GMing one player...How do you avoid the 'Linear' feel

[Rimmerdal]

I'm Testing the Dark new World out in a PBP and I have on player.

Now the adventures fine...I have my villians selected, and a few NPC's as allies. the basics are covered save how I plan on running the exacts of combat.

But I can't shake that Linear feel that the story seems to be taking..

Any suggestions?

Rimmerdal

[verdilak]

When you have one player, that tends to happen. With more players, thats when things get sidetracked, missed, ect.

Dont sweat and enjoy it, because when you next GM a group, you will wish they were just a tad more Linear heh.

[lather]

Whatever happens I guess it's going to be linear?

[Noon]

Try throwing away your idea of who the villains are. Decide only about halfway through the campaign.

You'll be surprised at who turns out to be a villain.

[Iczer]

*endorses Noon's statement*

That said, try making moves to have player generated games. it will feel less linear if the PC drives.

Batts

[GA]

I think one player games have to be linear. Else he will just spin his wheels.

[Rimmerdal]

Thanks, I'll try this.

[KillWatch]

that's why the gaming gods invented
a) random event tables
b) character histories

See now character histories aren't just frilly fluff that give a PC a sense of who they are. No. They are tools for the gm. Oh I see here you have an ex girlfriend, oh I see that your father disappeared, oh I see you were kidnapped by aliens, oh I see you use to work for the mob, oh thank you for giving me so much to work with and mess you up. apc8it

Hell even if they are wusses and give you nothing in story their OCCs or RCC will give you something, knights paladins, aliens, soldiers etc all have inherent back stories which can back to haunt the players.

[Armorlord]

I tend to run things in an open ended style, which in a solo game has an extra advantage and disadvantage. On one hand, you only have the whims of one player to account for, on the other you only have one character's concerns to make adventures out of.
My advice is to ensure that the character has an overarching mission or goal, both to give his character a focus, and give you a good guess at what to be ready for. The solo game I'm running on the side right now is doing exceptionally well in that regard. To keep a long story sort, he's on a mission of exploration and has a pre-rifts map. He plots his own course for targets he'd like to reach, and I have enough time between sessions to see what's along that course and plot out things he could see or do.

[Killer Cyborg]

Now the adventures fine...I have my villians selected, and a few NPC's as allies. the basics are covered save how I plan on running the exacts of combat.

But I can't shake that Linear feel that the story seems to be taking..

Any suggestions?

Rimmerdal

Drink heavily.

[DhAkael]

I don't avoid it... I just let the story flow where ever the hell it feels like.
Any decent player can and WILL alter your plot lines from;
"point A reaches point C through point B",
to; "Take the square-root of gumball divide by cheese to the power of blue" in about 3 sessions.

Even when you plot-hammer players into the ground so they WILL stay on course, chances are they'll just make you turn to drink with their constant asking "so is it okay if I (fill in blank) with my character? I don't wanna be a problem here..."

So question is; do you WANT a liner plot? Or are you willing to let your campaign "breathe"?

[Rimmerdal]

So I take Linear is not bad with a PC then...

I hate being a new GM....

[Iczer]

one of my favorite games, over the edge (i think It s still being made by atlas game?!?!?) endorses a policy of letting the player be the guide.

Essentially, you should be ready at any given moment to ruin your own plot to accommodate the whims of a player.

If a hero checks for traps, put a trap where he is looking. If he suspects his Girlfriend of being an alien doppelganger moleperson then make he an alien doppelganger moleperson, and if he's looking for a bald man with one arm becuacue he misheard the advice given to him by a bartender, then throw in a bald one armed man.

The trick is to make everything still new an unexpected. The 'Trap' discoveredmight need a specific key..not simply disarmable. The girlfriend may be an alien doppelganger moleperson, but she may be just on the verge of defecting. And the bald guy with one arm may not be obviously found due to his advanced prosthetic..

It makes the PC's feel smart (they wind their way through your ingenious adventure with the application of their 'superior' intellect), It makes the adventure feel personal (becuase it involves and revolves around them) and it relieves you of a little work (No need to stat out everything, only the relevant things).

But most importantly, the adventure cannot be linear if it's continually a work in progress.

Batts

[KillWatch]

The things the players do affect my world. But just ecause they don't decide to pursue rumors of the missing children in the next village over and go for the dungeon crawl, doesn't mean that the werewolf is going to stop having baby back ribs and perhaps moving on to the next village. Just because the players close their eyes to something, doesn't mean it stops or doesn't happen. There are always consequences. I will let the players do what they will, but I will also keep in mind that the world keeps moving around them.

