[Twilight Time] Mission-based adventure planning

[Heather Grove]

August 27, 2004 -- Mission-Based Adventure Planning
Volume 5, Issue 4

This is the Twilight Time zine, copyright 2004 by Burning Void 
Publishing and Heather Grove, except where noted otherwise. You may 
forward via email to other people, but only in its entirety - this 
copyright notice must go with it. Do not repost or reprint by any other 
means without direct permission.

To subscribe or unsubscribe, or view the archives:
http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/twilighttime

Or send an email with a subject of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" 
(without quotes) to Twilighttime-request at burningvoid.com


Good afternoon!

As most of you know by now, a long and complex move to another state 
caused a recent lack of zine issues and site articles. But we're 
finally back! Also, the mailing list moved to a new server. The only 
effect this should have on you is that the URL for the list now begins 
with "seven.pairlist.net" instead of "two.pairlist.net". If you have 
any links to the zine, please update them. Thank you!

I've been playing Alderac Entertainment's "Stargate SG-1" roleplaying 
game lately (actually, playing in one game and GMing a second), so I've 
had reason to experiment with the mission-based adventure format. 
Because SG-1 is the game I've been using, I'll use it for example 
purposes throughout this article. If you like the genre and haven't 
checked out the game yet I highly recommend it! Despite the editing job 
on the main rulebook (it looked like more errors were edited *into* the 
book than were edited out of it), the game is incredibly fun.

Standard disclaimer: "Stargate SG-1" and related terms are copyrighted, 
trademarked, etc. by other companies, and nothing in this article is 
meant to challenge those rights. The game is simply being used for 
example purposes. Official information on the SG-1 game can be found 
at: http://www.stargatesg1rpg.com/

Have a great day,
Heather



+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Mission-Based Adventure Planning

copyright 2004 by Heather Grove and Jeffrey Howard

There are many different sorts of adventures and plots in roleplaying 
games, and the "mission" is only one. In mission-style plots the 
characters are generally members of a team. Someone hires them or gives 
them orders, assigning them a mission to complete. Military teams and 
mercenary groups are common sorts of RPG teams. For military characters 
the mission element of the game is particularly strong--military life 
comes with restrictions and rigid rules that outside life doesn't.

Running a mission-style game allows a game master (GM) to do some 
things he couldn't with other types of games, but it also requires him 
to take into account other things that he normally wouldn't have to. It 
throws our old topic of free will into a particularly odd light--in a 
type of plot that's inherently narrow in focus and comparatively 
linear, how do you make sure you're maintaining the free will of the 
player characters (PCs)? With that in mind, we're going to get into 
some of the differences and similarities between mission-style plots 
and other types of plots.


Differences between mission plots and other plots:

1. The party is supposed to play by a certain set of rules.

Team members often operate under guidelines. They're expected to act in 
a certain manner, handle situations in specific ways, and uphold 
particular values. That doesn't mean they always will, but as a GM you 
at least have a better idea of how the PCs will act in any given 
situation than you would with a bunch of mismatched characters.

For example, military teams in "Stargate SG-1" (SG-1) are expected to 
keep several goals in mind at all times. They're exploring new worlds, 
collecting information that could be useful to humanity, looking for 
interesting alien technologies, and trying to make peaceful contact 
with any new civilizations they find. Thus the GM can reasonably expect 
that a team will poke their noses into things they find interesting, 
examine and possibly take any intriguing devices they find lying 
around, and try to peaceably approach strangers. There will be 
circumstances that cause these patterns to break, but the guidelines 
still help as predictive tools.

2. The party knows the basic structure of the mission up-front.

While plot twists and events can shock and surprise (and even turn a 
mission completely on its head), the party at least starts out knowing 
what they've set out to do and what their orders are.

3. Mission-style plots are expected to be comparatively linear.

Missions are often expected to be more linear than other sorts of 
plots. There's a mission, it's carried out in stages, and the team 
fails or succeeds. This is an over-generalization; different sorts of 
games and GMs allow a different amount of latitude when it comes to 
*how* missions are carried out. But often a GM can get away with 
planning things more linearly than he might in another style of game.

