If you’re using node-based design, does that mean you’re prepping a plot?
No.
We’re talking about “plot” in the sense of Don’t Prep Plots:
Don’t prep plots, prep situations.
Plot, in this case, means the sequence of events that happens in a story. Prepping a plot in an RPG means you’re predetermining what the PCs will do: A will happen, then B will happen, then C will happen. If by “plot” you mean something else — a villain’s scheme, a ground plan, etc. — then the answer might veer closer to “maybe,” but it’s also outside the scope of this discussion.
If you’re familiar with node-based design, then it’s likely you’re scratching your head right now: Obviously node-based design isn’t about prepping a plot, so why is this even a question?
But it’s actually a question I get asked several times a year. This is sometimes because people are using some other definition of “plot,” but, based on conversations that I’ve had, it’s frequently that they’re so deeply entrenched in plot-based prep (including railroading) that they have difficulty comprehending any other paradigm. Even when they look at alternatives, they subconsciously think to themselves, basically, “Well, obviously I would use this to prep a plot.” And then sometimes they go farther and say, “Why is this guy lying when he says he doesn’t prep plots?” Strangely, this even seems to happen with people who are virulently opposed to prepping plots.
This isn’t limited to node-based design, either. I’ve seen the same attitude applied to everything from clocks to hexcrawls to faction turns. No matter what the structure is, the GMs trapped in this way of thinking start by trying to guess what their players will do and/or figuring what they want to force their players to do, and only then do they try to figure out how the structure can help them do that.
This, of course, is really unfortunate. It’s a massive blindspot. And I’ve seen this enough — and been asked this enough — that I think it’s worth taking the time to take a closer look at these misapprehensions.
THE MANDATED MYSTERY
The first argument I often see is that:
- Node-based scenario design is used to design mysteries (e.g., figuring out who’s selling red opium).
- A mystery scenario means that the GM is dictating the scenario concept to the players. (“Thou shalt figure out who’s selling red opium.”)
- This is a plot.
- Therefore, using node-based scenario design means that you’re prepping a plot, not a situation.
To start, let’s accept as a given that node-based scenario design means that you’re designing a mystery. (I’d actually quibble with that a bit, but it’s not important here.)
Next, I think we need to define what a sandbox campaign is: This is a campaign where the players can either choose or define what the next scenario is going to be. The second premise being asserted here is that if the GM is the one assigning scenario concepts (as they might in an episodic campaign where the PCs are cops being assigned cases to solve, for example), then this is not a sandbox campaign.
This is, of course, true. I actually describe this as the “lightest form of railroading” in Part 3 of The Railroading Manifesto. (Which is not to say that there’s anything inherently wrong with this sort of campaign structure. Quite the opposite. There all kinds of diegetic and non-diegetic reasons for running an episodic campaign and, as I point out in the manifesto, lots of people wouldn’t consider it to be railroading at all.)
But is this, in fact, a plot? Is the GM prepping a predetermined sequence of events? Well, if you squint hard enough and are sufficiently liberal with your definition of “sequence of events,” you can make a case for this being true. (For reasons pretty similar to why I refer to it as “the lightest form of railroading.”) Personally, I think what you’re actually discussing here is campaign structure rather than the scenario structure, and I think putting this much weight on the nature and presentation of the scenario hook is more deceptive than revealing when it comes to the overall design of the scenario, but there’s certainly a semantics debate to be had.
Ultimately, though, none of that is really relevant, because nothing about mystery scenarios or node-based design requires the GM to dictate scenario concepts to the PCs.
If you’ve never experienced a player saying, “I want to do X,” and then the GM designs the scenario that results from them wanting to do X, then you might find this confusing. But I do this all the time.
The type of scenario you design, of course, will depend on what X is and how the PCs are planning to do it: If they want to steal the Ruby of Omarrat, then I’m probably prepping a heist. If they want to travel from Neverwinter to Waterdeep, then I’m prepping a travel route. If they want to attend Burning Man, I might prep a festival. And if they want to figure out where their rival gang is sourcing red opium from, I’d probably use node-based scenario design.
