What are the three types of scenario hook? How can you twist them? Why should you have more than one? What’s a bait hook?
We have a new Advanced Gamemastery video today. I’d mentioned last week that I was hoping to test pilot some fancy new features in this video. The result? Onscreen titles! My hope is that they’ll increase the clarity of the presentation.
Good gaming! And I’ll see you at the table!
“Of course, as the PCs learn that the scenario hooks they’ve been getting may not be giving them a complete understanding of the situations they’re getting into, they may start investigating things to figure out what’s really going on. This is great! Thoughtful interaction and critical engagement with the scenario? That’s pure gold! There are Game Masters who go their entire lives wishing their players would do that!”
*raises hand*
Good presentation of how to do multiple scenario hooks, too. I’ve seen people understand in theory that having multiple hooks is a good idea, but not understand how to pull that off without it feeling like railroading players.
One other factor in creating scenario hooks is the difference between general and personalized hooks. Sometimes the werewolves are (or seem to be) just another menace the PCs learn about or stumble upon, sure. But sometimes they’ll hear rumors that there’s a pack of werewolves led by a sorcerer on their side whose magic sounds an awful lot like the sorcerer’s — and the sorcerer has a long-lost father. Or perhaps the werewolves’ greatest martial champion wields a sword that sounds a lot like a frostbrand, which would be perfect for the ranger’s campaign of vengeance against the red dragon that burned his village.
Arguably, general hooks are a lot harder to pull off, especially general hooks meant for published scenarios. In a completely different RP culture than tabletop RP, I’ve seen the logical extreme of not knowing how to create a good general scenario hook become predominant: kidnapping a PC from their existing life as part and parcel of their player joining a particular campaign in the first place. (It’s… a very strange culture.)
Another good video. Thanks. I can appreciate the above comment about how multiple scenario hooks might be dangerously flirting with player railroading; however, I feel that this is only a problem if, in fact, the GM is only providing players the option (via multiple hooks) to play one scenario. If GM is not prepared to run a session where players ignore the hooks to the one scenario or decide to do something else, then it is railroading. One possible solution is to not only have multiple hooks, but also to have multiple scenarios and destinations each with their own hooks.
@Rambling Cleric: I was surprised at first at the idea that the number of scenario hooks had anything to do with whether you’re railroading or not. But yeah, I can see how multiple hooks that all point to the same plot could be a tempting trick for someone who just wants to hide the railroad.
Honestly, you can even prep only one single scenario and still *not* be running a railroad, as long as you haven’t prepped a *plot*. Let there be more than one faction fighting each other, and let the PCs decide which one they’re going to support. Scatter multiple hooks pointing to Red Team, Blue Team, and also to the bystanders caught in the middle. I don’t think you even need to go very far down this line before no two tables will have the same adventure.
As croald said above, if you prepped a single scenario and are presenting it to be played, you’re not necessarily railroading. You’re just not having a sandbox game (remember that we do not consider those two opposites in Alexandrian School). You have a railroad situation If you enforce a particular outcome in that scenario.
@croald. Regarding “prepped plot”….absolutely agreed assuming all those unique player decisions and interactions actually have meaning and effect outside of color and the players are not forced into some predetermined scenario ending.
I talk about this in a bit more detail in Scenario Hooks for Over the Edge, but when you provide multiple hooks for the same scenario, it means that you’re thinking about different ways that the PCs might become interested in the scenario, which tends to mean also thinking about different agendas that might motivate PCs to get involved.
Designing a scenario with multiple agendas in mind tends to mean that the scenario is well-developed enough that it can ALSO support other agendas that the players come up with on their own.
So even if you’re running an “episode of the week” campaign structure, having multiple scenario hooks will tend to actually reduce railroading, IME, unless the GM specifically WANTS to railroad their players.
To put it another way: If you can’t control what the initial domino is, you’re less likely to think of the adventure (whether designing it or running it) as a linear chain of dominos.
I think some confusion arises from the closeness multiple scenario hooks appear to have with the Illusionism approach to railroading: The players are presented with a choice but which they choose doesn’t matter because it loops back around to the same point (the scenario).
But the difference here is one of basic honesty: Multiple scenario hooks pointing at the same situation can be as upfront as they like about the fact that it’s all going in the same direction, and they’ll still work. Classic Illusionism on the other hand throws the players out of the game when they realize they’re being lied to about the importance of their choice.
Of course, multiple hooks, when all of them are encountered, can feel nagging to the players. But that’s also not railroading by itself, and still better than the alternative of having a single hook and hoping like hell the players feel like taking it.
Doesn’t YouTube pays more for videos with 10+ minutes and also gives them more exposure? You have the content, you can make it happen. And I’m all in for at least 10 minutes of Justin in every video! =)