Let me first say that I do not claim to have invented these ideas all by myself. Many of the concepts were discussed on other RPG blog sites and discussion boards particularly a great site called Gnome Stew. Oddly enough I also ran into a number of discussion boards dedicated to video game design, which also discussed these concepts. Apparently there is something of a debate raging right now between two extremes- essentially linear game play (in the form of FPS) and non-linear game play (MMORPGs). These two formats have become the big sellers in recent years, so there is a lot of discussion about what direction the video game industry will go. But the real holy grail of non-linear video game design is what has been dubbed "sandbox" play- a world wherein the player can go anywhere and do anything they want. For obvious reasons it is unlikely that any video game will ever achieve a true "sandbox" feel. However, this may be the greatest advantage a pen-and-paper RPG has over video games- we can theoretically achieve a truly non-linear sandbox. Of coarse actually doing so is another matter all together (more on this later).
[ Spoiler ]
The Spectrum of Linearity:
Linearity, as it applies to adventure design, exists as a spectrum. On one extreme you have Railroading, which is basically linearity-gone-bad and on the other you have The Sandbox, which is almost completely non-linear. Most games exist somewhere in between, and probably the majority is closer to the linear side of the spectrum, utilizing a roughly Linear or Decision Tree format. The linearity of the adventure has some important implications for game play. For example, the linear side of the spectrum lends itself to story driven adventures with intricate plots and strong themes, whereas the non-linear side is more character driven and allows for more choice on the part of the individual players. Conversely, the more linear the adventure the easier it is for the GM to plan and prep, whereas a non-linear adventure (particularly a Sandbox) can be very challenging for a GM. I'll discuss each adventure format in more detail.
Railroading:
In my opinion linear adventure design gets a bad rep. The reason: many players' gut reaction is that Linearity = Railroading, which isn't exactly accurate. For one, the definition of Railroading can be a little subjective. To some die-hard non-linear extremists any attempt by the GM to stick to a plot is "Railroading". However, being moderate in all things, I am of the opinion that true Railroading comes in two flavors, both of which are distasteful to most players.
One form of Railroading common to all RPGs is what I like to call the "Storytime Express". In this situation the PCs have little-to-no impact on how the story advances or the ultimate outcome of the game. While this seems to defeat the whole point of an RPG because it removes all semblance of interactivity, it is an easy trap for GMs to fall into basically for two reasons. The first is that the GM has invariably spent a lot of time planning the adventure around the story he wants to tell and he is going to tell his story come hell or high water. In this situation the players are just along for the ride. The second reason (which is a little more insidious) is that most GM's don't enjoy harming players. The GM has a natural tendency to protect the PCs from the consequences of their own actions because the alternative would "derail" the adventure. In either case there is a predetermined outcome. Thus, to avoid this kind of Railroading the GM has to accept that they the PCs may take a different course than he planned, and (equally important) that they might fail altogether and never reach that glorious and climactic ending he envisioned.
The second form of Railroading is what I like to call the "Rubik's Cube of Death" and is a little more subtle. In this situation the GM presents what appears to be a variety of options for solving a particular problem, but all of them lead to catastrophic consequences for the PCs except one- the one he has predetermined to be successful. Of coarse this also happens to be the one he has spent all of his time prepping. I find this form of Railroading to be very common in SR. Very often an adventure is designed in such a way that should the PCs fail a particular task (blow their cover, trip an alarm, etc) the bad guys respond with overwhelming lethal force (which is arguably a reasonable response based on SR fluff). The problem with such heavy-handed consequences is that the GM needs to strike the right balance, which can be a very difficult task. On one hand, the GM needs that lethality, for example, in order to challenge the players and make the adventure exciting, but if he goes too far (to one extreme or the other; see above regarding letting the players fail) he will end up Railroading the players. One way to avoid this style of Railroading is to spend some time and creative energy coming up with alternate consequences in advance of PC failure. Not every mistake needs to end with the PC bleeding out onto that cheep (but sensibly tread-resistant) office carpeting.