4. Characters in mission plots are held accountable for their actions.

Most teams that take on missions are held accountable by 
someone--whether the person who hired them or their commander (this can 
be true in other sorts of games, but it's particularly true for 
mission-based games). That authority chastises them when they do 
something "wrong", rewards them when they do something "right", and 
gives them guidance as to how to carry out a mission. This can be used 
to influence the manner in which a team behaves and carries out its 
missions.

5. The team is the focus.

In other sorts of games, you'd probably consider the PCs to be the main 
characters. In a mission-oriented game, it could be said that the team 
as a whole is the main character. This does *not* mean that there can't 
be conflict, betrayal or disagreement within the team, and it doesn't 
mean there isn't room for individual personal plots. But it does mean 
that these things tend to be viewed through a lens of how they affect 
the team as a whole, and they tend to be less of a focus.


Similarities between mission-style games and other games:

1. Free will is important.

The PCs should be able to make their own choices. They should have a 
real impact on the outcome of the plot. They should be able to fail or 
succeed on their own merits. There may be a narrower range of choices 
for them to make, and free will may come in different forms, but it's 
still important. See the separate section on free will, below, for some 
specifics on how to go about this; you might also find the following 
previous Twilight Time article useful:
http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/twilighttime/2004/000032.html

2. Surprises and twists matter.

Even if the mission itself is understood from the start, there should 
be complications, surprises and twists--this keeps things interesting 
and exciting. It's also important to vary the structure of the game now 
and then to keep things fresh. Take the TV show version of "Stargate 
SG-1" for a moment. The characters aren't always assigned a 
mission--sometimes they're responding to events that happen. Even when 
they are assigned a mission, sometimes they get swept up in entirely 
different events, or they find out that their mission isn't what it 
seemed at all. This helps to keep the format from becoming stale and 
predictable.

3. Story matters.

It's still important to tell a good story (assuming your gaming group 
cares about that at all). Think about mission-based TV shows for a 
moment--the good ones are exciting and dramatic. They involve 
compelling characters doing interesting things, with outcomes that 
matter.

4. Characters are important.

Not all mission-based games rely as heavily on character interaction 
and personality as some other games, but characters are still 
important. Thinking about the TV show again, part of the reason it's in 
its eighth season now is that people love the main characters. When one 
left the show, fans set up an entire web site to try to get him back. 
There are entire fan-fiction sites devoted to various character 
interactions relating to the show. The show doesn't spend entire scenes 
dwelling on deeply angstful interactions generally, but there's always 
that touch of personality to make it compelling and involving. (And 
sometimes those personal interactions can be all the *more* compelling 
for being so brief.)


Advantages to mission-style plots:

1. The PCs know where to start.

When the PCs have a mission they're usually told explicitly where to 
start. This can be helpful if you have passive players or inexperienced 
players who aren't sure of what they're doing.

However, it's possible to sabotage yourself here. Mission plot hooks 
should ride a balance between being too open ("we're supposed to 
assassinate someone, but we don't even know where to start looking for 
him? Just great") and too closed ("jeez, every last thing has been 
planned out *for* us. Wake me when I have to roll some dice"). PCs 
should have enough information to get them moving, but they should also 
get to plan things for themselves.

2. The PCs have some guidance.

There tends to be a ready way to provide aid and guidance for players 
who are frustrated, confused, inexperienced, or lost. The detail level 
of orders, mission guidelines and resources can be tailored to the 
ability level of the players and PCs. Players/PCs that like to come up 
with their own ideas can be given the loosest of guidelines and the 
barest of mission outlines and oversight. Players/PCs who aren't sure 
of what they're doing can be given specific orders and closer oversight 
(this can even be used to turn passive PCs into more active PCs with a 
little care, by very gradually easing back on the level of detail and 
aid).

Caution: think carefully about the kind of guidance the PCs have ready 
access to. They shouldn't just be able to call home and get the magic 
answers to all their questions. (See point #5 of disadvantages, below.)