[Noon]

I think...ideally, consequences goes both ways. So if the werewolf doesn't take on the PC's and lets them be, there will be consequences for the werewolf as well.

Ideally it's not all one way, where the PC's get consequences but nothing else in the game world does. If a monster or NPC decides not to interact with them, it'll get consequences as well. I know it's odd to think of an NPC deciding not to interact, when we usually script them in just so they impact on the PC's. But it'll be more interesting when NPC's also have to decide mid play what they do, and then live with their choices.

[KillWatch]

No I agree. But for the most part te players are the odd ones out. They themselves are the only ones in a given area that are usually able to take on a werewolf, vampire, or other monster. The werewolf, if he knows about the PC's, isn't going to want a confrontation with someone who could take it out.
Then again, it might have had toomuch success and believe it to be invincible, and take on the group anyhow. Of course if he wants to play his cards well, he might stalk them and take them out one by one.
But I've always enjoyed playing the villains as real characters who can be smart and stupid. Make numnut decisions, or brilliant deductions, based on who they are, instead of an NPC who is just a tool to advance the game

[LostOne]

The best game I ever played was just me as the player and a GM. My character was strong-willed, had his own goals and desires and acted on them. The GM had a few long-term plot ideas but didn't railroad me into them, I found them on my own amidst my own plotting and scheming.

Good times. I miss that game, that character and that GM (it's a pity I had to move, absolutely the best GM I ever had, whether it was just me or when we played with more people as well).

[Noon]

No I agree. But for the most part te players are the odd ones out. They themselves are the only ones in a given area that are usually able to take on a werewolf, vampire, or other monster. The werewolf, if he knows about the PC's, isn't going to want a confrontation with someone who could take it out.
Then again, it might have had toomuch success and believe it to be invincible, and take on the group anyhow. Of course if he wants to play his cards well, he might stalk them and take them out one by one.
But I've always enjoyed playing the villains as real characters who can be smart and stupid. Make numnut decisions, or brilliant deductions, based on who they are, instead of an NPC who is just a tool to advance the game

Yeah, but I think that sort of gets shot down, because when the werewolf does just run away - nothing happens. Everywhere the PC's go, the baddies just run away, leaving nothing. So despite wanting NPC's to make their own choices, they usually make the stupid choice and wade in, for the metagame reason that otherwise nothing happens and it's dull as hell.

It's tricky, but I was thinking taking into account the monsters escape path, can provide PC encounters as a side effect. Like the werewolf decides to leave the region - but comes across some caravan and makes short work of it. This is now a PC encounter - they find some stuff left? Do they keep it? Return it to town? A bit of both? It's raised some questions about what to do. Also the players might find victims of the fleeing werewolf - do they take them back to town, use resources to heal them there, rob them? (though I admit it's in a sort of narrativist 'what is the right thing to do' way).

Yeah, I think the side effects of villains moving about would make alot of good encounters, even if you never catch up with the monster!

[KillWatch]

That was going to be my response, they can always hunt down the werewolf or other baddies who flee

[Gallahan]

As a GM, it's like playing CHESS. In chess, as we all know, one has to anticipate a variety of moves, even the strange and outlandish ones. I try to anticipate what my players might try to do. Consider the most likely action, least likely action, and everything in between.

You can guide a group without their even knowing it, too. For instance, when writing the adventure, certain actions should become obvious to them. Say they get trapped in a stone room in a forest temple, they can't see the ceiling, which is shrouded in darkness and fog. Vines grow on the uneven surfaces of the interior of this room. They hear dripping water. Bones litter the floor, especially near a square opening that is 3'x3' on one wall.

A PC might go into the square opening: if so, the PC hears growling and smells the fetid breath of something BIG sliding toward him/her.

A PC might search the bones: if so, roll on a random table made specifically for this room; if they're lucky, they might find something useful.

A PC might try searching for secret passages: you decide whether there is one there or not, and where it leads.

A PC might try climbing the vines on the walls to escape: this is where you want them to go!

How it unfolds is dramatic pacing. Someone gets too close to the square opening, "something large with fetid breath" starts to emerge. You can FEEL it sliding toward you! Next, they get ready for combat, and this thing has them all out-classed. They can fight, and will see that it's going to kill them all. Escape is the only option, yet anyone can stay and die fighting. PCs start climbing up the vines, yet the fighter is just too big! He can't climb well in armor and the vines snap with his weight! The thief discovers that secret passage and the two of them vanish into the darkness!