As an aside: a very frustrating (for the player) variation of this is the "Rubik's Cube of Boredom" in which all paths but one lead to dead ends, pointless role-play and padded walls. If you are ever unlucky enough to find yourself in such a game the answer to all situations is simple: start killing. Kill anything and everything and break some stuff while you're at it. The GM will invariably squash your character like a bug, but the game is fucked already so you might as well go out with a bang.
Now, having said all that I will concede that Railroading may occasionally be necessary, though I can't think of a great example. Suffice to say that there may be certain situations wherein the GM just has to move things forward and there is no good way to do so. This should always be a last resort, and in any such situation it is best to simply tell the players that they are off course, push them through whatever scene they are stuck on and get the game moving again.
Linear Adventures (& Event Matrix):
If you accept the premise that Linear design does not automatically entail Railroading, then Linear adventures can be a viable option. In a truly Linear adventure the players move from point A (the start of the adventure, often called the hook) to point E (the end, or finale) through a logical series of events (A --> B --> C --> D --> E). The players may be able to bypass certain "optional" events (A --> C --> D --> E) but they must proceed through certain events in order to succeed. A variation of this is called an Event Matrix format, in which the start and end points are set but the intervening events can occur in any order (A --> D --> C --> B --> E). An Event Matrix can be useful when certain events occur on a set timeline regardless of what the PCs do before or after (event C in the sequence above). In either design scheme the prior events may alter the context of the subsequent events, but ultimately the same end point is reached.
Again, this may sound a lot like Railroading, but there are some subtle (and not so subtle) differences. In a good Linear adventure the GM should set the sequence of events and have a solid idea for an end point, but allow the players to tackle each event in any way they choose and accept that the end point might not look like what he expected when all is said and done. Its best not to envision the end point as a scene, but more generally as a conflict that will need to be resolved in some way to bring the adventure to an end. The GM also has to accept that creative players may find ways to bypass events he thought were crucial and/or reach the end point quicker than he anticipated. All these possibilities are okay. Above all it's important to keep in mind that the players aren't always aware of the sequence. Their approach may seem to them to be the most logical, and if the GM simply goes with the flow it will seem to the players like he had planned the adventure that way all along.
Linear adventures are well suited for situations where the players are "behind the curve" or in pursuit of some moving target. If their quarry is staying one step ahead of them (for whatever reason) they will have no choice but to follow the trail. Again, creative players may think of ways to get ahead of the quarry, to set an ambush for example (see skipping events above), but this just makes the adventure more exciting and might be a great setup for a "near miss" that will make the Finale even more exciting.
PROs:
-- Linear adventures are easy to design and run and require a finite amount of prep work for the GM
-- Linear adventures allow for strong story telling.
CONs:
-- A Linear adventure requires a tacit agreement from the players. The story may require players to forfeit their individual character agendas and invest themselves in the group story.
-- Along the same lines, Linear adventures work best with coherent and cooperative PC groups. Lone wolf characters may not be as much fun to play, and can make the adventure more difficult for the GM run. Any such character should be carefully considered in advance.
Alternate Ending Adventures:
Now to be fair, all adventures have at least two endings: success and failure. But the Alternate Ending design is a little different. In an Alternate Ending design the runners advance through an essentially Linear adventure, but are faced at some point with a single decision, which is central to the plot and will determine the final outcome of the adventure. The event sequence may not change, but the ending is certain to.
The Alternate Ending format is great for adventures (or campaigns) that deal with themes of morality. The central decision in such adventures is whether the PCs will chose a moral route and end up being the heroes or an amoral route and wind up the villains. This need not be a lasting distinction- its entirely possible for the characters to do the right thing one day and go back to murdering people in the face the next day. The real fun in these adventures is exploring the limits of your characters' moral... well, character... and finding those circumstances that will turn a "good" character to evil deeds and vice versa.