3. The GM can predict actions and outcomes more readily.

When you know what guidelines the PCs are acting under, you can predict 
their actions with greater accuracy. Don't let this make you 
complacent--you should still think about all the other things they 
might try, however unlikely. But at least it does tell you which 
possibilities you should spend proportionally more of your time on.

4. The GM can shape and influence the plot more readily.

You can shape and influence the direction of the plot(s) through 
orders, mission guidelines, and the reactions of superiors. This has 
the same benefits as #3 (it helps you to predict outcomes), but it also 
helps you to actively shape the direction a specific plot or plots will 
take. For instance, a team has been ordered to report back to their 
commander in seven hours. This will strongly affect how the PCs respond 
to time-critical situations, and can impact pacing, tension and drama.

Warning: there must always be a believable reason behind any order the 
team receives. Last night we watched a movie in which a military 
character carrying out a mission wasn't told about a second half of the 
mission that his teammate was supposed to carry out. While this 
complicated the plot and created tension and drama, we never were able 
to figure out why on earth he would have been left out of the 
loop--there seemed to be no good reason for it, and plenty of reasons 
why it shouldn't have been done.

5. Parameters are predictable.

You and the players all know what to expect from a mission-driven plot, 
at least to a certain extent. It will often be easier to predict the 
length of a mission than that of some other types of plot. The players 
probably know something about what they're getting themselves into (how 
dangerous the missions tend to be, what sort of missions the team 
usually takes, the kinds of people who would be on such a team), and 
thus they're less likely to have incorrect assumptions that cause them 
to develop characters that are inappropriate to the game, or strike off 
in undesired directions.

It's also easier to swap players in and out, or to have a player be 
away for an episode or two, because missions tend to be of limited 
duration. It's easier to keep a party of PCs together because they're 
required to work together (however, there's still room to allow them to 
do things separately).

6. Simplicity.

Mission-style games usually have fewer plot threads going on at the 
same time. This tends to keep things simpler, which some people prefer. 
However, those who desire complex, interwoven plot threads *can* still 
work them into a mission-style game, it's just that the game will start 
having more plots in it that aren't strictly missions.


Disadvantages:

1. Restricted format.

If you're playing with mission-style plots, well... you're playing with 
mission-style plots. Although you can still vary the plot style, by and 
large most of your plots will be of a certain limited format. Not 
everyone enjoys this. Make sure your players understand what the game 
will be like and are happy with the idea ahead of time.

2. Restricted character choices.

Although there can be a range of choices when playing a member of a 
team assigned to a mission, there will always be choices that are 
inappropriate. For instance, in a game of SG-1 where the characters are 
all members of an SG team, they must be smart enough, competent enough, 
ethical enough, fit enough, and responsible enough that the government 
would feel comfortable hiring them for such a sensitive post. This 
might not sound so bad, but there are a lot of choices these 
requirements eliminate. And while it's possible to come up with reasons 
why the government would ignore or not know about deficiencies in one 
or two of these areas, there's a limit to your flexibility.

If everyone is interested in playing the appropriate sort of character, 
and players are willing to put some creativity into making their ideas 
and characters fit the game, this is fine. But not everyone wants to be 
that limited in character choice, and it can also make character 
creation difficult--if a player rolls particularly low attribute 
scores, for instance, it can be hard to justify how this character 
would end up on an SG team.

3. Restricted character actions.

Depending on the genre, a team's actions may be severely restricted. 
Again, there's the example of the US military. There are many rules and 
regulations that should govern characters' actions, and plenty of 
people will chafe at that. You can find ways to make things less strict 
(for example, the characters are considered so valuable that they're 
allowed some latitude), or you can make sure your players are 
comfortable with those restrictions. Sometimes it can be exciting to 
try to play a game within such guidelines, but it isn't everyone's idea 
of fun.