So even if we believed that scenario hooks are plots, once we realize that mysteries do not require GM-mandated scenario hooks, we can easily see how this entire line of argument collapses.
CLUES = PLOT
This brings us to the second common argument, which is that by designing clues and placing them in a scene you are prepping a plot. For example, by saying that Rachel works for Bobby (and, therefore, the PCs can discover this connection and follow it to Bobby), you are predetermining events.
This is, again, certainly something that you CAN do: The breadcrumb trail of clues, each of which can only be found in one specific way and used in one specific way.
I suspect, though, that most people reading this are already sensing that something doesn’t quite feel right here. How is stating “Rachel works for Bobby” a plot? Is that not clearly a situation — a description of the world state?
Imagine that I created a room in the game world and I said, “This room has a door and two windows.”
And then Bob said, “THAT’S A PLOT! You are predetermining that the PCs will enter the room through the door or the windows!”
I’m very hopeful that you can understand that Bob’s not making any sense here.
First, the players could easily enter the room in other ways: They could chop a hole in the wall. They could teleport in.
Or they might choose NOT to enter that room. Either because they simply choose to go somewhere else, or because they figure out some way of accomplishing their goals in that room without entering it. (They could scry on the room. Hire someone to search the room for them. Burn the house down and force the threat inside the room to come running outside.)
The leads in node-based scenarios work just like the doors and windows of that room, and stuff like permissive clue-finding is analogous to chopping holes in the wall. Node-based design is a way of thinking about how different parts of the game world are connected to each other — Rachel works for Bobby; Mathieu has a treasure map revealing the location of Shandrala; the street dealers get their red opium from a house on Oak Street — and prepping scenarios in which the PCs use information (i.e., leads) to navigate the game world.
You can hypothetically use node-based scenario design to force a plot, the same way that you could build a room with adamantine walls and endless GM fiat to force the players to solve the riddle that will unlock the door. But that’s something you’re choosing to do.
CONCLUSION
I’m mostly writing this essay because, when I get these questions in the future, I want to be able to just point people here. But I’m also hoping that it might help some people break out of a paradigm that’s limiting them as both GMs and players.
If you see a GM create a tree and your first thought is, “There’s no other explanation for this than that the GM is going to force me to climb that tree,” it’s important to understand that this is a warped perception. Even if that’s been your experience with one GM, you should know that there are other GMs running their games in very different ways.
And if you’re a GM who either (a) can’t create a tree unless you’re planning to force your players to climb it or (b) are paralyzed at the thought of creating a tree because you’re afraid it means you’re railroading your players into climbing it, then I truly believe your games will be better if you can jettison that way of thinking and, instead, embrace the simple maxim:
Don’t prep plots, prep situations.
Hey Justin, I’ve made something that I think you will find interesting. Your blog was a big influence on me so I’d love to hear your thoughts on it.
https://open.substack.com/pub/gramaryegames/p/introducing-the-dungeon-layout-generator?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=3ax2b3
I think some of the confusion—for me at least—comes from wanting to prep what the bad guys do if the heroes don’t intervene. Tools like progress clocks and campaign calendars populated with NPC plans and motivations often feel like a plot, but they’re just contingencies. It’s only a railroad if the GM is scripting what the characters decide to do.
> It’s only a railroad if the GM is scripting what the characters decide to do.
It’s kind of rare I think to script what the characters do; scripting OUTCOMES is the big no-no. It’s ok to have a scene where the BBEG shows up and, I don’t know, tries to kidnap a key NPC with the idea that the PCs will follow, leading them back to the big set piece finale battle. But you have to be open to different possible outcomes:
1) maybe the PCs prevent the kidnapping. (You might need another lead to direct the party to the finale, then.)
2) maybe the PCs KILL the BBEG. (See: The Principles of RPG Villainy.)
3) maybe they don’t follow (afraid of a trap? Just think something else is more important at the moment? Don’t even think of it? Busy licking their wounds or gathering loot?)