Other examples of Alternate Ending design include adventures in which the PCs are forced to choose sides in advance of a pending conflict or decide what to do with a particular piece of information that could have serious consequences. When used in this fashion, an Alternate Ending adventure works great for setting the tone of the next adventure or the context of a pending campaign.
PROs:
-- Like a Linear adventure, Alternate Ending adventures are easy to plan and run and require only finite prep work on the part of the GM.
-- Alternate Ending adventures allow for strong story telling and character development, particularly in regards to morality.
-- Adventures that feature a moral dilemma can add a lot to a "Gritty" campaign.
CONs:
-- Some players do not like moral themes in their games, and find such adventures "preachy" or otherwise distasteful.
-- Some players may need extra prompting to fully invest themselves in the role playing required. Don't make it easy for your PCs to, say, murder a busload of children just because "that's what the characters would do". To make a moral dilemma interesting you need to get the players to think about the in-game implications.
Decision Tree Adventures:
The Decision Tree format is similar to the Alternate Ending format discussed above, except that instead of one central decision the adventure progresses from a single starting point through a series of decisions each of which has the potential to alter the final outcome of the adventure. In this scheme, each decision represents a "branch point" on the metaphorical tree, and each branch has the potential to lead to a different ending. The Decision Tree allows for greater PC decision-making, but is still fairly story driven. As such, it represents a near midpoint on the spectrum of linearity.
The Decision Tree format has a long and prosperous history in SR. The concept was actually introduced in the earliest published adventures, and was featured in the 2nd edition Shadowrun Companion published in 1996. It is still the most common format found in published adventures and is probably the most common style of adventure design at most SR tables. All of this is because the format lends itself to the SR setting and system.
Its important to note that while the metaphor of diverging branches on a tree is useful in conceptualizing this format, there is no rule that says that players cannot jump from one branch to another if the idea occurs to them and if they have the means. Obviously certain branches will be mutually exclusive (and thus lead to distinct endings) but otherwise "branch hopping" can add a lot of intricacy to an adventure, and may be a useful to the GM if he needs to stall or get things back on course.
PROs:
-- The PCs have a lot of control over the how they proceed through the adventure and the final outcome, but the amount of prep work required of the GM is still limited.
-- Decision Tree adventures allow for story driven and character driven play.
-- Decision Tree adventures facilitate different approaches to the problems presented, which makes the game fun for a variety of character types.
CONs:
-- Decision Tree adventures are still a little too linear for some tastes.
-- Players often find branches the GM did not anticipate.
Decision Web Adventures (a.k.a. Multiple Paths & the Onion):
Similar in some respects to the Decision Tree discussed above, the Decision Web format is sometimes called a Multiple Path. The difference is that rather than a single start point branching out towards multiple different end points (like a tree), a Decision Web adventure has multiple plot threads that converge on a single end point (like a web). The various plot threads or paths cross and intersect at various decision points, but ultimately arrive at the same climactic encounter or final confrontation.
This adventure format is great for a group that wants to start with individual disconnected characters. If done right the various characters will meet at various decision points and may need to decide if they are going to help or oppose each other, continue together or go their separate ways. For the GM, the focus in this design is really on the decision points, which can represent events, NPCs, places or objects with which the players interact (similar to the Floating Island format discussed below). The GM then loosely strings various decision points together with plot threads that (hopefully) move the players toward the center. Unfortunately this format can also lead to players moving away from the ultimate goal or "backtracking" at times, because they misinterpret a clue or jump to the wrong conclusions about how decision points are connected. Of course, that can be fun too.
An even less-linear variation is sometimes called The Onion, which is a little bit like a Decision Web without the plot threads. The goal is still to reach a single central end point, but there is no predetermined path to get there. Rather the GM sets up a series of generalized barriers to PC advancement (analogous to the layers of an onion), which the players can approach from any start point or from any angle. The players wander around interacting with each layer until they "break through" into the next layer. A break through event could represent meeting the right contacts, gaining entry into certain exclusive groups or infiltrating certain underworld organizations. It could entail gathering enough NPC support or raising enough money to do something particular. It could also be a "trigger event" that alters the nature of the setting in some drastic way, or a clue that points the players to a new setting altogether.