4. Research, in some cases.

Again, SG-1 makes a good example. If you're going to GM a game 
involving lots of military missions, you really should have some idea 
of how the military operates--its culture, its structure, its rules and 
regulations, its traditions, and so on. These things should have a 
large effect on how characters act and behave, and they're a large part 
of the feel and atmosphere of such a game. The players should also have 
some understanding of these things.

This can take some research and reading; for instance, in order to play 
an Air Force officer in an SG-1 game a player might read the "Air Force 
Officer's Guide." This can make a real difference in your understanding 
of a character, or of how a mission might be carried out. In most 
mission-based games--even those that don't involve real-life 
organizations--you'll want to have a good idea of how the organization 
operates and what it means to be a member of it (and so will your 
players). We have a beginning list of military research books to play 
with:
http://www.burningvoid.com/bookstore/wrresearch.php#mil

5. Resources vs. game balance.

One of the difficulties of running a game in which characters have 
access to the resources of an organization is knowing how and when to 
limit those resources. In SG-1, mechanics such as "gear picks" and 
"resource points" help to limit resources, as does the lack of 
gratuitous manpower (not to mention budget issues). In many games it 
can be difficult to justify why the organization in question doesn't 
have a particular item or piece of information to give to the 
characters. If you don't take this into consideration, it becomes tough 
to justify why the PCs can't solve a plot by walking into the supply 
room and grabbing the right piece of equipment. After all, shouldn't 
their superiors *want* to give them the supplies to do the job well?

You need limitations on resources. Scarcity is one limitation; almost 
any TV show involving team-based missions introduces budget troubles as 
a limiting factor. This doesn't have to mean the organization is 
poor--they just have to be very careful with the equipment they have. A 
team that routinely requisitions excess equipment and brings it back 
damaged (or not at all) will probably lose some of its ability to 
requisition things in the future. The culture of an organization is 
another possibility; it could be a matter of pride and competitiveness 
that teams do a job with as few resources as possible. Practicality is 
another limiting factor: if you're going someplace you have to walk to, 
there's a limit to what you can carry on your back.

When designing a mission take resources into account. Think about 
supplies and information the team might have access to. Decide what 
they can and can't get or find out, and WHY. Have an overall picture of 
just how powerful and resourceful this organization is, and what its 
individual members have access to.


Where does free will fit in?

As already mentioned, plot focus in a mission-style game will be 
narrower. The GM will have a greater influence on PC actions and plots 
are likely to be more linear than usual. On the one hand this is fine, 
as it's expected. It's a part of the genre. You can't have a mission 
plot without having a mission! On the other hand, there are still many 
elements of free will that can, and should, be worked into the game.

1. The PCs should have some autonomy.

Orders should leave room for the PCs to make their own plans. The level 
of freedom can be tailored to your players, with more experienced and 
proactive players receiving broader and more vague instructions. For 
instance, orders might consist only of "acquire item X from warehouse 
Y," leaving the team to decide how--a stealthy nighttime raid? An 
all-out attack? A con game? A slick plan involving disguise and 
forgery? This allows for more creativity and freedom, and it allows the 
PCs to create their own consequences by how they choose to achieve a 
goal. The PCs should *always* have at least some autonomy to carry 
things out in their own way.

2. PC decisions should have a real impact on the outcome of the plot.

The actions and decisions of the PCs shouldn't be irrelevant to the 
outcome of the plot (except in rare instances where that's meant to be 
an interesting and dramatic aspect to the plot). Don't make their 
decisions irrelevant in order to make sure the mission ends the way you 
want it to. Along the same vein, don't just pass the PCs off from 
important NPC to important NPC, always telling them exactly what to do 
and how, or always having them sit back and watch someone else be the 
hero.

It's important for the PCs to be active participants in the world who 
help to shape it, rather than passive watchers who get led around by 
the nose. You aren't writing a novel or a short story here--you're 
helping to create a fun and enjoyable *interactive* experience for your 
players.

