Advice on Making Adventures More Dynamic/Player-Interactive

[SoulDragon298]

So I unfortunately haven't really gotten to run a game of this game (specifically 1st edition), but I often brainstorm campaign/adventure ideas for it, and one issue I find I run into is sometimes I feel like I'm more creating episode scripts rather than RPG adventures. I find I struggle with leaving room for PC interaction, or trying to decide whether to put a built-in solution to a problem in the adventure or allow the players to find one on their own. I seem to add more stuff that players HAVE to interact with rather than stuff they CAN interact with.

Was just wondering if anyone had any suggestions for what to do to help make my scenarios more dynamic/interactive.

[thornburgmp]

I think you're getting at a basic tension in GMing roleplaying games which is telling a coherent story versus involving the players in the experience and giving them agency. Doing both is possible, of course, but it can be tricky because players often do what we don't expect and force us to improvise.

I personally believe that the GMs primary role in a game session is to make sure the players have fun. I do that by creating a goal for my players and then putting obstacles and complications in their way that they must resolve to achieve it. When I write my adventures in Doctor Who RPG, I create a background situation that I drop the PCs into.

For example, I wrote an adventure where an alien crashed on earth, partnered with a local preacher to get help and was exploited by the preacher for political power in the town. The goals for the PCs were to uncover the plot and stop the preacher from taking over and hurting people. Complications included convincing a town very loyal to the preacher, an alien with psychic powers, and so on.

When I ran the adventure, I left it up to the PCs to figure out what to do. There are possibilities such as convincing the town sheriff of the danger or bargaining with the alien but the order in which the PCs dealt with the dangers and their solutions often surprised me. I trusted the players to find a solution to help people and they did and we turned the game into a campaign.

Was the story coherent? Sort of. Did the players have fun? I think so. That agency in solving the story really helped.

[thornburgmp]

I'd add that a lot of the most beloved Who stories (especially the old ones) involve a complicated conflict the Doctor and companions wander into and must both figure out and resolve. I'm thinking of Caves of Androzani, the base under siege stories of the Second Doctor, etc.

If you're looking for tips on running Who, I would start with a conflict independent of the characters. Add some twists and secrets that are not confusing but not obvious. Drop the PCs in there and let them sort it out. Most likely they will rise to the task.

[thewarchief]

Feb 6, 2024 22:22:02 GMT SoulDragon298 said:

Was just wondering if anyone had any suggestions for what to do to help make my scenarios more dynamic/interactive.

First off, remember that an Role Playing Game is a game, rather than a story, and keeping the players active and entertained overrides your story plans. I bring this up because some of the worst experiences I've had at the gaming table were when the GM was so attached to telling their story that they restricted the players' actions (I believe the term is "railroaded") to prevent the players from disrupting their story. When push comes to shove the players should have control not the story. Remember people play RPGs so they can take actions that affect the outcome of the adventure. If they just wanted a story they could just watch a film, TV episode, listen to an audio book, or read a story. Players having agency is key.

Secondly, a lot of what works well in a story doesn't work well in a RPG. In a typical Doctor Who episode the Doctor and his companions tend to get split up and deal with different subplots. This is great way to tell a story, but "splitting the party" doesn't usually work out well in a RPG, as you only have one GM, some players will be inactive, and you have to worry about cross pollination of information. In a story the writers know how all the characters will act, and what the outcomes will be for each action with everything happening exactly as they wrote it. But RPGs have several built in randomizer that prevent GMs from having such control. Players have free will, and often do the unexpected (not to mention stupid), and occasionally do the really unexpected (and sometimes brilliant). Dice make the results of actions uncertain. So running an RPG is not really the same as telling a story.

So, with that in mind, I suggest that you try to keep your adventures more loosely plotted, and that the NPCs react a bit to the players actions. For instance, if a clever PC figures out a solution to a problem that you haven't thought, of, go with it. The players will enjoy the success and try to think of more clever stuff in the future, and everyone will have more fun. Conversely, if you prevent their idea from working merely to protect your story (as opposed to it not working for viable in game reasons), then then players will learn not to bother trying to solver things and wait for you to spoonfed them their next course of action.

But basically treat your story as a rough battle plan, and expect it not to survive contact with the enemy (players). Yeah, you might not get as good of a story that way, but you'll get a better game.