PROs:
-- Decision Web adventures support both story driven and character driven play
-- The story is generated by a combination of GM planning and PC decision-making.
-- The GM can focus his prep time on the various decision points and the loose connects between them - he doesn't need to fill in every detail.
CONs:
-- Players must be invested in the central goal. If they have little interest in reaching the end they may wander willy-nilly in other directions, which can be very frustrating for the GM.
-- Players often find plot threads or connections that the GM did not anticipate. Sometimes these connections may be based on wild leaps of logic, which may be correct by chance or completely wrong.
Plot Point Adventures (a.k.a. Floating Islands):
In this format the GM focuses his attention and prep time on designing a collection of interconnected "plot points" which can be events, locations, NPCs, objects or anything else the players may encounter. The key is that the GM does not assume any sequence of events or set relationships between the points. Rather the GM relies on PC decision-making to flesh out the connections in a fluid sequence. The non-linearity of this format stems from the fact that the GM has little or no control of how the various plot points are connected, as these connections are based almost entirely on PC decision-making and how the players choose to advance from one point to another.
Plot Point adventures are great for experienced role players and (in particular) GMs. For obvious reasons the GM needs to be quick on his feet and highly adaptable. These adventures are great for characters with strong self-interest or personal agendas. They work best when the GM sets the adventure against a backdrop of sweeping conflict or subtle intrigue to give the players some context to work with (otherwise it is easy for them to loose focus).
PROs:
-- Plot Point adventures allow great freedom in PC decision-making, but still limit the amount of prep work for the GM.
-- Plot Point adventures can be great fun for experienced role players who really want to explore how their characters would interact with the setting.
CONs:
-- Plot Point adventures rely on the players to be proactive.
-- Players who rely too much on GM guidance or like consistency may be frustrated.
-- Plot Point adventures require a great deal of adaptability from the GM.
The Sandbox:
The Sandbox represents the absolute non-linear extreme in adventure design; so much so that even calling sessions an "adventure" is a stretch. In Sandbox play the PCs are basically turned loose in a particular setting and are free to go wherever and do whatever they want. In a true Sandbox there is no metaplot, no over-aching theme nor even a particular tone, but sometimes a GM will add these elements as a backdrop to give the setting some semblance of order or direction.
Sandbox games can be hit or miss. When they work they allow for an unprecedented level of PC decision-making and character driven play. But they rely very heavily on a good GM who can come up with plot elements on the fly and proactive players who are willing to take an active role in driving their story forward. Anything less can lead to a listless world of pointless role play and endless wandering, which tends to kill games quicker than an orbital cow bombardment (which by the way is a perfectly viable option in the Sandbox).
There are a few variations, which incorporate the Sandbox concept to a limited degree, but are not truly Sandbox. The "mini-Sandbox" can be useful for one-off games, or as a fun alternative in the context of a larger, more directed campaign. Basically, the GM designs a fully fleshed-out but innately contained setting for an adventure- the underwater archology, for example, or a small African village. The players are free to go anywhere and do anything within the confines of the mini-Sandbox, but generally there is some goal or objective to be achieved, so this does not constitute true Sandbox play.
Another interesting variation is to start with a Sandbox but include "event funnels" and "trigger events". Trigger events are events (in which the players may or may not be involved), which dramatically alter the setting. An event funnel is a series of seemingly unrelated events that "funnel" the PCs toward a trigger event and establish the context of their involvement. Using this system the players are free to explore the Sandbox and establish their characters until such time as the GM wants to advance the overarching story, at which point he can temporarily make the game play more linear.
PROs:
-- Sandbox play allows for unprecedented PC decision-making; it is entirely character-driven.