3. Both failure and success should be possible.

It should be possible for the mission to fail or succeed. This is 
really an aspect of point 2, but we think it deserves separate mention, 
as people often don't realize it's an aspect of point 2. If the outcome 
of the plot is pre-determined, then the PCs aren't being allowed to 
truly influence it. To definitively state, "this *will* happen, no 
matter what the PCs do," is to deny any possibility that they might try 
something totally unexpected that should upset those plans of yours.

This doesn't mean you can't try to plan out the ending of a plot. You 
can plan for what should or probably will happen, and you can try to 
shape things to create a good story. You can even write up that nifty 
ending scene you're hoping to accomplish. But it's important to realize 
that if the PCs come up with something that counteracts your plans, you 
need to respond to that rather than simply disallowing it in order to 
keep your desired outcome intact.

4. Don't fall into the "think like the GM" trap.

Some GMs present obstacles and problems in a game that boil down to 
"think like the GM or lose." This happens when a GM assumes a certain 
tactic will be used, action will be taken, choice will be made, skill 
will be used, etc. and bases the survival or success of the party on 
that one assumption. This works fine if the team does what the GM 
expects, but tends to be extremely frustrating for them if they don't. 
Especially because what the GM sees as the obvious or only solution to 
a problem is often something that's heavily based in personal 
preference, and thus unlikely to be seen the same way by all other 
gamers. This way of writing up plots inherently punishes players for 
being creative in any way that the GM hasn't already thought of, and 
usually leaves the GM feeling that he must force the PCs to carry out 
the plot in a certain way.

This is a particularly easy trap to fall into with mission-based games. 
Because many people think about missions in a very linear manner, GMs 
are likely to make assumptions about how a problem or obstacle should 
or will be solved. In order to avoid this:

- Go through your adventure write-up and list out the obstacles to be 
overcome, problems to be solved, etc.

- Write out any assumptions you've made about how they'll be solved.

- Brainstorm at least two other ways to overcome each obstacle (look 
through PC character sheets to see if you can work in some character 
interests and abilities). If you can't think of any, then work more 
resources into the game that can be used to come up with alternate 
solutions. Make notes on what might happen if the PCs take these 
alternate routes through the plot.

- If you feel you must present such a choice, make certain that failing 
to try your one specific solution doesn't result in automatic death or 
catastrophic failure. (See point #5.)

- Make sure you've put in enough background information (NPC 
information, plot background, setting information) that you can respond 
and adapt to unexpected solutions the PCs might try, so that you don't 
have to effectively say, "you didn't read my mind, so you fail."

5. Most important choices shouldn't be binary.

Binary choices are those that result only in failure or success, yes or 
no--particularly if the outcomes are complete success vs. catastrophic 
failure. They tend to mean that choosing the wrong course of action 
(failing to think like the GM, point #4) or having a bad roll of the 
die (oops, rolled low, we all blow up and die) can screw over an entire 
plot or get the entire team killed. This tends to be pretty 
anti-climactic.

This isn't to say that all choices must be equal, nor that binary 
choices are entirely bad. It's perfectly fine for one choice to have a 
much better chance of success than another, or for binary outcomes to 
have an effect on the plot. But you still have to be willing to throw 
out or change pretty much anything pre-prepared if it becomes 
necessary. Because choices that you see as obvious will be seen 
differently by other gamers, binary choices can end up being the 
equivalent of telling someone, "roll a die. Odds you win, evens you 
lose." Most people play RPGs because they're looking for something more 
than that.


Some starting suggestions:

1. Limit speeches and description.

Usually we recommend against writing much in the way of specific 
speeches, conversations, and descriptions. The longer, looser, and more 
complex your game, the less you can predict how things will proceed, 
and the more likely such fragile material is to become obsolete. All it 
takes is a PC asking one unexpected question to throw an entire 
pre-prepared conversation out the window.

We're going to alter this recommendation for mission-based games, 
however. Here you should just restrict yourself to small amounts of 
conversation and description that you can easily pick and choose from 
and alter as necessary. If you must write a passage of description, 
then summarize important bits in bullet-point form as well (thus if 
something makes the pre-prepared description partially irrelevant, you 
don't have to search through full text to find material to improvise 
new descriptions from--you just have to glance at a bullet-point or 
two).