The trap is prepping this scene (the kidnapping) and then deciding that no matter what happens, the kidnapping must succeed because that’s the scenario. It’s ok to prep the ATTEMPTED kidnapping, just don’t decide up front that it will be successful. (Depending on the situation, it could also be ok to have the kidnapping happen and succeed “off-screen” without the PCs present. But don’t then force the party to take the action you expected them to take in reaction.)
Interesting read. My issue as a avid anti-plot person. Is that I don’t think a gm will use the tree to trick me into climbing it then either making me lose my balance or make me fail the “climb” check.
But, I will say that I do think if I was playing with a kite and it gets stuck on a tree, i become suspicious that I have a +1 or a -1 to climbing.
To me the way to enact a kite being stuck on a tree is to also give the option to not get the kite back. Same with combat or investigation. Eventually the game system itself will tell you if you are allowed to enact the action or strategy you have as a player.
Games are great in teaching and enacting things. You can more realistically fly a plane or cast a spell, but eventually game balance and game design come into play.
A spell has to have a cost, the plane will have to be “ballasted”. These “realistic” depictions of the game themselves can teach players what to look out for.
I appreciate the node structure and have read the how to be a gm book. I also look forward to the how to be a ttrpg player book when it is released.
As a player I have always been fascinated with game design not because i think I can do a better job at it but because i think cracking the game engine open looking inside the parts and mcguyverying/bespokeing/homebrewing the rules to have them follow my whims is my preferred play style.
I’ve talked about default timelines in the past. They can be a useful tool, but I’ve found that their utility rapidly evaporates once the PCs have interacted with events.
Timelines are particularly useful if the PCs are likely to be doing surveillance (i.e., watching events for a prolonged period without necessarily interfering with them) or if they can collect information about upcoming events and use it to choose the best time to strike (e.g., during a heist). Kind of like the temporal version of a building’s blueprints.
Also good for background events (which you’re generally not expecting the PCs to interact with at all).
Maybe the key aspect of plot is authorship. The author has total control over the story and can manipulate every aspect of it.
When presenting a situation, a GM delivers a number of engagement points which the players can use to interact with. Additionally, the players can create their own engagement point. The GM is not an author here, and control lies with the players. The game rules are the exception, a GM “referees” the rules also.
If the group plays an adventure involving Strahd, it’s trivial to point out that the players have no choice about who the villain is or the setting he operates in. It’s trivial because the GM typically suggests “hey, do you guys wanna play a Strahd adventure”, and the players opt in.
If the players want more dungeons, this is the same case. It’s nonsensical to propose that choosing a demon at the heart of the dungeon would be the same as authorship of the adventure by the GM.
Other colleborative art does not waste time with these discussions. Nobody would argue that the author of a screenplay devaluates the creativity of the rest of the people involved in movie production. Everyone brings something to the table, and the end result exists because of collaboration.
I agree. Perhaps this is why lets plays/ improv has taken off so much in the ttrpg space. The “yes and” base helps move along the mechanism of the game.
I was having a conversation recently with a discord friend. And he mentioned something that I think can apply to gaming in general. Which is that most people take philosophy for granted not because it is lackluster compared to science but because it was the building block, of which society was built.
Similar to the film student or English major wanting to share the pillar of their interest. Either a new technique that created a new genre, or the firebrand that revolutionized an antiquated style.
So while I agree that other mediums skip the preliminary session 0 step. While ttrpgs seem to struggle if there is a lack of coherence.
I will also say, that most ttrpg’s don’t mind building a new way to play from scratch. Homebrewing while very dangerous in terms on how different it can be from the original; is supported by most ttrpg systems and the genre itself.
Blades in the dark although connected to gothic horror, to me feels like a game more than a story. The story is built by the gameplay. Which I think is the goal of all ttrpgs. but sometimes it is hard to argue in favor for strength of the ttrpg’s narrative story of a game session. Due to the abrupt breaking of the kayfabe/verisimilitude that is reported as a negative experience. Either something didn’t work, or upon further review and examination, a vampire fighting a werewolf is not a “cool” as imagined before playing the game.