-- Sandbox play allows players to really experience the world through the medium of their character, and pursue their characters' personal agendas.
CONs:
-- Sandbox play requires proactive players and characters with strong personal agendas- without these essential elements the game quickly looses direction.
-- Sandbox play does not usually allow for strong story telling.
-- Sandbox play can be very taxing for the GM. It is impossible for him to plan for every eventuality, and he will often find himself GMing on the fly.
Linearity, as it applies to adventure design, exists as a spectrum. On one extreme you have Railroading, which is basically linearity-gone-bad and on the other you have The Sandbox, which is almost completely non-linear. Most games exist somewhere in between, and probably the majority is closer to the linear side of the spectrum, utilizing a roughly Linear or Decision Tree format. The linearity of the adventure has some important implications for game play. For example, the linear side of the spectrum lends itself to story driven adventures with intricate plots and strong themes, whereas the non-linear side is more character driven and allows for more choice on the part of the individual players. Conversely, the more linear the adventure the easier it is for the GM to plan and prep, whereas a non-linear adventure (particularly a Sandbox) can be very challenging for a GM. I'll discuss each adventure format in more detail.
Railroading:
In my opinion linear adventure design gets a bad rep. The reason: many players' gut reaction is that Linearity = Railroading, which isn't exactly accurate. For one, the definition of Railroading can be a little subjective. To some die-hard non-linear extremists any attempt by the GM to stick to a plot is "Railroading". However, being moderate in all things, I am of the opinion that true Railroading comes in two flavors, both of which are distasteful to most players.
One form of Railroading common to all RPGs is what I like to call the "Storytime Express". In this situation the PCs have little-to-no impact on how the story advances or the ultimate outcome of the game. While this seems to defeat the whole point of an RPG because it removes all semblance of interactivity, it is an easy trap for GMs to fall into basically for two reasons. The first is that the GM has invariably spent a lot of time planning the adventure around the story he wants to tell and he is going to tell his story come hell or high water. In this situation the players are just along for the ride. The second reason (which is a little more insidious) is that most GM's don't enjoy harming players. The GM has a natural tendency to protect the PCs from the consequences of their own actions because the alternative would "derail" the adventure. In either case there is a predetermined outcome. Thus, to avoid this kind of Railroading the GM has to accept that they the PCs may take a different course than he planned, and (equally important) that they might fail altogether and never reach that glorious and climactic ending he envisioned.
The second form of Railroading is what I like to call the "Rubik's Cube of Death" and is a little more subtle. In this situation the GM presents what appears to be a variety of options for solving a particular problem, but all of them lead to catastrophic consequences for the PCs except one- the one he has predetermined to be successful. Of coarse this also happens to be the one he has spent all of his time prepping. I find this form of Railroading to be very common in SR. Very often an adventure is designed in such a way that should the PCs fail a particular task (blow their cover, trip an alarm, etc) the bad guys respond with overwhelming lethal force (which is arguably a reasonable response based on SR fluff). The problem with such heavy-handed consequences is that the GM needs to strike the right balance, which can be a very difficult task. On one hand, the GM needs that lethality, for example, in order to challenge the players and make the adventure exciting, but if he goes too far (to one extreme or the other; see above regarding letting the players fail) he will end up Railroading the players. One way to avoid this style of Railroading is to spend some time and creative energy coming up with alternate consequences in advance of PC failure. Not every mistake needs to end with the PC bleeding out onto that cheep (but sensibly tread-resistant) office carpeting.
As an aside: a very frustrating (for the player) variation of this is the "Rubik's Cube of Boredom" in which all paths but one lead to dead ends, pointless role-play and padded walls. If you are ever unlucky enough to find yourself in such a game the answer to all situations is simple: start killing. Kill anything and everything and break some stuff while you're at it. The GM will invariably squash your character like a bug, but the game is fucked already so you might as well go out with a bang.