2. Use tone to keep things interesting.

While pre-prepared speeches and descriptions make things a lot easier, 
particularly if you aren't so good at improvisation, they also tend to 
sound "canned" and stiff, which can cause players to tune out.

Although we prefer to solve this by improvising, sometimes it's just 
handier to have something pre-written. Try to write material that will 
sound as it would if you were successfully improvising it. Sentences 
should be comparatively short and simple, and it might help to use a 
conversational tone. Read the description aloud a few times and alter 
it until it sounds natural--things that look good on the page often 
don't sound right out loud.

3. Keep scenes flexible.

Try to restrict yourself to loose descriptions of scenes and encounters 
with notes about how you might handle different PC actions and 
decisions. You can think of it as being a cross between a tool-kit and 
one of those old "choose your own adventure" books. It's like having a 
box in which you've laid out the tools you're likely to need 
(background info, NPCs, stats, encounters, potential scenes, 
descriptions, etc.), as well as notes on what to do when the PCs do x, 
y, or z ("if the PCs attack the creatures, the creatures will defend 
themselves [look up the pre-prepared stats and start combat]. If the 
PCs try to approach the creatures, the creatures will stand their 
ground and try to scare the PCs away without attacking them. If the PCs 
leave, the creatures will bide their time for now. They don't want to 
have to fight the full force of the team--they'd rather pick them off 
one by one").



Mission-based plots can be a lot of fun. They have their own advantages 
and a couple of disadvantages as well. They allow for more precise 
planning, but you have to remain flexible and open-minded with respect 
to PC actions. Missions can provide an exciting sense of purpose and 
drive to a game, and are particularly appropriate to action-oriented 
genres, but they aren't right for everyone.


What's Your Opinion?:

Comments on this issue's topic? Suggestions? Tips? Special topic 
requests? Drop me a line. If I pass any of your suggestions on (either 
through the newsletter or the RPG resources page), I'll attribute them 
to you. Be sure to tell me if you don't want me to use your name and/or 
comments!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

SITE UPDATE:

Burning Void: resources for roleplayers and writers
http://www.burningvoid.com/

We just put up a section for articles related to the "Stargate SG-1 
Roleplaying Game":

http://www.burningvoid.com/rpg/worldsg1.php

First up is a mission design template:

http://www.burningvoid.com/rpg/2004/sg1missiontemplate.php

It's also available in PDF and .doc formats (see the article for 
links). If you found this article useful you might also find it 
interesting to look through the template; it should demonstrate some of 
how we go about carrying out the above ideas.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

RATINGS:

You can give the Twilight Time Zine a rating at the RPG Gateway to let 
us (and others!) know how we're doing:

http://www.rpggateway.com/cgi-bin/wyrm/rate.cgi?ID=5288

The same goes for the Burning Void RPG resources page:

http://www.rpggateway.com/cgi-bin/wyrm/rate.cgi?ID=1392


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Privacy Policy:

We do not sell or give out your information. We will never hand out 
your email addresses (or any other information that we somehow end up 
with), barring a legal requirement to do so.


Missing Issues:

If you have subscribed to the zine and do not receive an issue, please 
check two things. First, make sure any spam filter you may be using has 
been told that the zine is not spam. Second, make sure there's room in 
your account for the email--every month we get bounces from accounts 
that are over-quota. If your account bounces two or more issues in a 
row, we reserve the right to unsubscribe you from the list.


Unsubscribe:

The Burning Void Roleplaying Resources Newsletter is entirely voluntary 
and opt-in ONLY. If you are receiving this directly from us and you did 
not sign up for this newsletter then please use the unsubscribe 
instructions below. If that does not work, let us know right away at 
<support at burningvoid.com>.
In order to unsubscribe, visit
http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/twilighttime

Sign in (if you've forgotten or lost your password, the system can 
email it to you), and follow the instructions. Or, send an email with a 
subject of "unsubscribe" (without the quotes) to twilighttime-request 
at burningvoid.com