Okay, it seems to the players that utter chaos has happened. You have it all planned, for the secret passage is a stairway leading up three stories to the next level. The fighter and rogue face some other challenge that is fair, unlike the situation in the trap below. The other PCs who climbed the vines find a series of ledges that lead to the next level, 3 stories above the trap below; these challenges are fair as well.

The fighter and rogue emerge in a 30'x30' room with a door on the east wall. The other PCs (vines) find a tiny passageway that leads to a 30'x30' room with a door on the west wall. Each group finds a clue and mind puzzle in their room, --different, fun puzzles (or whatever) to solve, which leads to opening the door.

Switch scenes back and forth between groups, -at appropriate cliffhanger moments. When one group opens their door, cut the scene; switch to the other group as they open their door.

The next scene begins when both doors open simultaneously: and each group now sees the other group at the opposing ends of the same room (now, the party is reunited after a short separation). This NEW room, 60'x60', has all sorts of neat things and pillars and whatevers you have planned for the party, and they each may enter from their prospective side. Now, a challenge faces them.

See, the entire time, you've "guided" the group to this one room, but you've made it fun and allowed for different actions while subtly limiting their options. They have free will, yet must ultimately meet in this single room. Of course, you can add all sorts of other slants/ideas/rooms/etc. to this scenario. And it doesn't mean the entire adventure is like this.

This was just a quick example off the top of my head. Heck, after this last room (and limited options leading to it), they might get teleported out of the room upon resolution there, and be in the middle of a forest or wheat field... where suddenly they have just about EVERY option open to them.

The thing is to keep it fresh, keep it fun, and don't over or under do anything. Unless it adds to the drama. Sometimes you just have to kick it up a notch.

[Noon]

Not that the common RP text books don't advocate that stuff, but Gallahan, you know your describing illusionist play?

I mean, the main problem with that is the fun the GM has is in wondering if he can pull off the illusion, rather than having fun being uncertain where gamplay will go (as the GM's decided where it will go).

Once you gain a master of that illusion, there's not much fun to be had as GM. Because it's too easy.

[Gallahan]

Good point. There is, of course, a very fine juggling act. Realize that the previous example was just ONE of many possible styles/scenarios. Everything is situational. Of course, with more experienced gamers, a good GM needs to lead/guide them less. Newcomers might need the occasional hint or guiding.

Basically, as a GM who wants/needs the party to arrive at a certain locale, without them feeling like they're being HERDED, he/she needs to provide for freedom of choice WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY funneling the PCs to the destination. For the story/GM, the party NEEDS to arrive at destination B for story/plot reasons; while, at the same time, PCs/party members don't want to be railroaded.

There is the conflict. But then, a GOOD PARTY will realize where a story might be headed and keep that in the back of their minds. They should not be required to play out of character to reach destination B.

A good writer knows how to get his characters to destination B without much conflict.

It is here that being a GM is more of an ART than a science. It's tough to quantify into tangibles and words on a message board. But you who have played with good GMs know what this quality is, you can feel the excitement and energy in those games.

About illusion gaming, well, hah, isn't just about *everything* if not truly *everything* an illusion of some sort? Isn't physical reality that we perceive in our 5 senses basically a conglomeration of illusions SINCE everything we sear, hear, smell, taste and touch is made up of tiny sub-atomic particles spinning/vibrating in clouds of empty space?

But yes, as the GM you are the magician entertaining the players, and they contribute to the magic. It takes teamwork for a game to be really, really fun.

Further, some situations require more guiding than others. You don't *force* players into specific actions EVERY game, every scenario. It has to be used sparingly. And furthermore, as you write the scenario, you can eliminate the feeling of being coerced by providing OPTIONS. And if all of those options lead to destination B, then the players will never know. ONLY YOU will know, unless you've made it obvious.

In the end, again, it's situational and dependant upon the quality of your gaming group.

[Gallahan]

Oh, and one more thing about illustionist play (this is the first I've heard of that term, though it is "neat"), I've had players pull SPECTACULAR SURPRISES on me, even though I'd thought I had considered all possibilities.

Hey, even GMs are human!

One of my players, now my best friend of 18 years (wow, time flies!), pulled a spectacular move that surprised me, that I hadn't anticipated. It was so STUNNING of a move that I LOST A DESERT.