Now, having said all that I will concede that Railroading may occasionally be necessary, though I can't think of a great example. Suffice to say that there may be certain situations wherein the GM just has to move things forward and there is no good way to do so. This should always be a last resort, and in any such situation it is best to simply tell the players that they are off course, push them through whatever scene they are stuck on and get the game moving again.
Linear Adventures (& Event Matrix):
If you accept the premise that Linear design does not automatically entail Railroading, then Linear adventures can be a viable option. In a truly Linear adventure the players move from point A (the start of the adventure, often called the hook) to point E (the end, or finale) through a logical series of events (A --> B --> C --> D --> E). The players may be able to bypass certain "optional" events (A --> C --> D --> E) but they must proceed through certain events in order to succeed. A variation of this is called an Event Matrix format, in which the start and end points are set but the intervening events can occur in any order (A --> D --> C --> B --> E). An Event Matrix can be useful when certain events occur on a set timeline regardless of what the PCs do before or after (event C in the sequence above). In either design scheme the prior events may alter the context of the subsequent events, but ultimately the same end point is reached.
Again, this may sound a lot like Railroading, but there are some subtle (and not so subtle) differences. In a good Linear adventure the GM should set the sequence of events and have a solid idea for an end point, but allow the players to tackle each event in any way they choose and accept that the end point might not look like what he expected when all is said and done. Its best not to envision the end point as a scene, but more generally as a conflict that will need to be resolved in some way to bring the adventure to an end. The GM also has to accept that creative players may find ways to bypass events he thought were crucial and/or reach the end point quicker than he anticipated. All these possibilities are okay. Above all it's important to keep in mind that the players aren't always aware of the sequence. Their approach may seem to them to be the most logical, and if the GM simply goes with the flow it will seem to the players like he had planned the adventure that way all along.
Linear adventures are well suited for situations where the players are "behind the curve" or in pursuit of some moving target. If their quarry is staying one step ahead of them (for whatever reason) they will have no choice but to follow the trail. Again, creative players may think of ways to get ahead of the quarry, to set an ambush for example (see skipping events above), but this just makes the adventure more exciting and might be a great setup for a "near miss" that will make the Finale even more exciting.
PROs:
-- Linear adventures are easy to design and run and require a finite amount of prep work for the GM
-- Linear adventures allow for strong story telling.
CONs:
-- A Linear adventure requires a tacit agreement from the players. The story may require players to forfeit their individual character agendas and invest themselves in the group story.
-- Along the same lines, Linear adventures work best with coherent and cooperative PC groups. Lone wolf characters may not be as much fun to play, and can make the adventure more difficult for the GM run. Any such character should be carefully considered in advance.
Alternate Ending Adventures:
Now to be fair, all adventures have at least two endings: success and failure. But the Alternate Ending design is a little different. In an Alternate Ending design the runners advance through an essentially Linear adventure, but are faced at some point with a single decision, which is central to the plot and will determine the final outcome of the adventure. The event sequence may not change, but the ending is certain to.
The Alternate Ending format is great for adventures (or campaigns) that deal with themes of morality. The central decision in such adventures is whether the PCs will chose a moral route and end up being the heroes or an amoral route and wind up the villains. This need not be a lasting distinction- its entirely possible for the characters to do the right thing one day and go back to murdering people in the face the next day. The real fun in these adventures is exploring the limits of your characters' moral... well, character... and finding those circumstances that will turn a "good" character to evil deeds and vice versa.
Other examples of Alternate Ending design include adventures in which the PCs are forced to choose sides in advance of a pending conflict or decide what to do with a particular piece of information that could have serious consequences. When used in this fashion, an Alternate Ending adventure works great for setting the tone of the next adventure or the context of a pending campaign.
PROs:
-- Like a Linear adventure, Alternate Ending adventures are easy to plan and run and require only finite prep work on the part of the GM.
-- Alternate Ending adventures allow for strong story telling and character development, particularly in regards to morality.
-- Adventures that feature a moral dilemma can add a lot to a "Gritty" campaign.
