing" is usually (though not always) an NPC, and when it is, there's another bonus: the NPC will explicitly *not* be one note. They will have two axes that matter, and that tends to make for more interesting characters.
So if one character is a bard and another character is a member of a secret society, then a rival bard who is a member of the same secret society is going to be more interesting and useful as an NPC than "Rival Bard" and "Secret Society Member"
And if you are a GM who gets their fun from this sort of challenge, it's also a more *fun* NPC, because coming up with the connectivity tissue to turn those two points into a character is a much more powerful and effective creative prompt than "Flesh out this bard"
And I (mostly) don't even need to give the usual anti-elminster caveats, because by rooting this NPC in your players, if the NPC is awesome, that awesomeness can be more easily *shared* with the players, not used to overshadow them (don't do that).