What I mean is that his action prevented me to carry out my devious plan for the party to be STRANDED in a desert, having to then trek through the desert to reach their goal. He saved their vessel in a surprsing way, and I had weeks' worth of notes chucked into my folder.

Yeah, I was "mad," but not really, because that one move made the game fun for me, as I then knew that those players, especially Dave, would keep me in line and on MY toes.

You see, as GM, you have to keep your players on their toes. GOOD PLAYERS WILL KEEP YOU ON YOURS.

If a GM doesn't allow for that to happen, then YES, the players would be railroaded.

[Gallahan]

That is the fun of it, trying, as GM, to set up situations that lead the party against impossible odds, to the brink of destruction, to the edge of a perilous precipice... And have them come back IF they are brave enough, courageous enough, stalwart, intrepid, compassionate enough... you get the idea.

But isn't that like a good novel? Aren't characters pitted against terrible odds? All you, as GM, have to do is anticipate the seven most likely courses of action, and have something ready for each one. Have something ready for the next set of seven courses of action. Or, if you're good at improvisational strategy, just anticipate the THREE most likely courses of action, etc.

You know your group, you know the players. The better you know them, the more *motivation* you give their PCs, the easier it will be to manipulate them, steer and guide them. If PCs have nothing but FORTUNE AND GLORY as motivators, then you don't have much to work with, unless their exceptionally greedy and don't care about anything else. I would hope that most parties are more heroic than that.

If a player has a sick mother or father to find a cure for... THAT is motivation. If a PC has siblings in chains as slaves... THAT is motivation. Usually, people will do more to save someone elses' life than their own, especially if that person is family, soul friend, lover, etc.

But there's so much more you can put at stake. Maybe they really, really care about their reputation. Maybe they need to save their hometown. The possibilities are nearly endless. The point is that if they have *something* to care about, something to save, it will be much easier to keep them going, get them going... because there is so much at stake.

Several of my players had characters who were motivated by wanting to discover who they really were (lost memory of their backgrounds), trying to save their forest homeland (against enemies who loved to burn them down), regain their freedom (their race of cat-people are used as slaves), to make up for past wrongs (done while in were-bat form, after being infected during an attack in the sewars), restore their family name (and honor, their house having fallen to lying villains)... etc.

Each motivation is like a different color to paint with, and when you take their motivations and discover/uncover ways to weave them into a singluar tale... then you have a party that wants to be together, needs to be together, and is willing to go to just about any length in order to accomplish what is important to them.

This leads to great storytelling and great adventures, and no one feels railroaded or trapped in linear play, because everyone knows they are doing exactly what they need to be doing. A talented GM can weave it all together and the players won't know that you've already anticiapted their actions.

A good GM must learn to fake surprise, and do it sincerely. Don't tell your players, "Yeah, I already thought of that!!" Let them have their moments. It's not their fault that you are so talented that you did anticipate that action...

Further, good players, talented players WILL SURPRISE GMs. Expect it. Don't cry when you lose pages of notes detailing a belovedly dangerous desert you've worked on for weeks because the actions of a single, ingenious player snuffed out your devious plan(s). ENJOY IT. Now, even as a devious GM, you are in for a ride too. Now, everyone is having SPONTANEOUS fun, and the players won't feel railroaded because they'll know that they really, really stumped you.

[Noon]

About illusion gaming, well, hah, isn't just about *everything* if not truly *everything* an illusion of some sort? Isn't physical reality that we perceive in our 5 senses basically a conglomeration of illusions SINCE everything we sear, hear, smell, taste and touch is made up of tiny sub-atomic particles spinning/vibrating in clouds of empty space?

That's an interesting point.

But the thing is, what you know about our world has such illusion blended into it already.

If you just describe a game world, it will naturally have illusion in it. Because it comes from your understanding and that understanding is part illusion. You don't need to try and put illusion in - just describe the game world and it'll have illusion whether you want it to or not. Not only that, rather than orcestrating an illusion, you'll face the same illusion the players are. You'll get to experience the illusionous trickery that reality plays on us, with your friends.

However, not all parts of the world are worth looking at. So you use scene framing, where you find a bit of the gameworld that's in flux, describe the players arriving at that place in a position where they already have a few choices, then start play from that point. It's not 'guiding' them to an interesting spot, it's very obviously plonking them in an interesting spot. And it's not railroading, unless the player has made some choice which the scene framing then negates. If the players are in a 'dont really care what happens' mood, then their ready for a scene frame!