CONs:
-- Some players do not like moral themes in their games, and find such adventures "preachy" or otherwise distasteful.
-- Some players may need extra prompting to fully invest themselves in the role playing required. Don't make it easy for your PCs to, say, murder a busload of children just because "that's what the characters would do". To make a moral dilemma interesting you need to get the players to think about the in-game implications.
Decision Tree Adventures:
The Decision Tree format is similar to the Alternate Ending format discussed above, except that instead of one central decision the adventure progresses from a single starting point through a series of decisions each of which has the potential to alter the final outcome of the adventure. In this scheme, each decision represents a "branch point" on the metaphorical tree, and each branch has the potential to lead to a different ending. The Decision Tree allows for greater PC decision-making, but is still fairly story driven. As such, it represents a near midpoint on the spectrum of linearity.
The Decision Tree format has a long and prosperous history in SR. The concept was actually introduced in the earliest published adventures, and was featured in the 2nd edition Shadowrun Companion published in 1996. It is still the most common format found in published adventures and is probably the most common style of adventure design at most SR tables. All of this is because the format lends itself to the SR setting and system.
Its important to note that while the metaphor of diverging branches on a tree is useful in conceptualizing this format, there is no rule that says that players cannot jump from one branch to another if the idea occurs to them and if they have the means. Obviously certain branches will be mutually exclusive (and thus lead to distinct endings) but otherwise "branch hopping" can add a lot of intricacy to an adventure, and may be a useful to the GM if he needs to stall or get things back on course.
PROs:
-- The PCs have a lot of control over the how they proceed through the adventure and the final outcome, but the amount of prep work required of the GM is still limited.
-- Decision Tree adventures allow for story driven and character driven play.
-- Decision Tree adventures facilitate different approaches to the problems presented, which makes the game fun for a variety of character types.
CONs:
-- Decision Tree adventures are still a little too linear for some tastes.
-- Players often find branches the GM did not anticipate.
Decision Web Adventures (a.k.a. Multiple Paths & the Onion):
Similar in some respects to the Decision Tree discussed above, the Decision Web format is sometimes called a Multiple Path. The difference is that rather than a single start point branching out towards multiple different end points (like a tree), a Decision Web adventure has multiple plot threads that converge on a single end point (like a web). The various plot threads or paths cross and intersect at various decision points, but ultimately arrive at the same climactic encounter or final confrontation.
This adventure format is great for a group that wants to start with individual disconnected characters. If done right the various characters will meet at various decision points and may need to decide if they are going to help or oppose each other, continue together or go their separate ways. For the GM, the focus in this design is really on the decision points, which can represent events, NPCs, places or objects with which the players interact (similar to the Floating Island format discussed below). The GM then loosely strings various decision points together with plot threads that (hopefully) move the players toward the center. Unfortunately this format can also lead to players moving away from the ultimate goal or "backtracking" at times, because they misinterpret a clue or jump to the wrong conclusions about how decision points are connected. Of course, that can be fun too.
An even less-linear variation is sometimes called The Onion, which is a little bit like a Decision Web without the plot threads. The goal is still to reach a single central end point, but there is no predetermined path to get there. Rather the GM sets up a series of generalized barriers to PC advancement (analogous to the layers of an onion), which the players can approach from any start point or from any angle. The players wander around interacting with each layer until they "break through" into the next layer. A break through event could represent meeting the right contacts, gaining entry into certain exclusive groups or infiltrating certain underworld organizations. It could entail gathering enough NPC support or raising enough money to do something particular. It could also be a "trigger event" that alters the nature of the setting in some drastic way, or a clue that points the players to a new setting altogether.
PROs:
-- Decision Web adventures support both story driven and character driven play
-- The story is generated by a combination of GM planning and PC decision-making.
-- The GM can focus his prep time on the various decision points and the loose connects between them - he doesn't need to fill in every detail.
CONs:
-- Players must be invested in the central goal. If they have little interest in reaching the end they may wander willy-nilly in other directions, which can be very frustrating for the GM.
-- Players often find plot threads or connections that the GM did not anticipate. Sometimes these connections may be based on wild leaps of logic, which may be correct by chance or completely wrong.
Plot Point Adventures (a.k.a. Floating Islands):
In this format the GM focuses his attention and prep time on designing a collection of interconnected "plot points" which can be events, locations, NPCs, objects or anything else the players may encounter. The key is that the GM does not assume any sequence of events or set relationships between the points. Rather the GM relies on PC decision-making to flesh out the connections in a fluid sequence. The non-linearity of this format stems from the fact that the GM has little or no control of how the various plot points are connected, as these connections are based almost entirely on PC decision-making and how the players choose to advance from one point to another.
Plot Point adventures are great for experienced role players and (in particular) GMs. For obvious reasons the GM needs to be quick on his feet and highly adaptable. These adventures are great for characters with strong self-interest or personal agendas. They work best when the GM sets the adventure against a backdrop of sweeping conflict or subtle intrigue to give the players some context to work with (otherwise it is easy for them to loose focus).
PROs:
-- Plot Point adventures allow great freedom in PC decision-making, but still limit the amount of prep work for the GM.
-- Plot Point adventures can be great fun for experienced role players who really want to explore how their characters would interact with the setting.
CONs:
-- Plot Point adventures rely on the players to be proactive.
-- Players who rely too much on GM guidance or like consistency may be frustrated.
-- Plot Point adventures require a great deal of adaptability from the GM.
The Sandbox:
The Sandbox represents the absolute non-linear extreme in adventure design; so much so that even calling sessions an "adventure" is a stretch. In Sandbox play the PCs are basically turned loose in a particular setting and are free to go wherever and do whatever they want. In a true Sandbox there is no metaplot, no over-aching theme nor even a particular tone, but sometimes a GM will add these elements as a backdrop to give the setting some semblance of order or direction.
Sandbox games can be hit or miss. When they work they allow for an unprecedented level of PC decision-making and character driven play. But they rely very heavily on a good GM who can come up with plot elements on the fly and proactive players who are willing to take an active role in driving their story forward. Anything less can lead to a listless world of pointless role play and endless wandering, which tends to kill games quicker than an orbital cow bombardment (which by the way is a perfectly viable option in the Sandbox).
There are a few variations, which incorporate the Sandbox concept to a limited degree, but are not truly Sandbox. The "mini-Sandbox" can be useful for one-off games, or as a fun alternative in the context of a larger, more directed campaign. Basically, the GM designs a fully fleshed-out but innately contained setting for an adventure- the underwater archology, for example, or a small African village. The players are free to go anywhere and do anything within the confines of the mini-Sandbox, but generally there is some goal or objective to be achieved, so this does not constitute true Sandbox play.
Another interesting variation is to start with a Sandbox but include "event funnels" and "trigger events". Trigger events are events (in which the players may or may not be involved), which dramatically alter the setting. An event funnel is a series of seemingly unrelated events that "funnel" the PCs toward a trigger event and establish the context of their involvement. Using this system the players are free to explore the Sandbox and establish their characters until such time as the GM wants to advance the overarching story, at which point he can temporarily make the game play more linear.
PROs:
-- Sandbox play allows for unprecedented PC decision-making; it is entirely character-driven.
-- Sandbox play allows players to really experience the world through the medium of their character, and pursue their characters' personal agendas.
CONs:
-- Sandbox play requires proactive players and characters with strong personal agendas- without these essential elements the game quickly looses direction.
-- Sandbox play does not usually allow for strong story telling.
-- Sandbox play can be very taxing for the GM. It is impossible for him to plan for every eventuality, and he will often find himself GMing on the fly.
Alright, then. Any thoughts?
. I think one of the tricks is to "audition" your players, and not just take the first five who indicate they want to play. That way you tend to get keener, more regular posters.
)